Selectboard 12/16/24

Printable version

Selectboard Minutes 12-16-24 146 KB

Web version

Town of Richmond
Selectboard Meeting
Minutes of December 16, 2024

Members Present: Bard Hill, Adam Wood, David Sander, Jay Furr, Lisa Miller
 

Absent: None

Staff Present: Town ManagerJosh Arneson;Assistant to the Town ManagerDuncan Wardwell; Chief of Police Cambridge; Town Clerk Linda Parent; Dennis Gile, Fire Chief; Gerald Levesque, Assistant Fire Chief

Others Present: MMCTV Erin Wagg, Selectboard chair for Town of Hinesburg Merrily Lovell, Jeff Forward, JP, David Rugh, Martha Nye, “16039913302”, Executive Director OCCC Susanne Parent, David Rugh, Noa, Robin Pesci, Morgan Wolaver, Trevor Brooks, Caity Filkins, Kristen Werner, Patty Brushett, Connie Van Eeghen, Julie Toth, Alexis, Brendan Filkins, Kevin Kent, Michael Parent, Ben Owens, Sarah Heim, Kevin Kittinger, Mary Ann Kittinger, June Heston, Douglas Thompson, Kevin Carrubba, Dorian Evans, Aaron Toth

MMCTV Video: Recorded by MMCTV by Erin Wagg

https://youtu.be/bXFPsKBGWrg?si=v5YlBUHRfjYjHnx3

Call to Order: 7:00 pm
 

Welcome by: Sander

Public Comment:

LaBounty brought up that the FY24 budget was released on Dec. 9, 2024, not in October when it was due. She doesn’t feel it’s wise to plan the FY26 budget without the FY24 audit. Similarly, the FY25 first Quarter numbers have not been released and would be helpful when planning next year’s budget. On Oct. 9, the Town Center Committee and Library Committee met and requested that an RFP for an owner project manager, and this has not been completed so they cannot move forward with upgrades to the Town Center building. She further pointed out that the Richmond Town budget should be compared to the Hinesburg Town budget because she feels Richmond is over-budgeting for certain things that are unnecessary, such as the proposed Deputy Town Manager position.

Items for Presentation or Discussion with those present

Reminder of Special Selectboard meeting on Tuesday, December 17 to work on the FY26 budget
Timestamp: 0:04

Sander reminded everyone that there is a Special Selectboard meeting to discuss the FY26 budget on Dec. 17 at 7:00 p.m.

Discussion regarding budgeting for shared police services with Hinesburg Split the Chief

Timestamp: 0:04

People who participated in discussion:  Sander, Arneson, Hill, Lovell, Forward, Cambridge, LaBounty

Arneson spoke to the Town Manager in Hinesburg Todd Odit regarding sharing the Police Chief for the foreseeable future because that reduces the Chief’s budget by half, potentially also splitting an Administrative Assistant, that meeting was a renewed statement that both Towns are interested in continuing cooperation with Police coverage. Hill spoke to Lovell this week to clarify that Richmond was interested in continuing to share Chief Cambridge, also sharing policing duties, as well as possibly having a shared Admin for the Chief. Lovell replied that Hinesburg intends to solidify and finalize their next year’s budget on Wed. Dec.18, and she will advocate for an Admin for the Chief (again) at that time. Forward asked how many Officers Hinesburg has budgeted for, to which Lovell replied as far as she knew it was five, with a sixth if the contract with Richmond continues. Cambridge added that he is worried the number of Officers Hinesburg is willing to budget for may decrease to four. Forward emphasized that Police Officers are an essential service and the cooperation between Towns is important and should continue. Cambridge reiterated that Hinesburg has budgeted for four Police Officers plus a Chief, so if Richmond continued to budget for four Officers and a Chief, the two Towns would have budgeted for the same size departments. Forward asked if Chief Cambridge was still looking to fill the officer positions in Richmond, to which Arneson replied that they did fill the one officer position and his dog.

LaBounty wanted to know why Richmond isn’t hiring the officer that “will be let go from Hinesburg”, which Arneson pointed out that Hinesburg currently has 5 officers plus the Chief, per their FY25 budget, so no officer “has been let go” from Hinesburg PD, that position is to be discussed in their next budget meeting, LaBounty was incorrect in her assumption. Arneson clarified that the agreement to use Hinesburg officers to patrol in Richmond was set up temporarily because hiring officers in Richmond has not happened as quickly as he has hoped, the intention has always been to hire more officers in Richmond. Lovell concurred and stated that they would keep the Hinesburg budget the way it is now, with five officers and a sixth to cover Richmond, if Richmond did not hire more officers. The first contract to share officers with Hinesburg occurred in the Spring of 2023. Hill corrected LaBounty in that it is the (Police) Union that would prefer Richmond to staff their own Police Department, and not share with Hinesburg, because of collective bargaining and wanting to have (Police) Union members fully staffed in Richmond. This conversation is better left for tomorrow’s budget meeting. Forward added with the increase in crime in both Towns cutting the Police budget would not be wise at this time. Lovell ended with the sentiment that she hopes the collaboration between Towns will continue.

Review of letter from attorney regarding Southview Development Protective Covenants in regards to the Southview Development Stormwater Permit, possible executive session

Timestamp: 0:26

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2024/12/3c1_2024.11.18__Letter_to_Richmond_Selectboard_Re_Southview__00660924xE4196_.PDF

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2024/12/3c2_Letter_to_Residents_11-11-24_-_signed_with_map.pdf

People who participated in discussion:  Sander, Arneson, Furr, Wood, Hill, Miller, Furr, Rugh, Wood, Filkins, Kent,

Arneson explained that a letter was received from an attorney representing some of the residents on Southview Drive to the Selectboard regarding the Stormwater permit. The Town attorney has provided feedback to the board, which Miller stated was not a conclusive statement. Furr stated he didn’t think an executive session was necessary to which attorney Rugh disagreed as he wants to provided candid legal advice to the board in a closed session. Wood emphasized that the letter represents only a portion of people in the Southview neighborhood. Hill suggested that this be discussed in closed executive session before it is discussed publicly, he stated that the letter concludes that the Town's position be that there exists a homeowner’s association and for people to not assume whatever history there is of a covenant around a homeowner’s association to be viable.

Hill moved to find that premature public knowledge about attorney-client communication would cause the Town or person to suffer a substantial disadvantage. Wood seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Hill moved that we enter into executive session to discuss attorney-client communication regarding a letter on the Southview Development under the provisions of 1 VSA 313(a)(1)(f) and to invite Town Manager Josh Arneson and Attorney Dave Rugh into the executive session. Miller seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Hill moved to exit executive session. Furr seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Hill summarized four viable options moving forward: 1) the Town could work with a homeowner’s association or Stormwater Management Association. However, Southview residents have clearly said “we don't want to do this.” 2) the Town taxes everybody to pay for the Southview mitigation. This also is not plausible or fair, particularly when you think about the trailer park that already pays for its own Stormwater drainage costs, to then be re-taxed for Southview’s costs. 3) We could create a tax assessment district, but that’s impossible since we don't have property control over people’s properties, nor a homeowner’s association to negotiate with. 4) Lastly there would be individual easements or eminent domains, which is costly.

Hill continued both the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission have talked about the three-acre storm rule as being a problem. He thinks the Town and residents should create a notice of intent (NOI). Furr asked if the Town submits such an NOI or should it come from the homeowners. Wood added that an NOI must be submitted to get the grant funding that could pay for mitigation work, and once the work is complete it would quantify the cost and property impact. Filkins wanted further explanation about the number of Town roads in the Southview neighborhood versus in the trailer park. Arneson clarified that there are no Town roads in the trailer park, which is why the Town is not part of that permit application. He continued that after the engineers are finished with their survey work of Southview, they will be better able to answer how much of the impervious surface in Southview Drive is Town roads. Filkins wanted to see the statistics of this data. Hill added that different properties will be affected differently, not just based on Town road impervious surface. Kent wanted clarification about the NOI study, if the engineers were considering private and public surfaces in Southview or just Town roads, which Arneson replied “the engineer is looking at the entire permit area, public and private land.” Heston wanted to emphasize that this is an inequitable issue, and that the State just drew arbitrary lines, and she asks that the Selectboard ask the State for data corresponding to why the lines were drawn the way they were. She suggested people go onto the VLTC website and join an advocacy group. Furr stated he thought the boundary lines were based off decade old permits and indeed are arbitrary. Wood explained that the State had all the metrics, and they lowered the acreage until they hit their prosperous goal which became the “3-acre rule” which is arbitrary and could change and impact everyone in Town. Furr said he will share the link on Front Porch Forum. Hill said he thinks it’s good that Richmond is “late to the party” regarding these permits because they haven’t yet paid for anything, other Towns are further along in the process and have already had to pay fines.

Consideration of submitting an Applicant Certification for a Notice of Intent for the stormwater permit for the Southview Development

Timestamp: 1:22

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2024/12/3d1_SW9050_ApplicantCertification_-_Richmond__1_.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2024/12/3d2_Letter_Regarding_NOI.pdf

People who participated in discussion:  Wood, Hill

Hill said that the State might view this as incomplete because not every homeowner has signed it. To which Wood added he expected the State to view it as such. Hill said that this just makes us eligible for grant money, this does not commit Southview residents to anything.

Wood moved to approve submittal of the Applicant Certification for a Notice of Intent, to be accompanied by a letter regarding permittee status. Furr seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Discussion of staffing levels in the Richmond Fire Department

Timestamp: 1:24

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2024/12/3e_Fire_Department_Statistics.pdf

People who participated in discussion:  Sander, Arneson, Gile, Hill, Wood, Furr, Levesque

Gile stated that Department membership has been dropping since 2017, from 24 down to 15, yet Fire Department calls have risen from around 140 up to nearly 240 in the same time period, a lot of these calls are interstate accident calls. He added that a lot of the members are retired or over 65 years old. Wood explained that there are always between 5 and 7 people at the Fire Dept and many of those are volunteers that help the full-time employees get some rest when needed. The chief explained that there is no one doing recruitment and they need new ways to encourage more interest. Furr is worried about those responding who are over 65, and he wants the Town to budget so that volunteer fire dept members get paid. Wood pointed out that work schedules were more flexible in prior years, such that now volunteers can only come in during the evening and not during the daytime. He states it would be disastrous if there were not people available to show up on a mass casualty on the interstate. The current members’ dedication is presently covering up the lack of new incoming volunteers and emphasizes the need to properly train volunteers in communication skills as well as rescue skills. Furr pointed out that possibly hiring a fulltime Admin to help organize trainings and pay firemen costs money that the Town doesn’t have. Gile explained that they conduct two or three trainings per month and most members show up for those trainings. Hill asked under what conditions volunteer firefighters are paid, to which Gile replied in general terms they get paid for trainings or when rescues are 2 hours or more. LaBounty wondered if insurance companies are billed for certain calls and could the volunteers be paid from insurance monies. She added that the call for more volunteers should be made by the Selectboard to the Town. New volunteers could simply be able bodied people, they do not have to be firefighters, since a lot of the calls are car accidents or CO2 calls. Generating interest is important at this point. Posting this on Front Porch Forum is not enough, the community needs to know that there is acute need for volunteers. Hill said they should discuss putting into the budget the cost for hiring a consultant. Gile ended with a warning that OSHA is discussing new rules and regulations for Fire Depts that could become expensive in the future. Wood pointed out that the Richmond Fire Dept is not fully volunteer, so workers comp is covered through the Town’s insurance.

Review of feedback from Vermont Criminal Justice Council on Fair and Impartial Policing Policy

Timestamp: 2:09

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2024/12/3f1_VCJC_to_Richmond_Ltr._FIP_Policy_12.09.24.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2024/12/3f2_Model_FIP_Policy_updated_04.23.24_-_Migrant_Justice_redline_edits.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2024/12/3f3_Model_FIP_Policy_updated_04.23.24_-_Migrant_Justice_edits_-_review_by_VCJC.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2024/12/3f4_Jan_19__2021_Proposed_Richmond_Police_Policy_on_Fair_and_unbiased_Policing_Final_Signed.pdf

People who participated in discussion:  Sander, Arneson, Hill, Wood, Furr, Brushett

Arneson explained this is related to a Fair and Impartial Policing policy, which each Police agency is mandated to have relating to when Officers are allowed to contact or share information with Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE). Vermont Criminal Justice Council (VCJC) will not accept the removal of the line that says, “other than information regarding citizenship or immigration,” but the initial policy stated we're not supposed to share any information and doesn't say “except for citizenship and immigration status” – it’s written into State Law and Federal Law. Hill said we cannot override Federal Law which trumps State law. Wood said that going against the VCJC we would be putting a target on our back if we took a stand, also we cannot override Federal Law, and this would be a detriment to exactly those who we are trying to protect, we would be in the spotlight. Furr said Migrant Justice has shared that some Towns are sharing immigration status of certain workers. Brushett shared that there is a special worker program for immigrant workers who are here just to work, but this is not true for those immigrants who are in the dairy industry. She suggested putting the parenthetical back into the PIP. Hill recommend putting the parenthetical back in, then resubmitting it. “Declare victory and go home.” Arneson concurred.

Consideration of approval of an Access Permit for 3912 Huntington Rd.

Timestamp: 2:28

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2024/12/3g_Access_Permit_AC2024-05_-_3912_Huntington_Rd..pdf

People who participated in discussion:  Sander

Furr moved to approve Access Permit 2024-05 for 3912 Huntington Rd.

Miller seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Review of Draft Town Meeting Warning

Timestamp: 2:29

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2024/12/3h_TOWN_REPORT_2024_WARNING_DRAFT_12-13-24.pdf

People who participated in discussion:  Arneson, Hill

Arneson explained this is on the Agenda again tomorrow, but what else if anything, did the Selectboard members wanted to add? This probably won’t be finalized until the second meeting in January. Hill stated that certain a la carte items may be added. Arneson said most things are the same as last year.

Discussion of update for the Town Plan

Timestamp: 2:32

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2024/12/3i1_Email_on_Next_Steps_for_Town_Plan_Update.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2024/12/3i2_2018-Richmond-Town-Plan.pdf

People who participated in discussion:  Arneson, Hill, LaBounty, Miller, Wood

Arneson elaborated that planning is starting the process of reviewing what's been accomplished in the previous Town Plan to help inform their next steps for the next Town Plan, which will be working towards a finalization in November of 2026; Right now they're asking the Selectboard and all other committees to look at all the action items that they had in the current plan and report back to the Planning Commission with a status on those. He is asking that one or two Selectboard members sit down with him and discuss the current Town Plan. Hill and Miller said they could make themselves available for this. LaBounty wanted to know when the last time was that the entire Town Plan was reviewed and gone over. Arneson replied that this needed to be answered by the Town Planner Keith Oborne. Hill wanted to discuss this when Oborne was present. Wood added that Town Plans should be updated every 8 years and not completely redone.

Approval of Minutes, Warrants and Purchase Orders
Timestamp: 2:41
 

Minutes:

Hill moved to approve the draft Minutes of 12/02/24 as presented. Miller seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Hill moved to approve the draft Minutes of 12/03/24 as presented. Miller seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Hill moved to approve the draft Minutes of 12/09/24 as presented. Miller seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.
 

Purchase Order Motions

Furr moved to approve Purchase Order number 5155 to the Hinesburg Police Department for police services in September 2024 in an amount of $34,590.00. Hill seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Furr moved to approve Purchase Order number 5158 to the Hinesburg Police Department for police services in August 2024 in an amount of $34,142.50. Hill seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Warrants:

Furr moved to approve the Warrants as presented. Hill seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Items for next Agenda

Not supporting the 3-acre rule for Southview

Fire dept recruitment

RFP to hire an owner-planner for Town Center updates

Update on police department hiring

Timestamp: 2:49

Furr moved to find that premature public knowledge about candidates for employment in the police department would cause the Town or person to suffer a substantial disadvantage. Hill seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Furr moved that we enter executive session to discuss candidates for employment in the police department under the provisions of 1 VSA 313(a)(3) and invite Town Manager Josh Arneson into the executive session. Miller seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Hill moved to exit executive session. Furr seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Adjourn

Wood moved to adjourn. Miller seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Furr abstain. Hill, Miller, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Meeting adjourned at: 10:20 pm

Chat file from Zoom:
 

01:24:11          Jay Furr:          www.vlct.org/weeklylegislativereport/2025-legislative-preview

01:30:00          Caity Filkins:   Thank you for your focus on this - we appreciate your support. - Caitlin

01:44:40          Patty Brushett: Maybe a stipend like the selectboard.

02:00:43          Patty Brushett: How about adding Hinesburg as automatic mutual aide