Bennington voters approved four charter changes on police review, town manager removal, short‑term rental tax and municipal liens

A state legislative committee heard testimony from Jackie Mats, a member of the Bennington Select Board and chair of the town’s charter review committee, about four charter amendments Bennington voters recently approved that change how the town handles police review, town‑manager dismissal, short‑term rental taxation and municipal liens.

Mats said H.693 (vote reported by Mats as 1,477 in favor, 588 against) would allow the Select Board to delegate, on a case‑by‑case basis, its role as the town review board to one of its subordinate bodies so the Community Police Advisory Review Board (CPARB) could review documents and footage related to a complaint investigation and advise the Select Board. "The Community Police Advisory Review Board was established to provide recommendations ... on various trainings, analysis of anonymized data, and civilian perspectives related to how law enforcement engages with the community at large," she said. Mats said CPARB members are appointed to staggered three‑year terms, must have a connection to Bennington, undergo FBI background checks and receive extensive training.

The committee asked whether delegation was mainly a workload issue or a policy change; Mats said it was both, noting that subordinate bodies such as planning commissions routinely handle subject‑matter review that the Select Board lacks the time or technical expertise to do. She added the town’s police department "have only ever expressed a willingness to ... facilitate" requests within legal limits, and that access would likely be granted per complaint rather than wholesale.

H.694 (vote reported 1,231 in favor, 799 against) addresses an unusual clause in Bennington’s charter that currently permits the Select Board to remove a town manager without cause after 90 days’ written notice and a public hearing. Mats said the review committee worried the provision could be off‑putting to prospective candidates and noted that, in practice, contract terms have been used to override the charter provision. She referenced the town’s late long‑time manager, Stu Hurd, in explaining why the committee looked to clarify the charter language so employers could negotiate different terms in contracts.

H.695 (vote reported 1,338 in favor, 749 against) authorizes a 1% local option tax assessed on rental fees for non‑owner‑occupied short‑term rentals (STRs), distinct from property valuation and not intended to duplicate rooms‑and‑meals taxes that may already apply to some short‑term lodging. Mats said Bennington currently applies no local option taxes and cited Vermont Housing Finance Agency (VHFA) data she mentioned in testimony: 88 whole‑house short‑term rentals out of an estimated housing stock of 6,675—under 2% of housing units. She framed the tax as a tool to support "guided development" and the town plan rather than primarily as a new revenue stream.

Committee members pressed on implementation details, including how the town would identify non‑owner‑occupied STRs and whether a registry or existing lodging‑license framework would be used. Mats said the charter change would likely be accompanied by a registry and references to state statute for definitions. One committee member asked that the charter language explicitly clarify the 1% is on rental income and not on property tax value; Mats agreed the committee could refine the wording.

H.696 (vote reported 1,237 in favor, 742 against) would elevate certain judgment liens stemming from civil code‑violation penalties to be treated similarly to tax liens and to take priority over most mortgages in many cases. Mats said the intent is to enable the town to better enforce property‑maintenance, building and life‑safety ordinances and to recover enforcement costs. She described Bennington’s enforcement process (notice, compliance period, possible mediation, court action) as often taking 9 to 18 months and being resource‑intensive; she cited multi‑year averages of roughly 34 violations issued annually, about four mediated agreements and approximately one court judgment per year, and said the town has seen an enforcement deficit of about $25,000 over recent years. Mats also noted attorney fees for enforcement can be substantial—she referenced figures "up to $10,000 per trial" in testimony.

Mats acknowledged the committee considered lender impacts and underwriting concerns. "Lenders may knowingly allow a property to deteriorate ... and prefer to wait until the town executes on its subordinate lien before the lender executes on its first position," she said, arguing that can leave the municipality unable to recoup enforcement expenses. The committee discussed potential tradeoffs between stronger municipal enforcement tools and effects on lending practices.

The committee did not take formal action during the hearing; members asked Mats to follow up with more detailed numbers about lender‑related cases and the frequency of unrecovered enforcement costs. The hearing concluded with the committee indicating it will continue working on charter language and seek additional stakeholder input.

Provenance: The article draws on testimony and exchanges where Jackie Mats summarized the four ballot amendments, the vote tallies she provided, and committee questions; those discussions appear throughout the transcript (topic introductions and explanations for H.693 begin in the SEG 036–SEG 076 range; H.694 in SEG 192–SEG 256; H.695 in SEG 263–SEG 412; H.696 in SEG 477–SEG 607).