Selectboard Approves $5M Budget in 3-2 Vote
Lovell and Place propose putting the issue of additional police and fire personnel as separate items on the March 3 ballot, but fail to convince the others.
(Note: video courtesy of Media Factory.)
The Record Staff
While the CVSD school board passed its $107 million budget without much discussion on Tuesday, on Wednesday the Hinesburg selectboard debated its $5 million budget for more than 30 minutes before approving it 3-2.
Board chair Merrily Lovell opened the budget discussion saying she wanted to propose a smaller budget – without additional positions for the fire and police departments – and put the additional police and fire personnel as separate items on the March 3 ballot.
“I have heard from many residents who like that idea, who feel strongly that should be done,” she said.
Board member Paul Lamberson disagreed and said it would “invite questions, you know, why is the library getting rid of rental income and growing their programs instead? Should that be subject to a vote?
“I trust our department heads; I trust our town management team,” he added. “And I’m asking the voters to trust what we are putting on the ballot.”
Board member Dennis Place reiterated his position that “we don’t have the tax base yet” to add the public safety personnel.
Maggie Gordon, another board member, said she thought having separate budget items for the additional personnel was a good idea, but she had come to believe that would be a mistake – that it would be “confusing,” particularly because there would be no explanation on the ballot why the positions might or might not be justified.
Hinesburg resident Frank Koss noted that at its last meeting the selectboard had decided not to take Fire Chief Prescott Nadeau’s suggestion that his request for two additional firefighters be put as a separate item on the ballot. As a compromise, Koss said, the board had kept one position in the budget.
“So my opinion as a taxpayer,” Koss said, “is let the budget go as you’ve done it and then let the voters” decide. “If they’re not happy with it, they’ll vote it down.”
Lovell suggested that perhaps only the police officer could be made separate, noting that the police budget had been controversial in the past (it was voted down in 2024) and much of the objections she was hearing from residents was about the police budget. She wondered whether adding a sixth is “too much at once.”
Town Manager Todd Odit noted that the FY2022 town budget supported six officers, including the chief. The budget also had enough to support another one-half FTE for fill-in and part-time officers. Right now, he said, the department is operating with three officers even though it is budgeted for five.
He added that once a new chief is hired, the fifth position – a sergeant – would be filled quickly.
Lamberson said he really wanted the sixth officer because “I want 24/7 coverage again.”
Board member Mike Loner stated his objection to breaking out the two public safety positions. “Beyond most towns, the voters get to vote on quite a bit – we break out the departments. I think it’s a slippery slope” to break it out more.
In the end the vote was 3-2 with Place and Lovell voting against the budget as it is proposed. And in terms of the warning on the ballot, the vote was 4-1 with Place dissenting.
The board then voted unanimously to approve the FY2027 capital budget. The full budgets and warning are below.
In other action, the board:
formally approved taking out a loan for $80,000 for a new heavy-duty pick-up truck for the highway department;
heard from Town Manager Odit that he’d established a payment schedule for Triple L mobile home park to connect with the town’s wastewater system;
agreed with Odit that a request from Champlain Housing Trust to apply future property tax money from the Riggs Meadow development to pay for infrastructure costs of the development was out of the question; and
applications have been submitted for FEMA money to pay for the cost of repairing two bridges on Beecher Hill Road.
Great coverage of the debate. The tension between putting public safety positions as seperate ballot items versus keeping them bundled is interesting. Lovell's point about past police budget controversies makes sense, but Loner's slippery slope argument has merit too. At some point you have to trust elected officials to make budget decisions.