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.

Woman denies exploiting disabled woman

Rutland Herald

October 31,2014

 

Caregiver denies exploiting woman

A Killington woman charged with stealing more than $6,000 from a disabled Rutland woman she was caring for denied a felony charge in Rutland criminal court this week.

Jennifer L. Walker, 34, pleaded innocent to a charge of financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult.

Walker, who appeared in court on a citation, was released on court-ordered conditions.

The Killington woman was arrested earlier this month after a 77-year-old quadriplegic woman living in the city told police she discovered unsanctioned withdrawals from her account that had been going on for months.

Walker, who was hired in December 2013 to provide rides for the woman and perform other chores, initially denied taking the money but later allegedly confessed to using the woman’s ATM card to withdraw $6,400 from the disabled woman’s account.

If convicted, Walker faces up to 10 years in jail.

Town To Decide Future Of Killington Fire Dept. Building

Vermont Standard
By Virginia Dean
Standard Correspondent

KILLINGTON—The future of the Killington Fire and Rescue Department facilities will soon be determined by a committee of citizens who will make recommendations to the town on how to proceed with the renovation or reconstruction of its facilities.

“We’ve posted a call for interested volunteers,” said Town Manager Seth Webb. “We’ve extended the date for responses until Nov. 10. We’ve revived a few letters of interest.”

Department facilities are in disrepair and no longer meet state criteria or the needs of the volunteer fire department, Webb said.

“The Town needs to decide the best course of action for the future of these facilities,” said Webb. “The Select Board has chosen to ask citizens to help guide that choice.”

The Select Board will make appointments at their Nov.11 meeting, Webb said.

The designated Fire Department Facilities Review Committee will be comprised of five members, each of whom will be appointed for a single term of one year. It will serve in an advisory capacity to the Town of Killington Town Manager and Board of Selectmen.

“The Fire Department Facilities Review Committee shall make a recommendation to the Town on how to proceed with the renovation or reconstruction of the Fire Department Facilities,” said Webb. “To do its work, it is expected that the Committee will consider the short and long term needs of the Fire Department, review the study done by Dore and Whittier the architect, consult outside experts, and foster citizen participation in the review/ recommendation process.”

The Select Board met with architects Dore and Whittier last summer who were hired by the Town to review the Fire Department facilities and provide recommendations for renovating the aging facilities.

Preliminary cost estimates for renovation or reconstruction of the two facilities range from $2.4 million to $6.4 million.

The firm’s assessment revealed that the 1974 building on Killington Road has uneven floors, inefficient insulation, plumbing and electricity, no cross ventilation and not enough storage for equipment. With a lack of proper storage for the turnout gear, the gear is exposed to soot and sunlight that plays a part in deterioration of the expensive equipment.

The station is also missing a sprinkler system and is very close to Killington Road that creates safety hazards for the Department and disrupting traffic. Fire stations are typically set back 50-60 feet from the road, not 5-6 feet.

The building lacks two means of egress required for exiting and does not meet handicap accessibility or ADA Code. The number of toilets needs to be increased to meet plumbing codes, and an elevator is required for all public funded building, which the current building does not have.

The lack of room in the vehicle bays causes firefighters to be exposed to unsafe exhaust, and the second station on River Road will require a significant investment to effectively accommodate the current equipment in the years to come.

At one time, the architects considered the options of renovating the building, additions to the building, or demolishing it and building a new one. Other considerations included combining the River Road Station into the Killington Road Station. All options required purchasing more of the surrounding property to establish a parking lot.

Other possibilities included adding a police department onto the fire station to give the Killington police a more stable home base and clump the emergency services together for convenience.

In reviewing the options, the Board agreed with the architects that the size of the existing lot was a significant limitation. The lot is less than one acre and currently much of the parking for the facility is located on another parcel. The building is close to an existing stream, and while there is currently no FEMA flood plain designation, floodwaters have come close to the station.

There is currently no storm water management but this would be required if any redevelopment occurs. A 35,000 gallon water storage tank and pumps from Roaring Brook and would have to be replaced if there was an extensive remodel. To accommodate a renovation, additional land would need to be purchased.

Comment: The application deadline for the comittee has been extended so apparently there are not enough applicants or not enough applicants deemed worthy by the selectboard and town manager. I applied and I know I'm more than qualified. It will be interesting to see if I am selected.

Vito

Job Tate will represent our district’s true concerns

Mountain Times
October 16, 2014

October 15, 2014

Dear Editor:

My wife, Monica, and I are parents to three beautiful young sons and we both agreed there would be no better place to raise them than in Vermont. So in 2011 we bought our first home in Killington. At the time we knew managing a mortgage along with high property taxes and energy costs were going to be expensive—but believed that our desire to raise our family in this beautiful region, coupled with hard work, would give us the edge in securing the American dream so many generations of Vermonters have enjoyed before us. But since that time it is breath-taking how quickly things have gotten worse. Our current representative, Anne Gallivan, has kowtowed to her party leadership and voted to raise our taxes multiple times—including our property taxes. In addition, she voted to allow the Shumlin administration to withhold their plans for how they’re going to pay for the single-payer health care system—meanwhile, hard-working Vermonters hold their breath waiting for the other $2 billion shoe to drop . . . dutifully paying their mortgage, cutting intensely high checks to pay for the lights and heat and swallowing hard as we drain our bank accounts come tax season. At this rate, home ownership in the Green Mountains will be an ever-ballooning cost burden that threatens to undermine the financial health of the working and retired alike.

That’s why I’m voting for Job Tate as our next representative this November. Job is a proven problem solver who has served, and continues to serves, with honor in our nation’s military. Job is a young husband and father himself who understands how unattractive it is becoming to sink roots here in our district, but who refuses to leave our state in such disrepair. He has vowed to work hard to lower our costs across the board and to demand immediate accountability concerning the health care debacle afflicting our state. With Job, I know I’ll be getting a rep who is more interested in empowering and representing us, than toeing the party line. He’s not a gamble, he’s a sure thing.

Francis Legayada


Comment: While I am not personally endorsing any candidates at the moment, I think Francis' endorsement is important in that he and his family are representative of what the community is seeking to attract, young families with children.
I know Francis and his wife Monica. They are a hardworking couple striving to make a good life for their children and themselves and improving the community they live in. Thus their opinion is relevant and valuable in the context of the town's strategic plan for the future.
Vito