Rich Ellis, Brunswick Town Council

05/11/2026

These were my comments at tonight's Brunswick Town Council meeting during the final formal approval of the budget.
---------------------

I've spent more than three decades of my career in banking, and one principle has proven itself true time and again: a healthy bank needs both a strong marketing chief and a strong credit officer, and they need to challenge each other vigorously and respectfully. Marketing says yes to opportunity. Credit asks can we afford it now and can we take the risk?

When one dominates the other, a bank either stagnates or takes on risks it can't survive. I can affirm that this principle is true, having been in organizations with both healthy tension and ones that lacked good balance.

I know town government isn't a business, but this principle of productive tension still holds true.

Our Town Manager, and our School Superintendent, understand the real, daily service needs of their organizations — the roads, the projects, the people, the classrooms, the pressures on the ground. They are, in a sense, our advocates for yes.

The Town Council's role is to be the credit officer, asking the hard questions about what we can sustain, what we can afford right now, and what truly serves the whole community.

Neither role works without the other. Without that tension, you either have a bank that can't grow, or one that collapses — like Washington Mutual did in 2008, when its sales culture crushed credit discipline and the $300 billion bank evaporated overnight.

The best outcomes come not from one side winning, but from both sides being heard, respected, and willing to push back. That productive tension isn't a problem to solve. It is the solution.

Locally, the numbers tell us the balance is off. With the budget we will approve tonight, school spending has increased nearly7% per year over the last five years, while municipal spending has increased over 7.5% per year. Combined with the revaluation, property taxes for the median Brunswick homeowner have jumped more than $1,850 in five years. This isn't just a spreadsheet problem — it's a living in Brunswick problem.

And while we came to a decision with this year's budget that didn't align with what I, and three other councilors, thought it should be, I do support and respect the process, and commit to redoubling my efforts next year to give a more effective voice for Brunswick's homeowners in this balance we try to strike each and every year.

Thank you.

05/08/2026

📢📢We hope you'll attend our neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, May 20, 2026 from 5:00-6:00pm at Public Works, 9 Industry Road.

✅Join your neighbors for a community discussion
✅ Participate in a Q&A about the Public Works Facility Improvement Project
✅ Learn more about the latest project plans, including updates made in response to resident input

See you there.

05/08/2026

I've seen quite a few questions about how the recently approved budget affects individual households, so here's a quick breakdown I put together to help.

The key takeaway is that the mill rate is expected to go from $13.22 to $13.90 per $1,000 of taxable value, the increase needed to fund the local property taxes required by the budget passed on a 5-4 vote.

The "Estimated Tax Impact on a Typical Home" section is particularly useful, as it breaks down the estimated increase for a median single family home, a median mobile home, and per $100,000 of taxable value. If you know your home's assessed value, you can use the per $100k figure to get a rough estimate of your own impact.

Because they are expressed as percentages, it is tempting to read the "Weighted Share of Mill Rate Percent Change" figures as the rate of increase within each taxing unit (Municipal, Education, and County), but that is not what they represent. They are better understood as each unit's proportional contribution to the overall mill rate increase. Personally, I think the confusion this measure creates makes it not worth focusing on.

One small note on the numbers: figures being published elsewhere show a mill rate increase of 5.18%, while this chart shows 5.14%. The difference a combination of rounding approach and small adjustments but the all important estimated mill rate is the same in both cases: $13.90.

05/06/2026

Last night, the Brunswick Town Council approved a 5.18% tax increase, the second highest in the past decade. I was on the losing end of that 5-4 vote, and I want to be direct: this budget approach is not sustainable.

My colleagues and I find common ground on a great many issues, but a majority of this Council has so far shown little appetite for critically evaluating, prioritizing, and reducing proposals from the Town Manager or School Superintendent.

On a $61 million school budget, the majority requested zero reductions. Zero. Not one dollar. We almost approved more than the School Department had originally requested as a result of our procedural approach.

On the municipal side, the only adjustment that gained any support was delaying two of four proposed firefighter positions pending further review, including an examination of alternative models such as community paramedicine, which may better address the actual drivers of our rapidly increasing EMS call volume. That thoughtful pause saved roughly $100,000 out of a combined $107 million budget. Less than one tenth of one percent. That is not meaningful oversight by any measure.

This type of uncritical approval, year after year, poses as much of a long-term risk to Brunswick as unchecked housing growth, the loss of sensitive wildlife areas, predatory mobile home park owners, or the erosion of the very town and school services residents depend on.

Combined with last year's increase and the revaluation, Brunswick's 5,332 single-family homeowners are now facing a two-year financial reckoning.

Even the luckiest 2,000 homes with the smallest increases will collectively pay $1.57 million more in property taxes, about $803 more per household in just two years. The next 2,000 homes will pay $2.27 million more, a median hit of $1,124. The hardest-hit 1,000 homes will pay $2.26 million more, or about $1,649 more per home.

Across all 5,332 single-family homes, Council budgets have added over $6.1 million in additional property tax burden in just two budget cycles, an average of roughly $1,150 per home.

To look at those numbers and shrug, to describe the new 5.18% increase as "not much on a monthly basis," or to resist any meaningful effort to moderate budgets that are growing 60% faster than inflation is not fiscal stewardship. It is a self-inflicted hardship on Brunswick families.

The minority position was never austerity. A 4% or 4.5% growth rate would still have represented healthy, responsible investment in this community, and still delivered millions of dollars in new spending. It simply would have shown some sensitivity to the burden we are placing on the people who live here.

I have two more budgets ahead of me in my term as a Councilor, and I genuinely hope the majority can find a more balanced approach, one that invests in Brunswick without treating every proposed dollar as untouchable.

But if this post reaches homeowners who share my frustrations, please know that responsible growth and fiscal sensitivity are not enemies of good schools and good services. They are what makes both sustainable. Get involved. Attend meetings to lend your voice. Consider running. Three Council seats are up for election every year, and the budget season is where this town's future gets decided. Right now, I fear there are not enough voices at the table speaking for the financial well being of Brunswick homeowners who are being crushed by the cost of our recent decisions.

05/03/2026

So on a Saturday night, I am left thinking about our town budget, and item #54 of Monday night's meeting, "The Town Council will discuss the 2026-27 Budget and 2027-31 CIP and will take any
appropriate action."

I have worked through what I have heard over the last several months, and put together a proposal that would reduce the current proposed tax rate increase from 5.52% to 4.50%, through targeted reductions in the municipal budget and by setting the total school appropriation in accordance with our statutory authority.

I have attached it here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1H3inoplOL3rO5Y-c_RqrPXnkRUqx_xwR7dIf_eZSqpg/edit?usp=sharing

I would also note that fellow councilor, Steve Weems, has published his own proposal to bring the budget to from 5.52% to 4.00% here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAYN9iVJcmN5jISCothKFl75G2mqEKcz/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=107275435540013582903&rtpof=true&sd=true

I look forward to considering all the ideas this Monday, and working with the whole council to wrap this up Monday, May the Fourth.

04/17/2026

I'm writing this post to correct factual errors in an anonymous letter circulating on several town Facebook forums regarding the Public Works site on Industry Road. I joined the Council in January, after these decisions were made, but was briefed on the project and attended the December meeting below as a member of the public.

My post is not intended to tell neighbors what to think or to discourage advocacy. Residents who are affected by this project have every right to be heard. The purpose here is simply to ensure the discussion is based on accurate information.

Some context:
Public Works operations, including plows, dump trucks, and the fueling station used by Public Works, school buses, police, fire, and parks and recreation, have operated on this site continuously since the 1940s. The site was originally established in an industrial area, near the railway and central to town, when the surrounding residential neighborhood was much different. This project is about reorganizing and updating a long-standing use, not a new industrial introduction.

The Town evaluated three alternative sites before concluding none were viable. It is my belief that staff genuinely wanted to find a new location, both recognizing changes in the area and wanting more space to plan a site, but it could not find a suitable alternate. That documentation is in the public record on the town website.

What the Council authorized:
On December 1, the Town Council authorized Phase 1A of the Public Works Facility Project, with $4.7 million in bonding approved, reduced from an initial proposal of $6.5 million. The Council also declined funding to purchase 2 Industry Road, which would have expanded the site from approximately 7 acres to 8 acres.

Phase 1A includes three components:
- Relocating the two existing fuel pumps (one unleaded, one diesel) to a new location on the site perimeter, away from active work areas. This does place it about 300ft closer some residential properties.
- Replacing and relocating the salt shed
- Funding design work for Phase 1B

Video of the meeting (47:18 to 2:27:15): https://tv3hd.brunswickme.org/internetchannel/show/6388?site=1

Minutes: https://www.brunswickme.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/3524?fileID=34376 =4

This project had been previously discussed at 21 public meetings dating back to December 2023.

Phase 1B:
Phase 1B, which would replace the existing Public Works office and workspace dating to the late 1940s, has not been voted on. Current estimates are approximately $6 million. It is not expected to affect the budget for at least five years, and further Council discussion is anticipated over the next one to three years.

Senior Public Gardens:
Phase 1A displaces the Senior Public Gardens currently located on the Public Works parcel. Town staff are working to identify an alternative location, which has not yet been determined. I will continue following up on this as I think the garden has good community value.

Corrections to the anonymous memo:
- The project is not a $40 million undertaking. To date, $4.7 million has been authorized. A future Phase 1B, that might be approved in 3-5 years, is estimated at approximately $6 million and has not been approved.
- There is no 114,000-square-foot fuel depot being constructed. The fueling system remains unchanged: one unleaded pump and one diesel pump, relocated within the same site. The replacement is being prompted by state regulation on fueling station lifespans.
- The project is not the largest single expenditure in Brunswick's history, whether considering Phase 1A alone or combined projections. $4.7 million is still a significant number that deserves scrutiny, but that claim as stated is not accurate.
- The letter states that views will be obstructed. The only view I am aware of that will be obstructed in Phase 1A is that they are adding a tree buffer between the fuel island and nearby residential properties. If that buffer obstructs anything, it is the view of an industrial public works site.

If you want to review further:
The full public record is available through Town website minutes and the TV3 on-demand archive, going back to December 2023. If you have questions or would like help locating specific documents, feel free to reach out to me or your councilor directly.

04/04/2026

I posted this on another forum where people were questioning why, in our budget deliberations, we were cutting firefighters. I am reposting my reply here in case you may have also heard this.

Bottom line is, no cuts to existing firefighter positions have been proposed or discussed, but we do have a difficult budget this year as a result of a pretty large shortfall in revenue from non-property tax sources, such as state revenue sharing.

——————
I want to offer some of my own thoughts here, because I think this thread may be based on a misunderstanding of what was actually proposed.

No cuts to existing firefighter positions have been proposed or discussed. The Town Manager's first draft budget added eight new positions, including four new firefighters. The Fire Department spending was proposed to grow by $637k (10.9%) in the draft budget.

That draft budget would have resulted in a property tax increase of 8.4% to 9.4%. What is under discussion is what to do to avoid that size of increase, which areas to slow growth, and whether to fund each of the proposed additions. That is a very different conversation than cutting people already serving this community.

A majority of the council has asked the Town Manager to adjust the budget so that the property tax increase does not exceed 4% (historically, over the last 15 years, property taxes have gone up 3.87% per year). Reaching that target means about $1,277,000 in reductions to the proposed municipal budget and about $1,312,000 in reductions to the proposed school budget.

A few other things worth understanding:
1. Even after reductions to get to 4%, spending still grows. Municipal spending would increase about $1.1 million (2.7%) and school spending would still increase about $3.1 million (5.4%). Spending still goes up in both budgets.

2. Revenue coming into the municipal budget from sources other than property taxes has declined for the first time since 2015. The single largest reason is a reduction in municipal revenue sharing from the state. Last year other revenue grew by about $855k. This year it is expected to drop by about $20k. That shortfall is a major driver of this conversation. So is an 18% increase in the Cumberland County tax that the town is required to pay. The school budget is actually seeing nearly $1.3 million more in outside revenue, largely from the state, but its costs are growing faster than that revenue, particularly in special education services. The school department's proposed budget includes 7 to 8 position eliminations.

3. Last year's property revaluation shifted more of the tax burden onto residential properties. The typical residential owner saw about a 12% increase last year, compared to a historical average closer to 3.8%. That context matters a great deal to me personally as I look at this budget, and I wanted to make sure it was part of this conversation.

Finally, I want to be clear that I am speaking for myself here, not on behalf of the council. I am just hoping to provide some clarity on what is actually being discussed. If you have questions or want to share your thoughts, feel free to reach out directly. I do not expect we will always agree, but I am always willing to talk and hear people out. It's a part of the job.

Town Managers First Draft budget: https://www.brunswickme.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12193/Mgrs-Preliminary-2026-27-Budget-03092026

Fire Department Budget Presentation: https://www.brunswickme.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/3710?fileID=34947

03/10/2026

Tonight the Town Manager presented the first draft of the municipal budget. The Superintendent presented the school department’s first draft on February 11. In my opinion, both drafts still require significant work before they are ready for adoption.

Taken together, these proposals would increase the mill rate by roughly 8.4%, assuming the typical 1% revenue growth from new property assessments. For a typical single-family homeowner, this could mean an increase of roughly $545 in property taxes, while residents of mobile homes in parks could see an increase of about $66.

Given last year’s revaluation, which raised median property taxes for single-family homes by about 12% and even more sharply for mobile homes, many residents are still facing a significant tax strain.

Recognizing the challenge of balancing essential services with affordability, I believe a responsible target for this year’s mill rate increase is 3–3.5%. With that in mind, I hope staff, council, and the school board can work toward a budget that avoids passing along another large property tax increase to residents.

01/26/2026

Stay safe out there.

Town Hall offices will be closed Monday, January 26, due to the snow storm. Stay safe and warm out there.

01/08/2026

I was officially sworn in on Monday night and I’ve been appointed to the following committees:

• Finance Committee
• Appointments Committee
• Landing Community Center (MARC)
• Rivers & Coastal Waters Commission

While the Housing Committee is well represented by Councilor Perreault and Councilor Thieme, I will also remain closely engaged with its work in an unofficial capacity, with a particular focus on housing issues affecting mobile home parks. To the many District One residents living in Bay Bridge Estates, Maplewood Manor, and Coastline (Rush) Trailer Park: I see you, and I am committed to working hard to ensure your voices are both heard and represented.

To all residents, please don’t hesitate to reach out with questions, concerns, or ideas. My contact information is available in the about section of this page. I’m honored to serve and eager to get to work.