Trial opens in Killington shooting

Rutland Herald

By Brent Curtis
staff writer | December 18,2014

 

The trial of a Killington man charged with shooting his former roommate and his own girlfriend opened Wednesday with the prosecution arguing that Justin Bitar’s use of a 22-caliber pistol in March constituted a pair of assaults while the defense told jurors that one of the shootings was accidental while the other was in self-defense.

Bitar, 28, was charged with aggravated assault with a weapon and aggravated domestic assault in the first degree following an early morning fight on March 17 at the apartment that Bitar and the man he shot, Matt Dunn, 25, shared with four other people at 2841 Killington Road.

Bitar pleaded innocent to the charges.

During opening arguments on Wednesday, Deputy State’s Attorney Peter Bevere and public defender Robb Spensley described the same series of events in very different ways.

During the night of March 16, the two attorneys agreed that Dunn came home to the apartment where he was beaten up and thrown out of the home by one of Bitar’s friends.

They agreed that Dunn returned to the apartment during the early morning hours because he believed that Bitar was “trashing the place” based on what a friend had told him.

But in almost every other respect the two sides described events differently.

Bevere said Dunn went to Bitar’s room to confront his roommate after he returned to the apartment and was struck repeatedly in the head by Bitar who used his gun to pistol-whip Dunn.

Dunn fought back, Bevere said, and during the fight, Bitar’s girlfriend, Jessica Martome, 25, was shot in the back of the leg by Bitar whose reckless actions, he said, constituted domestic assault.

“Her injury goes untended and the fight continues,” Bevere said.

The prosecutor said the fight didn’t end until Bitar shot his roommate who was lying stunned on the ground after being beaten over the head with the gun.

“He said, ‘This is over’ and put the gun against Dunn’s leg and pulled the trigger,” Bevere said. “Bitar told the police that Dunn said, ‘You don’t have to do this,’ before he shot him.”

But Spensley told the jury that Dunn was the aggressor — and would have killed Bitar with his own gun if the weapon’s safety hadn’t been engaged.

Spensley said Dunn returned to the apartment intending to exact vengeance on his roommate because he was no match for Bitar’s friend who was no longer in the apartment at that point.

“The evidence will show that the reason we’re all here today is because Matt Dunn thought Justin Bitar was a little wimp and someone whose (expletive) he could kick,” Spensley said.

He said Dunn forced his way into Bitar’s room by breaking through a flimsy lock and then began hitting his roommate in the head using brass knuckles. While no such weapon was mentioned as being entered into evidence, Spensley said the defense planned to call an expert during the trial who could prove that wounds to Bitar’s head could only have been delivered using brass knuckles.

During the fight, Spensley said, Martome tried to break up the fight and was accidentally shot while Bitar and Dunn fought for control of the pistol.

“She was shot below the knee in what was a total accident the evidence will show,” Spensley said, adding that the defense planned to call Martome, who is still dating Bitar, as a defense witness.

Contrary to the prosecution’s argument, Spensley said the fight stopped momentarily after Martome was shot while Bitar gave her a belt to use as a tourniquet.

During that lull, Spensley said, Dunn grabbed the gun, which Bitar had set down, and pointed it at his roomate.

“He pulled the trigger but the safety was on,” Spensley said. “Bitar got the gun back and pistol whipped him.”

Spensley said his client ended the fight by shooting Dunn in the leg.

The trial, which involves felony charges that could send Bitar to jail for 30 years if convicted, includes testimony from Dunn, Martome and state police investigators. Spensley said Wednesday no decision has been made about whether Bitar will take the stand.

brent.curtis @rutlandherald.com

Killington FD to discuss station

Rutland Herald

December 11,2014

 

Firefighters to discuss station

KILLINGTON — The Killington Volunteer Fire Department will host a public meeting at 7 p.m. Dec. 17 at the Fire House on Killington Road.

The meeting is designed to encourage the public to see first hand the condition of the fire station and to review and discuss possible renovations to the current building and/or construct a new building entirely.

 

 

Comment: If you are at all interested in getting first hand information on the Fire Department facilities as they relate to either renovation of the existing facility or construction of a new facility please attend. This is going to be a critical issue in the town as there are significant costs associated with the proposals ranging from $2.5 to $6.5 million or even higher which will of course affect out tax rate for years to come.

While this was originally scheduled as a meeting of the KVFD Facilities Committee and the Fire Department for a first hand assessment by the Committee, it is a public meeting and anyone can attend and should, so that the proper information get out to the public.

Vito

Killington Drafts $4.1 Million Budget

The Vermont Standard
12/4/14

By Virginia Dean

Standard Correspondent

KILLINGTON—Select board members spent most of Tuesday night’s meeting working to develop the proposed 2015-16 budget focusing capital expenses that represent 33 percent of the town’s annual $4.1 million budget, according to Town Manager Seth Webb.

“The capital plan is where most of the increases lie,” said Webb.

As the result of a town vote in 2014 to adopt a fiscal year, the select board’s new proposal represents 18 months of spending for January 2015-June 2016. To make the transition to the fiscal year from a calendar year, the town needs to adopt an 18-month budget for one year.

The draft 18-month budget proposal calls for $6,162,760 in spending and $6,162,760 in expenses. As drafted, it would result in an estimated municipal tax increase of 1.8 cents. The significant increases in the draft budget are for highway operations (due to the increase in salt price, the town will pay $20,000 or more for salt in the new year), an additional full-time police officer, fire fighting equipment and maintenance, facilities maintenance, liability insurance, and board of health expense.

To manage the largest portion of the expense, the town has developed a five-year capital plan in 2011 that details all its major assets (highways, bridges, culverts, facilities and equipment) and establishes replacement/maintenance schedules and timelines, cost estimates, and factors in inflation, Webb noted.

Additionally, the town’s Sustainability Report Card on Capital Funding helped to guide the select board in choosing appropriations that would establish sustainable funding levels, avoid unnecessary borrowing, and be efficient with taxpayer money.

To help prioritize spending on roads, the board reviewed the 2014 Paved Road Report Card which ranks the roads in one of four conditions: Excellent, Good, Fair, Failed, based on best practices from around the state. Currently 25 percent of the paved roads are in excellent condition, 33 percent in good condition, 27 percent classified as fair, and 14 percent as failed. Next year’s paving proposal calls for an appropriation $243,000 in addition to the $297,000 the town has secured in grants, and efforts will focus on repaving the next section of Killington Road. The first section from Route 4 to West Hill was repaved this summer.

Another item discussed was how to manage costs associated with bridge maintenance. The town estimates it has over $7 million dollars worth of bridges and three bridges, constructed prior to 1939, will require significant work over the next few years. The board decided to make the estimated $181,500 in repairs in 2017 instead of 2015-16 in order to tax pressure off the tax rate in the upcoming year.

Other items that were discussed were increasing the maintenance facilities appropriation from $5,000 annually to $12,500, anticipated roof repairs at the library, and the cost of the town pool replacement in approximately eight years.

The select board plans to continue its work on the budget on Dec. 16 when it will focus on the Clerk/Treasurer, Recreation and Marketing and Special Events budget. The Board plans to have a final budget proposal in mid-January.

The draft of the Capital Improvement Plan was drawn up and presented in part by Road Foreman Chet Hagenbarth and his son, Colin, a 2014 graduate of Washington & Lee University with a major in Mathematics.

The town has implemented a funding level in order to keep the tax rate level over a longer period of time, according to Colin Hagenbarth.

“The idea behind the sustainability program is to have the money for larger paving projects, buildings, trucks, etc. in advance so that the tax rate doesn’t spike and Killington is able to maintain a proper level of upkeep of their current assets,” said Hagenbarth.

The sustainable funding would also help reduce the need for bonding in the future that results in taxpayers saving money on any potential bond interest, Hagenbarth explained.

The current draft of the Town of Killington Capital Improvement Plan shows a tax appropriation of $1.716 million in the 18-month budget from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016.

Using the 2014 Grand List, Killington estimates a tax rate of .2167 that is a decrease of .0386 when compared to the projected 2014 actuals multiplied by 1.5, according to Hagenbarth.

Local Option tax video - Seth Webb interview

http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T00969&video=216416

The above link is to a PEG TV show called “Insight” wherein Seth Webb, Killington Town Manager is interviewed regarding the potential repeal of the sales and use portion of the 1% options tax. In my judgment the information is pretty accurate and balanced. More could have been said about the budgetary impact on the town but all in all it’s a good summary of the situation. Worth watching to get a good handle on the situation.

If this piques your interest, you might consider attending tonight’s Select Board Meeting where they are going to consider putting the repeal on Town Meeting Warning for the town to vote on.

Vito

A couple of email responses regarding the video came in as follows;

From Diane Rosenblum

 

They are also way underestimating the value of the houses in Killington at $200,000.  That may be condominiums but certainly not houses!
 

From Jim Haff

Vito

I watched the few minutes and right off the bat one huge mistake in understanding the tax was made.

Polly and Seth speaking about propane and electricity being taxed or not. Seth said it was not taxed then Polly asked then what is the biggest item tax on the resort if not these two items.

The misunderstanding is that a commercial account does have this 

Tax applied to their propane, heating oil and electric bill. Their are also many condo associations in town that are set up as a commercial tax

That would see a reduction.

Just pointing out that you really need to understand this tax and not all the info out there is correct

Thanks Jim Haff

Mountain Times
November 5, 2014
By Cristina Kumka

Green Mountain Marketing & Advertising, Inc. is suing the Killington Chamber of Commerce for $5,000.

Green Mountain Marketing & Advertising, Inc., run by Kasia Karazim and Bill Ackerman, a member of the Killington’s Economic Development and Tourism Commission, filed suit in July but the first hearing was held in Rutland Civil Court last Thursday, Oct. 30.

A judge has yet to make a decision in the case.

According to court documents, Ackerman claims his company was contracted by the Chamber in August 2013 to build a website. But in November of that year, the Chamber asked the company to stop the work, claiming there was no signed contract and no money to pay for the work completed.

Green Mountain Marketing & Advertising, Inc. produced the signed contract and was offered $2,000 by the Chamber to settle the matter, according to court records.

However, the company rejected that amount. It then agreed to a $4,000 payment and the remaining amount in trade.

The suit claims the Chamber didn’t respond for months and never made due on that agreement.

On June 30 of this year, the Chamber told the company if it wanted more than $2,000 it could take the issue to court.

The company claims its work was approved and it was “continually asked to move forward,” and the Chamber owes $7,211 for the work. The company says it will settle for $5,000.

Court records also show a number of Chamber members were subpoenaed to court on Oct. 30.

The Chamber has denied the suit in its entirety, claiming the “contract was not validly entered,” excessive billing and five other claims.

A full transcript of the Oct. 30 hearing was unavailable by press time.

Ackerman continues to maintain a seat on the EDTC commission and voted this September in favor of repealing a portion of the town’s local option tax, which would involve a complete restructuring of the Killington Chamber of Commerce, turning it into a private sector non-profit.

That non-profit, called the Killington Pico Area Association, would intercept future tourism money, taking it away from municipal coffers, but also taking on the responsibility of creating year-round tourism opportunities and events. Killington Resort, in the event it doesn’t have to pay a portion of the local option tax anymore, would largely fund the KPAA, according to the proposal. The new KPAA would have an estimated budget of $450,000 in 2015.

Voters are expected to consider the question on the March 2015 ballot.

Ackerman says he supports restructuring the Chamber because it will be stronger than it is now.

“As a member of the EDTC, I supported moving this over to that structure because it will make it stronger than it is today. Because of the involvement of Killington Resort, there will be added involvement, both financial and oversight, and that will make a much stronger and effective organization,” Ackerman said Tuesday.

“I am not basing my comments on how the Chamber was structured last year. I’m basing it on what I expect and have heard from those proposing this new structure.”

Seth Webb, Killington town manager, said the town is not a party in the case and he could not comment. Amy Morrison, an events coordinator employed by both the town and chamber, was asked to testify in court Oct. 30.

Ackerman’s company is being represented by Attorney Jim  Levins and the Chamber is being represented by Attorney Thomas Aicher.

Editor’s note: A Mountain Times employee was subpoenaed into court in this case but provided no information for this article. All information about the case came from court records.

Cristina Kumka is a correspondent for The Mountain Times, Cristina_kumka@yahoo.com

 Comment: Boy what a sordid mess this is. Conflicts of interest all over the place.
Vito

Local web design company sues Killington Chamber over website bill

By Cristina Kumka

Green Mountain Marketing & Advertising, Inc. is suing the Killington Chamber of Commerce for $5,000.

Green Mountain Marketing & Advertising, Inc., run by Kasia Karazim and Bill Ackerman, a member of the Killington’s Economic Development and Tourism Commission, filed suit in July but the first hearing was held in Rutland Civil Court last Thursday, Oct. 30.

A judge has yet to make a decision in the case.

According to court documents, Ackerman claims his company was contracted by the Chamber in August 2013 to build a website. But in November of that year, the Chamber asked the company to stop the work, claiming there was no signed contract and no money to pay for the work completed.

Green Mountain Marketing & Advertising, Inc. produced the signed contract and was offered $2,000 by the Chamber to settle the matter, according to court records.

However, the company rejected that amount. It then agreed to a $4,000 payment and the remaining amount in trade.

The suit claims the Chamber didn’t respond for months and never made due on that agreement.

On June 30 of this year, the Chamber told the company if it wanted more than $2,000 it could take the issue to court.

The company claims its work was approved and it was “continually asked to move forward,” and the Chamber owes $7,211 for the work. The company says it will settle for $5,000.

Court records also show a number of Chamber members were subpoenaed to court on Oct. 30.

The Chamber has denied the suit in its entirety, claiming the “contract was not validly entered,” excessive billing and five other claims.

A full transcript of the Oct. 30 hearing was unavailable by press time.

Ackerman continues to maintain a seat on the EDTC commission and voted this September in favor of repealing a portion of the town’s local option tax, which would involve a complete restructuring of the Killington Chamber of Commerce, turning it into a private sector non-profit.

That non-profit, called the Killington Pico Area Association, would intercept future tourism money, taking it away from municipal coffers, but also taking on the responsibility of creating year-round tourism opportunities and events. Killington Resort, in the event it doesn’t have to pay a portion of the local option tax anymore, would largely fund the KPAA, according to the proposal. The new KPAA would have an estimated budget of $450,000 in 2015.

Voters are expected to consider the question on the March 2015 ballot.

Ackerman says he supports restructuring the Chamber because it will be stronger than it is now.

“As a member of the EDTC, I supported moving this over to that structure because it will make it stronger than it is today. Because of the involvement of Killington Resort, there will be added involvement, both financial and oversight, and that will make a much stronger and effective organization,” Ackerman said Tuesday.

“I am not basing my comments on how the Chamber was structured last year. I’m basing it on what I expect and have heard from those proposing this new structure.”

Seth Webb, Killington town manager, said the town is not a party in the case and he could not comment. Amy Morrison, an events coordinator employed by both the town and chamber, was asked to testify in court Oct. 30.

Ackerman’s company is being represented by Attorney Jim  Levins and the Chamber is being represented by Attorney Thomas Aicher.

Editor’s note: A Mountain Times employee was subpoenaed into court in this case but provided no information for this article. All information about the case came from court records.

Cristina Kumka is a correspondent for The Mountain Times, Cristina_kumka@yahoo.com

- See more at: http://mountaintimes.info/local-web-design-company-sues-killington-chamber-over-website-bill/#sthash.4fg7R7rP.dpuf

Local web design company sues Killington Chamber over website bill

By Cristina Kumka

Green Mountain Marketing & Advertising, Inc. is suing the Killington Chamber of Commerce for $5,000.

Green Mountain Marketing & Advertising, Inc., run by Kasia Karazim and Bill Ackerman, a member of the Killington’s Economic Development and Tourism Commission, filed suit in July but the first hearing was held in Rutland Civil Court last Thursday, Oct. 30.

A judge has yet to make a decision in the case.

According to court documents, Ackerman claims his company was contracted by the Chamber in August 2013 to build a website. But in November of that year, the Chamber asked the company to stop the work, claiming there was no signed contract and no money to pay for the work completed.

Green Mountain Marketing & Advertising, Inc. produced the signed contract and was offered $2,000 by the Chamber to settle the matter, according to court records.

However, the company rejected that amount. It then agreed to a $4,000 payment and the remaining amount in trade.

The suit claims the Chamber didn’t respond for months and never made due on that agreement.

On June 30 of this year, the Chamber told the company if it wanted more than $2,000 it could take the issue to court.

The company claims its work was approved and it was “continually asked to move forward,” and the Chamber owes $7,211 for the work. The company says it will settle for $5,000.

Court records also show a number of Chamber members were subpoenaed to court on Oct. 30.

The Chamber has denied the suit in its entirety, claiming the “contract was not validly entered,” excessive billing and five other claims.

A full transcript of the Oct. 30 hearing was unavailable by press time.

Ackerman continues to maintain a seat on the EDTC commission and voted this September in favor of repealing a portion of the town’s local option tax, which would involve a complete restructuring of the Killington Chamber of Commerce, turning it into a private sector non-profit.

That non-profit, called the Killington Pico Area Association, would intercept future tourism money, taking it away from municipal coffers, but also taking on the responsibility of creating year-round tourism opportunities and events. Killington Resort, in the event it doesn’t have to pay a portion of the local option tax anymore, would largely fund the KPAA, according to the proposal. The new KPAA would have an estimated budget of $450,000 in 2015.

Voters are expected to consider the question on the March 2015 ballot.

Ackerman says he supports restructuring the Chamber because it will be stronger than it is now.

“As a member of the EDTC, I supported moving this over to that structure because it will make it stronger than it is today. Because of the involvement of Killington Resort, there will be added involvement, both financial and oversight, and that will make a much stronger and effective organization,” Ackerman said Tuesday.

“I am not basing my comments on how the Chamber was structured last year. I’m basing it on what I expect and have heard from those proposing this new structure.”

Seth Webb, Killington town manager, said the town is not a party in the case and he could not comment. Amy Morrison, an events coordinator employed by both the town and chamber, was asked to testify in court Oct. 30.

Ackerman’s company is being represented by Attorney Jim  Levins and the Chamber is being represented by Attorney Thomas Aicher.

Editor’s note: A Mountain Times employee was subpoenaed into court in this case but provided no information for this article. All information about the case came from court records.

- See more at: http://mountaintimes.info/local-web-design-company-sues-killington-chamber-over-website-bill/#sthash.jynEFKub.dpuf

A Confusing Tax, And The Penalty Towns Charge For It

Vermont Standard

November 6, 2014
By Curt Peterson

Standard Correspondent

Every year, more than 100,000 Vermonters fill out a homestead declaration tax credit form — whether it’s on time and whether to charge a late-filing penalty is a source of consternation for town officials.

Most of the local officials feel that the homestead declaration is difficult to get their heads around, and there are differing understandings of how it works.

Carolyn Trombley, Hartland town treasurer, says the town decided in 2013-2014 to waive the penalty because it was too confusing for homeowners.

“At one time, once you filed your declaration you didn’t have to file again. Then they changed it so you had to file annually, which confused a lot of people,” Trombley said.

The actual formula for calculating the credit, which has been in effect since 1997, is convoluted, but it applies to the state education tax on properties that are resident-occupied. The maximum rebate is $8,000, and only households with income of less than $105,000 are eligible for the rebate. The HS-122 Homestead Declaration form must be filed on or before April 15 (or an adjusted filing date) regardless of any extensions for actual state and federal income tax filings. According to Judy Descoteaux of the state Department of Taxes, all resident homeowners are required by law to file the declaration.

And there are at least two possible penalties missing the April 15 filing deadline.

“Sixty percent of Vermont property owners filed for homestead adjustments for last year, which is just about everyone who is eligible,” said Mary Peterson, commissioner of the Vermont Department of Taxes.

“We used to provide the towns with printed inserts reminding homeowners about the Declaration for mailing with their tax bills,” Descoteaux said. “Now we provide a PDF format by email and ask the towns to print it on the back of the tax bill itself.” Though there’s a $15 penalty for late filing printed on the bottom of the homestead declaration worksheet, that is a minor element. The real issue is the income and tax-rate sensitive statutory late filing penalty.

The state legislature created the tax credit as a way to tax nonresidents and commercial property owners at a higher effective rate than residents. This was at a time when
education costs  for prison inmates, continuing education programs and programs for school drop-outs were shifted from the general state funds to the education fund, causing a sig nificant increase in the education tax rate. It was intended to provide relief for moderate-income families from that burden, according to Lucrecia Wonsor, Killington's town clerk. The homestead declaration late filing fee, instituted in 2004, was intended to give municipalities an opportunity to get more revenue through applying a surcharge, originally 1 percent of the education tax rate, if the HS-122 form was not filed by April 15. The penalty was added in the data downloaded to the New England Municipal Resource Center, who then included it in the taxpayer billing information sent to towns for printing their tax bills. NEMRC uses proprietary software to produce data for the tax bills. The penalty was mandatory, imposed by the state on behalf of  the towns, which ultimately receive the funds. 'In 2009, 'Judy Descoteaux said,' one word in the statute changed how the penalty was treated. 'The towns shall levy a penalty' was changed to 'The towns may levy a penalty, 'and the authority to charge or waive it transferred from the state to the municipalities.' The tax collector is asked to 'tog gle 'a box indicating whether or not to include the penalty on all the town tax bills for which it is applicable according to state records. At that point the homestead declaration late-filing penalty policy of  each town is  applied  and that policy can fit one of three general categories: waive any and all pen alties, apply any and all penalties at the municipality-determined rate on a 'must pay' basis, or apply the penalty and advise taxpayers they can appeal case-by-case. The town rate has also fluctuated according to Descoteaux. In 2010 the towns' options were two: charge a 3 percent penalty if the homestead rate was higher than the non-homestead rate (for non-resident homeowners and non-residential proper ties), or 8 percent if the homestead rate was the lower of the two. 'This was an incentive for people to file as homestead homeowners rather than as non-homestead status because it was cheaper, 'Descoteaux said. To make this more confusing, the recent legislative session changed the wording in this choice, adding the words, 'up to '3 percent and 'up to' 8 percent. In 2010 the legislature attempted to simplify the Homestead Declaration process by creating a 'one-time' filing starting in 2011 that would remain ineffect until the taxpayer rescinded it. 'This created an unforeseen problem,' said Descoteaux. 'Many people failed to rescind the Homestead status when they sold their property, and the Grand List became degraded as the percentage of properties with Homestead status rapidly became inflated.' 'Our goal was tor each 172,000 resident homeowners signed up under the Declaration,' Descoteaux said. 'That is our fairly accurate estimate of eligible homes. Under the one-time declaration system we had reached 178,000 by 2012 and we knew that was unrealistic.' For 2013 the legislature was forced to return to annual filing of the homestead declaration, including for those taxpayers who thought they had signed up for the tax credit permanently. By this time taxpayers were understandably confused. Statutes direct taxpayers who wish to appeal the penalty to the listers of their town. Failing to get satisfaction, the appellant may take the matter to the Board of Civil Authority, then, ultimately, to the courts. Barnard and West Windsor charge the 8 percent late-filing penalty, but will consider case-by case appeals. West Windsor has had no appeals, and Barnard refused the one they heard this year. Plymouth takes the hardline, charging all penalties and considering no appeals. Killington charges the penalty, and has not established an appeal policy. Bridgewater, Hartford (Quechee), Hartland, Pomfret, Reading and Woodstock have all waived the late-filing penalty across the board. During the hearings regarding a resident's paid late-filing penalty on the grounds of illness, the Barnard Board of Civil Authority wondered whether the town ended up with the penalty funds, or if the money was ultimately forwarded to the state. 'The money stays with the town,' Ernie Saunders, president of NEMRC, said. 'So if they choose to rebate  a paid penalty, they do not have to get it back from the state or pay it out of their own budget.' Killington's resident tax rate is higher than the non-resident rate. Wonsor says some people calculate that it is less expensive to forgo the homestead declaration rebate and pay the non-resident rate instead. 'The entire tax system in the state is unfair,' she said.' And because the state controls so much of it from Montpelier, people here feel they can't do anything about it.'

Tate holding lead over Gallivan

Rutland Herald

November 05,2014

 

Gallivan concedes;

Tate takes race

KILLINGTON —Republican Job Tate took the Rutland-Windsor 1 district seat after Democratic incumbent Anne Gallivan conceded when it became clear Tate would get the votes. The district towns include Killington, Mendon, Chittenden and Bridgewater.

Tate led Gallivan 655-457 with Bridgewater results unavailable by press time.

Tate, 34, an active member of the U.S. Navy Reserve, lives in Mendon. He was making his first run for the Legislature.