Town of Brandon

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, Mitch Pearl

Also in Attendance: Anna Scheck, Tom Schmelzenbach, Bob Kilpeck, Mary Lou Webster, Bruce Jenson

a) Agenda Adoption - Motion by Bruce Brown/Kellie Patten to adopt the agenda as written. The motion passed unanimously - 4 to zero.

Motion by Bruce Brown/Mitch Pearl to approve the minutes of the August 11, 2008 Select Board and Board of Sewer Commissioners meetings. The motion passed unanimously - 4 to zero.

Motion by Kellie Patten/Mitch Pearl to re-appoint Dale Creeley as the Town Health Officer. The motion passed unanimously - 4 to zero.

Richard Baker provided a friendly amendment to the motion noting the Board makes the nomination to the state and they provide the appointment for up to three years.

Motion by Richard Baker/Kellie Patten to approve the warrant of June 30, 2008 in the amount of $9,307.84. The motion passed unanimously - 4 to zero.

Motion by Richard Baker/Bruce Brown to approve the warrant of August 25, 2008 in the amount of $201,686.65. The motion passed unanimously - 4 to zero.

Motion by Mitch Pearl/Bruce Brown to approve the purchase order to Markowski at a rate of $9.14 per cubic yard for a total of $27,995.82 for winter sand. The motion passed unanimously - 4 to zero.

Kellie Patten reported school starts tomorrow for Neshobe. The Kindergarten orientation will be tomorrow with Wednesday as their official start day. On Thursday evening, September 4^th, there will be an Open House at Neshobe School. Picture day is scheduled for September 3^rd at OV and Neshobe's picture days will be September 22^nd and 23^rd. Ms. Patten stated the pad and electrical requirements for the new generator are complete at Neshobe School and they are awaiting the delivery of the generator.

The following letter had been sent to Bruce Brown and was read at the meeting by Mary Lou Webster:

We have concerns with the current work being performed in Estabrook Field in particular, and the town's general lack of notification to us as land adjoiners concerning projects involving the recreation field. Bruce and I read the 14 July minutes of the Select board meeting and we both take exception to the town's maintenance manager speaking on our behalf in response to an inquiry about neighbors objecting to the project's lighting. We are vehemently opposed to ANY form of lighting being erected across the road from our home, and we want these lights removed. The reason we have not voiced this opinion to the Select Board before is that no one has ever asked us. As land adjoiners to this project, we were never notified by mail about any Developmental Review Board hearings on this project, and so we were never given the opportunity to attend any meetings and provide our input. Reading the July board minutes is the first time that we knew anything about lighting going in across the road. We both appreciate Bruce Brown asking about the neighbor's lighting concerns at that meeting. During the Brandon Industrial Park and BTS Act 250 hearings, we had party status on the issues of traffic and aesthetics, and lighting is included under the later category. Bruce knew, from my participation at past Planning Commission hearings involving neighborhood projects, that light pollution is an important issue with us.

We have no objection to the road work. In April 2003, I wrote to Senator Claire Ayers about the safety hazard associated with the Estabrook Field driveway. When Route 7 was re-done through this section in the early 1980's, the state engineers graded the road in front of our house to conform to the curve in the road. There was no driveway there then because the old Arnold District Road had already been moved to a new T junction across from Pine Hill Cemetery. The old section of road in front of our home was discontinued, although the town maintained legal ownership of the right-of-way. Our former town manager, Mr. Brandon Godfrey, told me that when the town built the park, they never asked the state for permission to create a new curb cut, especially along a section of highway that was never designed to have one. They just put it in and the state AOT was none too happy about it, but it was done at that point.

Over the years there have been several times when we have encountered near collisions with drivers exiting Estabrook Field without stopping, and they have nearly collided with us as we were leaving our driveway. Drivers leaving the park have good visibility up and down Route 7 and think that it is safe enough to drive out without stopping. There has never been a stop sign at the end of the driveway. They almost never check for vehicles leaving our driveway. It was this situation I wrote to Senator Ayers about four years ago with hopes that she could get the State AOT and the town working together for a solution. That never happened, although she assured me in the summer of 2004, as a result of conversations she had with the town, this problem would be solved.

Now the driveway is being built up to grade to remove the old blind spots, not because of our safety concerns, but because of the regional mass transit project. We are requesting that when it is done, they also install a stop sign at the end of the driveway.

As for the lights, this is a completely new issue and both of us are opposed to lights shining all night into our front bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living room. Had we wanted lights around our home we would have bought a house in town. We liked this location for its relative lack of light pollution. The town owns about 12.5 acres of park land across the road from our home. This house has stood in this location for 220 years. When the planners laid out this park, they put all development and every noisy activity involved with the park right in front of our home. They are also doing the same thing with this project. We have always assumed that town government had to operate with the same rules and regulations as any other landowner in town. Neighbor / land adjoiners should be notified when a project on adjacent land was pending which might affect their property, their property values or the quality of their life. If town government is exempt from its own rules and regulations, please let us know. If not, we expect to be notified by mail about any future projects involving the recreation field. We deserve to have party status on an issue that is such a dominant part of our neighborhood, and has the potential to impact our life in so many profound ways. We hope that the next time the town treats their neighbors with more consideration than they have this time.

Tom Schmelzenbach apologized for any misunderstanding with regard to notify adjacent property owners prior to the start of this project. He had discuss this item with Charles Jakiela and the project did not require a permit and therefore, did not require notification to adjacent property owners. The main concern is with the lights and he has assured Ms. Webster these lights are timed and can be turned on and off. The last bus goes through relatively early and there would not be a need for the lighting after the last bus. The lights have been installed for safety during the times people are getting on and off the bus. The lights will be turned down and will be coordinated with the bus schedule. Relative to the drive access to Route 7, Mr. Schmelzenbach stated this was a request made a number of years ago. He does have a permit to improve the access, as the grade was steep and caused vehicles difficulty when leaving the facility. The grade has been changed so that cars can stand and have better visual ability of Route 7. Mr. Schmelzenbach stated the driveway across the street is a private drive and he is not familiar with this area or about fixing it. The site sign package had been put out to bid, awarded and the signs are currently being manufactured. Bruce Jenson questioned if they should have been notified of this project. Kellie Patten stated since a permit was not needed, there is not a state statute requiring that adjacent landowners be notified. Mr. Jenson stated McKernon Group's project engineer had advised them of activities that were adjacent to their property in the past. In contrast, the town provided no courtesy in advising them of this project. Kellie Patten stated it is a good point to be brought up and it would have been the courteous thing for the town to have done in advising the property owners. Ms. Patten stated now that Tom Schmelzenbach and Keith Arlund are aware of this issue, she felt that property owners will be notified in the future. She noted if a building was to be constructed, a permit would have been required, however, due to the scope of work, that is the reason they were not notified. Mary Lou Webster stated this is a major issue to them and they would like to know that they will have party status on any future changes regarding traffic and aesthetics in this area. Bruce Brown stated it should be a matter of policy and a matter of good neighbors that in the future people should be notified of any changes the town will be making. Mr. Brown stated he did look into whether that park came under Act 250 and it was noted the parking lot was never under Act 250 jurisdiction. Bruce Jenson stated they would have appreciated to be notified. Bill Hatch stated it is not likely this situation will happen again and the Board appreciates their concern. The stop sign has been addressed and it sounds as though the lights should not be a major factor, as long as they are shut off after the last bus run. Tom Schmelzenbach thought the last bus goes through around 6:30 - 7:00PM. He stated their concerns are well taken and there will be a courtesy call in the future for any projects that may or may not require a permit. Richard Baker stated if this project was going to be a concern, it would have been neighborly to talk to the adjoining property owners and going forward notification should take place.

Tom Schmelzenbach stated this item is to address the curb on West Seminary Street, as it is currently flush with the roadway edge and the water runs into people's lawns and driveways. This is the type of project that would make the most efficient use of funds and would be the least expensive fix. The project would include 270 feet of sidewalk from the Credit Union and would be similar in technique to that facility. It would be a paved sidewalk with a width of five feet that would match the driveways it crosses and would end near the old high school at property #12. The road would not be affected by the project. Richard Baker stated this is part of the designated downtown and he thought the town would have better standards. He was disappointed with asphalt being proposed rather than concrete and he would rather do it correct the first time. Tom Schmelzenbach stated he can come back with figures for a concrete sidewalk at the next board meeting. Mr. Schmelzenbach noted if the town were going to pour a concrete curb, consideration should be given to replacing all of the curb with new curb, which would then produce a product that is good for 35 or 40 years.

Tom Schmelzenbach stated this project is a fix to prevent the tripping hazards in the downtown area. This involves patching the sidewalk to make it aesthetically better and safer to walk on. He noted the sidewalk could not be built today and not expect it to be disturbed when the Route 7 work is done. Temporary traffic will run on the sidewalk areas during that time and when the replacement is done, the grade will change. It was noted the current proposal is a temporary fix. Richard Baker stated West Seminary is part of the designated downtown and the work there should be uniform with Segment 6. Tom Schmelzenbach stated the price for the downtown work is about $4,000.00. The West Seminary job is about $12,000.00 and for 270 feet of sidewalk, that is a fair amount of money. The consensus of the Board was to obtain the pricing for a concrete sidewalk for West Seminary Street. Bruce Brown stated the Chamber would like to see some improvements to the sidewalks downtown, however, if they are going to be impacted by the Route 7 project, there should not be a large amount of money put into them. Tom Schmelzenbach stated the Green Park sidewalk is going to be completely disrupted with the Route 7 project, as there are a lot of utilities that run underneath the park. Bill Hatch stated it is the consensus of the Board to do the fix on Center Street and to obtain additional information for West Seminary. Richard Baker stated all adjoining property owners, as well as the Chamber, should be advised of the projects prior to their start.

Richard Baker questioned the status of the Backyard project, as he was uncertain if Curtis Johnson is still away. Tom Schmelzenbach reported he spoke to a couple of contractors and when he has something more solid he will bring it before the Board. Bruce Brown questioned if there is anything else that may hold up the project. Tom Schmelzenbach stated he has had some conversations about the scope of the project and relative to other activities, he wants to make sure the site lights match those planned for Segment 6 and the building of the ramp will require a retaining wall. He noted there is a lot of work to getting the ramp together. Richard Baker requested something more definitive by the next Board meeting.

Mitch Pearl stated Vermont Sketches was a wonderful success and it was great to see people in the town hall. He noted it was a significant fund raiser and they look forward to future events. There is a meeting of the Friends of the Town Hall scheduled for tomorrow night at 7:00PM at the town hall. The fire suppression system is inching towards completion, with the water hook-up remaining to be done.

Richard Baker stated he has an outline that he will provide to the board members.

Bruce Brown stated the Chamber wished to thank the town for painting the bandstand and they also brought up the subject of the zoning administrator position. He stated the Chamber also expressed concern about the economic development position and Mr. Brown advised them the town presently has an economic development person in our town manager. They questioned how to best fill the position or utilize the funding for economic development. Richard Baker stated there has been discussion on how to best staff the town to fill those responsibilities and we seem to be nearing closure on how to handle the administrative staffing. Mr. Baker stated the absence of an economic development position earning $60,000.00 had no bearing on VT Tubbs and Nexus closures or First Brandon Bank being sold to Lake Sunapee Bank. Kellie Patten stated even though there was not someone in that position, the Board and Town Manager did everything possible to try to keep them in town, however, it was the owners who made the decision to leave despite the effort the town put in. Richard Baker stated the town contributes to Rutland Economic Development, as well as activity with VEDA. Our local legislators had also participated in these meetings and the nature of some of the discussions are such that the interested parties do not want anyone talking about it. Mr. Baker stated the Board should be focusing its attention on the town plan and the zoning to be sure that development is compliant. There is nothing prohibiting the Chamber from taking part in economic development. Mitch Pearl stated he agrees with Richard and Bruce, and he feels that Keith Arlund has done a wonderful job in the interim. Mr. Pearl felt it has taken too long to reorganize the town office and he feels the town would be well served to have someone dealing with the issues every day.

Richard Baker stated as most are aware, new water meters were installed between October and April. There have been some difficulties in capturing how much water was consumed and this has caused a problem with the billing. There will be a test run completed tomorrow and if they look correct, the sewer bills will be mailed out and will be based on meter readings, not on the history of past use. Mr. Baker stated there are over 250 water bills that have to be reissued.

Richard Baker stated the town wide reappraisal has been done and starting tomorrow property owners will be having informal meetings. Those meetings are for people who have questions or do not understand where the number came from. There are around 190 meetings scheduled. The next step is to publish a grand list, which will form the basis of the formal grievance process, with notices being published for scheduling grievances. When this process is completed to the listers' satisfaction, they will lodge a 411 Report that is forwarded to the state, with exception of the people appealing. This will trigger the state to recalculate the common level of appraisal. Mr. Baker stated since a reappraisal was completed, the "CLA" will likely come in between .9 and 1.1. The town will be given the rate around 30 to 45 days after the 411 report is filed and the Board will formalize the rate as soon as the information from the state is received. The Board must establish the billing rate and issue the tax bills and no tax payments will be due until 30 days after they are mailed out. Under the statutes, the voters at previous town meetings have voted to tax themselves in four equal payments on August 15^th, November 15^th, February 15^th and May 15^th. Mr. Baker stated it is more than likely the first two installments of the total tax bill will come due on November 15^th. The Town Clerk stated he is accepting payments from people who want to make payments on their August installment. Mr. Baker noted this is disconcerting to some taxpayers whose taxes are escrowed. He noted when a town wide reappraisal is done, roughly one-third of the taxes go up, one-third go down and one-third stay the same. He stated in many cases, the greater than average appreciation can be traced back to improvements, such as a new deck, a new room, etc.. Mr. Baker stated the cost tables for land has been upgraded and this had not been done for 18 years. Mitch Pearl stated people get concerned when their values go up that their taxes will go up, however, taxes only go up if the value increases more than the other people's homes. If the new appraisal increase is less than 82%, someone's taxes will likely not increase. Richard Baker stated if the increase is significantly greater than the 82% average, he does encourage people to attend one of the meetings. He stated sometimes a mistake is made and that is why they have the informal meetings first. If someone is then not happy, a formal grievance can be filed.

Richard Baker stated on the subject of dispatch, a response was sent to the VSP regarding this issue. A meeting was held on this subject and was attended by Representatives Acinapura and Flory. Based on the direction from the Board, Keith Arlund has sent a reiteration of the Board's sentiments that the town has spent $330,000.00 for a dispatcher that was never hired and as we are only one of two towns that pay for dispatch, the town is not willing to pay anything further until the billing is more equitable. It was also reiterated the town does not want any diminution in its services.

Mitch Pearl suggested the Board review the proposed Facilities Use Policy over the next couple of weeks for discussion at the next Select Board meeting. Bruce Brown suggested the policy should read a percentage of the gross sales and not just the ticket sales. Mitch Pearl stated that is a good point.

Bill Hatch stated he had suggested the Board review the investment policy. Mr. Hatch noted for anything over $100,000.00, he would suggest requiring third party collateral. He stated some banks will offer this at no charge along with a competitive rate, however, some banks will offer the collateral but will charge for it. Richard Baker stated he concurs with Mr. Hatch that the Board should go for the higher security and he is all for making an amendment. Mr. Baker suggested Mr. Hatch put the changes into words and present it to the Board for adoption.

Richard Baker stated with regard to the town plan, it appears the Planning Commission is finished with the draft and has offered to have a working session with the Select Board. They would then warn it and hold the public hearings. Mr. Baker noted this is definitely progress and the end is in sight.

Motion by Richard Baker/Kellie Patten to enter into executive session at 8:30PM for purpose of discussing a possible matter of litigation. The motion passed unanimously - 4 to zero.

The board came out of Executive Session at 8:55PM. There were no actions required.

Motion by Kellie Patten/Richard Baker to adjourn the Select Board meeting at 8:57PM. The motion passed unanimously - 4 to zero.

Brandon Select Board Meeting

August 25, 2008

Recording Secretary