We’ll be attempting the annual live blog of Representative Town Meeting. The official festivities get under way at about 8:30 am at the high school. See you in a few…
Comments | 45
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search iBrattleboro
Local Advertisements
Log In
Tags
2020
agenda
arts
bctv
bike
Brattleboro
Brooks Memorial Library
budget
candidate
climate
COVID-19
CPCC
downtown
DPW
election
EMS
energy
Finance
fire
FY20
FY21
FY22
FY23
FY24
Gibson-Aiken
Hinsdale bridge
housing
Main Street
music
Next Stage
parking
police
Putney
RTM
sbmn
schedule
Selectboard
skatepark
tree
Trump
vermont
Vermont AFL-CIO
VFW
WSESD
WSESU
The first nine articles
Town goes first this year, then the schools.
The first nine articles are rather standard and nothing dramatic is expected. Feed your pets and get breakfast:
It’s after 8:30 and people are still assembling. It may be a few moments before things are underway.
And we're off
Meeting called to order by Lawrin Crispe at 8:35 am. There is a quorum, says Jane Fletcher.
They go through the convocations, pledge, rules, announcements,
The prayer includes: “Districts are not factions. We look for the well being of one town. Past experience shows that reps come with the citizens’ concerns. It’s hard, toting, frustrating work. We need our coffee and cushions. We have committed to follow the issues throughout the year. This is Brattleboro government deciding. It is honorable and serious work. We’ll find laughs. I wish you joy of the meeting.”
31 Articles today, say Town Clerk Annette Cappy.
Crispe says the Charter and Roberts Rules guide the meeting.
Preliminary motions allow media and other town folks (like the Town Manager, Town Atty) to attend.
Article 1 – The auditor’s report is accepted as printed. Approved.
Article 2 – Cap Grant Review Board needs two members. Nominations are from the floor. No one volunteers for the two positions. They describe the duties of the position to try to entice representatives. They will look at grants and loan requests, they are told. They meet once, for about an hour. Mr. Hertzog and Ms. Weinmann volunteer. They are approved.
Article 3 – Employ a Certified Public Accountant? Approved.
Article 4 – Ratify appointment of Town Clerk Annette Cappy. Marshall Wheelock says that Cappy has served for 25 years as of a day or so ago. Much applause. Approved.
Article 5 – Ratify appointment of Town Treasurer John O’Connor. Approved.
Article 6 – Ratify appointment of Town Attorney – Fisher and Fisher Law Offices. Ms. Rockwell speaks. Susan Rockwell says she urges town reps to vote against Robert Fisher. “I oppose his manipulation of the law in Town affairs. he’s misadvised the Police dept. He knowingly confused and personalized the law. He’s refused court-ordered mediation. He’s attempted to limit my speech at town meetings. Deny or delay his confirmation.”
Steve Phillips – those are harsh word. Attorneys are sometimes unpopular. People all be unhappy with what they do. Mr. Fisher has served honorably.
John Wilmerding – could their be a friendly amendment that the Town Atty turn to mediation when reasonable.
Lawrin Crispe – It’s not germane to the article being discussed as an amendment.
Lynn Russell – Very important matters brought forward. I encourage the body to hold on confirming, pending an investigation into the allegations. That’s what I’d prefer. I don’t want to rush forward out of habit without proof one way or another.
Bob Fagelson – I move the question. It fails. Debate continues.
Mr. Yost – how is the firm selected by the town?
Mr. Fisher – through appointment by the Selectboard. It doesn’t need to go to bid. Sometimes it does. We have a contract with the town approved by the Selectboard. With respect to these issues, there are several different lawsuits with zoning matters between her property and her neighbors. Many landlord-tenant issues. We wrote a memo giving guidance to the police for visitors to her property. A court needs to make the decisions. Our role is to give guidance to Police and Health officer – issues of no heat and that sort of thing. The Town is on the matter. The Town Manager has offered to meet with Ms. Rockwell. We do encourage mediation. I want to defend my firm, the police, the health officer, and town manager’s office.
Rockwell – he stated a falsehood.
Crispe – we can’t try this case in this forum.
Spoon Agave – we never looked closely at how we hire a town attorney, but this body elects that person and we have nothing to go on accept an assumption that the Selectboard wants them, but we never hear why they think it is a good choice. The board should take more interest in that position and who is best qualified (going forward.)
Pal Borosfsky – We elect these people as Selectpeople to hire people. They use their best judgement. It’s hard to find the right people to do the work at the right rate. The board leads the community. This law office does a good job.
Corwin Elwell – we’re ratifying and approving, not electing anyone.
David Gartenstein – The reason for the choice? Mr. Fisher has significant experience advising municipalities. He offers advice on various issues. His advice is well-researched and well-considered, and helps us with legal compliance. We have heard some concerns by Ms. Rockwell. We’re aware of them, but not for discussion here. WE are hear to ratify the position.
Hyam Siegel – No need for an article if it was just a Selectboard decision. We get to participate. What happens if we don’t ratify Mr. Fisher?
Gartenstein – It’s never happened before. I don’t know. Once the board reorganizes on Monday, there may be issues to deal with. We need to have a lawyer. We’d look at the issue again.
Judy Davidson – moves the question. It passes.
Fisher and Fisher is approved. (A handful said no.)
Article 7 – To approve Library Trustees. All are residents, as they must be. Approved.
The meeting votes on whether the moderator needs to read back the motion. Wheelock suggests it not be read back unless it requested. Crispe says he’ll always repeat motions in lengthy debates and amendments. Orion Barber says the articles are bare bombes statements, and when moved there is additional detail. We need the extra detail. Chuck Cummings says it is a tradition to reread it, “but my experience is that we have waived it many times before.” Bob Fagelson points out the body is wasting time on trying to save time. They vote to have the moderator not repeat the motion today, to save time.
Article 8 – Salaries for town officers. $3,000 for board, 5,000 for chair.
Ms. Rockwell – I suggest that it is not in the best interest that the Town Attorney be paid $100,000.
Crispe – Not germane, out of order. This is Selectboard salary.
Article 8 approved.
Moreland wonders if the meeting should vote on not reading motions. Crispe says they already voted.
Article 9 to see if the Selectboard can borrow in anticipation of taxes. Approved.
OK, on to the difficult ones. : )
that seems like a lot of "first business as usual"
with the dissenters being quickly shouted down with substantive assistance by the frequent, rapid interventions by Crispe.
I hope the Town looks back on how the preliminaries are handled after this meeting.
Article 10 - BaBB/DID
ARTICLE 10: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $78,000 through special assessments on properties within the Downtown Improvement District (as approved by Town Meeting March 19, 2005 and as delineated in the Town Ordinance entitled “Municipal Act to Establish and Regulate the Downtown Improvement District”) to be used for capital and operating costs of projects of the Town’s duly designated downtown organization.
Approved. No discussion.
Article 11 - Mountain Home Special Assessments
ARTICLE 11: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $223,276.47 through special assessments on property within the “Mountain Home Park Special Benefit Assessment Tax District” (as approved by Town Meeting, March 24, 2007 and as delineated in the Town Ordinance entitled, “Municipal Act to Establish and Regulate the Mountain Home Park Special Benefit Assessment Tax District”) for the purpose of paying debt service on the capital improvements to the water and sewer lines serving the Mountain Home and Deepwood Mobile Home Parks.
I should mention that you can watch this on BCTV, or via their Channel 10 web stream.
Approved without discussion.
Article 12 - Climate Protection
ARTICLE 12: To see if the Town will raise and appropriate a sum not to exceed $10,000 to assist in funding Brattleboro Climate Protection for Fiscal Year 2015 (July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015).
Approved, no discussion.
Rolling along today…
Article 13 - Human Services Support
ARTICLE 13: To see if the Town will raise and appropriate the sum of $110,000 to support human service programs and facilities for the residents of Brattleboro to be allocated among service providers in the following manner: AIDS Project of Southeastern Vermont – $2,000; American Red Cross – Green Mountain Chapter – $4,000; Boys & Girls Club – $9,300; Brattleboro Area Drop-In Center – $9,600; Brattleboro Area Hospice – $1,700; Brattleboro Senior Meals – $7,000; Clark/Canal Neighborhood Association – $3,000; Connecticut River Transit – $3,000; Family Garden – $1,000; Gathering Place – $2,000; Health Care & Rehabilitation Services (HCRS) – $2,000; KidsPLAYce – $3,000; Morningside House – $7,500; Phoenix House RISE – $1,500; Prevent Child Abuse Vermont – $1,000; RSVP – Green Mountain – $700; Senior Solutions – $2,000; Southeastern Vermont Community Action, Inc. (SEVCA) – $9,000; Summer Lunch Program – Brattleboro Town School District – $6,000; Turning Point – $4,500; Vermont Adult Learning – $700; Vermont Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing – $1,500; Vermont Center for Independent Living – $1,000; Visiting Nurse & Hospice of VT & NH – $10,000; Windham Child Care Association – $5,500; Windham County Safe Place Child Advocacy Center – $1,500; YMCA (Meeting Waters) – $2,000; Youth Services – Big Brothers Big Sisters – $8,000.
Ben Underhill – Thanks for doing this work. It’s a hard job. I see some reductions for some, increases for others. A 16.5% one time reduction? Will it go up again or stay at these levels?
Gartenstein – While formulating the budget, we looked at a wide range of expenses. It’s been level for a while. Historically, we used to be more involved with making these individual decisions, and we decided 10-15 years ago to form the committee to does the legwork of allocating funds and making decisions about levels if funding. The committee can speak to individual decisions. The Selectboard asked why the number was $152k, and it was working off last year’s number. We asked the committee to come in with a lower number – around $130k this year. (Includes two other figures – CRT and Climate) They came down from $130k to $110k. There was a question about the role of the municipal government funding individual human services. I’d note that 20% of the grand list is tax-exempt. 16.8% is tax-exempt by state, and the rest by other means. $140 million – 20% don’t pay tax. We are already supporting the work of tax exempt organization to the tune of 20% of our grand list. The 80% remaining pay that much more in property taxes. I don’t want to be hard hearted, This budget is important. But you should be aware that you are paying for human services twice. We have not decided about next year. It may not be a one-time drop in funding. That’s the committee language.
Russell – is Turning Point still in operation and where?
Tad Montgomery – There are renovating a house on Elm and Flat Street.
Tom Finnell – Moving sometime in July from Putney Rd.
Kathy Urffer – The committee listed the groups with exemptions. Of the 32, only 9 have tax exemptions.
Wilmerding – The board says these organizations already get exemptions. We have this in the budget because we have services we need to have done. It’s out way of modest support. We wouldn’t have such budget pressure if we had better bond planning. We need to have funding for important work like this.
Pal Borofsky – Subsidized housing – the state gives 20% reduction for life, so homes are upgraded, but there should be a limitation to the reduction. There should be terms for subsidized housing.
Crispe – Nothing specific to your point. Not germane.
Adopted.
Article 14 - Ag Fund Repurposing
ARTICLE 14: To see if the Town will approve the repurposing of the funds from the Agricultural Land Protection Fund to establish an Energy Efficiency Fund with the principal amount of $50,000 and to appropriate the remainder in the fund, being the accrued interest in the agricultural protection fund, to reduce the fiscal year 2015 tax levy.
This seemed like a good idea to most at the Selectboard meeting, let’s see how it goes at RTM.
Schoales – Amends to $45,000. Drops the second half of the article. ” To see if the Town will approve the repurposing of the funds from the Agricultural Land Protection Fund to establish an Energy Efficiency Fund with the principal amount of $45,000.”
Orion Barber – Not against this, but why?
Schoales – an energy efficiency fund and farming fund are both important. Farmers told us there are many ways for them to borrow, but young farmers want this fund in place. The Ag committee voted to keep the money, and the Conservation Committee agreed. I’d like to maintain those funds.
Charlie Robb – I said there were many places today for funding. I thank Brattleboro for helping farmers all these years, keeping the land open. I appreciate it. This is a way to take $45 for energy efficiency and keep the other $50k for young farmers if they need it. (Applause)
Steve Phillips – I agree. Once you lose Ag land it doesn’t come back. We have a long future in front of us. Let’s take the long view. I’d rather see money to an energy fund to reduce taxes, so I’ll vote against this. There are plenty of energy companies borrow money and go bankrupt. I may stand to move to amend.
Jean Kiewell – Purpose of energy fund?
Gartenstein – Energy audits and improvements of town buildings. Not a revolving loan fund. Other funds exist for that. The PACE loan documents were full of holes, so we haven’t signed on yet, but this is for town buildings.
Gartenstein – I was at town meeting in 1986 when the fund was established. We live in a very different era. Information moves more quickly. Preservation of agricultural land is important. There is more funding now for preserving farmland, more awareness. We support this area in more than one way. It can’t be viewed in isolation. There is an exemption for farm activities, so we entered into tax exempt agreements with town farms, so you are supporting this important activity in two ways. Last year, you asked that we be aware of the tax impact of what we we are doing, and we’ve looked for ways to be fiscally responsible to do the work that needs to be done with the lowest tax rates we can. This fund hasn’t been used in 15 years, and only two loans in 30 years. Should it be for tax relief and energy efficiency now?
Eli Gould – this is a confusing motion. Near and dear to my heart. It may not have been used much, but it was valuable to have it there. It’s been paid back 100%. There is merit to leaving some for future generations of farmers. The confusion is with property taxes and energy efficiency. I’m in the energy efficiency field – we don’t need a private efficiency fund yet. There are good options out there. A credit union will help private people upgrade. Energy audits provide value. Do we need a separate fund or reduce taxes? It’s questionable.
Crispe – the question is on the Schoales amendment, to lower it to $45k (and have no tax relief.)
Ralph Meima – member of energy committee. What’s difficult about the article is that unrelated issues are bundled together. The merits of an energy efficiency fund; another is the reduction of the agriculture fund. The energy committee is in favor of establishing an efficiency fund. It would strictly be for investing of energy audits of municipal property – no private structure. It would lead to improvements of municipal buildings. We are a long way from investments in energy provide quick return on investment. We’ve struggled with looking for limited funds to do an energy audit for the Municiapl, Building. A dedicated fund would be fiscally responsible.
Caitlin Burlett from Ag committee – as a young farmer, I could use this in the future. The fund helps protect farmers and open space. It’s been used for bridge financing. It’s been paid back on time, and worth double from when it was created. Some see this as an easy tax fix. The town plan requires viability of agriculture. We value the protection of ag land. This fund supports these values. The need for the fund has grown over the years. Land is expensive, an aging population, and redevelopment may be likely. We know of one farm restoration that would like to use this fund.
Lynn Russell – I’m opposed to moving any money from the ag protection fund. As for energy efficiency, we were told that we already know the town building needs insulation. This asks for money for an audit to tell us that. Why not take care of what we know exists. Global warming is a grave threat, and we all need to reduce our carbon footprint by 80%. Increasing insulation and sealing air leaks is the first thing to address. As the economy continues to decline, we’ll need farmland to produce our own food. We won’t be able to import it from far away.
Billie Starke – I’m confused. The energy efficient fund – I can’t support more audits. Just do it. Is the Climate Protection Group doing those audits? If they are doing it already…
Paul Cameron – There was a project with Honeywell completed in 2008, primarily with lighting and heating, but not windows or insulation. That’s why we need energy audits in municipal buildings – to look for further savings to reduce town costs.
Mary Ellen Bixby – mystified by the language. We’re in favor of all these things. The fund has been used twice in 30 years, and intermittently. Maybe we ask how the fund be more widely disseminated?
John Wilmerding – are we debating the amendment?
Crispe – the amendment to $45k. A two step process.
Michael Bosworth – the Finance Committee is in favor of an energy efficiency fund – to save money down the road.
Peter Yost – hard to discuss the amendment. I don’t like deciding between these two. It seems like expediency to combine the ag and energy issues.
Fagelson -There are more farms in Brattleboro than others. Robbing from Peter to pay Paul does no good. Want energy efficiency? Tear down the Municipal Center and build a new one. You can put money into it forever.
Betsy Gentile – there is a new localvore movement, new farms are coming. We need to think of the new movement and young farmers. I am in favor of the amendment.
Paula Melton – You can;t just spray insulation unless you knw where they are. That’s what an audit os for.
Elizabeth McCloughlin – Not complicated. I support it.
Judy Davidson – This leaves money in the fund for new loans. I support the amendment. Can we use some of the leftover audit money for improvements?
Schoales – I’d hope there would be money left over. The Ag fund has about $95. The amendment takes the interest and leaves $50k.
Tad Montgomery – on Energy Committee. We don’t have auditors in our area to do specialized energy audits of municipal buildings. They’d be used to create budgets, costs, benefit for work. To do repairs without audits is like surgery without a diagnosis.
Daims – I call the question on the amendment. Approved.
Crispe – the question is the amendment to repurpose lands from ag protection fund… it is approved. Now the amended motion.
Fagelson – I move the question.
It’s close, but they cease debate.
Wilmerding – we’re repurposing some of the funds…
Melton – and we’re not taking the principal, just the interest
Peter Abel – I’m not sure what I’m voting on. You didn’t read the part about reducing taxes.
Crispe – that was removed as part of the Schoales amendment.
Abel – I din’t undertand that.
Fagelson – 45k is going to energy efficiency, the rest will stay in the ag fund. Am I correct?
Crispe – Yes. You’ve voted to cease debate. Everybody clear?
Mollie Burke. I want to be very clear. We amended it to take away the deferring of taxes?
Crispe – Yes. To repurpose part of the ag funds for energy efficiency fund?
The amended motion is adopted as amended.
They are taking a 15 minute recess.
Some Background on RTM in Brattleboro
A reminder, we have a story about the beginnings of Representative Town Meeting, and why Brattleboro does it each year, and a bit about the time it was repealed. Good for reading on the breaks if you need som background.
understood
I saw your lead-up articles but personal commitments, amongst other circumstances, prevented me from following through.
I fully accept that what seems to me at this time dismissive may be, with more knowledge, simply efficient.
Article 15 - Elm Street Bridge Repairs
ARTICLE 15: To see if the Town will appropriate up to $92,371.09 from the Unassigned Fund Balance as of June 30, 2013 to defray the costs associated with repairs to Elm Street and Elm Street Bridge due to the severe thunderstorm of September 11, 2013.
And we’re back after a break. Everyone is warned to watch the time, and speak clearly into the microphones.
John Wilmerding – as a member of the Finance Committee – we recommended a year and a half ago. We recommended a policy of keeping 10% in reserve. The Selectboard declined to make it a policy, but would use it as a guideline. Can the treasurer tell us if well go below 10&
John O’Connor – no, the unassigned fund balance is at about 13%. It’ll bring it down a bit, but not below 10%.
The motion is approved.
Article 16 - Radio Communication Equipment Relocation
ARTICLE 16: To see if the Town will vote to appropriate up to $57,500 from the Unassigned Fund Balance as of June 30, 2013 to defray the costs associated with relocation of radio communications equipment off of Wantastiquet Mountain.
It passes. No discussion.
Article 17 - Skating Rink Repair Unspent Funds
ARTICLE 17: To see if the Town will vote to transfer $310,540 from the capital fund to the general fund (being the unspent funds allocated to repairs at the Nelson Withington Skating Rink).
No discussion. It passes.
Article 18 - Reducing Taxes with Unassigned Funds
ARTICLE 18: To see if the Town will appropriate the sum of $200,000 from the Unassigned Fund Balance as of June 30, 2013 to reduce the tax levy for FY2015.
John Allen – It’s self explanatory. We’re trying to make it affordable for people to live in town. Taxpayers have paid into the unassigned balance. Last year we found $765k for the same thing. This is basically the same thing. We try to keep 10% in the unassigned fund balance, but it is just a guideline. This won’t adversely impact the found. The burden is on taxpayers and department heads.
Peter Yost – I wonder If the non passage of the ag fund for taxes has any impact on the Selectboard’s support of this? Does not getting that money have an impact on your support?
David Schoales – I’m not sure we all support it.
Gartenstein – It should be clear that there isn’t unanimity on the board about this. We’ll be facing significant costs in coming years. We won’t have money left over like previous years, and bond payments for Police and Fire will hit their peak in the next two years, so I’m opposed to taking it out this year for tax. It doesn’t relate to the ag fund money.
Tom Franks – thanks for the Finance Committee . This report is very helpful. They recommend on page 4 to not support this article. I’m opposed to paying things in the future. Many profits come from shifting costs. It’s externalization, in economic terms. $200k? If we didn’t have the reserve fund when Irene hit, we’d have had to wait. There is more pain coming. We’ll regret reducing our fund balance. In uncertain times, I don’t like cutting down our options.
Paula Melton – What percentage would be left if this passes?
John O’Connor – This will bring it below the 10%. We’d come in around 9% of our expenditures.
Don Webster – I’m not sure this is a bad idea. I don’t know where the sweet spot is between reducing taxes and being prepared. We’d borrow at low rates for a future Irene. To reduce the surplus is a sweeter spot than where it is.
Wilmerding – The Finance Committee suggested a policy of 10%. The RTM could establish the policy. We can put a policy in place by our actions by not doing this. 10% is a modest amount to keep in reserve. Many try to keep 20%.
Orion Barber – With all these articles with unassigned fund balance, they are whistling by. I need clarification of the sum we’re talking about 10% of. Proposed expenditures? What we voted last year? What’s the point in time?
John O’Connor – 12% was last year’s actual results. $1.7 in unassigned fund balance.
Barber – I’m against this.
Steve Phillips – I move to increase this to $245,000. This may not be a winning amendment, but we lost an opportunity to defray taxes on the Ag article. I’d like to put the $45 back in. Our taxes are too high. I’d rather see this money back into the pockets of the taxpayers. There is no requirement for a reserve fund. It’s going to get worse. In future years I hope we do the same thing.
Chuck Cummings – What bearing below the 10% will that have on our ability to bond?
John O’Connor – No impact. Bond banks recommend 10%, but they probably wouldn’t prohibit us from bonding.
Cummings – Is it fair to say you are prejudiced?
Crispe reads the amendment to increase to $245k. A handful is in favor. The amendment fails.
Hyam Siegel – What’s the impact on taxes?
O’Connor – about a two cent impact on the tax rate. From 1.1389, the current rate.
Andy Davis – If we have about $1.7 million, we’ve talked of taking out $150k in two previous articles, this would bring it to $350k if we pass this. The budget is going up, so the 10% has to keep growing. If we base the percentage on the current budget ($16.2 million), if we spend this, we’re at 8.3%. It’s not a little below.
Bob Tortolani – I’m in favor. I visited 20 households in my neighborhood. They want to give opinions to their representatives. people want help now, even if things will get worse.
Arlene Distler – Can we look at this after the next article? There’s a big elephant in the room.
Crispe – we’ve already taken this motion up.
John Allen – We haven’t discussed that each year we have a surplus. I’m hoping we’ll end up with a surplus at the end of the year. We have a bit of time, and maybe some surplus can go back into the unassigned fund balance. I asked for $300k originally, but we considered it down to $200k. It’s a good amount and a good time to do it.
Spoon Agave – How do we know how much we should have in savings? There aren’t many who know in here, but the municipal managers association recommends 10%, based on examination of municipalities all over the country. It seems like a lot. We had something close to that in 2004, we defrayed taxes, then we needed a loan to meet payroll after a check bounced. An internal disaster. Money can disappear very fast. There are needs for it. We are so desperate that we need to maintain the reserves.
Ronnie Johnson – Could we add personal context. If we put it to defray taxes, how much would it save a taxpayer? Is this the different between losing a home? On a $200k home, what would this mean?
O’Connor – about $40 savings a year for a $200k home.
Alex Muller – seems unwise to reduce unassigned funds. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
David Cadran – calls the question.
Debate is ceased.
Taking $200k from the unassigned balance for tax relief is defeated.
…..
Daims – I think we all want an informed debate. I move we suspend rules and look at the local option tax before the budget. It passes.
The town attorney makes
The town attorney makes $100,000?
That caught my eye
In 2014, a low six-digit part-time attorney is a steal
and presumably he has “institutional knowledge” given his tenure.
However, he presided over the 250K settlement with former Chief Clark (the last fallout over the Taser incident, which was before my time here). Last contact I had with Kenneth Clark, he was gainfully employed within the Windham County Sheriff’s Department and doing a better-than-better-than-average job. I’m not sure if the settlement reflects poorly, neutrally or well on the Town’s Attorney.
My concern, as I stated elsewhere in this thread/blog, is the seemingly-instantaneous and certainly deliberation-free action taken right up front as soon as the quorum was announced. While I have no idea if I’m aiming at the right target, it’s the “as so it is” part done so quickly that concerns me, having seen several different “democracies” in several different nations be implemented in so many different ways.
Article 21 - Local Option Tax
ARTICLE 21: To see if the Town will assess a one percent (1%) local option sales tax in accordance with 24 V.S.A. Section 138.
They suspended the rules and took things out of order.
Is there discussion? Crispe asks. Ha! says the room.
Pal Borofsky – lived and worked here all my life. I run Sam’s. We’ve discussed this before. I hate to push for self-survival. We have the Brooks House being rebuilt, looking to rebuild 12 businesses. When Home Depot came, they planned to kick out businesses, and a restaurant had to move. They moved to Keene, and we have retail space available. They have 6% sales tax in NH. Others have moved. Business creates business. We lose taxable housing, we lose careers. This has an effect on local hardware stores. There is growth in Hinsdale. Look at brands of cars in Keene. We have 7 in Brattleboro. Keene has at least 17. Tax has climbed from 3 to 6% in the state. One percent more. We have to send some of that to the state. It’s a very big deal. Erosion of business on the east side of the state is very evident. Look at the growth on the other side of the river. In self defense we closed in Bellows Falls and opened in Hadley. We get 3x the sales volume. We receive half of our volume in Keene. The other stores steal from our Brattleboro store. It’s expensive to operate. 17-1 boat sales in Keene over Brattleboro. We have a major concern that our business partners in Brattleboro will face trouble. There is little time, people are working more, shopping requires a reason to spend valuable time. Brattleboro has narrower and narrower selection. We have employees commuting great distance. People will travel to Keene for 1% savings. I support the Police and Fire project. When we took the sales tax off footwear, it helped. I can see why Selectboard likes the local option tax. It sounds viable to raise money. We built the high school without the option tax. It is a disaster for this town. It may take 5-6 years for the decay. It will come about. Another big nail in the coffin. The Reformer editorial knows as much about shopping as running a paper. The reason the businesses are in Keene is because of adding sales taxes. The financial risk to staying in Brattleboro is high for Sam’s. Town Finance Report is well done.
Crispe – I am going to ask that people speak for two minutes.
Lynn Russell – A UVM professor, Art Wolfe, has studied economic impact along Connecticut River comparing VT and NH. Before 1969, commerce was equal. Once sales tax came in, sales dropped in this area. As it goes up, Vermont’s commerce suffers. By 40%, by his estimates. It’s emotional. I’m opposed to the 1% based on research and evidence. Clear by the numbers, not our wishes. Sales tax in Vermont is hurting Vermont businesses. These aren’t the only options for meeting community needs. We need to explore other options. The way we’re headed, we’re not doing our best to ensure the livelihood of Brattleboro for a sustainable future. I see the Selectboard has advertised for a Town manager at a rate we have not approved. There are people in the room who could do the job.
Andy Davis – I voted against it at the special meeting, even though the number is nice. It’s ironic that rivers used to be the channel of economic development, and the railroad was an engine, and now we have an interstate highway. It’s ironic that 91 is a way to get from economic development in Walpole, Chestefield… I applaud the Selectboard going to Montpelier. This is not the solution. The five counties abutting the river really ought to get 1% of the 6% of sales tax. We wouldn’t increase it. It would apply to economic hub towns. Merchants downtown and people say taxes add up for higher priced items – they go shopping elsewhere and use the difference for dinner.
Rebeccas Ballnt – Other communities have the 1%, but we’re the only one along the river. A big difference. When I look at what’s exempt or not exempt, the state list is the list?
Patrick Moreland – we have a handout with what’s covered and not covered, exemptions for medications, fuel, motor vehicles, farm equipment, home heating, and so on.
Rebecca – many of us don’t have the handout. It doesn’t align with the VT Dept of taxes.
George Harvey – One thing to think about is taxes can lead to a negative feedback. As you think you increase income, you are actually decreasing the tax base, which leads to less money. It’s a real problem. We have too much tax already – property or sales, we can shift it back and forth. We have too much. We have services we expect. We need to look at other mechanisms for raising money beside taxes. We can make money other ways. Every year, $24 million leaves our community for pay for electricity. If we had local electric production, we could raise and keep the money, using renewable fuel. We’d need to hire people. It would increase revenues and decrease our electric costs. We can come up with a variety of different approaches. We can do the same thing with heat. I’m going to ask we form committees to start on this. I’m against the 1%, but hope we can reduce property tax by doing things that reduce other costs. Let’s keep the $24 million in our economy.
Eli Gould – It’s important to make some arguments in favor of the tax. My retail community knows I’m a local shopper, but we need to consider this local option tax. We’re in a position now to pay for major mandates, and we need to look at all sources of funding. Business isn’t only retail. We’re letting the town get used more than what we raise fund for. We should look at many other use taxes. Sensitivity to property tax is spreading – in lending and construction. My construction crew will survive, but in outlying towns. If we’re taking on all the spending requirements, we have to look at recouping that, and rally together as a community. The retail community can mend fences. There is loyalty to shopping in town. We’re lucky for what we have. We’ll work on a voluntary program to raise funds, too. Let’s do this tax. We made choices that require we pay for them.
Peter Fallion – I’ve spoken to people in my neighborhood and surrounding streets about this issue. It’s difficult. I say do no harm. I’m referencing a medical prescription. I don’t see how the 1% will help us in the long run. We need a new paradigm. We can’t fund things the way we did before. We had big companies before, and now a problem with the Grand List. We can’t fund government with revenue from property owners. We have to see new ways. I applaud the Selectboard going to Montpelier. We can’t solve this alone. We need to work with delegation and leadership to alert the rest of the state that the eastern side of the Greens are hurting, and will continue to hurt, until there is a model that works for a sustainable future. I’m against the 1%. The conversation in Montpelier is just a start to a bigger conversation, to see if we can look at issues of trade disparities between VT and NH. We’re in a unique position, serving many communities in the area. Use this year to study this issue from a number of points of view.
Lissa Weinmann – Brattleboro plays a unique role for Vermont. The sole host of a great deal of radiological waste that will be here for the next 50 years. Vernon got tax breaks for hosting the plant for so long. We have a unique role – the Selectboad should emphasize that we host the significant radiological waste, and our Fire and Police are important because of it. While we look to increase the Grand List, we could get relief from the rest of the state or federal employees.
Beth Hiner – Is the 1% tax permanent?
Robert Fisher – there is no sunset provision, but it can be repealed at another meeting. We can do the tax. We meet the requirements. (In answer to questions raised at the informational meeting on another day.)
Tad Montgomery – Residents in Vermont are liable for sales tax if they purchase in NH?
John O’Connor – yes, You are required to report that as use tax.
Montgomery – maybe there is an enforcement issue. Cheney, aid to Welch, working on Marketplace Fairness Act. They want to help states collect sales tax on internet sales. Welch is a lead. He says Main Street can compete with online sales. He’s hopeful something will happen in the future. We need to tax things are bad, and not tax things that are not bad. Fuel, tobacco, and gambling should be taxed.
Mollie Burke – Selectboard in Montpelier – we met with the board and see that outlying towns pay a fraction of the taxes. We’re working on a bill to address it. The board going to Montpelier will help. There is an education tax bill that might reduce homestead taxes, and income sensitivity at certain house values. People are paying attention t high property taxes.
Ben Underhill – As a business person, I’m against it. Financially and perception. 1/3 of the income from this goes to Montpelier. Towns can administer the tax themselves? Has it been looked at?
Patrick Moreland – roughly 1/3 of the tax would be taken by the state, and the town could do its own collection. I think Burlington does it. Haven’t thoroughly investigated doing it.
Tom Franks – calls the question. Debates continues.
Virginia Goodman – Is there a three to five year trial period, then we’d look at the impact?
Fisher – Nope. It’s just enacted, and can be repealed.
Ralph Meima – An anguished discussion. The current economic climate shows tensions between different economic interest in town. Retailers vs property owners paying property taxes. We are not putting the entire 6% sales tax on trial. The state of Vermont made that decision. That’s not the question. What’s the incremental effect. That’s the question here. Some say it would have a possible effect on retail sales. I pay a lot of property taxes but don’t have a retail business. I live on Oak, rent out property and own a rental around the corner. I pay a lot of property tax. Somewhere like $4-500 additional dollars per year if this article is not adopted. That’s a definite outcome of the choice. I’d have less money to spend, and would spend less on groceries and entailment. Increasing property taxes also spreads throughout. All other things being equal, what would the outcome be? We need analysis of the economics. I support the 1% as one of several bad choices. We need to closely monitor and if we have data we can reverse it.
David Schoales – Right, what’s more damaging – higher property taxes or a 1% sales tax. People worry about losing homes. People won’t be able to afford property taxes, the consequences of retail tax is bad, but the property tax is more damaging. If you can’t afford the sales tax you wait to buy. If you can’t afford your property tax, you get fines and could lose your home.
Valerie Stuart – I invite members to a monthly meeting in Montpelier to solve such problems. We had the Retreat and BMH CEO’s talk with us. We had BDCC. We had Stephen Morse and SeVEDS. I invite you to come talk to us. Help us come up with solutions.
Jackie Stromberg – once a tax is enacted, has it ever been repealed?
Frederic Noyse – We cannot sunset this, or it just hasn’t been put in?
Fisher – We cannot sunset it. The mechanism to repeal is in the law, so sunset is not allowed.
Noyse – Police and Fire has sticker shock. It diversifies our income from other sources. People come from places with similar taxes. Glad they keep coming, 35% going to the state seems like a lot. It should come back to benefit us again.
Steve Phillips – I’m against it. Surprised it is back before us, but the issues require it. The issue is high taxes as a result of too much spending (applause). Another layer of tax gives the Selectboard another pass on reducing levels of service and making tough choices. I’d hate to see Brown and Riberts or Sam’s go under, with holes in the downtown. The Wolf report shows it is incremental. A straw breaks the camel’s back. It’s regressive, and based not on wealth or income. It falls disproportionately on those with least ability to pay. It impacts phone, sewer, cable… things that won’t impact people passing through town. We won’t know if we get a benefit from people passing through.
David Cadran – recess for lunch? The motion does not pass. They stay and discuss taxes.
Tortolani – One question is the impact on a homeowner with a $200k home. If it passed, what would the reduction be?
O’Connor – About $120 decrease on taxes for a $200k home.
Everingham – so you’d subtract and change the tax rates. I’d rather not flush 1/43 of our tax money down the drain to the state.
Deb Zak – Acronym is LOST. We have long vacancies with commercial property. Businesses are being squeezed. We searched for businesses – some in town just wanted to move to a newer location. I’ve lived here a long time. Having a thriving downtown is important to me. It makes me feel great. It was bleak not long ago. It’s important to visitors. Business community is still week. Let’s take a year to really explore the local option tax.
Paula Melton – I’m torn. We have a strong indication of what people said when they came out to vote. They asked for us to pass this by a small margin.
Paul Rounds – I see Greg Worden. I’d like to let him speak.
Greg Worden – We’re all in this together. We run businesses, but have property. We pay taxes. The 1% isn’t restricted to downtown. It’s throughout town and whether the entire town thrives. We’ve heard thoughts about other ideas for bringing in visitors and revenue. It’s harder with an extra 1%. We’ve fought for a long time, and NH advertises it. Our best sales are on Sales tax Holidays. NH advertises sales tax holidays 365 days a year. Do we really want to burden Vermont? If this is passed, and the state gets a third, they also take money for tax returns from business. We have additional costs to set up for this, and it makes it harder to repeal.
Orion Barber – We cannot tie this tax to Police Fire. We cannot have a clause to sunset the tax. We’d need a special town meeting to repeal the tax. My impression is that at any time after the tax (assuming it starts in next fiscal year), if we suddenly have clarity and see that it is abad mistake, we can turn on a dime and repeal it? Am I wrong?
Fisher – No sunset. Not tied to any project, straight revenue for any purpose. Repeal can happen by RTM, triggered by Selectboard or petition of 10% of voters. It would require some periods of notice and such. It would go into effect in the quarter following a 90 day notice.
Barber – There is time between warning the meeting and holding it. Just want to be clear on how far the aircraft carrier has to go before it can turn.
Jim Verzino – recent study shows 60-70% spent downtown is by people that live within 3 zip codes of Brattleboro. It will impact locals more than tourists. The only other option is to reduce services – we need to think beyond the town is what it is and will stay that way. We need to mentally change the paradigm and have growth. As we look long term, we need polices that encourage growth.
Nancy Miller – This tax would spread the income over a wider audience. We have a good tourist base. If Rt 9 was fixed…. (laughter). People are loyal to Brattleboro businesses. We’ll always have to deal with New Hampshire. May times we shop downtown.
Hyam Seigel – On the recent advisory vote, how was turnout.
Cappy – 820 voters. The lowest turnout I’ve seen.
Seigel – We need to pay attention, but it probably wasn’t representational of the town opinion. We are choosing between bad choices. Maybe we look for another choice before we accept one of the bad ones. There have been suggestions to raise money. That;s our best approach. It’s a hard one. Look at the Brooks House. They’ve filled it. It’s not impossible. There are ways to bring money into this town other than taxes. An actual study of effects has been referenced – with every incremental tax change, there was a measurable impact on sales. We can also reduce expenses. That’s a difficult one. What must be spent and what could be manipulated? I’m not sure. I’m against the 1% tax and hope we find better ways to increase the economy.
Kathy Urffer – I’m also trying to see how this turns. If it passes today, will the state be administering, or do we have to repeal and repass it to manage things ourselves?
Fisher – as it reads, there’s a per return fee of $5.96, which is split 70-30 between town/state. We haven’t studied doing our own administering of the tax.
Brian Baker – Brown & Roberts manager – this would have a negative impact in the entire downtown. It’s not just the percentage, but the publicity around it makes people more aware of saving money. When sales tax went up 1% in the 90’s it had a big effect. People chose to shop in NH more often. It could have a very negative effect.
Wilmerding – I took econ courses in grad school. The burden of the tax is on the consumer. I buy things in Bratteleboro because I love shopping here. It’s an organize thing we do. I oppose this. I commend the Selectboard for giving us this option. We could do this, but it isn’t the right thing to do and doesn’t address the problem. Maybe we can find more money in other places. There’s 20x as much commerce as what is in retail sales. Over the internet, for one. In the arts, 20% have to do with the arts. And many don’t register, and aren’t being considered in these equations. This doesn’t help the bottom line.
Gartenstein – After lunch, we’ll consider the budget. The Selectboard has carefully reduced expenses. We do about a billion dollars of economic activity in Brattleboro. Our expenses are beyond what services are needed, as many come in to do business. We have four ways to raise revenue. Property, and three local option taxes. There were concerns when the other local option taxes were passed. Things are thriving. The state allows this. It is not a good choice, but if we pass the budget, the rate will rise 8 cents. That’s a lot of money. The education side will increase, too. Spreading the burden to sales tax provides relief to property owners in town.
Arlene Distler – I suggest we add that if it passes, we will look at it in two years.
Crispe – that would be an amendment.
Gartenstein – the Town Atty said we vote up or down, and we cannot include a sunset provision. Any provision seeking to reexamine would be illegal.
Crispe – I think that’s correct.
Distler – Not a sunset. Just more firm statement that we’ll review the effects in two years.
Steve Phillips – My question is, can this body dictate to future bodies what to do?
Fisher – No. We have the mechanism for repeal. Language of looking again will bind a future body. There could be a non-binding resolution to accompany it under other business.
Crispe – It is illegal and out of order?
Fisher – Yes.
Crispe – OK, the proposed amendment is out of order. The original, main motion about assessing a 1% sales tax.
The sales tax is defeated.
Don Webster – major changes in the legislature have changed town meeting and eduction. I’ll have information.
Break for lunch until 2pm.
Yes!
The one issue I truly cared about enough to spam my D3 reps as well as post on this site.
Grotke: I like this blog-esque blow-by-blow, and with warts and all makes it even more visceral and compelling.
Lunch Over
We’ll be starting up again soon, I think. Looks like Reps are still returning.
Coming up soon, a discussion of the budget, and presumably the Police Fire project.
at the beginning of the blog, you offered up 9 articles
but the options tax was Article 21, and it seems unclear how many articles are to be voted on (particularly your comment that The Project is “presumably” upcoming).
Is the number of Articles to be addressed fixed or unfixed at the time of the Meeting’s quorum?
Holland, $100,000 may be
Holland, $100,000 may be considered the “going rate” for attorneys but this town needs to do some serious belt tightening and should have started 10 years ago. I assume that the attorney doesn’t dedicate a 40 hour week to town business therefore that seems like a lot of money to me. It’s quite a bit more than they were paying the town manager for more than a 40 hour week and a job with some very big responsibilities. I wonder what the actual hourly per week is for the attorney that is dedicated to town business.
Just wondering.
Chris, this is great. Looking forward to the police/fire station discussion but I think I’d better go take some blood pressure meds first.
now that I've done a bit of research
$100K/year for a not-quite full-time job seems a tad much, but not excessively so.
A brief survey of “average annual salary for a lawyer in Vermont” gets one a wide range of incomes. The most pertinent factor in a lawyer’s salary is exactly what kind of lawyer are we talking about–patent lawyers appear to make far more than other types. However, the numbers I believe are that trial lawyers in this state make on average about $112K, and the average lawyer in Rutland makes nearly $80K a year.
The town attorney is, at heart, a trial attorney; his main responsibilities are to ensure that the town does nothing stupid enough to warrant being sued, at to (a certain degree) ensure that the Selectboard is properly informed, and so forth. It’s not so much the hours a week he puts in but the understanding of the highly-exceptional rules of the road that are the Laws of the Town as well as the Laws of the State. It’s not transferable knowledge, and it’s difficult to estimate what amount of time is required to be able to do the job satisfactorily. (If he does screw up big time, it is possible to sue–and win–for malpractice, I’ve actually seen it happen.)
Yes the town needs belt-tightening. If we tried to knock the attorney’s wage to under six digits, it’s unlikely we will find quality candidates and highly questionable that we will find candidates at all. Looking at the issue that 64 candidates narrowed down to 2 then both rejected for the position of TM, this is not the fight to pick IMO.
(I was displeased that, during the discussion of the Police/Fire Project, he had to correct himself regarding the petition process, particularly as it appears from the transcript that he skips over what the petition could or could not do. If he’s correct and that 10% of registered voters must sign within ten days, and only 11% cast ballots last election, there’s no way petitioning has any way of becoming a useful tool of the people. I would like that aspect triple-checked, because the Bush/Cheney Arrest Warrant didn’t require that many signatures, though it surely drove people to the polls as nearly 4000 people voted on it.)
Article 19 - Le Budget - Police and Fire
Recall that they took the 1% tax discussion out of order at the suggestion of Mr. Daims. They now return, at 2:11 pm, to take up:
ARTICLE 19: To see how much money the Town will raise, appropriate and expend to defray its expenses and liabilities.
Crispe – We’re anxious to get started, but want to introduce Senator Peter Galbraith. On to Article 19.
Gartenstein – The 2014-2015 budget is $16,686,025. Taxes will be due, etc….
Gartenstein – A brief overview. This $16 million budget consist to a large extent of payroll expenses. The total direct wages is $8 million, and benefits brings it to 84% of our expenses. There are associated expenses – risk management, debt payment, recycling, busses, lights, rescue, capital spending, the DID. It took 3 months to go over the line times in great detail, making cuts where possible. Same services as last year.
Spoon Agave – Chair of Finance Committee – I’m not speaking as the Chair. We did not rediscuss this issues at hand. As far as the budget itself goes, we aren’t quibbling with any line items. The board di all it could to keep line times low. Personally I make a motion to amend to reduce the budget by $600,000. I make this motion because the tax burden as it will be for Police and Fire Project is too high for right now, and I’d like to stop the project where it is and reassess. Get the public more involved in what we want. To provide ourselves with the facilities one piece at a time as we deem them affordable. There’s nothing in those projects that are absolutely necessary though many things are very helpful. (some applause).
David Schoales – which things in the project aren’t necessary.
Agave – I would not attempt that personally. I could expound. That’s not my point. Everything I’ve heard is that the citizens would like to have input on that project rather than it presented with one choice, take it or leave it. There are many more choices that can be made. I won’t presume to make them for people here.
Crispe – Agave has the right to do this. Under our tradition, he cannot earmark that to a particular line time. The Selectboard decides where the cut would occur. Mr Fisher…?
Fisher – Just so you know the effect of the amendment. Bonds have been issued to the tune of $5 million. We haven’t spent it, but we’ve taken it out. It means that debt service is due on those bonds. That needs to be paid regardless of reducing the budget. By statute, about bonds. You need to pay it. No Vermont town has yet defaulted on municipal bonds. That’s a good thing. If the budget is lowered, the Selectboard still needs to pay the payment. Wherelese they’d need to cut would be a policy decision for the Selectboard to make.
Judy Davidson – can I make a friendly amendment to Spoon’s amount?
Crispe – Yes. A primary and secondary amendment are allowed.
Judy Davidson – By the amount budgeted for tentative cost of the bond to be taken out this year. We haven’t bonded that 9 million yet. We need to slow this project down. It’s too expensive to do it all at one time. Reducing by $260k ($261,473) or so would send a message to the Selectboard. We don’t want the town to purchase a new $9 million bond. We can slow down, watch the economy. I voted for this project a year and a ha;f ago, but the town can’t afford them in one lump sum.
Wilmerding – Mr. Agave must agree to a friendly amendment.
Crispe – this is a motion to amend his motion, a secondary amendment.
Bob Bady – I’ve spoken to many. The discussion of the 1% brought home the pain of the rats on the sinking ship. We don’t want to hurt business or pay more taxes. I voted for the Police and Fire Facilities, but we really do need to slow it down. My understanding is to recognize that we’ve bonded $5 million, but don’t want to bond for the $9 million. I trust that the Selectboard would get our message.
Fisher – With respect to the amendment to the amendment, it’s not binding on the Selectboard as to where they make the cuts, so if the budget were amended down by $261k, the anticipated debt service on the $9 million, there is a public necessity for the project stated by the Selectboard. If they wanted to slow the Police Fire project, they’d want a special town meeting to rescind the remaining bond vote of a year and a half ago. You can’t do that because a reconsideration period has long passed. The Selectboard can do it. Just to be clear, if you reduce it, it doesn’t bind the Selectboard on it.
Corwin Elwell – I’m concerned where we are going. We just saw what happened in Rockingham where the contractor went bust. I see us going down the same road. There are some contracts that would be rescinded if the Selectmen decide not to go ahead. I feel the pain like everyone else, but I caution you. How costly would this be?
Patrick Moreland – We have a contract with the project manager, architects to design the facilities, and a construction firm to work with them. The other point, the reasons for this project – the challenges of the working conditions for the Police and Fire are no better than they were two years ago. It will only add to the cost if we delay.
Edward Wright – It’s time to pay the piper. We put the Police in the old High School, we built a small Fire facility. The firefighters put their lives on the line for their job. It’s time to take action on these things.
Moreland – There is an additional contract – Purchase and Sale for the building next to Central Fire.
George Reed Savory – I have to vote in favor of the Davidson amendment. The people I’ve talked to are practically demanding it. I’ve talked to many throughout my neighborhood. Of 19 homes, 18 were very dissatisfied. One was in favor. People say all sorts of things, but people want to stay here. They don’t want to move. They ask what they are going to do? Cut their needs so we can have nice police and fire stations. The concern is that many things are needed, but things that aren’t needed. The people I’ve talked to – the $5 million could do what is needed. It’s not fair to take away from the basic needs of citizens to provide for police and fire things they’d like to have. We have to define where the money is coming from, and can the community afford it. We need to know how much the community can afford.
Peter Abel – Question – we gave permission tot eh Selectboard – does it require them to issue them, or just allow them if needed?
Fisher – The authority given was to take out bonds up to the $14 million amount. A not to exceed number. It can cost less. It authorized the public improvements at three locations. The Selectboard issued $5 million. They made a resolution of public necessity. This body has said we want this project to be built. There is the ability to rescind a bond vote if you have not made contractual obligation on those bonds. Can’t rescind the $5 million. The board could rescind the remaining bonds, maybe, but it may be that contractual obligations are recognized. You have to go through the proper procedures. You need to warn a meeting about rescinding.
Chuck Cummings – I think we may be confused by the terminology of town counsel about contractual relationships. I gather that Town Counsel spoke of contractual relationships of bonds that have been issued. The most important bit was mentioned by Mr. Elwell. If we’ve made bound contractual obligations to pay someone from the bonds, we have no other obligation but to continue to fund and back what we voted for before. WE must not reduce what we previously voted. If there are contractual relationships, we’ll spend more money for lawyers, and Lord knows they are not cheap. If the Lord doesn’t know it, I know it. I haven’t heard an adequate response.
Gartenstein – At the special representative meeting in Oct 2012, {fewer than 100} reps voted for a capital improvement project up to $14 million, and issue bonds. It passed 99-44, a margin of 3-1 in favor of doing the improvements. In March 2013at RTM, a similar discussion arose and a motion was made to cut interest payment on the bond. That was defeated 74-44. Waning level of support, about 2-1. Based on these, the Selectboard has moved forward with plans to do the projects. We’ve hired people and are buying property. We’re 60% through final design of documents. Finalization is coming, and next step is approval of construction plans and putting it out to bid. Based on your direction to renovate the facilities, we’ve taken those steps. A citizen’s committee has looked at Department needs for the long term, ahead 50 years. I can’t say what would happen if the money comes out of the budget.. It would be a complete reversal of two different votes. I don’t know how we’ll respond. We’ll go back and figure out how to proceed. Town meeting makes these decisions. You told us to do that work. If you change your mind, I don’t know how we’d react, but it would be our responsibility.
Walter Slowinsky – Last year, there was a sense that we’d like the board to look at this project creatively, taking into account financial concerns.
Gartenstein – the Citizen’s committee – we had people with all sorts of points of view, working with project manager and department heads to make sure it met town needs and was as cost-effective as possible. The Selectboard has reviewed plans and held public meetings. It’s been designed in the cheapest way possible to serve our purposes for the next generation or two.
Steve Phillips – I was one who questioned if we could afford this. I spoke and voted against it. I was appointed to the committee. Hard working, with help from Moreland and the Chiefs. We’re on track to reduce the scope and dollars. We’ll need to go out to bid to be sure. We may have saved $400,000. We’ll have better facilities for our police and fire. We trimmed many of the frills. Chiefs helped find ways to save costs. We have generous contingencies that may yield more savings. I still question our ability to pay for it, but I don’t question the need for safe work environments. It’ll be a mess if the Selectboard tanks the project. The amendment only speaks to dollars. It isn’t the end of the world if the board must cut more from the budget. We may find ways to save more. I hope we continue forward and try to save as much as we can.
Kurt Daims – Gartenstein left out a detail of the meeting. At the end, there was a resolution to reduce the costs of the project. It was passed by a vociferous voice vote. Mr. Phillips made the motion. The trend is that we supported by 3-1. then 2-1, then 1-0. There was a call for a reduction of costs. The public does not favor this project. The board put a public vote up about the option tax, but didn’t allow to vote about the project. In was an inappropriate use of seectboard power. It needs a public vote.
Jim Verzino – What the cost of delay?
Fisher – I can’t give a figure of risk assessment. The town has committed to certain contracts. If there is a reversal, there are contractual obligations.
Verzino – the only choice is that we reduce the budget.
Moreland – The contract with the art is $810k, the purchase and sale is $290k, DEW $20k plus the balance. We’re limited in our liability. By not doing improvements, you will continue to have Police and Fire working in unsafe and unhealthy conditions. Worth reflecting on for a moment. AS for reducing the costs, the oversight committee has made good decisions.
Daims says something off mic.
Crispe – Your comment is well taken. Moreland can have latitude to speak to this issue.
Moreland – the committee has done a tremendous job of looking for ways to retain components that are essential while saving the town hundreds of thousands.
Dora Bouboulis – To follow up on Daims – 10,500 residents never got to weigh in on this project at the front end. No vote. Bo public input on the front end. What I hear is people are concerned about the expense of this project. The town is becoming unaffordable. Even if we don’t do this we have high taxes in a highly taxed state. It doesn’t help with economic development. I’m hearing that people want to slow down and admit a mistake was made, cut your losses, slow done, do it in bits and pieces, let’s look for alternative ways to pay for this rather than all at once. I hop people support Judy’s amendment. I know the committee has cut costs, but it is very expensive.
Fisher – With respect to the voters… by your Charter, all issues of bonding go to Representative Town Meeting. To say there wasn’t a public process, there were meetings, tours.. there was a process and it was voted on as it should be as in the Charter.
Paul Rounds – We’re in it for a million if we jump out. The safety and health of the workers would add more of a cost and obligation than what we have. The committee has done a great job to cut costs. If we weigh everything equally, we’ll save on health costs. To go forward now will cost less. Vote the amendment down and keep the budget as it is to support the police and fire.
George ? – We’ve been told we can’t stop this. I voted against it because it was so expensive. We’ve talked to an hour. We can’t stop it today.WE should approve the budget and go home to watch basketball.
Sarah Page – I heard that Dora say was than non-reps at the meeting didn’t get to vote on this, and as I rep, I’m hearing concerns about the costs. Is there a way to do this in pieces, or does it need to be all at once? Some of what we’ve paid for already can still be used. We just adjust our approach.
Gartenstein – the information we’ve received is that doing the work together saves us money, but I don’t have the exact figures.
Pal Borosfsky – we’ve already obligated money, and a bond issue. A million and a half. You’ll add 6-8% by waiting another year or two. $300k to postpone the project. Building it later on will be worse. We should have built it 10 years ago. I’d cut services rather than cut the bond.
Bob Rueter – Maybe we can cut other stuff out and get to 80% of what’s proposed.
Wilmerding – A procedural objection to speaking to Police Fire project on a budget issue.
Crispe – we’re granting latitude. This is on the minds of the people. The chair allows the debate to continue. The motion is to reduce the budget by a fixed sum of money, without regard to specific line items.
Wilmerding – I’m against both amendments. On the Finance Committee and as Town Rep, I’ve seen this drama unfold. We saw the estimates drop from over $20 million. Barb Sondag was good. I’ve seen the work that’s been done, and toured the facilities. We’ve seen some reductions in cost. We wanted to see big reductions. We formed a committee. Are all possible savings being realized?
Eli Gould – I have mixed feelings. I joined in reaction to an unfunded mandate to do such a big project. I respect and know the staff and how much it makes sense to do this now. From staffing and financing points of views. I hear that doing it all at once is to much, though. Bold changes were hard because the $14 million was on the table. Changing the scope was hard, too – we were told others had done this work before. We didn’t have leeway to tackle that. WE do have contractual obligations, but they may be phased in such a way we may not be obligated through the full project yet.
Prudence McKinney – also of committee – we worked hard to reduce costs and accomplish the projects. Construction projects are tricky. You can’t just carve out pieces. They are basic buildings for complex functions. The scope of the projects – we hope we have good luck and save money. If we want adequate facilities, we’re going to have to spend the money. Doing it in part will cost more in total. We’re in a tough situation. We need to go forward, and give taxpayers the most value.
Hyam Siegel – I haven’t heard anyone talk about phasing this project so we can take on expenses more gradually over time. If there’s no plan, there aren’t options for us. This might have cost more five years ago. Interest rates were higher, and unemployment was lower. We don’t know what the future is and can’t speak with certainty, though there is a tendency for things to go up in price. There seems to be a threat, indication, that if we don’t reduce the budget, the Selectboard will not follow what we ask them to and might cut services, so we are taking a risk by adopting the amendment amendment. I’m coming down on the side of adopting the article unless there is another way.
John Allen – No one knows what will happen. We have to wait to find out what this body does. We don’t know how we’ll react if you reduce the budget. No where have we said we know what we’d do without the money. When you phase a project through the years, it costs more. Doing it quickly makes the most monetary sense.
David Schoales – I asked about phasing early on. I think doing it at once is better. I took the Police and Fire tours, and sat through meetings. There were questioning all basic assumptions. What we have proposed is what we need.
Bob Bady – I’m impressed with the debate that’s going on. People have worked on this project for a long time, with approval, and are probably pissed at this curveball. I supported this, and I don’t anymore. There is a wave coming from this town. You can talk about interest rates and such, there is a public opinion in this town. We’re servants of the people and must honor that. Sometimes you can’t get any more water from the stone.
Peter Fallion – One thing I haven’t is what is the expected cost of energy going 10-15-20 years out? Any cost benefit of wood pellet, vs gas, vs oil, vs spending more for solar up front and a return later. If we are building a building for 50 years, what will the state of energy be like. Fossil fuels will not be in the picture. I hear the building can adapt to renewable resources. Is this what you are discussing?
Moreland – yes, the pros and cons of different heating and ventilation systems have been discussed and studied. No universal opinion about any system. It’s still a topic of discussion.
David Schoales – a week or so ago the energy committee gave the architect data on systems.
Steve Phillips – next committee meeting is about energy issues. Thursday at 4 pm at Hannah Cosman room.
Andy David – I voted for this project, but I’ve been reexamining it. I’m still with it. Public safety is a fundamental responsibility of a municipality. A town is like a house. A chimney must be fixed and my budget must be adjusted. This was the cheaper option, to work with existing facilities. We’ve had two opportunities to deal with the revenue side, both defeated. It would be about $5 a week for my taxes on my house. I decided that I can afford $5 a week for public health and safety – I can balance that against getting new shoes or a shirt, or coffee. I’m not going to vote for the amendments. It’s a fundamental responsibility.
Ronnie Johnson – Five dollars a week might be OK now, but what about the next year and the year after with more bonds, school increases, and water and sewer increases. Short term costs might be better to do it as once. What about those who can’t afford that $5 a week. We can’t think of just today. We have to think of the future.
Bon Tortalani – I think health and safety is number one, but don’t have a feeling that slowing things down. Could the $3.8 million of the existing bond take care of immediate safety issues?
Moreland – I’m not an expert, but the project addressed the critical issues and the estimate of fixing them is $14 million. The $5 million would come up quite a bit short.
Walter Slowinski – We’re acting on behalf of the community as best we can. Recognizing it is complex, we can get polarized. I think our task is to bring the community together and work together as a town and include all the perspectives. My sense is that the project has been carefully considered, and objections have been considered. It’s still a tough decision, but we made this e commitments. We’re informed. Members of the community have not been so involved in the process, and may think too much money is been spent. I think it has been answered, and would be foolish to stop the project now. Our role isn’t to just represent the people, but an obligation to bring back to them what this conversation is about. It’s not easy work, even to come for the day. I’m impressed by the amount of work that has been done. I have confidence. We’re informed. We’ve participated. We can justify those decisions.
Paul Rounds – Move the question. We’d vote on the amendment to the amendment, then the amendment.
Crispe – Yes. Debate ceases. On the amendment to the amendment for a $261k reduction. To reduce Agave’s motion.
They are getting confused about which motion they are doing.
Le Budget continues
Fisher tries to explain the amendment to the amendment they are voting on. To reduce Agave’s amended suggestion.
Crispe- the net effect is the reduction of $261k. Trying to find the best way to present this…
Ben Underhill – we’re voting on voting on the reduction, then we’ll vote to see if we really want to reduce the budget.
Crispe – the Davidson proposal amend Agave’s amendment to reduce the budget by $261k. Amendment amendment does not pass. On to the original amendment of Agave for $600k. The amendment fails.
Billie Stark – David Gartenstein said that if you want to send a message, defeat the budget. I’m not sure you are getting the message yet. I’m not sure we have the message yet. People say this is too much. I know we need safety features, but we can’t buy a Cadillac if we can only afford a Chevy. You barely cut costs over the last year. $400k is not enough. I encourage people to defeat the budget in its entirely. We always roll with the punch. We debate it, and you decide what we’re telling you. that it is too much.
John Wilmerding – The Selectboard asked for both a level funded budget and a level service budget. A level funded budget would mean no tax increases. It would be an austerity budget. The cuts would have come from personnel, not the Police Fire project. Was there a level funded budget proposal, and what were your considerations to not use it?
Gartenstein – We have five primary town departments. We went through each and looked at where cost savings could be achieved. Fire dept runs with 3 platoons of 7 firefighters each, plus staff. 25 employees. It’s the minimum to provide basic firefighting services. We can’t run it with fewer people. Pairs are needed for rescues. Same is true for Police diet, and Public Works. Cutting back there would defer more maintenance and road problems. Other departments are required by law. Staffing is as low as it can go at this point. We’ll cut Parks and Rec and the Library if we have to cut something. I’m not sure where we can cut much more other than Library and Parks and Rec, and those are terrible ideas to cut them.
Dora Bouboulis – Ultimately, the Selectboard will not let the tax rate stay this high. Things will happen. Vital services will be cut. I question the safety issues. We get dramatic statements about supporting fire and police. Everyone supports them. Some things in the Police Fire project can be cut. The Library and Parks don’t need to be cut. It’s a 20 year commitment to pay for the Police and Fire. They’ll have cuts in Police and Fire departments eventually. I’m also concerned that taxes too high reaching critical mass, and paying for professionalism is reduced. You start to lose people in line for promotion locally. We’re not looking at the holistic viewpoint and the future of the community. We’ll be losing vital experience and leadership. If morale goes low and people can’t get raises, people will find other jobs. I urge people to think about this. The Selectboard isn’t getting the message.
Spoon Agave – If the problem of the Police Fire station is reconcieved as solving health and safety issues, it could be done for a lot less. I’ve known this. I thought the advisory committee would allow to bring these ideas forward, but no, they could only look at the project as it existed and shave little things. They were not permitted to look at the whole concept. If we look at the goals – health and safety issues – it can be done for several million dollars less. The budget should be defeated so the Selectboard and administration will become more willing to look at different concepts and approaches for achieving the same goals.
David Cadran – motion to cease debate on the budget.
It’s close. Crispe calls for a division (i.e., they get counted). Debate continues.
Bob Tortilani – if we don’t approve the budget, what happens?
Gartenstein – we’ll go back to work and present a new budget to you. As long is takes, then a meeting warning to approve it.
Corwin Elwell – In the legislation authorizing Representative Town Meeting says we can’t pass over an article. Are we passing over by defeating? I’d question the action.
Steve Phillips – there is a warned question that will remained unanswered. How much money will we raise? I don’t think we get to leave?
Crispe – we cannot pass over any of the warned articles. I agree. However, defeating is not passing over, though. If you consider it and vote it, it is not passing over.
Fisher – I think you are correct. No votes to pass over, take no action, or vote to pass over. Voting it down would be taking action and they have to create a new budget.
Bill Penniman – the article asks how much we will raise. We have to pick a number.
Andy Davis – the message is getting through to you. The philosophical message is getting through. Could you give us examples of difficult choices made?
Gartenstein – (a pause) Services are exactly the same this year as last year. We had requests for increases in levels of service, and asked what would happen if there was a 5% reduction. It was always staff or a risk to public safety. If we needed to cut more, it would be personnel cuts. Hours at the library were cut years ago. People complained. We considered it again this year. We could save money without impacting emergency or safety serves. We reduced capital projects for vehicles, paving and sidewalks. Further cuts will be in personnel.
Deb Zaks – At the info meeting, there was a budget item for vacation benefits, appearing for the first time?
Moreland – yes. A new line item is vacation buybacks and retiree payouts. It’s a town obligation/liability from collective bargaining agreements, but it was never in the budget. We need to look at the total scope. We’re looking at retirements and looking at payouts to prepare for. The line time is there for clarity. There is a line time in each department. I haven’t totaled them. It’s an expense we’ll incur.
Zaks – it is a substantial part of the budget. So this isn’t level serviced. Are there other line items similar to this?
Moreland – Nope, the only one.
John Wilmerding – there is a disquiet in the body. Can we remand this to the voters as a referendum?
Fisher – yes, you can collect within 5 days 250 signatures, it can go to a poll of the voters, or a petition of 50 town meeting members.
Mary Ellen Bixby – I’m always sorry to hear the Library and Parks are on the chopping block first. And laying off employees. How about cutting the square footage of the new police project by 5%. How about chipping away at those expenses.
Paul Rounds – over the last few years, we use the surplus to defray costs, so the Selectboard works to return it to us. They look at needs. Let’s pass the budget and ask them to be frugal, and thank them for the surplus this and next year.
Kurt Daims – I never would have thought of voting no on the budget, it seems like a strange non-option. We should consider it. A no budget would mean more work for the Selectboard. I think losses should come from the Police and Fire project. The losses have not been accurately described. The bond is a loan. We can pay it back. Borrow and give it back. There are not enough hard figures on contractual agreements.
Elwell – says something off mic
Crispe – the budget is the main motion, keep it brief.
Daims – The obligations can be repealed. There might be a small fee. The committee couldn’t conceptual change the project? We should be angry about that. They can’t fully cut costs.
Crispe – daims – the issue has been debated.
Daims – I yield.
Leo Shiff. I appreciate the work on the budget and project. The more we wait the more expensive it will be. It’s unfortunate that all the choices invoke a lot of pain. I feel it on all these issues. I think we need to pass it.
Hyam Seigel – I’m confused. We can vote this down, but there is nothing to say no to. The article asks for a number?
Crispe – No, Shall the Selectboard be able to raise $16 million…(etc.) You can amend it, or vote it up or down.
Fisher – I was wrong about the Charter. If there is a petition, you have 10 days, and 5% of voters are needed, not 250. When you are wrong, correct it. And, you can’t do an early payback on bonds. It’s over 15-20 years.
And, the $16 million dollar budget is passed. The Police Fire Project continues.
How close was the vote?
How close was the vote?
Not a close vote
Sorry for the delay. I was distracted by the meeting and didn’t see this until today. It was a typical healthy majority with some nays. Not close enough to count – the voice/standing vote was clear enough to everyone.
Through a Chamber Darkly
Following along via transcript, it appears the proceedings are an orchestrated dance, ritualizing the interests of the status quo. Opposing voices seem like straight men (and women), foils offering set-ups to well rehearsed rejoinders, or preludes to elegant legalistic maneuvers.
While I don’t doubt the efforts of Reps are sincere, it doesn’t come across as democracy in action. More like a mechanism for continuity at any cost
spinoza's thoughts are largely my impression as well
It seems that those who got The Project into the main budget knew what they were doing procedurally, and shouted down the numerous concerned Reps that were speaking for their voters. I e-mailed over 30 D3 reps with suggestions of modifications to the plan only to find out they couldn’t even bring them up during the debate as it’s a yes/no vote on the whole town budget.
Police & Fire Facilities
Holland — bring your suggestions up to the committee itself. There’s a meeting this Th. at 4 PM in the Hanna Cosman room that’s primarily going to talk about energy issues of the buildings.
Barb Sontag and Dick DeGray were the primary forces behind getting the project rolling, best I can tell, but it’s something that different committees and groups of people have been working on for, literally, decades. Even after 2+ years of studying the issue I still don’t know what is the right answer to it all.
As for Spinoza and his observations, yes — it is a culture steeped in hierarchical formality and legalese vernacular. It’s taken me decades to familiarize myself with it, but I see folks step right into the water and start swimming easily. Eli Gould was a primary example yesterday. I had a long talk a while back with Doug Cox about the possibility of arranging town meeting in concentric circles instead of straight rows facing the moderator and different boards. Then we could all see each other speak. I and many others find it rather intimidating to get up in front of the microphone to talk.
That said, I think Lawrin Crispe did an admirable job of facilitating yesterday — humble and considerate and attentive.
ok once again the gauntlet is thrown down to the civilian
If you commit to turn up, I will–with some difficulty–arrange to turn up. I have ideas but even after six years don’t know the roles of the bureaucracy, therefore I am blind to the politics and will suffer the fate the the Town Reps who tried to figure out how to slow the boondoogle’s juggernaut.
I don’t ask that you be on my side. I just ask that you advise me of the several people that will turn up on Thursday (Hanna Cosman room is Library or River Garden?) with a lot more “information” (which is not “knowledge”, thank you FZ) and I’m tired of the role of interloper. It got hung on me within three months in a club I should really care about as well as Town Hall, so I’m not making the same mistakes with that much time betwixt.
802/451-6344. If you call from an 802 area code, I’ll pick up unless I’m stepping out to the library, post office or Co-op, or more rarely Putney Road or Price Chopper. Further, e-mail notifications of replies on this site is simply not working for me. I have contacted the webmaster who’s had much more pertinent, high-profile issues to address.
And “Tad Montgomery” is quite the name, but an even better pseudonym. My legal name is Holland Alexander Jagentowicz Mills, so it’s a spectacular name but a really lousy nom de plume.
A 15 minute recess, and a lot
A 15 minute recess, and a lot more territory to cover.
See you soon.
Article 20 - Little League Tax Exemption
ARTICLE 20: To see if the Town will vote to exempt American Legion Little League Field from its municipal portion of taxes on its land and buildings at 12 Oak Grove Avenue for a period of three years from April 1, 2014.
John Allen – I yield to James Valente
James Valente – it makes good financial sense to grant a continued exemption to the field. The legion built that field in the 50’s and lower softball field at Living Memorial Park. They built them and have run the league every year. It costs $10,000. You get a great service, maintenance, and administration of the league. They pay water and sewer, sometimes as much as $2000. The town also gets renovations at the field, valued at $60,000 for recent fixes. When this came up three years ago, there were concerns about inclusiveness of the league, and why the town can’t use the field anytime. The second answer is for safety, and insurance reasons.
Sandy Shriver – My son plays in the league, and on behalf of boys and girls in the league, please vote in favor., 72 kids play on teams this year. All 11-12 year olds make teams. Some 10 year olds try out. It’s inclusive.
Leo Shiff – can all 11 year olds play?
Shriver – it’s the current policy.
Hyam Seigel – any policy regarding time on the field for the kids?
Valente – every kids gets two innings on the field. National Little League policy.
David Cadran – recognizing this as an asset, I’d like to make the exemption 10 years rather than three.
Wright – three years puts in line with other tax exempt discussions, to be on an even keel.
Eli Gould – Do we have a dollar figure on what’s being paid currently?
John O’Connor – I don’t have the figure currently.
Wright – if the league didn’t have this field, the Rec Department isn’t ready to take it over.
Crispe – it is currently exempt.
Gould – we may want to follow up with other ways to raise money voluntarily.
Hyam Seigel – I’d vote against the amendment. There have been issues of inclusiveness. Three years allows us to review inclusivity more often.
Kurt Daims – I’m unclear on Mr. Wright’s connection.
Mr. Wright – past Commander and Chaplain of American Legion Post 5.
Lissa Weinmann- Little League numbers are falling and we have West River Park.
Orion Barber – other properties are on three year exemptions. I don’t see why to single this one out.
Valente – the Little League runs on a tight budget, and goal is so kids pay nothing. You can pay a fee or sell raffle tickets right now. A ten year exemption would be a great help for planning for the League.
Gary Carrier – A friendly amendment – if we go for ten years it should be owned by the Legion and used for a baseball field.
Mr. Wright – The Post would be in favor of this. It’s a good amendment.
Susan Starfursky – the wording stipulates the American Legion and a baseball field. It may be unnecessary.
Crispe – the Carrier amendment passes. Now, the amendment to change from three to ten years.
Gartenstein – there are a limited number of properties we exempt. They are on a five year cycle. Two years ago was the last vote. We should cycle these on the same time period. Singling out one property for ten years doesn’t seem like a good way to proceed.
Moreland – How much tax are we talking about? The tax would be $1127.
Chuck Cummings – would seven years be alright with Mr. Gartenstein?
Gartenstein – another three years would put it in cycle.
Cummings – that doesn’t answer my question.
Gartenstein – I’m opposed to the amendment.
Crispe – the motion to amend… is defeated. Now, the main motion to exempt for three years? It passes.
Article 22 - Finance Committee Members
ARTICLE 22: To see if the Town will elect or appoint members to the Town Finance Committee for a term of one year from March 23, 2014. Members to be nominated from the floor.
Crispe- there is no slate of nominations?
Spoon Agave – As the Chair for the last five years. I see a problem. The Committee was formed in 1984, and members may be elected or appointed. They have been appointed, but the problem is that many people who have served are not town meeting members. They are not here. If someone steps forward later, do we need a special town meeting to elect them, or can they be appointed throughout the year. And if they can, what’s the point of electing anyone now? I haven’t really thought this through, but three of the six current members aren’t here right now. For this year, let’s have the moderator appoint them, until we think their through, then we change the procedure next year.
John Wilmerding – I want to point out that the Finance Committee is a policy committee that doesn’t report to the Selectboard. It’s a good thing if it is under the attention of this body, and working with the moderator. We serve at your pleasure and no one else. There is a new person who may want to serve, but you are free to volunteer and come forward.
Pal Borofsky – I think it would be prudent that we ask the previous members to apply for the positions, and the moderator fill the rest of the positions.
Crispe – Agave amendment passes. Now the motion doesn’t require an election from the floor. The moderator will appoint members of the committee.
There is no vote on the article.
And this concludes the town portion of the meeting. Next up, the schools.
Article 23 - salaries
Kathy Urffer – We didn’t vote on the article, just the amendment. Are we passing over?
Crispe – we’ll vote to be certain. The motion passes that the moderator appoints members of the Town Meeting Finance Committee.
Now the schools. Nine articles to go.
ARTICLE 23: To see what salaries the Town School District will pay its school board members.
David Schoales – $2k for school directors. Chair gets $3k.
It passes.
Article 24 - Borrow In Anticipation of Taxes
ARTICLE 24: To see if the Town School District will authorize its Town School Directors to borrow money in anticipation of taxes.
It passes. On a roll…
Article 25 - Take Aid from Gov't?
ARTICLE 25: To see if the Town School District will authorize the District to accept and expend categorical grants and aid received from the State of Vermont and the United States Government.
Yes, say the representatives. No discussion.
Article 26 - Green Mountain Power Evergreen Fund
ARTICLE 26: To see if the Brattleboro Town School District will vote to grant authority to the School Board to incur interest-free debt through the Green Mountain Power Evergreen Fund in an amount not to exceed Fifty-Two Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($52,000) to be financed over a period not to exceed five (5) years, for the purpose of financing the following electrical efficiency project(s):
Academy, Green Street, and Oak Grove Schools – Lighting Efficiency Projects
The financing mechanism that the District will use is the Green Mountain Power Evergreen Fund, which allows school districts to borrow money at 0% interest over as much as five (5) years for the purpose of financing energy efficiency projects. The estimated savings from the lighting efficiency projects are projected to save the school approximately Five Thousand, Five Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($5,500) in annual electrical costs at the current utility rates. The projected savings amount is less than the debt service payments will be on the loan. The lighting efficiency measures have a life expectancy of at least fifteen (15) years.
….
Hyam Siegel – More clarification. My math doesn’t come out – if we save $5,500 a year it doesn’t come to $52,000.
Jim Kane – the $52,000 comes from $17k from Efficiency Vermont. Current year we’ll use $8k for consulting, and the savings spread over five years is the loan amount.
Siegel – no other loans involved in this?
Kane – no, there is not.
Andrew Davis – Savings is less than the debt service payments? If the savings is less than the cost…???
Kane – The projected savings is $5500 per year for five years. We didn’t know about the balance when we wrote the motion. It’s going to balance. Understand? We’ll only take out $27.5k, but are authorized to take out $52. Efficiency Vermont helps. Works will be done this summer.
Jim Kirby d1 – Total svaings for 15 years, adjusted for inflation?
Kane – current rates projected for five rates. We know they won’t raise them for at least two years. If rates go up, savings would go up.
Kirby – That’s not responsive. The total savings is more like $75k over 15 years (not five)
The article is approved.
Article 27 - Academy School heat system improvements
ARTICLE 27: To see if the Town School District will authorize capital expenses for improvements to the heating system at the Academy School in an amount not to exceed $375,000, to be financed over a period not to exceed five (5) years [24 V.S.A. §1786(b)].
Peter Fallion – could you describe the problem and how you came to this solution?
Peter Yost – we prepared a document that explains the investigation. Academy School existing boiler is 38 years old. We knew we had to replace it. We looked at more cost effective and environmentally friendly options. The marginal cost of wood pellet was more than covered by the energy savings over time. Some questions about the price of oil and wood pellets, but people do fuel switch, but pellets go up if oil goes up. The costs per BTU rise together.
Paula Melton – one main reason to use pellets is they come from waste. As the demand for pellets rises, fresh wood becomes in domain, so lets source our pellets sustainably.
George Reed Savory – Is next year year one, and why is it budgeted for $50k of fuel next year at Academy?
Kane – the fuel oil budget is based on history and projections. I didn’t assume we’d be using pellets. It’s kind of a guess. We always have oil in the tank.
Reed savory – isn’t there a savings from pellets. If this is approved, cost of fuel goes down for next year?
Kane – yes.
Ralph Meima – have you considered heat pumps as alternative to pellet energy.
Yost – we did not look at heat pump systems. We looked mainly at heating, and heat pumps are good for both heating and cooling.
Lissa Weinmann – did you look at solar arrays, like Hilltop Montessori?
Schoales – not this year. Last year we looked at it. A private school can take advantage of subsidies. It would cost us twice as much. We’ll get energy from private solar contractors.
The heating system is approved at Academy School.
Article 28 - Defray Expenses
ARTICLE 28: To see if the Town School District, pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §2804, will appropriate the sum of $256,272 from the Education Reserve Fund to defray expenses for FY2015.
No debate. It passes.
Article 29 - More defraying
ARTICLE 29: To see if the Town School District, will appropriate out of the audited Unassigned Fund Balance of June 30, 2013 the sum of $193,728 for the purpose of reducing the tax rate and defraying FY2015 expenses.
John Wilmerding – this is not the same unassigned fund balance as the municipality. Does the school board have a preferred amount to keep on hand in unreserved funds? Will this be lower than an assumed best practice?
Margaret Atkinson – Unlike the town, we don’t have the same guideline. We’ll still have $195,000 left after this, which we think is adequate for covering unforeseen events. We moderate the tax rate year to year this way. Some factors are out of are control, and come from the state or spending.
It passes.
Article 30 - The School Budget
ARTICLE 30: To see how much money the Town School District will raise and appropriate to defray its expenses and liabilities.
A total of $15,392,726 for schools and their expenses…
Atkinson – thanks to those who came out for more info on our budget. It’s a small increase. Just .49% Negotiated salaries and benefits account for the increase. Includes Academy School heating upgrade and lighting upgrades. Act 153 led to a large increase and offset for special education. The money for our budget has been switched to Windham Southeast Assessment. Special Ed costs were up just 1%. Small increase in payment to preschool partners. Preschool contracted services help improve the quality in preschool curriculum. It’s good for preschools and for us. It’s a flat and responsible budget.
Spoon Agave – The school budgets, with high school, are about 2/3 of taxes we pay. It’s been clear that we don’t have a good way of assessing whether we get what we want for that money. Are the kids educated here happier, more successful? How do we figure it out? If we spent $70 million would they be twice as successful? Is there a law of diminishing returns? The people in town don’t have a way of participating in the educational process – they are just told that preparing the children for the gobal market economy. I’d rather pay to have them learn how to assess what’s going in the world. Maybe they need to learn is how to garden or live on stone soup. We keep on voting this enormous sum of money. There’s no way to talk about this. What’s the 20th century global economy? What is it and so we want to go there? Nobody knows what we’re talking about.
Atkinson – I don’t recall if you came to our presentation. It included kids performing and showing their work. They could work together, they are healthy and active, and poised playing improvisational music in front of a group. We went over how rich and diverse the curriculum is. There’s a focus on accountability so we know all kids are learning. We have shown with data and anecdote, we’re successful at meeting the needs. We surveyed the parents and kids, they are excited and like the schools. WE need to create citizens who will think about what our future is. They’ll be the people taking care of you and making laws, and I think they are getting good start here. Our three elementary school produce kids prepared for high school, and prepared to graduating. Talk to parents and kids. This is the future and a social contract. No one wants to live in a place that does;’t care about or invest in schools.
David Schoales – we are teaching them how to garden. The farm to school program. And supporting the local economy.
Yost – You couldn’t fit all the programs on less than three slides for that meeting. We have a really rich program that teaches kids to read and write and be full citizens.
Jim Verzino – a discussion of data – what do we spend per student and what are the success metrics?
Ron Stahley – we have handouts. Comparing to the state – on instruction, pupil support, and transportation of students. We spend 70% on instruction – state average is under 60%. We spend on instruction. Administration costs are about 5%, and the state average is 8%. Again, better that the state.
Verzino – the question is per pupil.
Stahley – it’;s a long answer and many of us will answer it. The state assessments are one source of data. We have a high poverty rate in our schools. We’re doing better than the state average. The annual costs of an education, I turn it over to Jim.
Kane – The current expense per student for FY12 is $16,123 per student for town schools, and state average was just a bit higher.
Verzino – if we’re above in reading and math, we’re below on others?
Syahley – we’re at the state average in science. We’re at or above state averages. Nationally, Vermont scores are always in the top tier – the top in the country. We do well within state averages, and across the country we’re at the top. We’re showing results. We also have a dual credit program for high school to take college credit courses. Great savings for families.
BCTV Cuts Off
BCTV just dropped coverage. I have no idea what they are saying now. Sorry.
Shall I live blog the energy week discussion?
We’ll wait and see if they return.
The Twitter
Okay, we’ll live blog via what Twitter says until BCTV returns.
The twitter reports that the Town School Budget passes.
Article 31 - Other business
And they are back.
ARTICLE 31: To transact any other business that may lawfully come before the meeting.
Dated at Brattleboro, Vermont this 29th day of January, 2014.
Atkinson thanking James Kane for his years of loyal and dedicated service. He’s retiring. Much applause.
Mr. Kane – I appreciate the recognition. It’s been a pleasure. 35 years goes quick.
Mollie Burke – While we honor people for service, we reps present a joint General Assembly resolution honoring 40 years of service congratulating Tim Johnson on the 40th anniversary of his career. Longtime news director, covers all sorts of stories, gets out and around to be on the scene, and his coverage for WTSA of Irene. A mainstay and trusted news source. (Much applause.)
Tim takes the mic. Thank you to the legislative delegation and Town Meeting. It is humbling to be able to ply my craft in my home area every day.
Don Webster – Hopefully you have two papers on your chairs. A bill by the education committee, and a draft of my resolution. You have the report from three legislators about this bill. Much of it is about improving the quality of education. We’re the first town meeting to be able to respond. If it is passed as drafted. It takes Brattleboro town meeting out of the schools. Regional, district boards would take over making decisions. Local schools to regional shift. Town meeting members should be aware of the potential for changes. One major concern is sets up a process of determining how the new system will work after it is passed. Many questions haven’t been answered. I think we need to know how the system works. There’s no language for design of voting for the communities, common level of appraisal or tax rates, nothing about funding or payment, nothing on employment contracts. Nothing to say about voting procedures or town indebtedness. Before this undertakes a major change – the biggest of the century – we need to know how it works. I also think the best decision making and participation is local. Regional boards just don’t do that. It will chip away at interaction and involvement with schools.
Motion to house table the bill until more specificity can be included, so a robust public conversation can happen and see if the public will support it.
Wilmerding – Are any legislators here now? Could you comment?
Valerie Stuart – I’ve served on the House education committee. It unanimously passed our committee last Friday. I received these concerns the day before. With all due respect to Schoales and Webster – the House education committee addressed those concerns. Our one anomaly is we have Representative Town Meeting. Look at the amendments we added to address these concerns. Streamlining education in Vermont is important. WE will continue to address concerns. It is a sea change to help our students. Now we’re trying it. We are burning out superintendents doing costly redundant work. Send me your concerns and let us know how we can make streamlined education a better bill. We want to do the best thing. We fixed it. Look at Section 3 A 1. Essential components shall be designed to recognize each communities unique character. The Vermont Business Roundtable said we had to change our system to educate kids for the global marketplace future. There are gaps of poverty we need to help with this.
Tristan Toleno – I commend Valerie. She put her heart and soul into this issue. I have some difference of opinion. I don’t want to bring the debate here today, but there are differences. I advocate for a renewed conversation about educational challenges. How do we do what needs to happen. The challenge is to carve out a process from this starting point. The value of speaking to this issue is that it is one of the few opportunities for us to hear from a local community before the session is over.
Steve Phillips – We’re not well informed enough to have this debate. It should happen in Montpelier. I don’t like voting on things I haven’t read. It hasn’t been passed ye. Let them fix it, hash it out there. This isn’t the place.
David Schoales – One problem is that the public hasn’t given much input. On Thursday, I was at the committee expressing these concerns in February. If we have a regional board, we won’t have the impact on our schools we are used to. The further you move governance from the governed, the less democracy you have. There are other goals that need to be included that talk about kid education. This mentions administration and taxes, etc. To come up with one solution for a large district makes no sense to me. Foreign language, music education… they might not be supported in other places where the decisions are made. The committee gets political pressure, about things that have nothing about goals for students. We need to send a message to keep governance local. (applause).
George Harvey – I hear people I admire disagreeing. Whatever we decide is advisory. All we are saying is we have a concern. We can say we’re uninformed and have concerns.
Elizabeth McCloughlin. Consolidation could be a good thing, in terms of taxes being regionally shared, like what the municipality says it wants.
Don Webster – The resolution doesn’t get into the content. We don’t know how this will operate. Techincal details are important to understand how it could work. I just say pause, and have a community conversation about what we gain or lose. Then go ahead.
Valerie Stuart – I’d like to refute some remarks. Schoales says we have political pressure. No one politically pressures me. I do what I believe in. Public engagement – we had an open hearing last Wednesday. You are always invited. Those that came, most were in favor of the bill. It allows for public engagement. Go online. When 150 people come to an open hearing on the House floor, and 75% are in favor (superintendents, principals, parents). Contact me and share your concerns with us. Please read the 39 page bill. We have a stupendous secretary of education.She’s going to help us with these details.
Lissa Weinmann – I second Steve’s feeling that we don’t have enough info to condemn the bill or support it.
Davidson – Webster res says get the details. To have it pass with so few details is irresponsible – not the right word.
Valerie Stuart – our children can’t wait any longer. Governors have advocated on behalf of this bill. It will help. Read it before you condemn it. Postpone weighing in on something you haven’t read.
Ronnie Johnson. As Mrs. davidson. said, it doesn’t condemn- we just want more info. Pass it and go home.
John Wilmerding – I asked for the delegation responses. There is substance in the bill that will concern us. I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt to our representatives. Let’s not approve the resolution.
Crispe – Webster’s resolution… passes. Any further business?
Walter Slowinski – Gun Safety Resolution – Burlington changed their rules – municipal Charter changes require approval, but municipalities can’t regulate firearms. The Burlington vote was a frustration over support for some legislation to control firearms. The NRA members support common sense regulation. The federal effort failed, and some small local effort also led to nothing. Burlington voted for the changes despite them not being allowed to. This resolution is to applaud the Burlington vote and ask the state to work on this issue. I don’t suggest any local changes. Just request state legislature to create effective legislation on this topic.
George Harvey – I stand strongly against this. Bill Clinton wanted to ban assault rifles. A friend said supporting it was ignorant. After researching it, gun control legislation effects are not intuitively obvious. We have the responsibility as citizens to protect ourselves. There are better ways, but automatically removing guns from a situation without understanding it.
Peter Cooper – I would add this resolution does not propose to do what Burlington did. We just want the state legislature to pass effective legislation about gun violence. We have almost no legislation about gun violence. 30,00 gun deaths a year in the country. We need legislation that makes us safe.
Mark Truhan – I saw this. Vermont has liberal gun ownership laws, and a low crime rate with guns. Chicago has tough laws and greater gun crime. This is opposed to hunter and sportsman’s act, and against the VT constitution. When seconds count, a locked safe takes time to get access to.
Eli Gould – I’m not comfortable voting for this. It may have merit in Burlington but not a great use of our time to cross a line that will concern our constituents.
Sarah Page – It’s effective legislation to address gun violence. It’s a good thing to send forward.
Gary Carrier – I’m a native and have hunted sicne I was 12. Gun violence is a problem, but because our families have people that should be near guns. Parents and others knew people had problems, but nothing was done to keep them from guns. Guns son’t kill people. people kill people. They can do it with an knife or axe. Before we lock up guns, we should lock up people.
Joe Pineau – I’ve been a law enforcement professional for decades. It’s the people, not the guns. I don’t want my guns locked up. You can lock your guns. No one will stop you. We have a right to bear arms. We shouldn’t give any portion up now.
Crispe – Gun violence resolution passes.
George Harvey – I make a motion that a committee form to investigate creating a power and heat facility for Brattleboro to cut costs, supply local power, earn money, include neighboring micro grids, make a recommendation for the type of utility to form. We ship $24 million a year out of our economy for electricity. We can build a corporation that would start with $24 million in sales. It can be built for resilience. Austin is doing it. We can save money by giving ourselves renewable local energy, lower taxes, and profits could go to the town. In 10 years, when the facility building costs go away, it’s free power. The cost could be very low, and profits could be very high. Taxes could be paid by a town utility.
Do we have a quorum, yells someone from the back.
They decide to count.
Melton – is creating the committee binding?
Crispe – It is non-binding.
Ben Underhill – If I win the NCAA pool next year, I’ll pay for the Police Fire. Thanks to town and school staff. Buy a brick to let us finish the West River Park. Thanks to Carol Lolatte for her help in the project.
Crispe – we don not have a quorum. We’re down to 70. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough people to act on remaining issues. We’ve heard Mr. Harvey’s motion. Maybe bring it to the community in another way? We don’t have a quorum.
Harvey – pass it on to the Selectboard?
Crispe – OK. We are no longer legally constituted, but Dr Tortilani…
Tortilani – I thank Orion Barber for a good tone to start things, and a good respectful debate today. When I’m in a nursing home and Brattleboro grads are taking care of me, I want the Academy School jazz ensemble there.
The meeting is adjourned at 7:20 pm.
Conspicuous Absences
Frick Spruyt
John Allen’s Tie
Chris Grotke seated amongst the members
Dick DeGray and his cheshire cat smile
Ken Schneck’s high-top loafers