Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget Upwp topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

CCRPC committee reviews draft FY27 budget showing $3 million drop and possible housing needs study

Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Executive Committee · April 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Chittenden County RPC Executive Committee reviewed a draft FY27 Unified Planning Work Program and budget showing a reduction from roughly $11M to $8M as large projects wind down, flagged an "under collecting" projection, and identified a potential regional housing needs assessment and funding shifts.

Charlie Baker, executive director of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, told the Executive/Finance Committee on April 7 that the draft FY27 Unified Planning Work Program and budget shows a roughly $3 million reduction in program funding as large projects finish and staff are projecting an "under collecting" (negative) balance for the coming year.

The change matters for municipal support and program delivery: Baker said there were fewer municipal requests this year and staff have found ways to align requests with available funds, but the draft budget reflects different revenue dynamics than recent years when the commission "over collected" and recorded positive balances. He noted staff will continue to refine the draft and bring it to the Board in May to warn a public hearing and seek adoption.

In discussion, Baker identified specific line-item shifts and uncertainties. Municipal technical-assistance funding was sharply reduced (described as "small dollars"), $123,000 is budgeted for MPO RAISE grant work, and several water-quality and energy projects are being removed from the program as they conclude. Emergency management projects remain uncertain ‘‘because of a Department of Homeland Security funding pause in Washington, D.C.,’’ Baker said, creating contingency risk for those activities.

Committee members did not take action on the draft budget; Baker described the item as a discussion to inform the Board’s May packet. The Executive Committee will warn the public hearing at the next Board meeting after additional adjustments.

The committee’s next steps are procedural: staff will update the draft based on continuing review and return it to the Board in May for a warned public hearing, then seek adoption. No formal budget vote occurred at the April 7 Executive Committee meeting.