At this week's February 14 meeting Attorney Steve Stitzel told the
select board that a petition accepted by the board and warned at Town
Meeting could not be rescinded. A second town attorney, Joe McLean,
affirmed that the select board has no authority to withdraw an article
that voters had petitioned to have discussed at Town Meeting - even at
the request of those who put forth the petition.
So the petition will be discussed (and could be amended) at Town Meeting
on March 1 and how it is handled will depend a great deal on how the
town's moderator addresses the issue. Waitsfield's longtime moderator
Peter Joslin stepped down last year and, so far, no one has publicly
announced their intention to run for that post.
At this week's meeting, Kate Williams, chair of the select board,
reported to the board that she had had phone calls from the petition's
creators asking that the town withdraw the petition because of concerns
about how signatures were gathered.
The petition was created by Corinthia Richards and circulated by Cindy
Carr. The petition called for shifting some costs of the town's water
project from users to taxpayers and proposed creating a per gallon fee
to be paid for water usage. That fee would go to two landowners with
whom the town is currently negotiating for access to water.
The town drilled a well in the right of way of Reed Road under the
assumption that it was a town road. In November the Vermont Superior
Court ruled that Reed Road is not a town road. The town simultaneously
began negotiating to purchase 2.52 to 2.98 acres from two landowners
whose property abuts Reed Road. Corinthia Richards represents the Jean
Damon family. The other landowner is Virginia Houston.
At this week's meeting, Williams explained that, on the advice of the
Vermont secretary of state, the town checked with people who signed the
petition to see if they were fully informed about what they were
signing.
"We got a mixed response. Some people indicated they'd been well
informed and some came to us unsolicited and said they hadn't known what
they were signing. Some said they did know. So our intent was to deal
with that tonight," Williams explained.
"Today I got a call from those who circulated the petition saying they
want to withdraw it. They feel they are not comfortable with the fact
that people felt they didn't know what they were signing," she
continued.
"They didn't want that kind of atmosphere surrounding the petition, but,
also, in the process of public discourse that the petition sparked,
they essentially got the sense that this is not a direction they want to
be pushing for," Williams said, referring to the direction of shifting
costs from users to all taxpayers.
Board member Bill Parker said his concern about removing the article from the Town Meeting
Agenda would be that people were looking at the article as an
opportunity to have a discussion about a very important topic at Town
Meeting.
Corinthia Richards, who drafted the petition, said, via email after the
meeting, that the petitioners were also worried that a lot of people
thought the petition came from the select board.
"A lot of people thought that the petition came from the select board.
It did not. And that upset a lot of people. We did not intend to upset
people or make everybody mad at the select board. We offered to
amend/withdraw if they thought that would help with the dialogue. Kate
[Williams] has been a super helpful contact through all of this and we
wanted her to know that we are not trying to make things more
difficult," Richards said.
While the issue of cost shifting and per gallon fees will now be
discussed at Town Meeting, there are many voters with concerns about
whether the shift is legal. When Waitsfield was planning and proposing
the project, the plans called for having all costs of operating the $7.5
million project covered by users. Having users pay the costs was a
requirement for the town to secure the grants and loans it received for
the project and it was included in the wording of the bond vote that
voters passed on the project.
Town Administrator Valerie Capels contacted the grant and loan providers
regarding whether costs could be shifted after the fact of applying for
and receiving the government funds.
"Rural Development said that if the town decides to shift costs to the
tax base, they are not in a position to object. The fact that initially
users were to bear the costs is what helped the project get higher
grants and lower interest on the loans. User repayment meant that the
town qualified for more money," Capels said.
{loadnavigation}
