Chester board talks changes in finances, tax collection, budget voting

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2026 Telegraph Publishing LLC

With auditor Ron Smith attending the Wednesday, Sept. 2 meeting, the Chester Select Board again considered some big changes in the way the town handles its finances and tax collection and how the budget is approved.  The board looked at a “fund balance policy,” and the idea of changing the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31  to July 1 to June 30, and then instituting quarterly property tax payments rather than annual.

Smith has been advocating for these changes as a way to decrease borrowing and better respond to emergencies like floods when municipalities have to spend money on recovery before being reimbursed.

First, the fund balance policy would set a target of having the equivalent of 60 days of operating money in the general fund as a reserve. In this year’s budge, that would be an additional $733,000. Smith says that will happen gradually over several years, with growth achieved through increased municipal taxes and tight fiscal management that would stay in the general fund as surpluses.

Board member Arne Jonynas expressed concern that such a large pot of money in the general fund could be frittered away. He asked if there could be guardrails to prevent that.

Smith said that the guardrail would be discipline that a future board would get from its education in budgeting. “You can get a board that can undo your policy but it’s harder to undo a policy that exists than one that doesn’t,” said Smith.

Discussion followed on how the language of the policy could strengthen safeguards. Former Select Board member Derek Suursoo chastised the current board, saying, “Sorry to say, but the select board already lacks discipline. Projects come in and you say ‘boy we like that.’ That’s a Chester habit, we’re very generous with our money toward projects.” Suursoo said he was in favor of restrictions “to keep these funds from going out the door.”

Jonynas disagreed with Suursoo’s assessment, saying that the board has been responsible and, in some cases, not generous enough.

Town Manager Julie Hance said board members should send her their suggestions for changes to the first draft of the policy to be incorporated into the document ahead of their next discussion.

Fiscal year and quarterly tax payments

Smith has also been an advocate for moving to a July to June fiscal year that would align with both the State of Vermont and the school system. Currently, the Select Board proposes a budget to the voters more than two months into the calendar year, and since tax collections have been scheduled for Sept. 15, the town has regularly had to borrow large amounts of money to tide it over until then.

There are several reasons to move the town’s fiscal year.

Since towns collect the education tax on behalf of the state and disburses funds to the schools, payments to the schools could stretch over two of the town’s calendar year budgets. But accounting errors can and have occurred under the current January to December fiscal year. Changing that fiscal year would alleviate that problem and allow the town to pay the school district as taxes are collected rather than borrowing to complete payment.

The quarterly payment schedule, also proposed by Smith, would also improve cash flow and reduce costs due to borrowing. Finance Director Deb Epler noted that a number of people have told her that paying quarterly would be easier on them than having one annual due date. While anyone can pay on their tax bill at any time during the year, Hance has said this would make planning taxpayers’ finances simpler.  The quarterly payments would lessen the need for the town to borrow in anticipation of taxes and save it money.

One complication of moving the fiscal year is the transition. The town would need to create an 18-month budget covering January of one year to June of the following year.  Board member Peter Hudkins noted that quarterly tax payments would take much of the sting out of that. Moving the fiscal year will have to be voted on from the floor at Town Meeting. While the board generally agreed with the change, there were questions about the details of getting it done. Smith said he would provide the board with a document about how the process will work.

These moves are likely to be controversial and Smith said the town needs to start getting information out to voters about them. Chester resident Wanda Purdy asked Smith how much the town could save in the future by adopting these measures. Smith and Epler said it’s impossible to know, especially with changes in interest rates.  Board member Lauren Fierman suggested looking back at past borrowing for actual cases that would show what Smith’s recommendations might save.

Australian ballot for budget and an imperiled Town Meeting

The board also continued to discuss the plusses and minuses of moving the vote on the municipal budget to an Australian ballot. Board members recognize that the town would likely lose its Monday Town Meeting if important questions were not on that warning. They also would like to increase the number of people voting.

The average in-person meeting attracts about 115, in a room that can accommodate over 200. At the same time, out of more than 2,000 registered voters, only about 300 to 400 cast an Australian ballot on Election Tuesday. Unlike the Australian vote, the in-person meeting on Monday night features a detailed presentation on the budget.

Epler said she would like to see more people at Town Meeting and had concerns that the board and town staff could put together a budget over the course of several months and have it voted down by people who had not followed its development or heard the in-person presentation.

Several attendees noted that people might be less inclined to  voice their vote because their neighbors would hear. But in the last Town Meeting, a paper ballot was called for and a local option tax was defeated.

The question of whether to keep the budget vote from the floor or have it on the Australian ballot will continue. The board will decide whether to put it on the warning for the in-person meeting. But if the board does not, a petition with signatures of  5 percent of the voter checklist could add it to the warning.