top of page
Search

The Pomfret Budget Changes No One Explained: Big Changes, No Clear Answers

Last night’s Town Meeting left more questions than answers. After reviewing the final budget booklet alongside the Board of Selectmen draft, it’s clear that many meaningful changes were made—but without a straightforward explanation of how or why those decisions occurred. For residents trying to follow the process, the lack of a clean reconciliation makes it difficult to understand what actually changed and who made those calls.


To help bring clarity, I’ve compiled a detailed breakdown of every line-item adjustment between the draft and the final budget, along with a set of questions that remain unanswered. These are not minor shifts—there are significant reallocations in both operating and capital accounts, including the addition of entirely new projects and the complete removal of others that had previously been funded.


Equally important, several of these changes raise broader concerns about process and transparency. When funding priorities shift this substantially—especially in areas like road work, community organizations, and long-term planning—the public deserves to see the criteria, documentation, and decision-making behind those choices.


Below, you’ll find the full data comparison, followed by the specific questions that were not addressed during the meeting. My goal is simple: to ensure that residents have a clear, accurate understanding of how this budget evolved, and to encourage a more transparent process moving forward.


Unanswered Questions for the Town & the Board of Finance:


  1. Can the Board of Finance summarize all changes made to the BOS draft by dollar amount and by account, so the public has a clean reconciliation from draft to final?

  2. For the capital and operating changes that were made after the BOS draft, when and by which board were those changes voted, and where are those deliberations documented?

  3. What criteria were used to decide that Bradley Road, Wolf Den Road, Amberg Drive, Anderson Road, and Carter Road should be zeroed out, while Freedley Road, Jericho Road, and Rich Road were added with substantial new appropriations?

  4. Did the Road Foreman and any relevant commissions formally reprioritize these roads, and do we have a written ranking or condition report that supports these shifts?

  5. What performance or financial metrics were used to justify cutting the Abington Social Library by $3,000 and the Pomfret Historical Society by $500, and were those organizations consulted before the reductions were made?

  6. I have a question about the “social media” line under Central Services. We’re paying for a social media specialist, but at a recent Board of Selectmen meeting it was stated that there are no proven metrics showing this spending has increased public participation. At the same time, key meetings are not being posted consistently — for example, I have not seen Board of Education meetings posted.

    What exactly is this position responsible for, which boards’ meetings are required to be posted, and how is the town measuring whether this expense is providing value to taxpayers?

  7. Will the Board commit to publishing a simple one-page “changes since BOS draft” summary in future years so residents can clearly see what changed at each stage of the budget process, rather than having to reconcile multiple lengthy budget documents on their own?

Budget Red Flags:

  • Several road projects appear as brand-new appropriations in the final budget, while others included in the draft were reduced to zero:

    • Freedley Road: $30,000 added

    • Jericho Road: $20,000 added

    • Bradley Road: reduced from $60,000 to $0

    • Wolf Den Road: reduced from $10,000 to $0

    • Amberg Drive, Anderson Road, and Carter Road: each reduced from $5,000 to $0

  • Planning and long-term policy work within Capital Non-Recurring funding was sharply reduced:

    • POCD Update: reduced from $12,000 to $2,000

    • Capital Improvements: reduced from $3,000 to $1,000

    • Library Building Improvements: reduced from $4,000 to $1,000


I still have MAJOR questions about our ARPA Grant funds that were taken for "Virtual Meetings" when we do not offer them, and the gaslighting our town officials have been doing around that fact is disgusting. All I heard last night were excuses for why we CAN'T offer them: equipment needs, confusion about how long we'd have to store these meetings, etc. What I do NOT hear are open-minded, forward-thinking leaders who are using our town's grant funds appropriately, and I will repeat: WE TOOK GRANT FUNDS ALLOCATED FOR VIRTUAL MEETINGS SEVERAL YEARS AGO!!


As we move forward, this isn’t just about one budget cycle—it’s about setting a standard for how decisions are communicated to the public. Clear documentation, accessible explanations, and consistent transparency aren’t optional in municipal governance; they’re essential. Residents should not have to reverse-engineer their town’s budget to understand it. I hope these questions prompt not only answers, but a commitment to a more open and accountable process in the years ahead.


BOS 2026-2027 DRAFT BUDGET PRESENTED AT THEIR WORKSHOP ON MARCH 19, 2026:



FINAL ON TOWN'S WEBSITE: 2026-2027 PROPOSED BUDGET AS PRESENTED AT THE TOWN MEETING ON MAY 14, 2026:



 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page