sarahBy Peter Kelman
I have always voted to approve Montpelier’s proposed city budgets, even when I may have had some reservations. I have done so because I believe that supporting staff recommendations and city council decisions is generally the most responsible course and that withholding approval should be reserved for truly exceptional circumstances.
This year, I believe the circumstances are exceptional, and so I will be voting “No” to the budget proposal on the Town Meeting ballot.
These changed circumstances are:
- The imminent near-simultaneous arrival of our first new city manager in 30 years; a new mayor, who unlike our mayors since 2018 has never been a city councilor; and a new, yet-to-be hired finance director.
- A budget developed by the acting city manager, who unexpectedly resigned in the middle of that process, and by her finance director, who resigned shortly later, accompanied by a bitter statement that she read aloud at a city council meeting.
- City council budget workshops and public hearings led by the finance director even after she was no longer an employee and that culminated in a budget “narrative” that a Times Argus headline referred to as a “muddle.”
Here are the most relevant facts that have informed my reluctant decision to vote “No” on the proposed budget.
At its Jan. 21 meeting, the city council voted 5–1 to approve the fiscal year 2027 municipal budget with a projected roughly 8% increase in the municipal tax rate.
Immediately after the vote, however, there was visible confusion among some city councilors about the true impact the budget they had just voted to approve would have on taxpayers. In the confusion, at least one councilor asked to change her vote, but the mayor ruled that the vote had been taken and would not be reconsidered.
The confusion at the meeting appeared to partially result from repeated references by staff members and councilors alike to a projected overall tax rate increase of roughly only 4.5%, a figure that depended entirely on school budget decisions outside the council’s control — and, in fact, those decisions changed later the same evening when the school board increased their budget and projected tax rate.
In my opinion, however, the true source of this confusion is the way in which Montpelier’s city budgets have been constructed and presented to the public for many years by the long-time city manager and a string of his finance directors; namely as what they call “steady-state” with more-or-less fixed costs (including inflation), which they justify by making “favorable” quantitative comparisons to the almost exact same line items in the budget from the prior year or, if needed to be persuasive, to several previous years.
This supposedly “steady state” approach to budgeting can no longer be maintained, especially since the pandemic, two floods, intractable housing and homelessness crises, and the exponential growth in employee health insurance costs. We simply cannot allow our city budgets to be determined by past line items; rather, they should be based on current (and future) needs and the most cost-effective way of addressing these.
One approach that I and others have suggested at various times over the past ten years is some form of zero-based budgeting, one that begins by defining service needs and strategic program priorities, then estimates their associated costs and seeks to reduce those costs by seeking alternative approaches to providing these services and programs or by judiciously cutting back on services or programs.
Stephen Whitaker, a long-time critic of Montpelier’s city government, has shared with me (and others) a detailed and, I think, cogent analysis arguing that the city is not actually in a “steady state” because it fails to account for deferred maintenance, the lack of a statutory five-year capital plan, unexamined staffing assumptions, and unbudgeted operating and maintenance costs tied to major infrastructure investments such as Country Club Road.
His argument is not that government should stop functioning, but that this budget cycle presents a rare opportunity for a responsible pause to allow for zero-based budgeting and a clearer, more affordable reset of priorities.
I agree.
I have never voted against approval of a Montpelier city budget, but I have come to the conclusion that the new mayor, city manager, and finance director should be given the opportunity to propose the FY27 budget for which they will be responsible, not one that they inherited from staff members who had already decided to resign.
Below is a link to Steve’s persuasive analysis: tinyurl.com/37f6ycks
Peter Helmut Kelman is a retired educator and publishing executive; he is an outspoken housing advocate who frequently comments at city council meetings.
The material presented here represents the opinion of the author and does not reflect the opinions of The Bridge. Commentaries may be submitted to editor@montpelierbridge.com. Preference is given to submissions by those who live in central Vermont. Submissions are encouraged to be 500 to 750 words in length.
