By STEVEN JUPITER
BRANDON—The Brandon Budget Committee and the Brandon Selectboard met on Monday evening to continue their preliminary discussions regarding the budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26 (FY26).
This was the second meeting of the Board and the Committee this season. The first meeting, two weeks ago, focused primarily on the Brandon Police Department (BPD). Monday’s meeting focused on the Highway Department, the Recreation Department, and the Office of the Town Manager. There was also a follow-up to the previous meeting’s discussion of the Police Department
Police Department
At the previous Budget Committee meeting, two weeks earlier, BPD Chief David Kachajian explained that in attempting to provide 24/7 on-duty coverage in Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY25), which began on July 1, the Department had already exceeded its entire FY25 budget for overtime.
The issue, as explained at the previous meeting, was that providing 24/7 on-duty coverage required scheduling officers on 12-hour shifts, with 4 such shifts in one week and 3 such shifts the next. This resulted in 84 on-duty hours per officer per 2-week pay period. Ordinarily, this would yield 4 hours of overtime per pay period.
The town’s contract with the Police Union, however, specifies that overtime is calculated per week and not per pay period, meaning that the 4-shift week (48 hours) yielded 8 hours of overtime per officer, doubling the anticipated amount of overtime paid out and quickly blowing a hole in BPD’s budget.
On Monday, Selectboard Chair Doug Bailey and Brandon Town Manager Seth Hopkins explained that BPD’s FY25 budget for overtime had been set at $19K for the entire year but that actual overtime pay had already reached $35K just for the first quarter (July, August, and September).
Mr. Bailey and Mr. Hopkins also explained that BPD had exceeded its overtime budget in each of the previous two fiscal years—it was $45K overbudget last year—but that because the Department was understaffed, the savings in salary and benefits offset the excess in overtime. This fiscal year, however, the Department is fully staffed for the first time in years and there is no spending gap in payroll to cover the overtime.
Mr. Bailey stated that in order to provide 24/7 on-duty coverage without incurring such steep overtime expenses, BPD would likely need two additional full-time officers and that Brandon residents would need to decide whether that was something they were willing to pay for.
Mr. Hopkins further explained that in order to prevent further damage to the budget, the town had reached an agreement with the Police Union to eliminate overtime pay for the second quarter (October, November, and December). The lack of overtime pay for those three months essentially spreads the first quarter’s excess out over two quarters rather than just one.
Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Bailey also indicated that the town had not yet settled on a plan for the second half of FY25, which begins in January.
Highway Department
Highway Chief Jeremy Disorda was on hand to discuss the Highway and Buildings & Grounds Departments with the Board and Committee.
After the current-year budget failed to pass in March, one of the cost-cutting measures taken by the Selectboard was the decision not to replace a Highway Department worker who had left the job, leaving the Department with 3 crewmembers plus one Buildings & Grounds worker.
Mr. Disorda said the Department had still been able to accomplish a lot “with just 3 guys.” He provided a verbal list of the projects that the Department had completed with only 3 workers, including paving, sidewalks, culverts, guardrails, mowing, etc.
According to Mr. Disorda, the Department could use “a whole new shop,” as the current facility is too small. In fact, in winter the crew must remove the snowplow from the truck every time they pull into the bay in order to avoid hitting the crews’ desks.
This is a subject that has been discussed at Selectboard meetings over the past several years but has not been acted upon because of the expense of the project. The construction of a new highway building would likely necessitate a bond to finance the work. The town has one more year left on a bond it took out in 2006 for Segment 6.
Mr. Disorda also stated that the Department could use a new truck, a new roadside mower, and a new zero-turn mower.
The Committee noted that these are all goals that highlight the need for a 5-year capital plan.
As for paving projects, Mr. Disorda listed three in particular that he believed required action: McConnell Road, Wheeler Road, and Town Farm Road. Sidewalk projects that need to be addressed included Carver and Champlain Streets.
The Board and Committee discussed the best way to ask town residents to pay for these projects. Last spring’s budget conflicts arose in large part from the inclusion in the budget of $300K just for paving. That line item alone increased the overall budget by almost 10% and likely caused the failures of the Selectboard’s proposals at the ballot box.
Ultimately, the Board eliminated paving entirely from the budget and instead asked voters to approve an appropriation that was then supplemented by money from the 1% local option tax fund.
The Board and Committee debated the pros and cons of that approach. In favor of the approach, it was noted that appropriations always pass and that the 1% local options tax was originally conceived specifically to generate funds for projects such as paving. In opposition, several Board and Committee members said that paving should always be part of the town budget and that appropriations could be seen as misleading, since some voters might not realize that appropriated money is added to residents’ tax burden.
Board member Heather Nelson said, “I don’t care how we pay for paving, but we need to choose a method and stick with it.”
Committee member Jan Coolidge added that the previous year’s budget strife could’ve been avoided if paving had been gradually reintroduced into the budget rather than reinserted in a single giant sum, as had been the case with the Selectboard’s first proposed budget. Ms. Coolidge also stated that the Selectboard lost a good deal of trust when it was able to reduce the percentage increase from 13% to 2% from one proposal to the next, prompting some voters to wonder why it had been so high in the first place.
Board member Karen Rhodes suggested that trust could be regained by explaining to voters exactly where their tax money would be spent. Mr. Hopkins replied that the budgets already include line-by-line expenses.
Town Administration
Brandon Town Manager Seth Hopkins began discussion of his department by noting that there were not a lot of capital expenses and that the bulk of his budget was payroll and benefits. He noted that the town was facing a 23% increase in the cost of health insurance through Blue Cross/Blue Shield and that there was “not a lot of good news.”
Switching from Blue Cross/Blue Shield to MVP—the two providers available to the town—could bring the percent increase down “to high single digits,” said Mr. Hopkins. But he also noted that coverage with both providers had been “supremely disappointing.” He also said he feared that the town would lose employees if it was not able to provide a competitive benefits package.
There was also a discussion of the cost of Brandon’s administration compared to other Vermont towns of similar size. It had been asserted by some in the community that Brandon’s administrative costs were excessive relative to its size, but a comparison of the actual costs of Brandon’s administration and those of other towns made clear that Brandon is in the middle of the pack, “a good spot to be,” according to Mr. Hopkins.
Recreation
Recreation Director Bill Moore walked the Board and Committee through an overview of his department. During last year’s budget conflicts, the Rec Department had been the subject of sustained criticism from a handful of residents who claimed that its programs and admin costs were too high and should be cut.
Mr. Moore said, “If I cut programs, I cut revenue.” The department’s programs generate revenue.
It had also been suggested last year that the Assistant Rec Director position be cut, but Mr. Moore said that without Colleen Wright, who holds that position, “we wouldn’t be where we are right now” in terms of the department’s popularity and success.
Mr. Moore also said that the department’s programs are designed for the residents of Brandon and the surrounding communities and not for tourists, as had been asserted by a town resident at a Selectboard meeting several weeks ago.
As for his department’s budgetary needs, Mr. Moore suggested that more money could be invested in Brandon’s recreational spaces, such as Estabrook Park and the playground on Seminary Hill, both of which “are showing wear and tear.”
There was much discussion about asking neighboring communities whose residents use Brandon Rec resources and programs to contribute financially, an idea that has been floated for many years. Mr. Bailey volunteered that he’d be willing to approach other towns’ Selectboards on behalf of Brandon Rec.
Ms. Nelson noted that the Rec Department was especially valuable to those with elementary-age kids, since Neshobe doesn’t offer club sports. She also said that Brandon Rec brings families to town, where they spend money at local businesses.
Committee member Gabe McGuigan agreed that Brandon Rec has helped improve Brandon’s local reputation and draw new residents.
The next Budget Committee meeting will take place next Monday, October 7 at 7 p.m. in the downstairs meeting room at the Brandon Town Hall. The Selectboard and the Committee will begin looking at specific dollar amounts for various budgetary items.
