The article reporting a proposed 11% increase in Warren’s municipal tax rate motivated me to review Warren’s Annual Town Report for the year ending December 31, 2025. Skipping right to the bottom line of the report, I was baffled by the figures for Total Town Gross Expenditures, which indicated the 2025 Actual expenditures of $3.3M to be $1.5M less than the 2025 budget of $4.8M. This information indicated the proposed 2026 budget amount of $5.4M to be an increase of $2.1M (64%) above 2025 actual expenditures. I compared the reported 2024 Actual expenditure of $3.6M to the 2024 budget amount; while the 2024 budget information was not included in the report, an internet search confirmed the 2024 budget to be $4.4M. This information implied that there is some budget surplus numbering in the millions of dollars that might be available to buy down the proposed 11% budget increase, or the town’s debt obligations (recently increased by some $10 million for the new town garage), or both. However, other than for the capital budget accounts, there was no fund balance information in the report, and no summary of the town’s actual financial position at the close of the fiscal year. I attended Town Meeting because I found no information in the report to justify the double-digit budget increase. I was left wondering about the amounts and locations of surplus funds within the treasury. Other residents had similar questions.
Before Town Meeting, I looked online at the Waitsfield Annual Report to see how it compared to the Warren report. Waitsfield’s report includes a great deal of detailed information on all town funds and debts, along with information summarizing the Audit Report for fiscal year 2025 and a notice that the complete audit report is available on the town website or as a printed copy at the town office. Thinking that a similar audit report might be available on the Warren website and could provide clarity regarding the town’s true financial position, I searched the Warren website’s document archive, but I found that the most recent audit report posted was for fiscal year 2021.
During the afternoon before Town Meeting, I read a news story about town of Vershire postponing its annual meeting until April 11 because required reports were not provided to the voters 10 days prior to Town Meeting as required by law. The Vershire town website provides information about the new meeting date and cites 24VSA ? 1682 as the reason why.
Subchapter 005: AUDITORS AND AUDITS (Cite as: 24 V.S.A. ? 1682)
“(a)(1) The auditors shall report their findings in writing and cause the same to be mailed or otherwise distributed to the voters of the town at least ten days before the annual meeting.
(2) At a duly warned annual or special meeting, the voters of the town may vote to provide notice of the availability of the auditors’ report to the voters of the town in lieu of mailing or otherwise distributing the report itself. If the voters of the town vote to provide notice of availability, they must specify how notice of availability shall be given, and such notice of availability shall be provided to the voters of the town at least 30 days before the annual meeting.
(3) Upon request, the auditors shall mail or distribute a copy of the full report to a voter or resident of the town.
(4) When the auditors mail or distribute the report or provide notice of the availability of the report to the voters of the town, they shall at the same time deliver to the town clerk the copies required by section 1173 of this title and shall place all surplus copies in the custody of the town clerk before the first Tuesday in March.”
During Town Meeting, several residents commented on the disparity between actual expenditures and budget, and on whether surplus funds were available, and in what amounts. After some awkward review and discussion, a select board member indicated that the report was misleading because the actual expenditure columns did not include capital budget amounts, but the budget columns did. I said I still lacked clear information to make an informed vote on Article 1 to approve the municipal budget. I also referred to the statute cited above and asked whether the audit report distribution requirements were met, because I could not find a report nor could I find evidence of any warned meeting cited in the statute. I also questioned whether a legal vote could even be held at this time, considering that statutory precursor requirements had not been met.
For these comments and questions, an attendee seated in front of me stood and interrupted me, angrily disparaging me as a “loudmouth.” Without clear answers to my questions, I made a motion to postpone Article 1 until a later date, before which accurate and complete financial information could be provided to permit an informed vote. Several voters spoke in favor of this motion, and one spoke against it. The motion to postpone did not pass. Ultimately, Article 1 passed by a wide margin and the budget was approved. The legality of the vote and whether legal remedy might be possible are lingering questions in my mind, but I lack the financial and temporal resources to pursue these questions further.
The Warren Town Meeting lasted for an arduous four hours, and while I’m sorry if some present felt that I wasted their time, I believe that my comments and questions were reasonable and appropriate, and that dissenting voices and challenging questions must be heard. I am unlikely to be such a gadfly in many future Town Meetings because I simply cannot personally afford to continue to live in a town or in a state where annual double digit tax increases are routinely proposed by elected officials and then rubber stamped with no questions asked by the voters. Since I am unable to increase my annual income at the same rates, I become poorer every year. The town and the state are increasingly becoming a place inhabited by only the very wealthy and the very poor.
Hardy Merrill lives in Warren.
