Report of the Montpelier City Council's Citizen Budget Review ...

1. EXECUTIVE S UMMARYa. Charge from City Council:“The committee [will be] charged with comparing the costs and effectiveness ofMontpelier’s municipal services with those provided by comparable communities. Thecommittee is authorized to make any recommendations it believes are appropriate,related to its charge. The committee is requested to supply a report to the City Councilby September 17 th , 2012.”b. Background of Budget Review Committee:Citizen concern about property taxes in Montpelier led to the formation of this BudgetReview Committee (BRC). The idea for the committee was first brought up duringdiscussions before the City Council in the midst of budget deliberations in late 2011,and received a positive reaction from Mayor Mary Hooper and members of the CityCouncil. Concern among some residents about property taxes and spending hademerged after a city-wide meeting at the Montpelier High School in the fall of 2011 atwhich city officials said Montpelier had fallen behind in funding infrastructure repairs andwould need to boost infrastructure spending by $500,000 or more per year for the nextseveral years.The concept of appointing a study committee to compare Montpelier’s municipalspending to other communities was revived by Mayor John Hollar and the current CityCouncil and led to the creation of this committee. The members of the BRC wereofficially appointed in early June and held their first official meeting on June 21, 2012.c. LimitationsThe committee was composed of a group of volunteers, many with daytime jobs.Summer vacations and busy schedules, for committee members and officials in othertown, made completing some tasks difficult. In many ways, our work only scratches thesurface; though we believe there is information in this report that will be useful andinteresting to the City Council and city staff. As discussed in our conclusions andrecommendations, there are additional areas of budget study that the Council may wantto pursue.The body of work completed by each subcommittee was not reviewed in detail by theBRC due to lack of sufficient time. Most, although not all, of the recommendationscontained in the subcommittee reports were discussed, however, the entire group wasunable to conduct a detailed review of each subcommittee's report. Instead, the groupprimarily relied upon informational presentations and briefings on the development oftheir findings, progress, and questions during the BRC’s weekly meetings.Page 4 of 88