The writer is a Brattleboro Representative Town Meeting member representing District 9.
BRATTLEBORO-There should be no Human Services allocation in the Brattleboro FY26 General Fund Budget. Here are some of the reasons:
1. It is inconsistent with the language of the Town Charter, whose preamble states that it is "designed and enacted to serve the needs of all Brattleboro residents by: [...] Encouraging public service and charity among all its residents."
There is a significant difference between "encouraging" and "requiring." In March 2024, the Representative Town Meeting directed the Selectboard to set the Human Services Funding for FY26 at up to 2% of the FY25 budget, or $461,227.
From the perspective of the individual taxpayer this is a forced donation. Normally I can choose not to contribute to any or all charities without governmental consequences. If I choose not to pay my property taxes, or even just a portion of them, governmental enforcement action is guaranteed.
2. It is not prudent stewardship. It is prudent to take care of your own responsibilities before allocating resources to others.
The Selectboard, when faced with a 22% tax increase, asked the municipal staff to propose cuts. These cuts were initially presented at a Dec. 17 Selectboard meeting.
Many of the cost savings suggested in the memo are in the categories of: a) do less maintenance or repairs; b) reduce compensation/support for employees; or c) shift costs within town funds or to the taxpayer.
The cuts brought forward on Jan. 7 largely fall into the same categories. We should support our town staff and maintain our resources, including our special funds, to the extent possible before contributing to nonprofit organizations.
3. The beneficiaries of the Human Service funding portion of the budget have other revenue streams. The contribution of tax dollars is only a small portion of their total budgets. Approximately 80% of the funding for the town's budget is from property taxes. The rest is primarily from other taxes, fees, and fund transfers.
4. Better mechanisms exist for determining what a town funds. Towns often contract with other organizations for services; for example, many of the towns in Vermont contract with a county sheriff for law enforcement and other services.
Through a contracting process, the town can identify exactly what it is getting for its tax dollars, set metrics (e.g., 40 hours a week of traffic enforcement), and assure accountability for the appropriate use of funds.
These are some of the reasons to remove this substantial line item from the Brattleboro budget. The Jan. 3 memo to the Selectboard, subject line "FY26 General Fund Budget Development," noted that: "For comparison, staff has done an initial assessment of what other communities are offering for human services funding in their towns and have learned the following: South Burlington gives $15,000 annually to social service providers; Winooski did away with this line item a few years ago; and Montpelier has moved $134,000 in community funding out of the budget to be considered on the ballot."
Nonprofit organizations in town are doing great work that is important to the health of our community - the point is they should not be funded through Brattleboro's General Fund budget. Many people in town are already struggling to pay their property taxes. We shouldn't compound their struggles by mandating charity.
Tom Franks
Brattleboro
The writer is a Brattleboro Representative Town Meeting member representing District 9.
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at [email protected].