Friday, February 28, 2014

Article 11 five man selectboard back and forth discussion with Chris Bianchi

In the interest of fairness I am posting Chris Bianchi's email comments to me regarding my comments in the previous blog post "New Selectboard Member to be decided in Killington".
I will reiterate my comments and follow them with the email chain between Chris and myself.

(Vito) Comment: What is not mentioned here is Article 11 which would establish a 5 member select board. 
Article 11. "Shall the voters elect two additional selectboard members for terms of two years each pursuant to 17 V.S.A.  § 2650(b) at the next town meeting."
Notice how it does not mention a 5 member select board. In my estimation the wording is intentionally ambiguous to snare the unaware voter into voting yes without realizing what is being voted for.
This issue has been voted down recently. There is no need for a 5 man select board in our town. Generally towns that have 5 man boards are multiple times larger, with thousands of residents. Usually the rational for a 5 member board is to spread the work load among a greater number of people. In Vermont the basic form of government requires the select board to run the day to day operations of the town. It can however choose to delegate that responsibility to a Town Manager which is what our town has.
There are very few towns with a five man select board and a town manager. 
We are a town of about 900 people. How much government do we really need?
I know this article was put in at the behest of one of the current board members. His mantra is "its all in the way you present things" and I agree with him. If you present something as innocuous without revealing its true nature and consequences people are more likely to agree with you. This is the case here.
There is no pressing need for a 5 man select board so why present it for a vote unless you have an underlying agenda which is not readily apparent.
My take on this is that a board saturated with 5 like minded members is harder to turn around than a 3 member board. When the golf course mess and the frivolous 1% tax spending needed to be addressed it took 2 election cycles to elect a board which properly addressed and corrected the problems. If we had a 5 member board it would have taken 3 or more election cycles.
VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 11


To Vito's Comment "There are very few towns with a five man select board and a town manager."

When I did the research in 2012, of the 41 towns that had Town Manager form of Government, only 3 had a 3-member board and 38 had a 5-member board.

Of the 28 towns with a Town administrator (not Town Manager form), only 7 have 3-member boards and 21 have 5-member boards.

Of the 237 towns that have Selectboards, only 114 are 3-member boards and 123 are 5-member or more boards (at least 2 have 7-member boards).

We might as well have the accurate information when we make statements.

Chris to Vito

For someone who claims to want to get the accurate information out there, I'm very surprised that you would not do any research at all.  Disappointing.   

Quote:
"There are very few towns with a five man select board and a town manager."

When I did the research in 2012, of the 41 towns that had Town Manager form of Government, only 3 had a 3-member board and 38 had a 5-member board.  

Of the 28 towns with a Town administrator (not Town Manager form), only 7 have 3-member boards and 21 have 5-member boards.

Of the 237 towns that have Selectboards, only 114 are 3-member boards and 123 are 5-member or more boards (at least 2 have 7-member boards).

The reasoning for the 5 member board is not to spread the work load.  That's not it at all. FALSE!

This is not a Vermont thing, its a world wide thing.   

VLCT and ICMA describe the Town Manager form of Government similar to a corporate CEO/Board of Directors relationship.  In this relationship, the board is a policy setting board, which is what we our Selectboard is suppose to be in a Town Manager form of government.  Typically policy setting boards are larger boards.  The difference between the 3 person and 5 person board is exactly opposite of what you describe in your comment.  

Just thought you of all people would like to know the real information.

Chris
Vito to Chris

Chris,
According to your own statistics less than 10% of towns have a five member select board and a town manager. I would say that’s only a few! As for spreading the work load I got that from one of your statements when you were promoting the five man select board the last time.  So to say my comment is completely false is a bit disingenuous.  Don’t you think?
Vito  
Chris to Vito

No, Vito, your statements continue to be disingenuous and miss-leading.  Your statement, "There are very few towns with a five man select board and a town manager." tries to make people believe that, with a Town Manager, we do not need a 5 member board and that's completely opposite of common practice.  The truth is that more towns in Vermont have a 5 or more member board than those with a 3 member board and of the towns with a Town Manager form of Government like Killington, 93% have a 5 or more member board.  There is nothing misleading about my statement and no hidden agenda.
Vito to Chris

Chris,
You should quit while you think you are ahead. You keep reiterating the same statistics. Twenty one towns with a five man select board and a Town manager divided by 237 towns is 8.9%. I did the research last time and that is why recalled there was a minimal amount of towns with this configuration. I also recall that towns with low populations such as ours did not for the most part have 5 man select boards. The only one I recall is Stratton and they didn’t have a town manager.
Chris, in the immortal words of Shakespeare, you “doth protest too much.”  I must have hit a nerve too put you in such a defensive posture. And quit saying that the rationale for the five member board is not, at least in part,  about spreading the work load. It’s common sense and you said it the last time you were promoting it!
Vito
Chris to Vito

Thank you for continuing to include everyone in the replies so that the correct information is heard.

 Using your same logic, 3 towns divided by 237 is 1.3%.

 Vito To Chris

So you’re saying since we are only one of three towns with a 3 man select board and a Town Manager we need to have a 5 man Select Board? These 3 towns have an average population of 1,893 with Killington being the low with 1,122 according to the 2011 data. I don’t think that’s a very good argument.
 
However, I have to apologize for misrepresenting your data. In my haste to reply I misread the 5 member select board towns with a town administrator as being towns with a 5 member board and a town manager. So the revised calculation is 38 towns with a 5 man select board and a town manager divided by 237 equaling 16% which is still a relatively low number.
 
Nonetheless, looking back on my own research for 2011, I noted that towns with a 5 member select board and a town manager had an average population of 6,068 with only one town having a population of less than 2,300, that being Cavendish with a population of 1,379. Our population at the same point 1,122.
 
Remember my numbers are from 2011 not 2012 so yours may not be exactly comparable.
 
Vito
 
Chris to Vito

Vito,
 
Is your only argument that since we only have small population that we should not have a 5 member selectboard?  What is the economy of those towns that you looked out? What is the grand list real estate value?  What is the demand for services in those towns?  What is the winter weekend population of those towns? I don't think population alone can be the only factor. 
 
Chris
 
Vito To Chris

I think I’ve laid out several arguments against it. I don’t think that the size of the economy is necessarily separate from the population although in our case it is. Frankly, if the economy is the/or a deciding factor how did the town manage for so long with an economy greater than it is now? If you’re spurning my argument that spreading the workload is not a rationale for a 5 member board then why is the size of our economy a factor? Only one town with a Town Manager regardless of 3 or 5 member select board has a population per select person lower than ours and that is Cavendish at 275 (2011). The one above us is Dorset at 422 and they have a five man select board. If we went to 5 it would be 224 per. The average for a 5 member select board with a town manager is 1,214.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the change to a Town Manager form of government in Killington a relatively recent development in long history of this town? I would venture to guess that change was a result of the significant economic change resulting from the ski area development.
Rather than more select people what I would rather see a Town Auditor.
 
Vito

New Selectboard member To Be Decided In Killington


Vermont Standard

KILLINGTON — Voters will choose a new Selectman for a three-year term at Town Meeting day this March.

Incumbent Bernard Rome, will no longer seek office, and Kenneth Lee is on the ballot to fill that seat. The annual Town Meeting has been warned for Tuesday March 4 from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. at the Town Office to vote by Australian ballot for elective town officers and on 10 other articles.

Lee has served on the Planning Commission since 2002, and had been the town’s representative to the Rutland Regional Commission for the past two years. It is also possible that someone else may be nominated at Town Meeting to be added to the ballot.

The 2014 town budget calls for an expenditure of $4,103,573, to be funded by non-property tax revenues of $1,181,804, including an estimated local option tax of $700,000, estimated federal and state payments of $120,000, collected penalties and interest of $100,000 and various other state grants, user fees, and fees for services by the town such as town clerk fees. The balance — $2,921,769 — would come from property taxes. Unlike last year, when $523,260 was transferred from undesignated funds to cover flood recovery and some capital account expenses, no such transfers are proposed this year.

The net result, of the proposed town budget for 2014, is an increase of the tax rate from 0.2889 to 0.2941, about a half of one percent.

An informational meeting has been scheduled for Monday March 3 at 7 p.m. at the Killington Elementary School.

Any changes of note to Killington’s overall tax rate (municipal and education) would come from the school budget of $1,579,954 to be presented to the voters on Monday, March 3 at 4:30 p.m. at the Killington Elementary School. That budget outlines an increase in spending to be raised of $28,733, which together with the municipal rate increase of close to half-a-cent brings the town’s estimated combined homestead tax rate up to 2.0079 from 1.8313 last year.

The new rate would increase residential property taxes by $353 on a home appraised at $200,000.

The adoption of a July 1 through June 30 fiscal year, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2015 is one of the more prominent issues facing Killington’s registered voters this year.

The Selectboard has proposed to change the fiscal period from a calendar year to a fiscal year starting on July 1, so that voters can look at a proposed budget before it is implemented. Currently, the General Fund Statement of Revenues and Receipts is presented to Town Meeting in early March, and town officials manage a proposed budget for the upcoming year for the months of January and February that is not formally approved until Town Meeting day — a situation the Selectboard and Town Manager, Seth Webb want to remedy.

Article 4 asks the voters to approve the issuance of municipal bonds not to exceed $1.4 million to pay the cost of repairing and rehabilitating town highways. Funds would be used for major roadway paving projects for Killington Road and West Hill Roads and gravel road work for Hadley Hill, Lombard Hill and South View Path. The bonds would also pay for walkway, bridge and culvert work.

Voters will also be asked to approve the spending of $169,000 appropriated from property taxes to fund renovations of the current Teen Center into a town museum that would be operated by the Sherburne Historians and maintained by the town.

The Town Report has been mailed to the town’s 883 registered voters and reports will also be available at the Killington Town Office at 2706 River Road in Killington.

Last year, 462 of 910 registered voters cast their ballots.

— George Calve

Comment: What is not mentioned here is Article 11 which would establish a 5 member select board. 

Article 11. "Shall the voters elect two additional selectboard members for terms of two years each pursuant to 17 V.S.A.  § 2650(b) at the next town meeting."

Notice how it does not mention a 5 member select board. In my estimation the wording is intentionally ambiguous to snare the unaware voter into voting yes without realizing what is being voted for.
This issue has been voted down recently. There is no need for a 5 man select board in our town. Generally towns that have 5 man boards are multiple times larger, with thousands of residents. Usually the rational for a 5 member board is to spread the work load among a greater number of people. In Vermont the basic form of government requires the select board to run the day to day operations of the town. It can however choose to delegate that responsibility to a Town Manager which is what our town has.
There are very few towns with a five man select board and a town manager. 
We are a town of about 900 people. How much government do we really need?
I know this article was put in at the behest of one of the current board members. His mantra is "its all in the way you present things" and I agree with him. If you present something as innocuous without revealing its true nature and consequences people are more likely to agree with you. This is the case here.
There is no pressing need for a 5 man select board so why present it for a vote unless you have an underlying agenda which is not readily apparent.
My take on this is that a board saturated with 5 like minded members is harder to turn around than a 3 member board. When the golf course mess and the frivolous 1% tax spending needed to be addressed it took 2 election cycles to elect a board which properly addressed and corrected the problems. If we had a 5 member board it would have taken 3 or more election cycles.
VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 11

Killington’s tax increase

February 28,2014
 
In response to the Feb. 25 Rutland Herald article entitled “(Killington) School budget would add 17 cents to tax rate”:

The first sentence in the article states, “Residents are looking at a proposed school budget that is increasing 1 percent, but would add 17 cents to the tax rate.” This statement is at best grossly misleading and at worst maliciously damaging to the integrity of the upcoming vote on the Killington Elementary School budget.

While the first part of the statement is true that the proposed elementary school budget is to increase by 1 percent, this increase on its own does not result in a 17-cent increase in the homestead property tax rate affecting residential taxpayers.

The 17-cent increase is the total potential increase in the homestead tax rate from the combined budgets of the Killington Elementary and Woodstock Union High School.

The numbers are from two different sources: the Killington Elementary School numbers are from the town report, and the Windsor Central Supervisory Union numbers are from David Leenders of the supervisory union.

The tax impact of the Killington Elementary School is 7 cents and 6 cents in the KES and W.C.S.U models respectively, not the 17 cents stated in the article. The balance of 10 cents is from the impact of the Woodstock High School budget.

Please understand that the KES and Woodstock High School budgets are separate votes. Also, without complicating matters further, the 2015 budget calculation includes the proposed state increase of 7 cents in the base homestead rate used in calculating the homestead rate for Killington. While not a one-for-one correlation, it has a significant impact, so the 6-cent and 7-cent rate increases in the respective calculations are even less attributable to the KES budget increase.

Vito Rasenas

Killington

High school is big factor in Killington school tax

Rutland Herald
By Josh O’Gorman
STAFF WRITER | February 28,2014
KILLINGTON — The increase in the education tax rate is being driven more by the proposed high school budget than the proposed elementary school budget, and not just by the elementary school budget as previously reported.

During a public meeting Monday night, residents will vote on a proposed budget for Killington Elementary School of $1,579,954, an increase of $17,642 — or 1.1 percent — compared to the current budget of $1,562,312.

Tuesday, voters will head to the Town Office to vote by ballot on a proposed budget for Woodstock Union High School District of $11,722,322, an increase of $400,017, or 3.5 percent, compared to the current budget of $11,322,305.

These budgets, together with external factors from the state, would result in an additional 17 cents on the homestead tax rate, as the rate rises from $1.54 to $1.71.

Killington residential property owners — and property owners across the state — are all looking at a 7-cent increase in their tax rate, based upon a proposal from the Legislature to raise the homestead tax rate from 94 cents to $1.01.

The Legislature has not approved that tax increase, but if it does, it will be the second year in row. Last year, the homestead tax rate rose from 89 cents to 94 cents.

The 7-cent tax increase is shared across both the elementary and high school budgets. When looking at the budgets separately, the high school budget is having a greater impact on the increase than the elementary school budget.

Currently, the overall education portion of the residential tax rate is approximately $1.54.

Of that amount, the elementary budget represents 79 cents, while the high school portion costs 75 cents.

Under the proposed elementary and high school budgets, the education tax rate would rise 17 cents, to approximately $1.71. Of that amount, approximately 85 cents comes from the elementary budget and 86 cents comes from the high school budget.

In short, this year, the elementary budget makes up a larger percentage of the residential tax rate than the high school budget. Under the proposed budgets, the high school budget makes up a larger percentage.

Overall, the proposed elementary school budget would add 6 cents to the tax rate, while the high school budget would add 11 cents.

josh.ogorman@ rutlandherald.com


Comment: Thanks to Josh for updating the analysis of Killington's proposed homestead tax rate and Jim Haff for coordinating with David Leenders of the Windsor County Supervisory to get the proper information out to me, Josh and the voters.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

City could gain $2M in pipeline agreement

Rutland Herald
By Gordon Dritschilo
Staff Writer | February 20,2014
 
A proposed new contract for the Alpine Pipeline could bring the city $2.3 million in revenue through the next 20 years, according to city Department of Public Works Commissioner Jeffrey Wennberg.

Wennberg presented the new agreement to the Board of Aldermen on Tuesday. The board voted to have it reviewed by the Intermunicipal Committee before making a decision.

The agreement allows Alpine, which buys sewer capacity from the city and in turn sells it in Mendon and Killington, to purchase another 303,250 gallons worth of allocations on top of the 101,675 it already has.

“They have been steadily purchasing units for the last 15 years,” Wennberg said Wednesday. “They didn’t purchase everything (they could), but they certainly purchased a lot.”

Wennberg said the allocation purchases are essentially a connection fee, similar to that paid by new users in the city.

“What this represents is, basically, they’re buying access to the plant,” Wennberg said. “That money doesn’t treat an ounce of sewage.”

Rates for residential users on the pipeline would be identical to the residential rate in the city. Nonresidential users will pay the same basic rate, plus a charge based on their property tax assessment. More users, Wennberg said, will mean lower rates for all. However, that assumes the pipeline makes use of the allocations it buys.

“They have a lot of reserve capacity in the plant they have never used, but they have paid for it,” Wennberg said. “They have actually delivered very little of the actual gallonage they have purchased.”

The city has significant unused sewer capacity, to the point where the Board of Aldermen is considering a tax stabilization-like program offering breaks on connection fees and rates to new users.

@Tagline:gordon.dritschilo @rutlandherald.com

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

School budget would add 17 cents to tax rate

Rutland Herald
By Josh O’Gorman
Staff Writer | February 25,2014
KILLINGTON — Residents are looking at a proposed school budget that is increasing 1 percent, but would add 17 cents to the tax rate.

One week from today, residents will head to the Town Office to vote on a proposed budget for Killington Elementary School of $1,579,954, an increase of $17,642, or 1.1 percent, compared to the current budget of $1,562,312.

Despite this modest increase, if the budget passes, property owners would see a significant increase in their tax bill.

Two factors have combined to create the jump in the tax rate, one local and the other statewide. First, the state Legislature has proposed raising the base tax rate from 94 cents to $1.01.

“That’s a 7-cent increase that will affect everyone in the state,” said David Leenders, director of finance for the Windsor Central Supervisory Union, which includes Killington Elementary.

The proposed increase, which has to be approved by the Legislature, caught a number of school boards off guard in January, a time when the boards have typically finished planning their proposed budgets for the upcoming fiscal year.

The increase sent the Rutland Town School Board back to work after learning their proposed budget, with an increase of 1.6 percent, would add 12.7 cents to the tax rate. The board made deep cuts, to the point of having a proposed budget that is not only lower than the current budget, but is lower than the budget from the year before. Even so, it would add 5.5 cents to the residential tax rate.

“We have a lot of things that are out of our control,” said Jennifer Iannantuoni, chairwoman of the Killington Elementary School Board. “It’s not that much of a budget increase, which isn’t reflected in the increase in taxes.”

The other factor driving the increase to the tax rate is a decrease in the number of students attending the school.

“They had a fairly large sixth-grade class that moved on to Woodstock (the designated middle and high school for Killington),” Leenders said. “The incoming kindergarten class is smaller.”

When calculating the tax rate, the state’s education funding formula doesn’t count the number of students, but the number of “equalized pupils,” which gives greater weight to some students than others, depending on the students’ needs.

The number of equalized pupils is dropping from 58.6 to 50.3, which results in an increase in the tax rate.

Not taking into account income sensitivity, which caps a tax bill based on the property owner’s income, the owner of a $300,000 home would see an increase in his or her tax bill of $510.

Despite the potential tax increase, Iannantuoni believes voters will approve the budget.

“This community has always been so supportive of the school,” she said. “I think the board feels confident that it is presenting a budget that is both fiscally responsible and remains true to our mission as a school to provide a world-class education.”

josh.ogorman

@rutlandherald.com
Comment: So if this budget is passed along with the town's we will have an increase of around 19 cents and each property owner would pay hundreds if not thousands more in property taxes. While I generally support educational efforts I find it hard to support this increase in the face of declining enrollment. The budget should be going down not up!
Vito

New officer named to Killington police

Rutland Herald
February 25,2014
 
KILLINGTON — The Killington Police Department has added a second part-time officer.

Cheri McDermott has been named as the newest member of the town’s municipal force. McDermott comes to Killington from Castleton, where she has been a police officer since 2005.

McDermott has worked in law enforcement since 2001 when she joined the Rutland County Sheriff’s Department. Prior to that, she worked for three years as the loss prevention manager for one of Rutland’s major retailers. McDermott also served for four years in the U.S. Coast Guard. She is a graduate of Community College of Vermont, and received her full-time police officer certification from Vermont Police Academy.

The new officer position adds approximately 10 more hours of weekly patrol coverage to the town. Since transitioning from a constable department to a municipal police department, the Killington Police Department now consists of a police chief and two part-time officers. Vermont State Police continue to provide patrols when the department is not on duty.

McDermott begins work in March.