Word Games

Below is correspondence between Jim Barlow and Seth Webb regarding the setting

aside of undesignated funds last year for the retirement of the golf course debt

balloon payment. If the money was voted to be set aside for this why is a

separate vote needed to set up a restricted fund for this purpose.

The very definition of a sinking fund is that its use is restricted for a

certain purpose. This legal jockeying seems to me is just an attempt to preempt

these funds being set aside. The town administration waited this long to even

address this issue when the money should have been set aside thirty days after

the March vote.

The question is what happens if the vote is against setting up a restricted fund. 

Logically the money would then be fair game to be reassigned.

Vito

From: Jim Barlow [jbarlow@vlct.org]

Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:20 AM 

To: sethwebb@town.killington.vt.us 

Subject: RE: budget 

Good Morning Seth,

To make clear, Jim Haff's question of January 22nd asked how to allocate funds to a designated fund for golf course repayment and whether it can be done with a special line vote (i.e., a special article) or through the town budget (i.e., a budget line item). My response was that either method was acceptable. Your question of September 18th was whether a special article was required to create this designated fund for golf course repayment. My recommendation was to ask the voters for specific authorization to create a sinking fund to retire the golf course debt on the ballot at town meeting in 2014. I think that this is the best practice The question of how to create a reserve fund (i.e., your question) is separate and distinct from how to appropriate money to that reserve fund (i.e., Jim Haff's question). My opinion was, and remains to be, that money can be appropriated to a reserve fund by a special article or through the town budget at town meeting. My opinion was, and remains to be, that the best way to create a reserve fund (or sinking fund) is to present the question of creating the fund to the voters at town meeting. There is nothing inconsistent about these opinions.

Jim Barlow

Senior Staff Attorney

VLCT Municipal Assistance Center

Jbarlow@VLCT.org

229-9111 x 1914 229-2211 (Fax) SKYPE - Jim.Barlow9 

Comment: There may be nothing inconsistent about these opinions in and of themselves, however the need for the second opinion seems redundant as stated in my introduction. Its obvious to me, and I would assume most people, that when you vote to appropriate money for a certain purpose, the money will be used for that purpose without the need for another vote to confirm the previous vote. All the legal mumbo jumbo aside, the intent of the voters was clear. Now that we the taxpayers have assumed the responsibility for paying off the golf course debt we do not want further demands on our taxes in the form of interest to rollover this debt or to have funds set aside for the balloon payment raided for some other purpose. This is what this ruse is all about: the hope is to confuse the voters with all this legal monkeying around so they'll vote against a restricted fund and undo last March's vote.

Vito