Celebration of Life Set for Leo Davin in Killington

Vermont Standard

7/28/16

By Curt Peterson

Standard Correspondent

Killington select board member Ken Lee announced that a Celebration of Life honoring resident Leo J. Davin Jr. has been organized for 1:30, Aug. 7 at the Green Mountain National Golf Course grill area. The public is invited to attend, and friends and colleagues are welcome to share their thoughts and stories, Lee said.

Lee said he met Davin through skiing at Killington, an activity Davin enjoyed for 40 years.

“I guess I knew Leo as well as anybody else around here,” Lee said. “We skied and played golf together quite often and were best friends for over 20 years.”

Lee said he, Davin and Red Glaze were called “the silver foxes” because they played golf together so often, were “of an age” and all had white hair.

Asked what kind of golfer Davin was, Lee said, “He was a great guy, and I enjoyed winning money from him on the golf course.” They played together for the last time just two days before Davin had to give up the game because his illness had progressed too far.

Davin, who had lived in Killington for 10 to 12 years, died June 15 at DHMC from “complications resulting from cancer and blood disorder,” according to his obituary. He was born in Hamden, Connecticut in September 1942 and was a versatile athlete, competing at baseball, football, and hockey, as well as recreational basketball as a youth. He was also a ski instructor at Killington for a time. He tried minor league baseball in Boston, but was not successful.

Most of Davin’s working life was spent in the insurance claims business working for large insurers such as Travelers and Aetna Casualty. When he moved to Killington full-time after retirement, he became active in the community and made many friends as well as accomplishing good work for the town.

“He was chairman of the Golf Course Committee,” Lee said, “as well as putting in six years on the planning commission and 5 or 6 years on the recreation commission. He was a community force.”

“At over six feet tall and almost 300 pounds, Leo was a big guy, a funny guy and a good guy,” Lee said. “He will be sorely missed around here.”

In other news, the select board voted to appoint Chad Aston to take Davin’s place on the golf course committee.

Town Manager Deborah Schwartz said the golf course, which operates as a separate entity, borrows money from the town every spring to finance their start-up. Then the town borrows money from the bank in July to cover bills before tax revenue begins arriving.

“I think the golf course should go to the bank and borrow its annual start-up money from them instead of the town,” she said. “Like any other business, even though the loans would be for small amounts.”

Schwartz also brought up the delinquent taxes issue, a subject she has been researching for some time. She said the current policy is to consider a tax sale action after a property owner is delinquent for a year.

“This is too long for any town to have to wait for money it budgeted with the assumption it would be paid,” Schwartz said.

She had also spoken to the town’s attorney, who said setting new tax delinquency rules is within the board’s authority.

Schwartz’s proposal is to consider taxes delinquent if the final installment is still unpaid 30 days after the 10-day grace period, and at that time a tax sale would be considered.

“This doesn’t preclude setting up payment plans with delinquent taxpayers who want to catch up but can’t pay back taxes all at once,” she said. “But if a payment plan is set up, and the property owner stops making the agreed payments, the property is immediately eligible for tax sale.”

She said using the words, “May institute tax sale” would enable the board to accommodate individual circumstances.

Several edits were proposed by selectman Chris Bianchi and board chairman Patty McGrath, and the amended version was passed unanimously.

Comment: Finally a town manager who understands. I and others have stated the golf course needed to recognize the interest expense of money borrowed from the town to accurately state its profitability. Whether its imputed somehow in the town's accounting system or paid directly to a bank on a loan solicited by the GMNGC directly it needs to be recognized as a business expense and not absorbed in the town's operating budget. It's enough that the taxpayers are eating the building and refinancing costs of GMNGC.

State: Route 4 to Get More Rumble Strips

Vermont Standard

July 21, 2016

Staff Report

There will soon be rumble strips in Woodstock, Bridgewater and through Killington.

The state is repaving Route 4 this summer and new rumble strips are to be installed down the middle of the road as part of a plan to put rumble strips on just about every state highway.

The paving project will begin on Route 4 in Killington and extend 14 miles to the Woodstock Recreation Center. The state anticipates closing multiple lanes throughout the duration of the project. Paving will be done in October.

This is the start of what could be many more rumble strips in the future. Vermont Agency of Transportation is considering rumble strips down the

 centerlines of state highways where pavement width is at least 28 feet, where there’s a three-foot shoulder, where the speed limit is at least 45 miles per hour, where there are at least 1,500 vehicles per day or where there have been a number of crashes.

As part of a new policy, rumble strips will not be placed within 100 feet of residences.

“If they don’t like it, now’s the time to come forward. I don’t know what to tell you,” said Municipal Manager Phil Swanson.

The state removed portions of rumble strips in Quechee and Taftsville this summer after some residents complained that the noise of trucks and cars hitting them was loud enough to shake their homes. The rumble strips were installed along that corridor in 2013 following outrage from five deaths in a three-year period.

Rumble strips have been found to reduce crashes 25-35 percent, the Vermont Agency of Transportation said. Fourteen miles of rumble have been installed so far on five major routes, including Routes 2, 4, 7, 9 and 105.

Select board chair Preston Bristow said the board is in favor of rumble strips, “but I realize those that live near them might feel differently,” he said.

Killington Resort Former ski ambassador takes workers’ comp claim to court

Rutland Herald

By Lola Duffort

STAFF WRITER | July 27,2016

KILLINGTON — A dispute over who should pay a former Killington Resort ski ambassador’s medical bills following a 2008 tumble on the slopes could finally be settled in court.

Thomas Kibbie, of Connecticut, appealed in March a February decision by the Vermont Department of Labor denying in part his workers’ compensation claim with Killington Resort in Rutland Superior Court. Because the resort has not responded to the suit within the prescribed time, Thomas Bixby, Kibbie’s Rutland-based lawyer, has asked the judge for a default judgement in his client’s favor.

“We expected them to respond to the appeal — they’ve fought this tooth and nail for approximately eight years now,” Bixby said in an interview Tuesday.

Resort spokesman Michael Joseph said Tuesday the company would not be commenting on the matter “at this time.”

Kibbie had been a volunteer ski ambassador for about 10 years, according to filings in the case, when he fell and hit his head so hard his helmet cracked one January evening while doing a final sweep. He was rushed to the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., where a CT scan revealed a small brain hemorrhage. Discharged four days later, Kibbie was ultimately diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and the resort began paying workers’ compensation benefits.

Kibbie would later undergo treatment for TBI, fractured teeth, whiplash, chronic neck pain, headaches, mental health problems and vision problems.

Bixby said the injuries have left Kibbie, a carpenter by trade, unable to work, and anxious around people or in a car.

“He would tell you: He’s not the same person he was before,” Bixby said.

In 2010, Kibbie and the resort signed an agreement providing Kibbie $50,000 in exchange for settling his claims. The resort also agreed to pay ongoing costs “for the treatment of his cognitive or other head injury including neurological, psychological, ophthalmological, TBI care and treatment.”

Kibbie would later testify in hearings before Department of Labor officials that he believed the agreement he had signed covered him “for everything from the shoulders up,” but soon after signing the document, the resort stopped reimbursing certain medical bills, arguing the treatments weren’t covered under the agreement, which only put the resort on the hook for treatment related to Kibbie’s head — and not neck — injuries.

In the February decision, the Labor Department agreed with the resort that it was only liable for medical treatments related to Kibbie’s head injuries.

“I do not dispute that the settlement agreement Claimant executed may not have said what he wanted it to say,” Jane Woodruff, an administrative law judge, wrote on behalf of Labor Commissioner Anne Noonan. “I cannot conclude that this was a consequence of ambiguous or inadequately defined terms however. … I am bound to enforce it according to its terms.”

But it also found the resort had wrongly denied payment for a variety of bills — including dental and mental health treatments, prescription medication costs, and visual deficit treatments — that were medically necessary and directly related to Kibbie’s head injury.

Bixby declined to elaborate on why Kibbie signed the 2010 agreement in the first place, but noted that it was the subject of a separate suit, filed this month in federal court, against Kibbie’s former attorney.

Even with a judge’s order compelling the resort to pay for treatments, his client might have trouble getting Killington to comply, Bixby said.

“This is kind of the tip of the iceberg, but we’re relieved to be moving forward,” he said.

lola.duffort

@rutlandherald.com

Planning commissions seek to amend ski village permit

Rutland Herald

By Lola Duffort

STAFF WRITER | July 26,2016

KILLINGTON — The long and winding legal wrangle to build a ski village for Killington Mountain Resort is not over.

Regional planning commissions filed an appeal July 1 to amend a decision issued late last month by Environmental Court Judge Thomas Durkin affirming an Act 250 permit for the first phase of the Killington Ski Village project.

The Rutland Regional Planning Commission, Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission and Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission wrote to the court saying they never agreed to shoulder the cost of a corridor study regarding the project’s next phases.

Durkin in his decision included a condition that SP Land Company, the project’s developer, contribute $20,000 to such a study, which would be conducted by the regional planning commissions.

The commissions wrote in their motion to appeal that while they had supported such a study, they had always maintained its costs should be shouldered entirely by the permittee.

“The Regional Commissions are not applicants or permittees, and the Court lacks any authority to impose permit obligations on the RPCs absent their consent,” the commissions wrote in their July motion. “Nor does the Court have the authority to order the RPCs to expend funds. Because the RPCs have not proposed, and have not consented to produce and finance the studies, Condition 14 must be altered and amended.”

SP Land responded in mid-July to the motion, agreeing that since the planning commissions weren’t parties to the case, they couldn’t be compelled to take action or spend money in relation to it.

But SP Land attorney Christopher Roy also argued that Durkin ought to consider jettisoning all post-decision traffic studies. Durkin mandated two studies in his decision — one to be conducted by SP Land on the project’s first phase; another to be conducted by the commissions, with partial financing from SP Land, on the project’s next phases.

Roy argued that while it has been common for developers to agree to such studies during the permitting process, recent Vermont Supreme Court and Superior Court decisions called the practice into question.

“The logic of this holding is straightforward,” Roy wrote in reference to a Supreme Court decision in February that nixed periodic post-construction inspection of a stormwater system from a permit tied to an Okemo development.

“An applicant must meet its burdens of production and persuasion with respect to each of the Act 250 criteria,” Roy added. “If it does so to the District Commission’s or the Court’s satisfaction, then a permit should be issued. … Alternatively, if the applicant fails to construct the project in conformance with its application and permit, enforcement is a matter for others, such as the Vermont Natural Resources Board, to handle.”

Roy also noted in an interview Monday the developer had already conducted a traffic study, and expected to conduct additional studies if it decided to go forward with the next phases of the project — which would require a new Act 250 permit.

Phase I of the project, which this Act 250 proceeding concerns, includes the village’s core and a 32-unit subdivision just north of it. The core includes plans for 193 housing units, 31,622 square feet of commercial space, 7,000 square feet of replacement skier service areas within two new base lodge buildings, the relocation of a portion of Killington and East Mountain roads, additional parking areas, and a village green.

The project ultimately envisions creating in several phases 2,300 residential units, a 77,000-square-foot skier services building, 32 new residential lots and about 200,000 square feet of retail space over the next 20 to 30 years.

Once the court responds to the regional planning commissions’ motion, parties will have 30 days to appeal the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court. There is no deadline for the court to respond to the motion, but Roy said he expected a decision relatively soon.

lola.duffort@rutlandherald.com

Crash sends local man to hospital

Rutland Herald

By Dan Colton

STAFF WRITER | July 19,2016

Anthony Edwards / Staff Photo Emergency workers respond to a single-car crash at the intersection of Route 4 and Altrui Place in Rutland Town on Monday afternoon.

Authorities said a medical emergency likely caused a Killington man to crash his vehicle on Route 4 on Monday and lost control while driving.

Trooper Aron McNeil of the Vermont State Police said Louis Belfore, 73, was seen traveling east near Rutland High School, slumped over in his seat.

Police said the eyewitness saw Belfore’s eastbound Kia Sorento cross the road’s centerline into the westbound lane. The vehicle went off the road and crashed into the Needham Electrical Supply sign, knocking it down and damaging the sign’s stone platform.

The Altrui Place street sign was damaged and bent, police said, the Kia’s airbag was deployed.

McNeil said the witness was driving in front of Belfore and saw him in the rearview mirror.

Belfore was taken to Rutland Regional Medical Center by Regional Ambulance Service. The Rutland Town Fire Department responded to the scene and assisted medical technicians, McNeil said.

Bernadette Robin, hospital spokeswoman, said Belfore was in fair condition around 5:40 p.m. Monday. Belfore’s vehicle sustained heavy front-end damage and had to be towed from the scene by Carrara’s Services.

Police said Belfore possibly suffered a stroke before the crash. There were no skid marks on the road to indicate he tried to use his brakes, police said.

McNeil said the crash remains under investigation. Speed and alcohol aren’t considered to be factors in the crash, he said.

dan.colton @rutlandherald.com

Killington Village progress hits another delay

Mountain Times

July 14, 2016

By Karen D. Lorentz

The Rutland County Regional Planning Commission, Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission and Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commissions have filed a Motion to Alter and Amend the Permit Conditions that were imposed regarding traffic studies in the June 21 Environmental Court decision regarding the Killington Village.

In that decision Judge Thomas S. Durkin largely agreed with the arguments made by SP Land Company in its appeal of certain conditions and findings imposed in its District #1 Act 250 permit. The judgment order also included some new conditions regarding traffic studies.

The Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) specifically objected to the Court “imposing Condition 14” which requires “the Regional Commissions to complete a master plan traffic study” as well as ordering the permittee SP Land to pay $20,000 toward the studies.

Regarding a finding that “the Regional Commissions have pledged to complete a regional corridor study of resort-generated traffic,” the RPCs note that they “have not pledged to fund and undertake the study themselves” and state that the “condition is based on a mistake of fact.”

They also reiterate their prior contention given in testimony before the Court that “the responsibility for conducting the traffic impact study for this development” rests on the permittee(s). The RPCs further contend that the Court cannot impose conditions on them as they are not the party seeking the permit.

In their Motion to Alter and Amend, the Regional Planning Commissions suggest their own wording for conditions 13 and 14.

Their proposed Condition 13 states a “Traffic Study to be completed by SPLC” and adjusts the scope of the data gathering in connection with the current phase with the scope of the studies to be conducted in connection with future phases.

The proposal for Condition 14 is adjusted to delete the payment obligation of the permittee SP Land, contending that “a specific financial condition is not appropriate at this time.” It also provides for “a collaborative planning process to review the scope of and responsibility for traffic studies to be conducted prior to application for any future phase” and includes a dispute resolution provision.

Asked for comment, SP Land President Steven Selbo said he does not agree with the RPCs’ proposed conditions. He is currently working on his response to the Motion to Alter and Amend the traffic conditions.

Noting he has previously agreed to a 50-50 public/private split to pay for corridor traffic impact studies, Selbo said that there are other resorts—at Quechee, Okemo, Suicide Six and Woodstock—which have expansion projects by private developers that can also impact traffic, especially in corridors like Routes 103 to I-91 in the case of Ludlow area developments and along US Route 4 to I-89 where improvements at Quechee Village and in the Woodstock area may impact traffic.

He noted that additional Killington Resort skier visits could also impact traffic and that all private parties should be considered in sharing private sector funding, not just SP Land. (The RPCs also receive some funding from the 1.25 percent Property Transfer Tax, which is assessed on sales of residences like those SP Land is proposing for the Killington Village, specifically to help them fund such studies.)

Proportional funding precedent

The case for proportional funding where traffic impacts exist was made in a July 7 Environmental Court cecision regarding Motions to Reconsider a Hinesburg Hannaford Act 250 permit.

Because the Court heard testimony from the applicant that its project would only contribute about nine percent of the overall traffic at an already congested intersection and thus should only be required to pay 9 percent of the total cost of a new traffic signal (and offered to pay $25,000 toward it as mitigation), the permit had been granted requiring the installation and proportional share payment.

Noting it was “uncontested that the project was not the sole cause of the traffic concerns at the intersection,” the Court stated that the appellants had had the opportunity to present further evidence as to cost sharing at the Act 250 permit hearings and had failed to do so, and therefore upheld its original finding as to the required mitigation and did not amend the permit to require Hannaford to pay for the entire signal light.

Asked about the complexity of traffic issues, Selbo noted that a recent Vermont law was passed by the legislature to address the complicated issues related to traffic and created traffic improvements districts. However, VTrans has not yet created the rules to go with that law. As a result, issues concerning traffic impacts and who pays for them continue to complicate — and delay — the permit process as it relates to Act 250 Criterion 5 (the traffic signal is a condition to the Hannaford project).

Next steps regarding Village permit conditions

Judge Durkin must now decide whether to accept the Motion to Alter and Amend and can then alter his findings or uphold the permit in its entirety. (Should he do the latter, the RPCs have 30 days in which to appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court.)

If he decides to alter his findings, Judge Durkin considers both the Motion and SP Land’s Response. Once he makes his ruling in regard to the traffic study issue, either party can appeal it to the Vermont Supreme Court.

If any appeals are made, Court members look at the Environmental Court’s decision and consider the evidence that was submitted on the record in its hearings. Brief testimony can be given by the parties.

The bottom line is that the permit process for a Killington Village entails more delays but fewer issues remain to be addressed.

- See more at: http://mountaintimes.info/killington-village-progress-hits-another-delay/#sthash.kFlEwlWA.dpuf

Killington municipal property tax rate set

Mountain Times

July 13-19, 2016

By Polly Lynn

KILLINGTON— Killington Select Board Chair Patty McGrath said that new rate for municipal property taxes would be 0.3333, “only slightly higher than we anticipated,” she said. The Select Board unanimously approved the rate at its regular meeting Tuesday, July 5, there was no further discussion.

The 2015-16 rate was $0.4633 for an 18-month budget cycle (approximately 0.3109 if extrapolated to 12-months.) In 2014, the 12-month rate was $0.2959, according to Town Manager Deborah Schwartz.

The state education property tax rate for residents (homestead) and non-residents for the fiscal year, which started July 1, is $1.6227 and $1.4852 respectively. That compares to the 2015-16 rates of $1.7364 for residents and $1.5052 for non-residents, Schwartz stated.

Presenting a financial update to the Select Board, Tuesday, she noted: “The operating note was funded on June 30 to the tune of $900,000, the interest rate is 1.4 percent. To look to see how much of that was from prior year or years vs. going forward, Lucretia did some calculations, which you have in front of you,” she said. Further explaining, she added, “The balance forward from July expenses is just under $66,000. The amount that is needed for June is the lions share of the note.”

Tax delinquencies through June 30 were $395,554, which includes delinquencies, penalties and interest, she continued. Of that number $373,000 was from 2015 alone.

“So if you remove the tax delinquency from the amount needed for June we have a post-tax balance of almost $438,700,” Schwartz said. Additionally, “we have our hands out to FEMA for about $539,000, it is still to be determined what the outcome of that is going to be.

“So the lion’s share of this note was to cover expenses for the last fiscal year which ended last week,” Schwartz concluded.

In order to get away from tax anticipation and/or operating notes in the future, the Board discussed the timing of tax collection.

Board member Ken Lee asked if it would make more sense to go to three payments instead of the current four. Patty McGrath said she thought it would.

“When we do it as four payments there’s a six week gap before we collect our first payment… so that puts us behind,” she said. “If we went to three payments it would still provide benefit, breaking it up and lower tax payments, but it would also get us ahead. So, if our finances are running smoothly, we wouldn’t have to be going for the tax anticipation notes.”

Chris Bianchi said, “The only way we don’t go for a tax anticipation note is if we have a reserved fund balance. Because even if everyone paid their taxes on time come June 30, the end of the fiscal year, and all our bills our paid, the budget’s paid, the state’s paid — we have no money and we don’t collect any until August but we have bills in July and August,” he said. “So unless we build up a reserve fund of a couple months operating, as suggested, we will always need an operating note… we used to have a reserve fund but the balance that we used to carry got used up when Irene happened — we had to deplete that.”

Bianchi suggested that discussing such options, including switching to a different payment schedule and building up the reserve fund balance again, should be brought up at the next town meeting in March.

McGrath agreed but felt discussing the pros and cons of such options and getting that information out to the public early was a benefit.

- See more at: http://mountaintimes.info/killington-municipal-property-tax-rate-set/#sthash.F0khTQd1.dpuf