Brandon Select Board Meeting
July 28, 2008
NOTE: These are unapproved minutes, subject to amendment and/or approval at
the subsequent board meeting.
In
Attendance: Richard Baker, Bruce Brown, Bill Hatch, Kellie Patten
Also in Attendance:
Keith Arlund, Anna Scheck, Tom Schmelzenbach, Bob Kilpeck, Bill Dick, Ethan
Swift, Gordon Dritchillo, Wayne Rausenberger, Linda Stewart, Nancy Jakiela,
Charlie Jakiela, Bill Krajeski, Lee Kahrs, Mei Mei Brown, Police Chief
Brickell
1.
Call to order
The
meeting was called to order at 7:02 PM by Chair Bill Hatch.
a) Agenda Adoption
- Motion by Richard Baker/Kellie Patten to adopt
the agenda as written. The motion passed unanimously - 3 to zero.
2.
Consent Agenda
a) Approval of Minutes - July 14, 2008 - Select Board Meeting
b) Approval of Marshall &
Swift Tables (July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009)
c) Appointment to Mosquito
District
Motion
by Bruce Brown/Richard Baker to approve the minutes of the July 14, 2008
Select Board meeting with the following corrections.
The motion passed
unanimously - 3 to zero.
On Page 2, under Town
Manager's report, it read Bruce Brown, not Bill Brown and on Page 4, it
should read, to consider road salt purchase, not road sale purchase.
Motion
by Bruce Brown/Kellie Patten to approve the Marshall & Swift Tables for the
period commencing July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009.
The motion passed
unanimously - 3 to zero.
Motion by
Richard Baker/Kellie Patten to appoint Wayne Rausenberger to the Mosquito
District Committee. The motion passed unanimously - 3 to zero.
The
Select board thanks Mr. Rausenberger for volunteering for this Committee.
3.
Fiscal
a) Warrant - June 15, 2008 - $2,000.00 Postage
b) Warrant - June 30, 2008 - $13,265.23
c) Warrant - July 28, 2008 - $40,202.26
d) FY 2009 Investment Strategy
Motion by Kellie
Patten/Richard Baker to approve the warrant of June 15, 2008 in the amount
of $2,000.00 for postage. The motion passed unanimously - 3 to zero.
Motion
by Bruce Brown/Kellie Patten to approve the warrant of
June 30, 2008 in the amount of $13,265.23. The motion passed unanimously
- 3 to zero.
Motion by Richard Baker/Kellie Patten to approve the warrant of July 28, 2008
in the amount of $40,202.26. The motion passed unanimously - 3 to zero.
Bill Hatch stated there was information provided to the Board
concerning investment rates the Town Treasurer had solicited for the Board
to consider.
Motion
by Richard Baker/Kellie Patten to authorize the Town Treasurer to invest
the sum of $1,200,000.00 at a rate of 3.34% with National Bank of Middlebury
and the balance up to $952,000.00 with Citizen's Bank at a rate of 3.11%,
subject to the terms of the RFP's and their responses. The motion passed
unanimously - 3 to zero.
Bill
Dick stated with the National Bank of Middlebury account, there is an
allowance of only one withdrawal and he was assured this would not be a
problem, as the demand on this money is not great.
Bill Hatch questioned if the rates are interest rates or
APY's and it was noted they are interest rates. Mr. Dick noted the APY for
National Bank of Middlebury is 3.4%; however, he was not certain what the
APY is for Citizen's Bank. The current account at Citizen's Bank is
compounded monthly. Richard Baker questioned if the current account is done
on an ADB and Mr. Dick noted he believes this is the case. Bill Hatch
questioned what type of collateral is offered by the institutions or if
there is any 3rd party collateral. Mr. Dick stated the National
Bank of Middlebury indicated it was totally insured. Mr. Hatch noted he
would like Mr. Dick to inquire if they are offering 3rd party
collateral, as the banking industry looks scary right now.
4. Town Manager's Report
Mr.
Arlund reported the response to the Act 250 hearing for the Route 7 Project
was filed with the District Environmental Commission.
Mr.
Arlund reported he has been notified that Brandon is in compliance with the
flood hazard regulations.
Mr.
Arlund stated the road salt issue for the towns in District 3 has been
settled. A proposal from Cargill has been received, which is similar to past
proposals. Brandon did participate with the Rutland Regional Planning
Commission in the bidding process; however, no bulk bids were received under
that proposal. Cargill sent out subsequent pricing after this process was
done.
Mr.
Arlund reported he attended a short-range public transit planning meeting in
Rutland that was also attended by "The Bus" management. There is a consensus
the economic trends are increasing the demands for public transit. Mr.
Arlund noted we are ahead of some other areas in the state.
Mr.
Arlund will be on vacation, with the Board's concurrence, from August 21st
through the 29th. He will not be available for the August 25th meeting.
5.
Status of Reappraisal
Keith Arlund stated he has been working with New England Municipal for the
past several months on this project. He noted they advised there would be a
delay and a second extension was received by the Property Valuation people.
Mr. Arlund stated he met with the listers and Mr. Krajeski and he has asked
Mr. Krajeski to provide information to the Select Board on the completion of
this project.
Mr.
Krajeski stated they are almost done and expect to finish all of the work by
August 8th. The information will then go to the printer, which takes about 7
day and they will provide a booklet that will show the old and new values of
all properties. It is expected the grand list will be lodged by August 18th,
however, it is hoped to complete this a few days earlier. New England
Municipal will pay for all of the mailings, with the use of the town's
mailing permit. Mr. Krajeski has to check back with the state as to when the
hearings can begin, as he is not sure if they can begin before everyone has
filed their grievances. They expect to begin on or about August 20th, or a
couple of days after if the state indicates they cannot begin the grievances
until everyone has filed. There will be six days scheduled for hearings,
which will allow for potentially 500 slots. Mr. Krajeski stated the most
his firm has ever gone through is about 13% of the parcels in a town and
this schedule is set up for 20%.
Richard Baker stated earlier he thought the approach was to have informal
get-togethers to filter out questions. He noted some communities that have
provided this type of informal meeting has decreased the number of grievance
filings. Mr. Krajeski stated if the Board wants to allow for three weeks to
be added to the schedule, he does not have a problem with doing informals,
however, there have been delays in this project due to problems with
software. He stated informal meetings were in the original plan and if it is
the desire of the Board to continue that way, he can proceed in that manner,
however, it would move the timeframe back three weeks. Richard Baker feels
it is a disservice to the town if the property owners are not allowed to be
heard. Mr. Krajeski stated many people just want an explanation and in some
instances it is found there is some wrong information, however, this is one
of the reasons that extra time had been taken to be sure the information is
correct. Mr. Krajeski stated the computer program has been difficult to work
with, as some of the data migrates and moves and they have tried to make
sure the information has been scoured. Bill Hatch questioned if it would
take three weeks to have informal meetings. Mr. Krajeski stated it would be
five to six days of informal hearings and another three to four days to go
through the information received. Kellie Patten questioned if he has been
talking to the listers about the time table and Mr. Krajeski stated the
listers are concerned, as it is difficult to go through several days of
several hearings each day. Mr. Krajeski noted if informal discussions are
held, it would reduce their workload. Richard Baker stated that lateness is
not sufficient support for changing the process. He noted if informal
discussions are offered, it may eliminate the need for some of the legal
grievances, as some concerns can be filtered out through this process. Mr.
Baker stated it is ultimately the responsibility of the listers, but we all
have the responsibility to the property owners and tax payers to provide
this service. Mr. Krajeski noted informal meetings do help the listers
become more used to the files and makes them more comfortable in doing the
legal grievances. Bill Hatch stated the informal hearings are a good idea
and there seems to be consensus of the Board to proceed with them. Mr.
Krajeski stated the schedule will then begin with the informal phase,
followed by the formal grievances. Bill Hatch questioned if the booklet to
be produced will indicate there will be informal hearings. Mr. Krajeski
stated the booklet will be listed by owner order and location order, and
will provide the dates, times and what to bring to the hearings.
Keith Arlund questioned if the preliminary grand list can be lodged before
the informal hearings and it was noted it cannot be done. At a minimum, it
will delay the lodging by two weeks. Mr. Arlund stated he will discuss this
issue with the Property Valuation people again, as he would rather request
an extension than be late.
6.
Education Update
Kellie
Patten reported the SOAR Summerfest was held this past weekend. It was a
very nice weekend and attendance was very good.
7.
Citizen's Public Forum
Linda
Stewart questioned why Dale Ann Stratton had not been appointed to the
Planning Commission. She also noted the Select Board should consult with the
Chairperson of that committee as to her activity and attendance.
Ethan Swift stated Ms. Stratton has been attending many meetings
and has submitted her application for a second time for consideration. The
Commission feels that she would be a good person to have on the committee,
as they will be losing one member who will be moving out of the area in the
near future. There are currently seven people on the committee and it is Mr.
Swift's understanding that they are entitled to have up to nine. Mr. Swift
stated one of the long time members, Matthew Carmoli, is planning to move to
another part of the state. Mr. Swift requested that Dale Ann Stratton be
appointed to the Planning Commission. Bill Hatch stated the Board will take
this request under advisement.
8.
Acting Zoning Administrator Report
Mr.
Charles Jakiela read the following dialogue to the Select Board:
"First
of all, I’d like to thank the Board for its indulgence in allowing me to
speak today about what happened at the very end of the last Board meeting.
Ordinarily I don't comment on Select board sessions, but what happened on
July 14th not only reflected on me personally, but -
far, far more importantly -
amounted to an attack on the very independence and integrity of the zoning
process.
I take
no pleasure in appearing here tonight. Richard Baker and Bruce Brown have
been friends of mine for a long time and I still consider them friends.
They are good people who, like every one of us, occasionally get carried
away and lose their bearings.
Only
this time they did it so spectacularly and with such serious
implications that I simply cannot keep quiet and let it pass.
In
essence, on July 14th Richard and Bruce were able to persuade the rest of
the Board to "informally" instruct me, through the Town Manager, on how I
was to interpret several sections of the Land Use Ordinance that directly
applied to a pending zoning application. It had to do with whether an 8' x
32' travel trailer could be permitted as an unattached spare bedroom.
There
are three fundamental objections that I have to what transpired.
(1) I
object to the manner in which the issue was raised by Richard and Bruce.
(2) I
object that much of the information they presented was either misleading,
incomplete, or even downright inaccurate. Not only did they get the
Ordinance provisions wrong, but they even were wrong about how I was going
to decide the question.
(3)
But most of all, I object that their clearly expressed intention was
to introduce political interfere in a pending regulatory zoning decision.
I will
address each of these objections in order.
My
first objection is how they brought up the issue: at the very end of the
meeting under Other Business. Rather than warn the discussion as a separate
meeting topic that might have permitted other members of the Board to make
their own independent inquiries before the meeting, it was like a sneak
attack; indeed, Richard even described it as a preemptive strike. While such
Gotcha tactics may have a place in academic debate tournaments, I submit
that they simply have no place in serious governmental decisions.
Second, I object that the quality of the information that was presented
without opportunity for rebuttal was so questionable. Let me give you six
examples, taken from that short ten-minute portion of the meeting, to
illustrate what I am talking about.
(1)
The Board was correctly told that a landowner could occupy a travel trailer
on his/her own property for up to 21 days a year without a permit. But it
is flat-out wrong to say that one cannot get a permit to use one for more
than 21 days!
Not
only does this not make a whole lot of sense, it actually contradicts the
plain language of the Ordinance: Section 104(a) requires a zoning permit for
all structures and uses unless they qualify for one of the
exemptions listed in 104(b). The 21-day exemption appears in 104(b). What
the Ordinance is actually saying is that a permit is required to
occupy a travel trailer for more than 21 days a year.
But
the Board was not told that.
(2)
The Board was told on the 14th that Section 627 said that travel trailers
could not be used as accessory structures like unattached bedrooms. Yet
the Board was not told that the title of Section 627 is "Outdoor
Storage of Junk/Junkyards," which significantly limits the meaning and
application of what follows in that Section of the Ordinance. The text
itself in part says that a trailer cannot be used as an "accessory
structure/storage building."
If the Ordinance had intended that trailers could never be used as
accessory structures, the text would have to read accessory structures or
storage buildings. But that's not what it says. In context it is
perfectly clear that Section 627 only prohibited travel trailers from being
used to store junk. The legislative history of Section provides further
support: Bruce Brown himself was the chief sponsor of Section 627 and he
admits that his only interest at the time was to put an end to the
use of trailers and similar vehicles from being used to store junk.
Yet
this Board was not told that.
(3)
The Board was also told that the ZA has no authority to tell zoning
violators how they could cure their violations. But 24 VSA 4451 requires
that the violator be told what options he has to cure the violation. Indeed,
the violation notice that was used in this instance was built from a
template provided by the Town's own legal firm! How dare I tell people how
they can make things right? I’m required to!
Yet
the Board was not told that.
(4)
The Board was told that there was no way that a travel trailer could be used
as a residence, yet not only are structures permitted to be used as
residences in all districts but the Environmental Court in 2006 issued a
declaratory ruling that clearly affirms that travel trailers can be used as
residences! The Court ruled that a travel trailer is a "structure" for
zoning purposes when it is fixed to the ground. The Court determined that
the fact that the trailer could be moved was immaterial; once it was
fixed to the ground, the trailer, to use the Court's language, was
transformed from a vehicle into a structure. If a travel trailer that is
fixed to the ground can be used as a single-family residence, it can also be
used simply as a bedroom - as long as it complied with all of the other
relevant provisions of the Ordinance. The point was also made at the meeting
on the 14th that the travel trailer was uninspected and unregistered;
however, the Environmental Court ruled that not being registered was further
proof that such a vehicle should be treated as a structure!
Of
course the Board was never told this.
(5) At
the start of the discussion, Richard said that he was in a quandary whether
the Board should deal with this as a simple Board motion or an Interim
Zoning amendment. Apparently, he was unaware that 24 VSA 4415 imposes
specific preconditions for the adoption of interim zoning, which includes
actual or contracted studies of the particular issue or actual hearings on a
bylaw amendment that specifically addresses the question. Richard
apparently did not think that it is necessary for the Board to follow the
statutory requirements for interim zoning in Brandon.
Of
course the Board was never told this.
(6)
Finally, the Board was told that, when the Development Review Board was
created, the Planning Commission no longer had any authority over the Zoning
Administrator. But the main change enacted by the Legislature was to
transfer the authority to hear appeals, conditional uses, and the like, from
the Planning Commission to the DRB.
The
Planning Commission by statute is required to initiate the
process of selecting a new Zoning Administrator by nominating the best
qualified individual who applies for the position to the Select board. The
Planning Commission must also be consulted when a ZA is let go for cause.
The Planning Commission does not have any authority over the ongoing
decisions of the ZA once he or she is in office, but then neither does the
Select board. In the final analysis, the legislature, recognizing the need
for a politically independent zoning administrator, wisely left control over
zoning decisions to the DRB and the Environmental Court.
Of
course, the Board was never told this.
Perhaps this misconception about the role of the Planning Commission
explains why it has for so long been frozen out of the process of choosing a
new permanent ZA by this Board. Despite repeated requests by the
Commission, the Town Manager has, for over six months, refused to turn over
the list of candidates who have applied for the position to the Planning
Commission. Since the Commission has been stymied in its responsibility to
"promptly" nominate an administrative officer "when a vacancy exists" (24
VSA 4448[a]), perhaps the Planning Commission needs to advertise the
position on its own, with all replies directed to the Commission Chair,
rather than to the Town Manager or the Select board.
It is
hard to believe, but every single one of these problematic statements were
made during the roughly ten-minute presentation at the end of the Select
board meeting on July 14!
It
also struck me as totally ironic that shortly before the zoning discussion
began, Richard offered to prepare manuals to help new members of other town
boards become acquainted with their jobs, what would be expected of them,
and what the limits of their authority are. He facetiously described one of
the manuals as "DRB for Dummies." In the light of his performance a few
minutes later that night, perhaps the Select board could use the same sort
of manual about its role in zoning. It will be a quick read, but a
different author might be more appropriate.
Lastly, despite the seriousness of the Gotcha! approach to town government
and the misinformation that was dressed up to masquerade as facts, the
real outrage that occurred on the 14th was that two members of the Board
clearly attempted to compromise the integrity of the zoning process by
blatantly using political pressure to influence the outcome in a
not-yet-decided regulatory process and the rest of the Board became
complacent when it did not derail the discussion immediately, before it
informally agreed that the Town Manager should informally talk with me to
set me straight.
Now it
may be that Richard and Bruce who led the charge at the meeting really
had no idea that their attempt to influence a pending zoning decision was
ethically beyond the pale, but it is very clear that the Town Manager was
well aware that what was going on at the meeting was wrong. Indeed, on the
following morning, Keith explicitly started our conversation with the
remark; I know I'm not supposed to talk about these things, but.... Later,
he emailed me with the message that if the permit were approved, the Board
would likely appeal the decision to the DRB, and that would look bad for the
Town. No improper pressure here!
The
fact that such guidance or advice was delivered informally is no defense
against impropriety. Indeed, I would guess that most attempts at improper
regulatory influence are informal and off the record. What is mind-boggling
in this case is that the instruction to engage in off-the-record
interference was made in the midst of an on-the-record proceeding!
If it
becomes an acceptable practice that any Selectman acting in his
capacity as a Selectman or the Board acting as a Board can attempt to
politically influence the regulatory decision-making process, the public
perception of the integrity and essential fairness of zoning cannot help but
be compromised.
Richard often speaks about the need for zoning to be uniform, equitable, and
predictable. I totally agree. But by acting as he and Bruce and later the
Board did on the 14th, uniformity, equitability, and predictability were
tossed to the wind.
What
they did that night was flat-out wrong! So where do we go from here?
First,
the Town needs to put an end to the Gotcha tactics that were employed on the
14th. Years ago, there used to be a firm Select board practice that, unless
there was full and adequate documentation available in Board packets prior
to meetings, a decision was not allowed to be made at that same meeting.
This policy needs to be revived.
As
soon as I realized what had happened on the 14th, I made it a point to meet
with both Richard and Bruce for extended discussions. After I told them that
I had already determined the general direction of my decision before I had
even heard about their comments, I shared with them the particulars of what
I have said this evening, and expressed in no uncertain terms my outrage
that they would attempt to politically influence a zoning decision in
progress. Both appeared at the time to agree that what they had done on the
14th was not right. Later I asked to meet with Keith, but he declined with
the comment that everything he did was done at the Board's direction.
I
indicated to both Richard and Bruce that I felt that the integrity of the
zoning process was so important that I could not simply sweep this whole
affair under the rug. The offense was brought up in public and it needed to
be put to rest in public. I told them that, at the very minimum, I expected
them to publicly, unconditionally and unambiguously acknowledge that what
they did was wrong, and that they also apologize in public to me for
questioning my competence to administer the Ordinance properly and to
apologize to the Town for even trying to politically influence a
regulatory, zoning decision. Finally, I told them that they needed to make
an unconditional commitment in public that they, as public officials,
would never again attempt to influence a pending regulatory decision,
whatever the circumstances or whoever the zoning administrator might be.
I
would also suggest that it is clearly high time that the full Board adopt a
firm, effective policy that clearly insures the independence of zoning
administrators in the performance of their duties, whether or not the
Administrator works out of the Town Office.
In
short, the attempt to apply political influence on a pending zoning question
at the end of the meeting on the 14th was an ethical outrage that was built
on clear misinformation; it was an outrage that needs to be both publicly
acknowledged and apologized for, and clearly effective steps need to be
taken to insure that this sort of thing never happens in Brandon again.
Thank
you."
Bruce Brown stated he did meet with Mr. Jakiela and he admitted the
discussion did get carried away at that meeting. The topic should not have
been discussed and Mr. Brown does apologize to Mr. Jakiela and the public.
At the same time, though the comments should not have been expressed, he
still has concerns about the issue, however, that was not the appropriate
time to discuss it. Mr. Brown reiterated he is sorry and noted no further
comments should be made. He also noted this will not happen again.
Richard Baker stated he concurs that the discussion did get carried away and
he does apologize to Mr. Jakiela. He stated there may be some differences of
opinion on interpretation; however, it is clear a mistake was made in
leaving this position open and we are somewhat negligent in allowing the
Town Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to not be adopted.
Bill Hatch apologized to Mr. Jakiela, the public, the Town and the applicant
in the event they were offended. He stated what Mr. Jakiela said was
correct and there may have been a different intent by the Board than what
came across and he apologizes on behalf of the Board.
Ethan Swift stated with regard to the permanent Zoning
Administrator, it is clear what the Administrator's role is according to 24
VSA 4448 Subsection A. Mr. Swift noted in the spirit of working more closely
with the Select Board, the Planning Commission has been trying to move the
process along in filling the permanent position, however, he is unsure why
the Commission continues to be somewhat circumvented and perhaps the Select
Board could shed some light on this subject. Mr. Baker stated Mr. Swift had
suggested at a prior Select Board meeting the position be readvertised,
which has been done. Keith Arlund stated the advertisement will run for a
month through MonsterJobs.com and it is also on the League of Cities and
Towns web site. Bill Hatch noted the position has been readvertised and the
Planning Commission will receive the copies of the resumes.
Richard Baker stated the Board has adopted a practice of not having verbatim
minutes. Mr. Baker wished to address a couple of items from the previous
minutes. He stated at the last meeting, he would not have stated the
Planning Commission does not apply in most communities, because it does
apply in most communities, but in those that have DRB's they have a slightly
different role.
Mr.
Baker questioned if there is a closing date for the last advertisement done
and Mr. Arlund stated the closing date for MonsterJob.com is one month. Mr.
Baker stated copies of the resumes should be provided to the Chair of the
Planning Commission. Kellie Patten stated most people apply in confidence
and this is why the Board has not disclosed the resumes in the past. Ms.
Patten stated we have tried to have a clear definition of the Zoning
Administrator, including criteria, to make it easier for the Planning
Commission to do annual evaluations. Nancy Jakiela stated in the July 14th
meeting tape, Keith Arlund alluded to a Business Manager/Accountant and a
Zoning Administrator. Richard Baker stated we advertised for a Zoning
Administrator for 15 to 20 hours per week. Nancy Jakiela questioned if this
is just a Zoning Administrator. Kellie Patten stated there are two positions
open and it does not prohibit someone from applying for both positions,
which would provide a full-time work schedule for someone interest in that.
Charles Jakiela wished to clarify what Ethan Swift had said, as the Zoning
Administrator's position is clearly defined and the Select Board's role
extends only to the personnel policy. In other words, hours worked, how
efficient they are, etc. It was noted that Richard Baker has said the DRB
and the Zoning Administrator work closely together; however, Mr. Jakiela
indicated he does go to DRB meetings, but only to bring applications to
them. He helps the applicant complete applications, but once it goes to the
DRB, the Zoning Administrator is totally out of the picture. Once the DRB
makes a decision, the Zoning Administrator will write up the permit,
however, there is not much interaction. In terms of the Planning
Commission, there is a lot more interaction.
Ethan Swift noted he also takes exception that the Planning
Commission is negligent in the adoption of the Land Use Ordinance. The
Commission did two public meetings and provided the document to the Select
Board where it sat for a year. It was the Select Board's prerogative to sit
on this iteration. Similarly, the current iteration of the Town Plan was
forwarded to the Select Board for adoption and it was determined there was
not sufficient time to get it adopted. Mr. Swift noted one could call it
negligence or call it trying to do a good job. Richard Baker questioned
where the update of the Town Plan stands. Ethan Swift stated it has gone
through a comprehensive revision process and it is anticipated to release
the draft for public comment and for adoption in early fall. Mr. Swift
stated the Planning Commission and the Select Board should be respectful of
the different governance bodies and he is requesting to work more closely
together on these issues, as we have not been able to do so in the past.
Bill
Hatch stated he commends all public officials, whether acting or appointed,
for their zealous and willingness to participate in the Planning Commission,
Zoning, DRB and the Select Board. He would hope that whatever contentious
attitudes there may be between the Planning Commission and Select Board can
be tempered. He noted the Planning Commission will get the resumes for the
Zoning Administrator's position when they are received.
Richard Baker stated this is a human enterprise and it can get quite messy
at times. The mutual respect and admiration, although dented, is in no way
diminished and we are all working to the same common objective. He noted he
is as human as the next fellow.
9. Public Works Report
a) Consider Road Salt Purchase Order #50777
Motion by Bruce
Brown/Kellie Patten to approve the purchase order for road salt.
Richard Baker stated if the maker of the motion would
accept a friendly amendment for the motion to specify P.O. # 50777 to be
placed with Cargill, Inc. for an amount of 455 tons of road salt at a unit
price of $56.06 for a total of $24,946.70.
Kellie Patten questioned how this compares with what
the League offered. Keith Arlund stated American Rock Salt only responded
to Districts 1, 4 and 6. Cargill did not respond to the League's proposal
nor did they respond to the RFP proposal. He noted it will be business as
usual and it will be advantageous for all towns to order as early as
possible. The Town of Brandon did not opt to join the League, as they did
not have a price; however, they wanted the town to obligate to a certain
quantity. Mr. Arlund noted we did work hard with the Regional Planning
Commission and we achieved what we needed to.
The
motion passed unanimously- 3 to zero.
10.
Committee Reports and Announcements
Bruce
Brown reported the Feral Cat yard sale was a success. It raised $1,000.00
for future spaying and neutering of the cats. Bill Hatch questioned how the
population was changing. Mei Mei Brown stated four years ago, there were 39
cats spayed or neutered and so far this year they will be taking in cat #6
and #7, and only five kittens thanks to everyone's support.
11. Town Hall
a) Consider Town Hall General Lighting Contract
Keith Arlund stated Item (a) of this agenda was previously
approved. This item is coming to the Select Board due to other desired
lighting by the Friends of the Town Hall.
Mei
Mei Brown stated the project is still under budget, as there have been
additional monies raised for this project. Since all improvements have to
go through the Town, the Friends of the Town Hall are asking to spend the
money. Ms. Brown stated John and Anna have been discussing this item. Anna
Scheck stated right now there is $30,000.00 in funds at the town office. Mei
Mei Brown reported there is $20,000.00 coming from the Vermont Art Council,
along with some additional funds, which is more than enough money to cover
the expenses. Richard Baker stated it is unknown what the expenses will be.
Ms. Brown stated the largest expense will be the water connection and at
this point the Friends of the Town Hall are expecting to have a $20,000.00
surplus. Ms. Brown stated they would like to do this change, as it would
provide much better lighting for future events. Richard Baker questioned if
the vendor’s pricing is based upon getting both items. Keith Arlund stated
these are two entirely different items.
Motion by
Richard Baker/Kellie Patten to authorize the signing Item #2 with Light
House Corporation for $6,585.00 for miscellaneous lighting in the Brandon
Town Hall, with the understanding the work will not begin until it is known
there is enough money to pay for both the sprinkler work and this work.
Mr.
Baker stated he is reluctant to have them start on the lighting work if
there is some unanticipated cost on the sprinkler system. Once the sprinkler
system is completed, there will be a better idea of the funds remaining.
Kellie Patten questioned when the water line tap is going to be done. Keith
Arlund stated he has more information that he will provide to the Board
during executive session. Kellie Patten stated this item may be the only
thing that will run up the budget.
Richard Baker stated perhaps the Taste of Vermont will be such a success
that there will be no worries about funds. Keith Arlund questioned if Item 2
is required for this function. Mei Mei Brown stated the sprinkler system has
to be in place for this function. Mr. Arlund noted he is working with the
Fire Chief on the external source of water and the Fire Safety Division will
be informed it has passed the test. Bruce Brown stated the lighting will
enhance the performance on the 16th and between Mei Mei, John and
Anna, it can be determined if there is sufficient money and resolve
Richard’s concerns.
The
motion passed unanimously - 3 to zero.
b) Consider Change Order #1 to Sprinkler Contract
Motion by
Richard Baker/Kellie Patten to approve the Change Order #1 with North
Country Sprinkler for the Town Hall Project, bringing the total to
$34,577.00. This change order will not alter the completion date. The
motion passed unanimously - 3 to zero.
12. Old/Other Business
Kellie Patten displayed a mounted 5-pound wide-mouth bass and noted this was
caught by her son, Thomas. This will be displayed next to the picture of
Thomas with his first fish, which was a 6-inch perch. She noted that her son
and grandfather are very proud of this accomplishment.
Ethan Swift stated it was noted in the Select Board minutes in June that the
terms of several members of town committees had expired or were about to
expire. He noted it had been requested that volunteers were urged to
participate on these committees and he asked if there was much response
received. Kellie Patten stated there were four appointments made to the
Planning Commission and the DRB. She noted that even if a term is up, one
has to reapplying, although they are reappointments, to be considered. Keith
Arlund stated there was one individual interested in the Downtown
Development Board. Ethan Swift stated he would like to bring up the issue
again that Dale Ann Stratton has submitted her application for the Planning
Commission twice. Bruce Brown stated there is a full roster at this point,
as he thought the decision had been made that seven was a sufficient number
for this committee. Kellie Patten stated it was the Board's intent to keep
the Commission at seven people, as this has been Brandon's policy and
tradition. Ethan Swift stated he did not see any action the Select Board did
in changing the number to seven. Richard Baker stated there was a defacto
change in the membership to seven by not making any appointments, however,
if Mr. Swift would like to make the official change to seven members, it
could be done. Ethan Swift stated it seems to be the prudent thing to do in
light of the anticipated public hearings for the town plan to add Ms.
Stratton to the Committee. Kellie Patten noted the number would have to be
either seven or nine members and currently there are seven members. If the
Commission is having difficulty getting a quorum, this is a discussion that
needs to be held. Ethan Swift stated we are not dealing with the issue of a
quorum, but he is making a point the Select Board did not change the
Committee from nine to seven members.
Bruce Brown stated the only old business he has is the issue of the
Churchill Bridge Road. Richard Baker stated that Town Highway 22 remains a
town highway and the public should have the expectation to reasonable use
and should not need permission to use the highway. The Town Fathers need to
be sure the public has the free use of this highway.
Motion by
Richard Baker/Kellie Patten to enter into executive session at 8:50PM for
purposes of discussing a contract and potential litigation. The session is
to include the Town Manager. The motion passed unanimously - 3 to zero.
13. Executive Session
The
board came out of Executive Session at 9:15PM. There were no actions
required.
14. Adjournment
Motion by Bruce
Brown/Richard Baker to adjourn the Select Board meeting at 9:16PM. The
motion passed unanimously - 3 to zero.
Respectfully submitted,
Charlene Bryant
Recording Secretary
