Some Insights Into My No Vote on Burlington's Current Budget
In June we finalized and voted on the city budget for FY27. As many folks know by now, in the end I felt that the budget had not yet achieved the level of reductions needed to adapt to our pre-recession environment and set us up better for FY28 and FY29, ultimately ending with my voting no. I am happy that throughout my first term I was successful in advocating for resources for the Turning Point Recovery Center, as well as the Heineberg Senior Center. While a lot of work and discussions went into the budgetary process over the prior few months, I still had too many concerns by the time the vote came. I thought I’d share just a few important highlights:
FY27 Budget: I remain concerned about the cost of employee benefits Burlington taxpayers are shouldering. I am a union supporter and have myself been unionized before and have always voted yes to unionize when given the chance. With that said, your cost share of the benefits package, particularly given the skyrocketing cost of medical, is out of alignment from what the majority of Burlingtonians and Vermonters have–and when factored together with step increases, COLA, and our liveable wage ordinance, it is largely unsustainable. If we want to provide these excellent benefits packages, I don’t see how we can also fail to cut more staff given the high percentage of the city budget that is represented by salaries and benefits. The Mayor touted many times how she was proud to bring forward a budget that did not cut any positions and I believe that we unfortunately needed to if we were to maintain these benefits. Gross receipts are down and will continue to drop if we don't get take some real corrective measures in our downtown's safety and vibrancy. Vermont continues to suffer from wages that are highly incongruent with our cost of living and that is a long-standing statewide problem that needs addressing, but in my role advocating for the renters and homeowners of Burlington–this won’t help us move towards an affordable future.
Public Safety Tax Draw Down: In addition, the Mayor drew down the full 5 cents of the public safety tax passed by voters, but it should be noted that it passed with a lower approval rating than FY25’s vote for 3 cents. This largely only covered the required increases due to existing public safety personnel. So I am left asking, where will that leave us over the next two fiscal years when those increases come around again in June? This is a big reason why I don’t think the current budget reflects the cuts necessary to sustain our critical police and fire investments.
A Lack of Transparency and Collaboration: The process lacked the level of transparency that I felt was necessary to reach an informed yes vote. In some cases, I was denied information I requested weeks ahead of the vote even when President Traverse and Councilor Schachter followed up on those requests multiple times. Additionally, the Mayor instructed all Directors to refer questions from us to the Mayor’s Office and also informed us, as well as the media, of this same practice. So when I could not get information or had simple questions, that was declined by multiple directors. We simply did not dig deep enough into the numbers and presentations were kept so high-level that it was unclear what the actual projected costs were and how we would be spending those dollars in many of those presentations. Because of this, I am grateful that my fellow Democratic caucus members have supported my insistence that an ad hoc committee meet regularly beginning very soon to get deeper into each departmental budget long before we reach Spring. I have identified line items that concern me and need more collaborative and cross-party discussion and I look forward to being a part of that work this year, but I strongly believe that it is our responsibility as the “purse-holders” of your tax dollars to be deeply invested, fully informed, and sincerely activated in the stewardship of our limited collective resources.