CHESTER, Vt. – Communication with townspeople and voters became a central issue for the Chester Selectboard in its two September meetings as it continued discussion several changes to the town’s major operations, including possible adoption of a fund balance policy, the change from a calendar year to a fiscal year, and the change to voting on the town’s budget by Australian ballot.
The board addressed all of these concerns on Sept. 2, beginning with the fund balance policy, the draft of which calls for maintenance in the general fund of 60 days worth of operating expenses for the town, or about $730,000. The fund balance is intended to reduce the town’s need to borrow money to cover expenses, and to be used in emergency situations. To that end, during the discussion, board members suggested that weak language in the draft suggesting that the balance not be used to cover recurring operating expenses – “should not” – be changed to the stronger “will not,” to prevent future boards from relying on fund balances to support the town’s general operations. The apparent need for this change was reinforced by the town’s auditor, Ron Smith, who was present at the meeting and told the board that “discipline” will be the main way in which the board can keep the fund balance from becoming a well from which the town continually draws.
Vice Chair Arne Jonynas asked Smith how the town can, in fact, begin to build up reserves for the fund balance, suggesting that. Smith responded with several possibilities, but confirmed Jonynas’ suggestion that one of the possibilities – and a likely one, due to the town’s current thin operating margins – is a line item in the town’s budget. This is where, the board felt, communication with voters and taxpayers would become important, as the increased budget would create the appearance of increased expenses and taxes. The board and Smith felt that the increase would be offset by a decreased need to borrow to cover expenses, thereby eliminating or significantly reducing interest payments on loans for the town, but that this concept needs to be effectively laid out for town residents.
The the board postponed its vote to approve the fund balance policy to a future meeting in light of the suggested language changes.
The transition to a fiscal year budget was next on the agenda, with Smith lending his support to the proposal, saying that a July 1 – June 30 fiscal year aligns better with school and state budgets. The change to a fiscal year would also entail quarterly tax payments, which, like the fund balance, are intended to obviate the need for borrowing money while the town awaits tax payments in full, as is currently the case. Quarterly payments would be due on Sept. 1, Dec. 1, March 1, and June 1.
However, due to the six-month gap between the current end of the town’s budget on Dec. 31 and the proposed start of the fiscal year on July 1, voters would need to approve a stopgap 18-month budget at Town Meeting in 2027, creating the appearance of a drastic increase in spending by direct comparison with the previous budget, and necessitating the first four quarterly payments to be about 1½ times greater than they would otherwise be with a 12-month budget. Over time, however, the amount of taxes collected would be approximately equal to if the town had remained on its current calendar year, but divided differently, and paid on a different schedule. The board once again discussed the need for communication with voters to accurately explain the way in which the transitional budget would affect their taxes, tax payments, and future operating expenses, with Town Manager Julie Hance suggesting a sample tax bill to be presented at Town Meeting.
Finally, the board turned to its discussion of changing the town’s budget vote at Town Meeting to Australian ballot, rather than the current floor vote. This change would need to be approved – by a floor vote – at Town Meeting in 2027.
Objections to the change largely centered on the concern that changing to an Australian ballot vote would effectively eliminate Town Meeting, as voters would no longer need to be present at the budget informational meeting to actually vote on the budget. Board member Tim Roper summed up the tension of the board’s discussion by saying that, while he believes that increased voter participation is a net positive, he “think[s] that Town Meeting is really important to the town, to the culture of the town, to getting people face to face.” Roper suggested the possibility of moving Town Meeting to a weekend day to allow more voters with day jobs and families to participate.
However, Wanda Purdy, who has been a town employee and board member in the past, expressed her support of the change, asserting that she has spoken with townspeople who feel that attending Town Meeting is an exercise in futility because all measures pass with minimal discussion or dissent. Purdy felt that residents are often hesitant to be seen voting against their fellow citizens or the majority.
Resident Derek Suursoo, who is also a former selectboard member, echoed Purdy’s comments. “People do not like speaking up negatively against their neighbors,” Suursoo said, adding that often “the people who do show up are there to make sure that their special interest…gets through.” Suursoo noted that, during his time on the selectboard, he had been in opposition to a change to Australian ballot, but that he has since changed his stance, and now supports it.
In response, however, board member Lauren Fierman questioned whether the impersonal nature of rejecting ballot questions was a positive. “I’m not sure it’s good for us,” Fierman said, “to have it made easier for us to say ‘no’ without having to look the people that you’re saying ‘no’ to in the eye.”
Again, the discussion turned to communication with voters to ensure people are informed of the pros and cons of the change when Town Meeting Day arrives. While several suggestions, including short-form videos such a Facebook Reels and YouTube Shorts were bandied about, no concrete decision on the most effective manner of communication was reached.
At its next meeting, on Sept. 16, Hance informed the board that she had heard from citizens that, if the board chose not to add the Australian ballot question to Town Meeting in 2027, there was likely to be a petition to do so. In light of this fact and in consideration of the petitioners, Hance asked the board if they would entertain setting a deadline for its decision. While the board demurred on setting itself a hard deadline, it pledged to add the Australian ballot discussion to its meeting agendas until it reaches a consensus.
The board also approved a loan of $50,000 from the Chester Economic Development Fund, matching an amount from the Springfield Regional Development Corporation for Bright Beginnings, an infant-to-school-age childcare center which its owners, Meredith and John Sylvester, say they hope to open by the end of this year. The Sylvesters currently own two other childcare centers in Springfield and are currently renovating the building on Main Street which formerly housed the law firm of Dakin & Benelli for their third location.
Also on Sept. 16, the board heard from several department heads and personnel. Chester Housing Commission Chair Joe Karl was unable to attend the meeting, so Preston Bristow, the town’s primary staff person attending commission meetings, spoke in his stead. Bristow expressed that the commission faces a struggle to encourage housing development in the town, as the state’s priority is on larger and low-income housing, which are most viable in larger population centers such as Brattleboro and Springfield, leaving towns like Chester competing for a limited number of smaller, low-market-rate housing projects.
Bristow also said he feels that the town’s zoning reform has successfully removed zoning-related barriers to development, but that there are still issues at the state level which are creating difficulties.
Another impediment to housing development, according to Zoning Administrator Hugh Quinn, is the fact that the town does not own developable land in the village. Quinn suggested that, if the town was able to find money for its housing reserve fund, that money could then be used to purchase land for housing projects in more desirable locations for developers when the opportunity arises. “If you don’t own the land,” Quinn emphasized, “ you’re not starting.
Finally, Hance reported to the board that Chester will interview four candidates for its fire chief position on Oct. 8, and hopes to have “one or two back” for a second interview round. The intention is to have the fire chief stary by January of 2027.
The Chester Selectboard meets on the first and third Wednesdays of every month, at 6:30 p.m., at the Chester Town Hall.