Brentwood leaders explain budget steps, fund-balance use and how estimates affect tax bills

The Brentwood Select Board and residents spent much of a public meeting outlining the town budget process and debating how fund balance and revenue estimates affect taxpayers.

Select Board member Letty said the municipal budget process begins with department heads submitting preliminary budgets and the select board then reviewing those requests before the budget committee produces the official number presented to taxpayers. “Because Brentwood has a municipal budget committee, that means that the official budget comes from the budget committee,” Letty said, describing the sequence of department presentation, select-board review, and budget-committee finalization.

Why it matters: residents said they need consistent, auditable estimates in the materials voters receive. That is particularly urgent because the amount of fund balance the town applies to offset taxes can materially change the reported tax impact of the municipal operating budget.

Key figures and calculations discussed at the meeting included figures Letty provided for the prior year: “In 2024, the total appropriation for the town was 6,600,000.0. There was $2,100,000 in revenue…870,000 of it went back” to offset taxes, she said. Meeting participants later cited a proposed change in appropriations of roughly $704,000 and noted this municipal change would translate to about $372.28 on a $400,000 home in the town report’s methodology.

Tension over fund-balance offsets centered on two different numbers referenced publicly: residents and board members said the town used $870,000 last year to reduce taxes; the budget committee chair at the budget hearing used a $1,350,000 estimate for the current year. Resident Jim said that difference matters: using the larger offset would lower the immediate tax rate but could leave the town with less capacity to cover recurring expenses that are increasing year to year.

Select Board members agreed the revenue and fund-balance inputs deserve clearer communication. Letty said the town report will include an itemized table showing the municipal change and the per-household estimate that results from the appropriation change, but she also acknowledged that some revenue forecasting used by the budget committee was an estimate. “I got the sense…that that was basically a guesstimate,” she said of the budget committee’s revenue estimate, and urged a shared method going into town meeting.

Residents pressed for transparency because prior years’ numbers had contributed to a larger-than-expected tax increase: one participant said the community was told to expect a 3% increase but saw an eventual 7% increase when offsets were smaller than anticipated. Several speakers urged the select board and budget committee to agree on assumptions and publish the specific revenue and fund-balance estimates that will be used at town meeting.

The board said the town report will include the municipal estimate and that an addendum may be distributed if additional clarification is needed before town meeting. Officials also described the mechanics: unspent appropriation money generally lapses into the general fund or fund balance, reserved capital funds have specific allowed uses and cannot be repurposed without voter approval, and encumbrances to carry contracts across fiscal years are allowed only for contractual obligations.

The meeting ended with an agreement on next steps: officials will try to present consistent revenue and fund-balance assumptions in materials handed out ahead of town meeting and to make more detailed supporting schedules available to residents who request them.