Thursday, April 7, 2016

VEDA APPROVES $10.6 MILLION in ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FINANCING

VT Digger
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 6, 2016
CONTACT: Jo Bradley, Chief Executive Officer
Vermont Economic Development Authority (VEDA)
802-828-5627

 ...........................................................
VEDA ...... approved financing for two Killington-based travel and tourism projects:
· Killington Mountain Lodge – VEDA financing of $1.5 million was approved as part of a $6.6 million permanent financing package for the purchase and substantial renovation last year of a former condominium property once known as the Inn at Six Mountains. Centennial Bank is also providing financing for the project. The newly-opened Killington Mountain Lodge (http://killingtonmountainlodge.com) is a 64,000 square foot four-story hotel with 103 rooms situated on approximately 4.2 acres located just below the Killington Mountain Resort on the Killington Access Road. In addition to renovating each room in the new hotel, significant improvements were made to the lobby, which now boasts the largest indoor fireplace in Vermont, an outdoor courtyard featuring a large hot tub with fire pits, game/movie room, exercise room, restaurant and bar, indoor pool, and two conference rooms. The hotel also has two full kitchens and its restaurant will offer a limited upscale menu. Management for the new hotel expect to create 57 new jobs within three years of the project; and
· Summit Lodge – VEDA approved partial financing of $560,000 to support the purchase of the Summit Lodge. VSECU also provided financing for the project. Originally established in 1960, Summit Lodge was the first lodge built in Killington, and is located just minutes from the Killington and Pico ski areas. The property consists of a four-season, full-service 45-room lodge located on 8.26 acres of land, is a well-known venue in the region for hosting weddings, and attracts customers for hiking, golfing, kayaking, and other outdoor activities year round. The Lodge’s new owners plan to make extensive upgrades to the property during the next several years, and estimate employment there will double from ten to twenty positions within three years of the purchase.
About VEDA
The Vermont Economic Development Authority (VEDA) is Vermont’s nonprofit economic development finance lender. VEDA was created by the General Assembly in 1974 with a mission “to contribute to the creation and retention of quality jobs in Vermont by providing loans and other financial support to eligible and qualified Vermont industrial, commercial and agricultural enterprises.”
Over the years, VEDA has grown and adapted its financing programs to keep pace with an ever-changing economy.
VEDA offers a wide range of low-cost lending options for Vermont businesses and farms of all sizes, and the Authority’s
lending solutions are customized to each borrower’s individual needs. Whether in the form of direct loans, tax-exempt bond issuance or loan guarantee support, VEDA’s innovative financing programs help ensure that Vermont businesses and farms have the capital they need to grow and succeed. VEDA most often lends in conjunction with banks and other financing partners, helping to stimulate economic development activity in Vermont.
Since 1974, VEDA has provided over $2.16 billion in financing assistance to thousands of eligible Vermont entrepreneurs, manufacturers, small businesses, family farms, and agricultural enterprises, helping them to realize their business growth goals, create jobs, and enhance the vitality of Vermont’s economy. For more information about VEDA, visit www.veda.org or call 802-828-JOBS.


Comment: Thanks to Wayne Wilbur for the following info:

A  Correction to the Article's Claim that the Summit lodge was the "First" on the Access Road is Totally False! Bigelow's lodge, now known as the Fireside was Built in 1958, and was in Fact the "First" Lodge.

A dangerous precedent

Rutland Herald
April 07,2016
 
The recent involuntary manslaughter charges against Craig Mosher because his bull escaped from its enclosure sets a dangerous precedent. If this is allowed to continue, what happens to the homeowner whose dog or cat escapes and crosses the street? What happens to the farmer when his cows get out? And if a moose or deer crosses the street and gets hit and causes an accident, which state official gets charged? This is a tragic loss for all but nothing more than an unavoidable accident.

The state needs to drop this charge immediately on the man who single-handedly reopened Killington to the world immediately after Hurricane Irene.

FRANK GONZALEZ

Rutland

The lights have been turned back on

The issue of email alerts regarding scheduled Select Board meetings have been resolved. In a brief exchange of emails and phone between Dick Horner and myself we came to an amicable solution as outlined in the following emails.

Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 9:23 AM
Subject: RE: Selectboard Meeting Email Alerts
 
I do not want to prolong this debate since the new town manager will be starting in 10 days. I am aware of constant contact and I do know how to use it. The original purpose of constant contact was to inform people of special events, press releases and other information which distribution of is not covered by statute. By statute I am required to post legal notices in 3 places in town and post the notices on the town website which I do. The town attorney has always advised that the town should not go beyond what is required by statute because it can lead to charges of discrimination because some people get the legal notice and others may not get the notices.  By following statute everyone is treated equally with equal access to the legal notices.

Richard L. Horner
Killington Town Planner
Zoning Administrator
Interim Town Manager
2706 River Road
Dick@town.killington.vt.us
802-422-3242


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Dick,
 
This is to confirm our conversation of today regarding email alerts for the Select Board meetings. Your understanding of the legality of public notices is based upon relatively strict legal guidelines in your capacity as Town Planner and Zoning administrator. You did acknowledge that a Town Manager has much greater leeway in the way information is disseminated because a Town Manager has to manage not only municipal functions but also community relations.
Based on that premise you came around to the idea that reinstating the email alerts is in fact beneficial and you will work with Amy Morrison to keep the townspeople informed of the scheduled Select Board meetings.
We agreed that going forward the town will be posting the alerts via the Constant Contact software platform.
I thank you for your time, patience and effort in getting this matter resolved.
 
Sincerely,
 
Vito

Bull Owner Indicted In Fatal Crash

Vermont Standard
April 7, 2016 
By Katy Savage
Standard Staff
Killington — Almost eight months after a fatal accident on Route 4 involving an escaped Scottish Highland bull and a part-time Killington resident, a grand jury has charged the bull owner with involuntary manslaughter.
Craig Mosher, 61, of Killington was indicted in Rutland criminal court Monday. The indictment said he acted with “criminal negligence by having notice that his Scottish Highland bull was loose and failed to contain his bull or alert others to this danger, and that his failure to take action caused the death of Jon Bellis.”
Both the bull and the man, 64-year-old Bellis of Woodbridge,
Connecticut died in the July 31 accident.
A criminal charge in such situation is rare, people who are close to agriculture laws say.
“I’ve never heard of anybody filing criminal charges like manslaughter,” said Jan Dawson, a retired attorney in Texas who has written books on this issue from the equine perspective. Dawson is currently president of the American Association for Horsemanship Safety. She said it’s “not uncommon” for owners of livestock to be found liable but “sizable” civil liability suits is the harshest punishment she’s seen.
Usually the punishment in cases of animals at large stems from a fence issue, she said.
Vermont law says fences that are 4-1/2 feet tall, in good shape, sturdy enough to prevent sheep from escaping “and any natural barrier equivalent to such fence” is sufficient. Damaged fences are required to be repaired within 10 days.
Vermont law says if an animal is found at large in a roadway the owner of the animal “shall forfeit $20 for every horse or beast so found going at large, and shall be liable for the damages thereby sustained by any person.”
The type of charge in such a case usually depends how many times an animal has escaped in the past, said National Agricultural Law Center Senior Staff Attorney Rusty Rumley.
“Usually there’s a pattern,” Rumley said.
Mosher had owned his bull, named Rob, since 2008, according to Mosher’s company website. Mosher used Rob and another bull named Big as company mascots. Mosher also has two sheep and a rescued donkey on his property on Johnson Road in Killington, the website said.
Killington Police Chief Whit Montgomery said there may have been “a couple of times” in the past when animals had gotten loose from Mosher’s enclosures “but nothing to this extent.”
“In my 17 years I don’t recall being called out for any of (Mosher’s) animals being loose,” Montgomery said. “It’s tragic all the way around.”
Vermont State Police Trooper Robert Rider, who investigated the accident, could not be reached for comment. Rutland State’s Attorney Rosemary Kennedy also didn’t return a phone call by the Vermont Standard’s deadline.
“I’m just very upset about it,” said Mosher, who declined to comment further, referring questions to his lawyer.
Attorney Matthew Hart said Mosher’s bull escaped when it started eating apples from an apple tree. A tree limb got under the electric fence and lifted it up, creating an opening for the animal to escape.
He said Mosher had been told about his loose bull before the accident and “got up, got dressed and started looking” for the bull.
“Unfortunately he was looking in the wrong place,” Hart said.
State police responded around 10:30 p.m. after a 911 call about the crash.
“It’s a horrible accident,” Hart said.
Killington Police received a 911 call that the bull was wandering along Route 4 south of the Killington Skyeship gondola’s parking lot. While responding, another 911 call came through saying that a man had struck the bull.
Bellis, a psychiatrist who split time between Connecticut and his second home in Killington, died after he hit the bull, went down a grassy hill and collided with a tree, state police said. Bellis’ wife, Kathryn Barry, was transported to Rutland Regional Medical Center with a right wrist injury.
She was treated and released.
Scottish Highland cattle are considered the oldest breed. They’re known to withstand rugged conditions and can weigh 2,000 pounds — more than a male moose. The body of the dead bull was removed with a loader truck, Montgomery said.
Paul Doton, who owns a dairy farm in Barnard, keeps his heifers in the barn for the summer. Too often, they found ways to escape.
“We don’t pasture our heifers anymore partly for that reason,” he said.
Doton has never heard of a car coming close to hitting his loose livestock but, “It’s a danger with animals getting out.”
On Monday, Judge Thomas A. Zonay released Mosher on the condition that he contain his animals on his property and not make contact with Bellis.


Comment: Craig Mosher is an outstanding individual whose tireless and timely response to open up Rte 4 and rebuild the town in the wake of Irene is legend.  To quote from a Bloomberg report at the time, “Craig is definitely a local hero,” said Roger Rivera, 33, an emergency worker with the state.
Craig Mosher is not irresponsible and certainly not a criminal. He is an upstanding pillar of the community and should not be treated with such impunity as to level felony criminal charges against him.
This incident was simply an accident and nothing more. Even the charge of “involuntary manslaughter” seems a reach. While there may be some liability issues those  should be handled in civil proceeding not a criminal one.
It seems to me that the state is wasting taxpayer money and the court’s time in bringing this indictment. Craig Mosher is no more a criminal than was Mother Teresa.  To put him through the wringer like this is just plain wrong. Maybe someone should look closer at what motivated this prosecutor.
If this proceeds and Mosher is sent to jail it will destroy his business and harm the local economy in the face of desperate efforts by the town and state to increase economic activity. Has anybody weighed the consequences of this prosecution?
Vito


Permits issued then appealed: Update on Killington Village progress

Mountain Times
March 30, 2016
By Karen D. Lorentz

Some progress has been made concerning the Killington Village master plan and resort parking project permits that were issued by the District #1 Environmental Commission on Oct. 7, 2013, but then appealed.

On March 7, 2016, Judge Thomas S. Durkin, who is presiding over the two appeals before the Superior Court’s Environmental Division (a.k.a. the Environmental Court), rendered a decision affirming the resort parking project permit which Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, LLC, received in Oct. 2013.

The resort parking project permit is for construction of a day-skier parking lot for 1,276 vehicles to replace existing day-skier parking areas (at Snowshed and Ramshead); realignment of a portion of Killington Road; reconfiguration of the Killington Grand Hotel parking lot; and construction of a stormwater basin and associated utilities.

That permit had been appealed by Killington businessman Steve Durkee. A Mendon resident, Durkee  filed an appeal to the resort parking project permit and raised issues regarding Act 250 criteria in his Statement of Questions. Those criteria included: 1(E) (Streams), 5 (Traffic), 8 (Aesthetics), 9(K) (Public Investment), and 10 (Regional Plan).

On March 18 Durkee filed a motion to alter (the decision) with the Environmental Court. The judge now will decide whether to accept the motion to alter and can then alter his findings or uphold the permit in its entirety.

Should he do the latter, Durkee has 30 days in which to appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court.

The significance of the parking lot permit is that it affects the building of the Village since it is a requirement for Phase I of the Killington Village to proceed.

“The next steps require unappealable permits,” noted SP Land President Steve Selbo. SP Land is the applicant for the Killington Village.

Selbo noted that the only other issue to affect the parking project had been resolved last summer when representatives of the Pinnacle Condominium Association and Killington agreed to reverse the sidewalk and roadway (change the side on which the sidewalk is located) during mediation.

Without a final parking lot permit that will stand, however, Selbo said it is difficult to move forward with Village preparations due to the complexity of that project.

Killington Village appeal

After a permit application was made in February 2012, the district commission issued an Act 250 permit to SP Land for the Killington Village master plan in early October 2013.  SP Land later that month appealed the permit and findings that were also cross-appealed by Mr. Durkee.

SP Land received approvals for a 15-lot subdivision; reaffirmation of a previously-approved 10-lot subdivision; authorization to construct Phase I of the Killington Village master plan; and associated partial findings for proposed future phases of the Killington Village master plan. At the time, Selbo said that after careful examination, it was determined that SP Land could not figure out a way to make the Village master plan project work within the permit’s framework.

After filing its October 2013 notice of appeal, SP Land raised several questions that it wished the Environmental Court to address. The questions essentially gave notice of SP Land’s objections to issues centering on conditions imposed regarding party status, traffic, fire safety and future permit oversight of the district commission.

The Environmental Court hearing concluded in December 2014 but a decision has not been rendered on that appeal yet.

The Environmental Court is a trial court that considers an appeal on its merits and generally hears any appeal that is timely filed and based upon legitimate grounds. In accordance with court rules, Judge Durkin hears each appeal de novo, meaning that the judge hears all the evidence on the issues raised in the appeal as if the hearing had never happened at the district commission level that took place in May/June 2012.

The cross appeal filed by Durkee was for personal and commercial properties he owns (or has controlling interests) in Killington.

While Judge Durkin ruled on the party status issue in August 2014 and granted many requests in SP Land’s favor, he also said that he would consider testimony anew (at the trial) on several issues raised, including those questions regarding the propriety of proportional payments regarding traffic, fire safety, and certain findings and conditions affecting future phases of the Village.

At that time, Selbo told The Mountain Times that while SP Land was “encouraged” by Judge Durkin’s findings,  “the trial will take a little longer than we had hoped as he will listen to testimony on some things he wanted to wait to rule on.” He also explained that the judge’s decision had reduced the number of items Mr. Durkee could appeal and in effect had limited his party status.

Killington Village progress

While awaiting the Environmental Court’s rulings, Killington and SP Land have made some progress regarding site plan approvals from the Town of Killington. The Town gave site plan approval to the resort parking project on Oct. 8, 2014. This approval was not appealed.

SP Land received site plan approval for Phase I of Killington Village master plan (193 units, 30,000 sf of commercial space, new skier service building and a 32 lot subdivision) from the town on January 13, 2016.

However, Durkee put in a notice of appeal on Feb. 9 to the Environmental Court with the town receiving notice on Feb. 11. A pre-trial telephone conference was scheduled for March 28, Selbo said.

In Durkee’s Feb. 28 statement of questions to the Environmental Court, he raises several questions in regard to traffic. Additionally, he raises an issue of whether the site plan application was complete without “presenting relevant information about the future phases of its development” and if it provided for “adequate protection and maximum compatibility to adjacent properties through adequate design, landscaping, screening and/or other remedy.”

In view of no appeal being filed regarding the aforementioned town’s site plan approval for the resort parking project, Mr. Durkee’s appeal on SP Land’s site plan approval is interesting. The question reads “Does the site plan adequately provide for replacement of day skier parking within a reasonable proximity to ski lifts and services as required by existing PUD approvals under the town zoning bylaw?”

Asked about the length of time he has been involved with the Village project, Selbo, who joined SP Land in 2004, noted that Centex, the original development partner of the Village, had made progress but then left late in 2006. In 2007, SP Land, which played a major role in locating Powdr Corp to purchase Killington from ASC in May 2007, went back to the drawing boards and hired architect Hart Howerton to design the Village. Since that time, the homebuilding crisis intervened and the product designed for the market in 2010, when the economy was still recovering, was downsized to create smaller units in the Village core.

“We’re now trying to get unappealable permits for a product designed six years ago,” Selbo reiterated, noting SP Land still has to secure a development partner(s)  to build Phase I. The developer could be a joint-venture partner with SP Land or could purchase land and proceed independently. [As noted, the resort parking project would proceed in concert with the Village development as replacement parking is needed to make way for any development.]

However, if any appeals are made to the Vermont Supreme Court, which does not hear the case de novo,  members look at the Environmental Court’s decision and consider the evidence that was submitted on the record in its hearing.

Meanwhile, Killington is one of only a few major Eastern ski resorts not to have a pedestrian village at its base. And it’s only been 49 years since Killington founder Pres Smith announced plans for the East’s first complete pedestrian ski village!
- See more at: http://mountaintimes.info/permits-issued-then-appealed/#sthash.e57NHQO1.dpuf

Permits issued then appealed

Update on Killington Village progress
By Karen D. Lorentz
Some progress has been made concerning the Killington Village master plan and resort parking project permits that were issued by the District #1 Environmental Commission on Oct. 7, 2013, but then appealed.
On March 7, 2016, Judge Thomas S. Durkin, who is presiding over the two appeals before the Superior Court’s Environmental Division (a.k.a. the Environmental Court), rendered a decision affirming the resort parking project permit which Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, LLC, received in Oct. 2013.
The resort parking project permit is for construction of a day-skier parking lot for 1,276 vehicles to replace existing day-skier parking areas (at Snowshed and Ramshead); realignment of a portion of Killington Road; reconfiguration of the Killington Grand Hotel parking lot; and construction of a stormwater basin and associated utilities.
That permit had been appealed by Killington businessman Steve Durkee. A Mendon resident, Durkee  filed an appeal to the resort parking project permit and raised issues regarding Act 250 criteria in his Statement of Questions. Those criteria included: 1(E) (Streams), 5 (Traffic), 8 (Aesthetics), 9(K) (Public Investment), and 10 (Regional Plan).
On March 18 Durkee filed a motion to alter (the decision) with the Environmental Court. The judge now will decide whether to accept the motion to alter and can then alter his findings or uphold the permit in its entirety.
Should he do the latter, Durkee has 30 days in which to appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court.
The significance of the parking lot permit is that it affects the building of the Village since it is a requirement for Phase I of the Killington Village to proceed.
“The next steps require unappealable permits,” noted SP Land President Steve Selbo. SP Land is the applicant for the Killington Village.
Selbo noted that the only other issue to affect the parking project had been resolved last summer when representatives of the Pinnacle Condominium Association and Killington agreed to reverse the sidewalk and roadway (change the side on which the sidewalk is located) during mediation.
Without a final parking lot permit that will stand, however, Selbo said it is difficult to move forward with Village preparations due to the complexity of that project.
Killington Village appeal
After a permit application was made in February 2012, the district commission issued an Act 250 permit to SP Land for the Killington Village master plan in early October 2013.  SP Land later that month appealed the permit and findings that were also cross-appealed by Mr. Durkee.
SP Land received approvals for a 15-lot subdivision; reaffirmation of a previously-approved 10-lot subdivision; authorization to construct Phase I of the Killington Village master plan; and associated partial findings for proposed future phases of the Killington Village master plan. At the time, Selbo said that after careful examination, it was determined that SP Land could not figure out a way to make the Village master plan project work within the permit’s framework.
After filing its October 2013 notice of appeal, SP Land raised several questions that it wished the Environmental Court to address. The questions essentially gave notice of SP Land’s objections to issues centering on conditions imposed regarding party status, traffic, fire safety and future permit oversight of the district commission.
The Environmental Court hearing concluded in December 2014 but a decision has not been rendered on that appeal yet.
The Environmental Court is a trial court that considers an appeal on its merits and generally hears any appeal that is timely filed and based upon legitimate grounds. In accordance with court rules, Judge Durkin hears each appeal de novo, meaning that the judge hears all the evidence on the issues raised in the appeal as if the hearing had never happened at the district commission level that took place in May/June 2012.
The cross appeal filed by Durkee was for personal and commercial properties he owns (or has controlling interests) in Killington.
While Judge Durkin ruled on the party status issue in August 2014 and granted many requests in SP Land’s favor, he also said that he would consider testimony anew (at the trial) on several issues raised, including those questions regarding the propriety of proportional payments regarding traffic, fire safety, and certain findings and conditions affecting future phases of the Village.
At that time, Selbo told The Mountain Times that while SP Land was “encouraged” by Judge Durkin’s findings,  “the trial will take a little longer than we had hoped as he will listen to testimony on some things he wanted to wait to rule on.” He also explained that the judge’s decision had reduced the number of items Mr. Durkee could appeal and in effect had limited his party status.
Killington Village progress
While awaiting the Environmental Court’s rulings, Killington and SP Land have made some progress regarding site plan approvals from the Town of Killington. The Town gave site plan approval to the resort parking project on Oct. 8, 2014. This approval was not appealed.
SP Land received site plan approval for Phase I of Killington Village master plan (193 units, 30,000 sf of commercial space, new skier service building and a 32 lot subdivision) from the town on January 13, 2016.
However, Durkee put in a notice of appeal on Feb. 9 to the Environmental Court with the town receiving notice on Feb. 11. A pre-trial telephone conference was scheduled for March 28, Selbo said.
In Durkee’s Feb. 28 statement of questions to the Environmental Court, he raises several questions in regard to traffic. Additionally, he raises an issue of whether the site plan application was complete without “presenting relevant information about the future phases of its development” and if it provided for “adequate protection and maximum compatibility to adjacent properties through adequate design, landscaping, screening and/or other remedy.”
In view of no appeal being filed regarding the aforementioned town’s site plan approval for the resort parking project, Mr. Durkee’s appeal on SP Land’s site plan approval is interesting. The question reads “Does the site plan adequately provide for replacement of day skier parking within a reasonable proximity to ski lifts and services as required by existing PUD approvals under the town zoning bylaw?”
Asked about the length of time he has been involved with the Village project, Selbo, who joined SP Land in 2004, noted that Centex, the original development partner of the Village, had made progress but then left late in 2006. In 2007, SP Land, which played a major role in locating Powdr Corp to purchase Killington from ASC in May 2007, went back to the drawing boards and hired architect Hart Howerton to design the Village. Since that time, the homebuilding crisis intervened and the product designed for the market in 2010, when the economy was still recovering, was downsized to create smaller units in the Village core.
“We’re now trying to get unappealable permits for a product designed six years ago,” Selbo reiterated, noting SP Land still has to secure a development partner(s)  to build Phase I. The developer could be a joint-venture partner with SP Land or could purchase land and proceed independently. [As noted, the resort parking project would proceed in concert with the Village development as replacement parking is needed to make way for any development.]
However, if any appeals are made to the Vermont Supreme Court, which does not hear the case de novo,  members look at the Environmental Court’s decision and consider the evidence that was submitted on the record in its hearing.
Meanwhile, Killington is one of only a few major Eastern ski resorts not to have a pedestrian village at its base. And it’s only been 49 years since Killington founder Pres Smith announced plans for the East’s first complete pedestrian ski village!
- See more at: http://mountaintimes.info/permits-issued-then-appealed/#sthash.e57NHQO1.dpuf

Permits issued then appealed

Update on Killington Village progress
- See more at: http://mountaintimes.info/permits-issued-then-appealed/#sthash.e57NHQO1.dpuf

Permits issued then appealed

Update on Killington Village progress
- See more at: http://mountaintimes.info/permits-issued-then-appealed/#sthash.e57NHQO1.dpuf

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Is Killington devolving to the dark ages

Below is an email chain between myself and the town administration regarding email alerts for Select Board meeting. As you will see our town seems to be going back to the dark ages. When the town fathers (and mothers) start hiding behind legal requirements and not continuing the free flow of information one has to wonder if there are not ulterior motives at work. 




From: Vito & Susan [mailto:Marla@Vermontel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 9:19 AM
To: Richard Horner; Chris Bianchi; Ken Lee; Patty McGrath
Subject: Selectboard Meeting Email Alerts


I know we are in transition in the Town Manager’s office and that the suspension of email alerts for Select Board meeting is due to it. I know I and at least one other person has contacted the town office about reinstating these alerts. Additionally I have spoken to many people who are concerned regarding this lack and some are wondering why and not necessarily accepting that its just because of the transition.

Could we please get this taken care of before it becomes a problem?



Vito

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 9:43 AM

Subject: RE: Selectboard Meeting Email Alerts
Thanks for your concern. The best way to keep current is to check Killingtontown.com. All minutes and agendas and other relevant information are posted on the website in a timely manner.
The new Town Manager will start on April 18. At that time she can decide how to distribute information.

Richard L. Horner
Killington Town Planner
Zoning Administrator
Interim Town Manager
2706 River Road
802-422-3242

 On Apr 6, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Vito & Susan <Marla@Vermontel.com> wrote:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dick,
I’m not sure you understood my request. Before Seth Webb left email alerts with the agenda were always sent out for Select Board meetings and they have since been suspended. I and many others would like them to be reinstated. I truly don’t understand why they were suspended in the first place, it can’t be that much of a burden to type a few lines with a meeting time and date and send out a mass email. Seth must have had a group list who requested these alerts. Or are the rumors that he deleted stuff off his computer true?
In this day and age where digital communication is ubiquitous don’t you think we need to keep up with the times. It is after all the twenty first century. I’m sure it is a lot more efficient to email people than having to post physical notices in public places.
The town website calendar is not always timely or accurate. There have been many times when I’ve looked at it for info on meeting and it wasn’t there.
Vito
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Vito,

Again, thank you for your concern in this matter of email alerts. I do understand it is very a convenient way for many to be reminded of what is transpiring in town and with the board. Unfortunately, this email thread has taken on an unnecessary negative tone. Please keep in mind that the interim period between managers was likely to have a few changes of style in the way things occurred, and Seth went the extra mile with alerts. As Dick replied, the agendas and information was publicly posted as required. The email alert, despite being convenient for many, doesn't meet the legal requirements of a public posting. I have no doubt that our new town Manager will certainly be amenable to either restarting alerts or suggesting new way of keeping up the information flow. In the mean time I ask that you, and all in our community, have patience with this soon ending transition period and allow her the opportunity to serve us all in a positive and welcoming atmosphere.


Best regards,

Patty McGrath
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Patty,
Thanks for your response.
The solution to this matter was like falling off a log. The town’s software platform, Constant Contact, was used by Seth for email alerts to people on the town’s email list. It is currently being used to email alerts by Amy Morrison for the KPAA. I spoke to her and she told me it was simply a matter of Dick or whoever prepares the agenda to forward it to her and she can simply input that into the software and push a button to generate the email. So I hardly think it’s a mile – it’s more like a  walk in the park.
If I can get this squared away with a phone call anyone in the town office can too. Unless of course the idea is to limit distribution of information, which I hope isn’t the case.
If there was any negative tone to the email chain it is because this simple solution, which I, not even an administrative employee of the town could get done in less than a minute with a phone call while town personnel either didn’t want to or didn’t know how to and couldn’t be bothered to find out.
Vito 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: So there you have it. Apparently based upon Ms. McGrath's response, "The email alert, despite being convenient for many, doesn't meet the legal requirements of a public posting.", the administration is hiding behind legal requirements so as to eliminate a convenience, as well as limiting distribution of information, to the taxpaying citizens of the town. For the amount of taxes we pay and the amount of tax dollars that are diverted to the KPAA and other so-called economic development expenditures which make it convenient for the businesses in town to make a profit, you would think that this "convenience" would not be a hardship on town personnel. 
I'm sure it is a convenience for the KPAA to use the town's Constant Contact software to keep people apprised of their activities.
As my wife stated to me regarding this, "Just because you don't have to, doesn't mean you shouldn't".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further response:


Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: Selectboard Meeting Email Alerts
 
Hi Vito,  Appreciate the dialog. I understand you feel it was a simple thing that could be done, I’m not arguing that point. It is the automatic assumption that any small change is viewed as some conspiracy to “limit information or that information was deleted” perpetuating false rumors and a seeming public attempt to disparage town office staff. The reality is, Seth did go the extra mile in the electronic passage of information, Dick’s strong points lie in other areas than computer networking. He has done a fine job in keeping the town running smoothly. With the new manager starting soon it seems like a needless fight to pick. As I said, we are moving forward, and that request will be taken care of.
 
Best,
 
Patty

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Patty,
 
Thanks for your further response.
This isn’t the first or the only request that these alerts be resumed. When there is lack of response or action, as was the case until today, one has to wonder. I tried going through the chain of command multiple times and got nowhere. So you can say what you want but based on results my and others requests were not taken seriously.
Seth was smart enough to see that providing these alerts was one of the building blocks of trust between the town administration and the townspeople. And again I must stress it is a very simple task and reaps increased trust as a reward.
As far as Dick goes, I respect him, in fact if you recall I supported him back when Bernie Rome was trying to deep six him on the premise that Dick didn’t have enough to do. The thing about Dick is he can be dismissive at times. I tried not  belittle him, I didn’t refer to him directly. I know he has plenty of skills as I am witness to his knowledge and abilities at every planning commission meeting, though apparently he is limited in his computer skills.
You are the one who brought up the “negative tone” and I gave you an explanation.
If you recall in my initial email I stated that I did not want this to become a problem. This was an issue that took a minute to take care of.
Anyway, I want to put this to bed and I hope to see an alert before the next SB meeitng.
 
Vito



Vito

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Mosher charged with involuntary manslaughter

Rutland Herald
By Kathleen Phalen Tomaselli

STAFF WRITER | April 05,2016
Following a grand jury investigation, Craig Mosher, owner of Mosher Excavation, was charged in Rutland criminal court on Monday with involuntary manslaughter related to a fatal crash last summer.

Mosher, 61, and his attorney, Matthew G. Hart, were in court prior to his arraignment but did not know his charge, Hart said.

When Judge Thomas A. Zonay asked Hart if they had seen the indictment, Hart said no.

Rutland County State’s Attorney Rose Kennedy handed Mosher and Hart the charge at the 1:45 p.m. arraignment.

After reading the charge, Mosher pleaded innocent.

If convicted, Mosher could serve from one to 15 years in jail.

The charge stems from the July 31, 2015, fatal car crash of a Woodbridge, Conn., man who was driving at night on Route 4 and crashed into a tree after hitting one of Mosher’s escaped farm animals.

“They are saying he (Mosher) should have known the bull got out,” Hart said in an interview. “It comes as a complete shock to Mr. Mosher. It was a horrible accident, but that’s exactly what it was, an accident ... I can’t recall when a grand jury was convened in the state or at least in Rutland County.”

At the time of the July crash, Vermont State Police reported, at 10:22 p.m., Jon M. Bellis, 64, and his wife were traveling west when the vehicle Bellis was driving struck a large Scottish Highlander bull that had escaped from its pasture at Mosher’s Excavation.

Bellis died at the scene as a result of the crash, according to police.

Kathryn Barry, 60, Bellis’ wife, also of Woodbridge, was transported to Rutland Regional Medical Center with a wrist injury. She was treated and released.

The bull was killed in the crash, police said.

The Connecticut couple also owns a condominium at Pinnacle Condominium Association in Killington.

Mosher expressed his sadness about what happened in an August interview. “The whole thing breaks my heart,” he said.

In court Monday, Zonay said: “We are here on an indictment before ruling on probable cause. The state’s attorney is withdrawing the indictment.”

But Kennedy informed the court she was not.

The court proceeded to Mosher’s arraignment from the indictment filed in March, with actual charges presented on Monday.

According to Hart, the indictment could have been dismissed by the state’s attorney with the charge then coming from the police information affidavit after the judge found probable cause.

But Kennedy said the charge would come from the indictment.

Signed by the grand jury foreperson, whose name was redacted from the public document, and Judge Mary Miles Teachout, the grand jury charged:

“That on July 31, 2015, Craig Mosher, of Killington ... was a person who acted with criminal negligence by having notice that his Scottish Highlander bull was loose and failed to contain his bull or alert others to this danger and, that his failure to take action caused the death of John Bellis.”

Kennedy said Monday that the law prohibits her from talking about the indictment or why it went to the grand jury.

Hart said the case would proceed like any other felony case.

“We intend to hire an accident reconstructionist,” he said. “The area of the accident is very well lit and even if the bull was in the road, he should have seen the bull.”

Mosher was released on conditions, including that he not have contact with Bellis’ wife and that he must contain all animals on his property.

kathleen.phalentomaselli

@rutlandherald.com



Comment: Craig Mosher is an outstanding individual whose tireless and timely response to open up Rte 4 and rebuild the town in the wake of Irene is legend.  To quote from a Bloomberg report at the time, “Craig is definitely a local hero,” said Roger Rivera, 33, an emergency worker with the state.
Craig Mosher is not irresponsible and certainly not a criminal. He is an upstanding pillar of the community and should not be treated with such impunity as to level felony criminal charges against him.
This incident was simply an accident and nothing more. Even the charge of “involuntary manslaughter” seems a reach. While there may be some liability issues those  should be handled in civil proceeding not a criminal one.
It seems to me that the state is wasting taxpayer money and the court’s time in bringing this indictment. Craig Mosher is no more a criminal than was Mother Teresa.  To put him through the wringer like this is just plain wrong. Maybe someone should look closer at what motivated this prosecutor.
If this proceeds and Mosher is sent to jail it will destroy his business and harm the local economy in the face of desperate efforts by the town and state to increase economic activity. Has anybody weighed the consequences of this prosecution?


Vito