Saturday, August 20, 2016

Killington pursues FEMA reimbursement

Rutland Herald
By Lola Duffort

Staff Writer | August 19,2016
KILLINGTON — Five years after Irene, the town is still wrangling with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for reimbursements.

Killington has outstanding requests to the federal agency for about $540,000 between two projects: a new bridge it built on Ravine Road, and a box culvert on Stage Road.

The town spent about $425,000 rebuilding the Ravine Road bridge, said Town Manager Deborah Schwartz, and was approved by the federal agency for about $193,000 in reimbursements (after local matching, the town actually received $148,000). The town has filed an appeal with FEMA in hopes of recouping up to an additional $231,000 on that project.

As for Stage Road, the town had received “progress payments” from FEMA — cash provided to towns to help rebuild in the immediate aftermath — but no determination from the federal agency about what its final reimbursement will total. The town has asked for $309,000, Schwartz said.

Select Board Chairwoman Patty McGrath told the public at a Select Board meeting Tuesday that the town had already received from FEMA an amount equal to what it had budgeted. But the extra cash, she said, could help the town close the budget shortfall it has been carrying forward since it spent more than $3 million rebuilding after the 2011 storm.

“Over the years, we have been working diligently to whittle down that budget shortfall,” she said.

The town has solicited help from the office of U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, Schwartz added, and representatives from Leahy’s office have offered to reach out to the rest of the Vermont congressional delegation.

lola.duffort @rutlandherald.com

Friday, August 12, 2016

Killington Ski Area seeking 300 volunteers to help with World Cup Race

MassLive.com

mikaela shiffrin.JPG
American Mikaela Shiffrin races to victory in a FIS World Cup slalom final in St. Moritz, Switzerland last winter. ( (Gian Ehrenzeller / Kestone via AP))
Jeanette DeForge | jdeforge@repub.comBy Jeanette DeForge | jdeforge@repub.com 
Follow on Twitter
on August 12, 2016 at 7:17 AM, updated August 12, 2016 at 7:18 AM
KILLINGTON, VT – Ski area officials are seeking up to 300 volunteers to assist with the operations at the World Cup race that is coming to the mountain Nov. 26 and 27.
Killington will host the 2016 Audi FIS Ski World Cup Race over Thanksgiving weekend. Two competitions, the women's giant slalom and slalom races, will be held on the Superstar trail at the mountain.
Volunteers are needed from Nov. 19 through 30. They will serve as greeters, to assist with registration, help at media headquarters and to do course crew work. Applications are being accepted through online submissions at www.killington.com.
Tickets, which ranged in price from $20 to grandstand seats to $350 VIP vouchers, were put up for sale on July 5 and sold out by the next day. 
There will be a free viewing area that will accommodate 7,500 spectators each day. Killington will also provide free parking and shuttle buses for spectators during the weekend.
To learn more about volunteer opportunities, please visit the World Cup volunteer page at Killington.com. For additional information about Killington Resort and the 2016 Audi FIS Ski World Cup, please visit www.killington.com/worldcup.
This is the first time a World Cup race has been held in New England since 1991 when the event came to Waterville Valley in New Hampshire. The last time the International Ski Federation held a World Cup competition in Vermont was in 1978 when the men's and women's slalom and giant slalom races were held at Stratton Mountain.
Killington was selected to host the race, in part because of its large snowmaking system which can pump out enough snow to cover the trails needed for the competition in a short period of time.

New tax sale policy in Killington upsets some

Rutland Herald
By Lola Duffort

STAFF WRITER | August 12,2016
KILLINGTON — A new policy shortening the delinquency period for property taxes in town has upset some residents.

“I’ve always paid my taxes. I’m hoping I can pay my taxes,” George Brant, a Killington homeowner and landlord, told the Select Board last week. “But we’ve had a really bad year. Everyone’s down 20, 30, 40 percent up here. Now if we have two, three, more years of that, you’re going to have some delinquent taxes in this town.”

A policy adopted by the Select Board last month eliminates a minimum $500 delinquency amount and shortens the delinquency period from one year to 30 days after the final tax installment is due. After those 30 days are up, the tax collector — in Killington, that’s the town manager — can send a notice to a property owner by certified mail warning them that tax sale procedures could start 30 days after mailing.

The policy also allows delinquent taxpayers to enter into a payment plan with the tax collector to forestall tax sale.

And getting property owners having a tough time paying their taxes on a payment plan is exactly what the town wants, Select Board chairwoman Patty McGrath told Grant.

“I see why you’re thinking it sounds heartless … But the point really isn’t to put things into tax sale. Because that’s not what we want to do,” McGrath said. “Without the tax sale, there’s nothing forcing people to say, hey, I need to pay this, I need to approach the town, I need to make a plan. What we’re looking for is the plan.”

Selectman Chris Bianchi agreed, and said the new policy was more in-line with municipal practice across the state.

“We’re tightening up closer to what every other town in the state of Vermont is doing,” he said.

Jim Haff, a former selectman, jumped into the conversation from the audience. He told the Board his wife had once been hospitalized for over two months — a period of time in which he certainly wasn’t checking his mail.

But ultimately, having gotten on a payment plan himself, Haff said he understood why the town wanted to tighten the timeline.

“As a person who went through it and is going through it, I don’t have a problem with it,” he said. “What I don’t like seeing, in public comments or in the paper, is saying that if everyone paid their taxes on time, we wouldn’t have to borrow the full $900,000 … because we budgeted whatever’s delinquent in our budget.”

The town is currently owed $395,811 in delinquent taxes, Schwartz said Wednesday.

“The idea is to accommodate folks as best I can while ensuring the town receives the receipts it needs,” she said. “I’m looking to serve everybody and the interests of the town — and they go hand-in-hand.”

In a phone interview this week, Grant said he hadn’t changed his mind. And the dozens of people he’d discussed the issue with also agreed, he said.

“If you’re not getting those notices for a couple months … that’s cold. I’m sorry. I just think it’s harsh,” he said.

lola.duffort

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

A Killington riddle

Mountain Times

August 10, 2016
Dear Editor,
This riddle is about our town finances.
Article  3 from the March 2015 Town Meeting stated: “Shall the voters approve total general fund expenditures for the 18-month budget beginning January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 of $6,282,554 of which $243,550 shall be applied from the 2014 general fund balance, $3,732,950 shall be raised by property taxes, $2,082,277 in estimated non-property tax revenues, and $223,778 in estimated FEMA/Flood reimbursement?”
According to the Select Board Meeting Aug. 2, 2016, item no. 7, “June 2016 financial reports and year-end closeout,” the board stated our expenses were $250,000 less than budgeted and our revenue was $45,000 more than budgeted.
So if we received in more than we budgeted and spent less than we budgeted, then why did we need to borrow $900,000 at the end of June? Could someone please answer this riddle.
a. We’re actually in debt
b. It’s  a cash flow problem
c. The select board is confused
d. All of the above
Jim Haff, Killington

Tempest in Killington’s teapot / Killington police chief still not level III trained

Mountain Times

August 10, 2016
Dear Editor,
In response to the Rutland Herald’s article of Aug. 4, 2016, “Killington police chief still not level III trained”[article below]: this is a “tempest in a teapot". I, for one, have advocated and lobbied for an increased public safety budget in Killington to increase the police presence in town due to the frequent break-ins in this community. Presence means officers out there patrolling and being visible so as to deter would-be lawbreakers. Given this context, taking Montgomery off the streets for four months, a third of a year, is ludicrous.
As I understand it, Montgomery enrolled and was well into the certification training when he became ill and had to suspend the balance of the training. He requested to re-enroll in the training where he left off and was denied, being told he would have to start at the beginning. I don’t recall how far he was into the training, but from what I do recall it was well beyond the halfway point.
I don’t know how the level three training works so don’t understand why it can’t be picked where he left off. A large part of this course is basic training boot camp—physical training—not investigating crime which seems to be the big deal with the level three certification.
I don’t think taking Montgomery off the streets for another four months while paying him that $46,837 salary and paying for another training makes any sense practically, logistically or financially for the town.
If he has the equivalent training and has limited, if any, involvement in the more serious crimes which require level three training, what is the point of demanding he go through the certification process. In fact, I’d rather other agencies with the resources spend their time investigating these “level three” crimes and have Montgomery making his presence felt on the streets. In fact that is exactly why I lobbied for an increased police budget in the first place!
Vito Rasenas, Killington


Killington police chief still not level III trained
Rutland Herald
By Lola Duffort

STAFF WRITER | August 04,2016
    KILLINGTON — The Vermont Police Academy began level III training this week, but the town’s police chief once again won’t be in class.

    Robert “Whit” Montgomery was named the Killington first police chief in 2013 on the condition that he eventually receive level III training, or full-time certification, from the Vermont Police Academy.

But that requirement might not still apply, according to town officials.

“Separate from your inquiry, we have researched his training, and his training exceeds, far and away, the minimum standards and we are researching avenues for that to be formally acknowledged,” Town Manager Deborah Schwartz said last week.

Select Board Chairwoman Patty McGrath said Wednesday the town was now looking into getting Montgomery a level III certification through the Police Academy’s waiver process, which lets police recruits skip the four-month residential training. McGrath said she wasn’t sure it would apply to Montgomery’s case, but online research appeared to indicate it would.

“That looks to be the best course of action to upgrade everything and still serve the town in the best way possible, and be fair to Whit considering all the certifications that he already has,” she said.

McGrath couldn’t say whether or not the town would require Montgomery to go through training if the waiver didn’t work out.

“I can’t answer a question about a bridge we haven’t gotten to,” she said.

But town officials will soon have to cross that bridge. That waiver process almost certainly doesn’t apply in Montgomery’s case, according to Police Academy Director of Training Cindy Taylor-Patch.

“It’s for folks that were equivalently trained in another state,” she said. A graduate of Sherburne Elementary and Woodstock Union High, Montgomery has worked in Vermont his entire career.

A level II officer, Montgomery can only investigate certain, typically more minor crimes — like municipal ordinance violations, drug possession (but not sale), domestic assault and disorderly conduct. Montgomery’s level of training previously restricted him to working a maximum 32 hours a week on policing, but legislation that went into effect last year lifted the time restriction tied to level II certification and implemented restrictions on enforcement authority.

The 20-year law enforcement veteran can legally intervene in an emergency situation in which a crime outside his scope of practice is taking place, but must then call another law enforcement agency or appropriately certified officer to take over the case.

Montgomery was a key figure in the push to create a police department in the town, which previously worked under a constable system. The ski town only has a year-round population of about 800, but can see up to 20,000 people on a busy weekend.

He would not respond to questions about why he had not re-taken training or whether he planned to do so in the future, saying only that it was not his decision to make.

“I report to Debbie and will do what the town manager requires of me to do,” he wrote in an email.

Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council Executive Director Richard Gauthier said Friday Montgomery had submitted an application to the council that Thursday for level II-Enhanced certification, which “was designed to recognize those officers who have been doing the job full time for a lot of years.”

Level II-E certification would expand Montgomery’s scope of practice to such crimes as burglary, robbery, selling drugs and aggravated assault. The most serious offences, such as sexual assault and homicide, would remain outside his purview.

Montgomery enrolled in level III training last year at the academy but dropped out, he said, after getting sick with the flu. He told the Vermont Standard in March 2015 that he intended to go back, but that his lack of training wouldn’t impede his role as police chief.

“The things I’m not authorized to do without the certification are things we don’t do anyway, like homicides. Anything like that we automatically call in the (Vermont) State Police because they have the resources to handle it, the labs, the investigators, the manpower. I’ll just be doing what I’ve been doing for 16 years, and when I get the certificate, I’ll be doing pretty much the same thing,” he said at the time.

Montgomery’s salary this year is $46,837, according to the 2015 Town Report.

The Killington Police Department can still technically investigate cases outside Montgomery’s scope of practice, so long as a level-III trained officer is in charge of the case. Jay Riehl, who works part-time for the department, has that training.

So does Donald Brent Howard, who was the town’s only other full-time officer — until late July.

Town officials announced Howard’s hiring in November 2015, but he was no longer with the department as of late last month, according the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council, which receives notifications of where officers are hired. Town officials declined to say why Howard had left, saying it was a personnel matter.

Schwartz could not say whether or not the town would look for a replacement.

Reached at home last week, Howard declined to comment as well.

Police chiefs who are not level III trained are rare but not unheard of, Taylor-Patch said.

“Fairlee, Mount Tabor and Royalton have created police departments and essentially refer to their constable as chief. Same thing with Montgomery in Killington,” she said in an email.

Level III training is offered twice a year, beginning in February and August. It lasts four months, with weekends off. The state will cover the cost of the training itself, but the town is responsible for paying a recruit’s salary during that time period.

Gauthier called level III training the “gold standard.” But he said he understood why some towns didn’t think they could afford the time commitment.

“If the town of Killington takes a look at what a level II or level II-E can do, and decides that’s all they want their police department doing anyway, then that’s their decision as a community,” he said.

lola.duffort @rutlandherald.com

Vermont’s spending needs overhaul

Mountain Times

8/6/16

Dear Editor,
Bruce Lisman knows how Vermont works and it begins with more taxes. Even the carbon tax idea will put more home heating oil customers into the mix. It is a terrible idea. Now we learn that the Vermont General Fund will drop another $28 million this year. They even want to take more money out of the Education Fund for pre-school daycare. Which brings me to what I want to say.
In spite of losing 20,000 students in our education system over the past 10-12 years, the funding for our schools has increased more than $600 million to $1.4 billion. Along with students disappearing, one has to assume that they did not die. Their parents just left the state for lack of income which leads to less tax revenue.
The Education Fund needs an overhaul as spending just does not stop and property taxes keep on rising. Vermont cannot continue to raise taxes on every thing that moves. We read that in some school districts the cost per student is reaching to $15,000 to $17,000. A lot of this comes from increasing costs to teach our young people. It never stops.
Bruce Lisman has been behind The Campaign for Vermont for years. He was Chairman of the UVM school board in 2000 and turned it around. The CFV has campaigned against the costs in the Education Fund and it has also fought to get a handle on property taxes not to mention municipal tax increases. It seems that the Vermont legislature did not hear Vermonters when they asked for changes in the Education Funding laws in 2015. Everyone who works in government gets a raise every year while ordinary Vermonters have no hope of such increases.
It is important for people in Vermont to realize that having insiders, those who have been in government for years, are not a good template for change. Lisman knows how to change this and with the help of Tom Pelham and others he will cut the spending faster than other insiders. Also, the state pension funds are so far underwater to the tune of $2 billion. Where are Vermonters going to get the money to pay the promises that government officials gave to all government workers? Vermont is in a big, bad: MESS
Edwin J. Fowler, Killington, Vt
- See more at: http://mountaintimes.info/vermonts-spending-problem-needs-overhaul/#sthash.9y1XKdUu.dpuf

Friday, August 5, 2016

New Tax Delinquency Policy Questioned

Vermont Standard
8/4/16
By Curt Peterson
Standard Correspondent
Killington — If new Town Manager Debby Schwartz thought her efforts to clean up the town’s onerous delinquent property tax situation were going to earn her universal appreciation, she found out differently at Tuesday evening’s select board meeting.
At the July 19 meeting the board had voted unanimously to adopt a new delinquent tax policy – that properties are now eligible for tax sale proceedings if any portion of levies remain unpaid 30 days after the 10-day grace period following the final installment for that year. This was Schwartz’s proposal, inspired by $500,000 in delinquent property taxes, some of which have been due for over a year.
At that meeting Schwartz had announced execution of a $900,000 cashflow loan from People’s Bank to cover the town’s expenses from July 1, the beginning of the fiscal year, until the town starts to receive property tax payments during the month of August. She had pointed out that part of the reason the town needs the loan is because taxes on which the previous year’s budget was based remained unpaid.
“A year is just an unreasonable period of time to let delinquent taxes remain uncollected. We need that money for the budget, and all the other taxpayers have to make it up,” she said.
Schwartz was careful to point out that under the new rule, tax sale proceedings “may,” rather than “shall” be instituted when delinquency reaches the prescribed tardiness, which leaves some flexibility for special circumstances, including negotiating a workable payment plan with property owners that would get them up to date in a reasonable period of time.
If it sounded reasonable on July 19, it certainly didn’t sound reasonable to some residents on Aug. 2.
George Brant and his wife Nicole Levesque, owner of Vermont Gift and Garden Shop in Killington, challenged the board’s sensitivity to hardships resulting from a “terrible winter season” by threatening tax sales.
“It’s cold,” Brant said. “We just had a bad season. We could have a couple more. Then what? People just lose everything because they can’t pay their property taxes on time?”
Added Levesque: “Several people are already out of business in the area because of the taxes.”
Selectman Chris Bianchi pointed out that taxpayers can come to the town manager, who is also the tax collector, to work out a payment plan if they need one.
“The longer people wait to pay, and the longer we wait for them to do it, the harder it is for them to catch up,” he said.
Brant said he felt the payment plan should be spelled out up front, that leaving the negotiations up to an individual might lead to favoritism for one taxpayer and draconian measures for another.
Schwartz repeated that leaving the payment plan up to negotiations allows the tax collector to take individual situations into account, rather than creating a power struggle between town and taxpayer.
Bianchi said that if a taxpayer is unhappy with treatment by the tax collector, he or she can apply to the Board of Civil Authority — they adjudicate grievances about issues such as delinquent taxes that residents might have against the town. Bianchi also pointed out that the town had a surplus fund at one time that they could use as a cushion, but extraordinary expenses from 2011’s Tropical Storm Irene wiped out much of that money.
Jim Hoff joined the fray, saying his wife became very ill and had to be hospitalized in Burlington for 62 days.
“I wasn’t reading my email, I wasn’t going to the post office, I wasn’t talking on the phone,” he said. “What if my tax bill came and I didn’t notice it, and under this new plan my property came up for tax sale? I don’t think that’s right.”
He said during his wife’s illness he got behind on the taxes for five properties.
“Once she was well again I met with Seth (Webb), the town manager, and worked out a plan to get caught up. Now I am behind on only 1 1/2 properties,” Hoff said. “Under this new arrangement I’ve only got thirty days before my house gets sold.”
Schwartz went through the process step-by-step. “First of all,” she said, “right now you are billed your taxes in four installments. They are not technically delinquent until the ten-day grace period runs out following the last of the four installments. Then the delinquency stands for 30 more days before a tax sale is even considered. So you have almost a year to arrange an alternative plan and avoid the sale.”
Hoff said he remembered former Town Manager Webb’s efforts to collect delinquent taxes, which were very successful.
Levesque and Vito Rasenas asked if delinquent taxes didn’t actually add to the town’s revenue.
“Aren’t those delinquent taxes earning interest and penalties until they are paid,” Rasenas asked.
Select board chair Patty McGrath pointed out that the interest and penalties only become revenue when they are paid, along with the taxes. Until then, she said, they are just anticipated revenue.
“We do receive delinquent taxes from previous years every current year,” she said. “But it’s unpredictable and we can’t budget based on that.”
Schwartz presented the Board with three tax items under “Listers’ Errors and Omissions.” One of the cases involves a gentleman named Andy Merman who filed his Homestead Exemption Declaration form in June, after the prescribed deadline of April 15. The town has assessed a penalty equal to 8 percent of the education portion of his property tax bill. He feels the penalty is excessive for failure to file a form, and asked the Board to consider lowering the fine to a more reasonable level.
Remarks from the audience and among the Select Board members rallied between lowering the penalty to 3 percent, to worrying about fairness to any other late filers who might have paid the higher penalty already.
Chris Bianchi looked up the rules regarding the penalties on the Vermont Department of Taxes website, which clearly state that, in municipalities where the non-resident tax rate is lower than the resident tax rate, (as is the case in Killington) the town “shall” charge a delinquent Homestead Exemption filer the 8 percent penalty.
“When a legal document says ‘shall’ do it,” Bianchi said, “that means you have to do it.”
McGrath and Schwartz had the actual statute in front of them, which agreed with the website.

Comment: From the State of Vermont website:
"Homestead Declarations filed after April 18, 2016, are classified as homesteads but may be assessed the following penalty by the town:
  • Up to 3% if the nonresidential rate is higher than the homestead education property tax rate.
  • Up to 8% if the nonresidential rate is lower than the homestead education property tax rate. "

    "may" and "up to" in the above quote from the website to me indicate a wide latitude is allowed in assessing penalties. I even connotes no penalty at all can be considered.

    Vito