OFFICE OF THE SELECTBOARD
TOWN OF HALIFAX, VERMONT
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES–DRAFT
September 3, 2024
6:00 PM AT THE HALIFAX TOWN OFFICE
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Halifax Selectboard was called to order by Edee Edwards at 6:00 pm. Selectboard Members present were Karen Christofferson, Rhonda Ashcraft, Edee Edwards, Randy Pike, and Tristan Roberts (remote). Others present in person or remotely were Stephan Chait, David Jones, Dennis LeFebvre, Stephanie Pike, Nancy McCrea, Diana Conway, Tim Putnam, and Linda Huebner. Joining and leaving at various points along the way were Town Attorney Bob Fisher, and Hope Phelan (and child).
CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Edwards noted the timing of some elements might change due to the town attorney coming via Zoom.
NEW BUSINESS
We welcome new Selectboard Member, Randy Pike, who thanked us for the opportunity to serve the town.
Edwards has requested sheriff coverage during Nov. 5 election per Patty Dow, but has not heard back for availability nor timeframe. Budget might come from a special election fund.
OLD BUSINESS
A discussion about repaying the Scott Fund for FY24 tax rate calculation error ensued. A history of the discussions was provided in advance by Christofferson. Edwards noted the addition of August 3rd email from Patty Dow which was the formal date we were originally notified we had sufficient funds to repay it. Patrick McAllister provided some detailed options for how and when to repay the June 3rd disbursement of $65, 202.74, which the board requested from the Trustees of Public Fund on May 29, 2024. Fees for the transaction were $1,396.46.
A cash flow question pertaining to borrowing again later this fiscal year for the purpose of paying for the Town Garage Roof was discussed, and the board decided to have the funds reinvested in the market for now.
Edwards made a motion to direct the treasurer to repay the Scott Fund $66,599.20 in order to cover the principle plus fees and commissions to reimburse for the FY24 tax rate problem. Ashcraft seconded. The motion carried 5-0.
Action Item: Christofferson will send follow up direction to the town treasurer.
Roberts gave an update on the Municipal Energy Resilience Program (MERP) to note that the Town of Halifax is not going to receive additional funds from this program. We did get an energy assessment for the town garage already. Essentially, our energy burden is not high enough. We have a $4000 mini-grant which we have not spent yet. Roberts noted we might spent this the Town Garage roof, although the Selectboard will take this formally up at another meeting.
The town attorney was not yet present, so we moved forward discussing other funding grants.
- Municipal Mitigation Grants in Aid FY25 – GA0795 for hydrologically connected roads to improve water quality. For $17,750, we can match in kind $4437.50. It is not competitive, and the specifics of what will be done will be determined by Mike Fournier with Windham Regional Commission’s Jeff Nugent.
Edwards made a motion to have Christofferson apply for a grant for FY25-Municipal Mitigation GA0795 which will have some in-kind work for us. Ashcraft seconded. The motion carried 5-0.
Action Item: Christofferson will sign the grant agreement now.
- FEMA – Public Assistance Pause Update. We got paid a total of $296,412.01 so we are fully paid back by the Federal Government in FY24, and this pause in funding will not impact Halifax. Roads damaged during July 2023 were Pike Road and Vaughn Road.
- Better Back Roads Grant on Reed Hill has been completed and photos taken. Wages, materials, and equipment. Road meets the MRGP standards. Edwards noted for next budget season that the return of $20,000 we received isn’t well managed to track as income. Can we budget less for gravel or wages if we get these grants, for example.
- Another similar grant for Jacksonville Stage Road with some culverts and ditching work is also done. There are 17 pages of photos for documentation, which will be submitted for reimbursement also.
- Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Reimbursement, $9K grant was paid for work by Windham Regional Commission, and Patty is now working on getting reimbursement, starting today.
- Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (No Local Match). Gathering information for this, including estimates, took longer than we wanted, and the largest item we were hoping to cover, a bridge, would not have likely been covered. Calculating methodology for culvert replacement. Edwards thanked Christofferson for her work, and said it is not unusual for grants to not be a good match for us. So we should not beat ourselves up on making these efforts if they fall through somehow.
Rescinding driveway permit request (Jones/Lefebvre/Phelan) Town Attorney Bob Fisher joined remotely at around 6:43 pm. Meeting recording link at this point: https://youtu.be/NdvoPWEO7Js?t=2573
Fisher suggested modifying the form to add questions like page and recording of the deed, road frontage, and easements. But we may not want to put a lot of work or barriers on a form that is typically the first step of a land development project and most often a routine matter. 19 VSA 1111 is the law covering these permits. The board can put in conditions that are safety related, such as sight distance. You could make the permit effective upon when the applicant attains the zoning permit, but that is again possibly cart before the horse as someone may just want a pull off so they can hike on their land. You could condition it instead upon proving frontage and/or a right of way instead (which could go on the application as well). You don’t want to make it too onerous while trying to avoid unusual situations such as this.
As noted by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, there is no way to revoke a permit that has been issued. But under section F and G of the law, there is the ability to revoke it if there is access now blocked for which there had been previously access. This would not cover the situation for it being under mistake of fact as to whether the person has frontage, in his perspective. Section G does allow the Selectboard to suspend the permit until compliance is obtained. In our situation, it is implied in an application that a driveway permit is for the benefit of property that abuts the road. The specific application has a note about it being landlocked, which may have been a red flag, and it nowhere has the applicants state under oath that they have road frontage or a right of way. This could be fixed through re-working the form.
Roberts asked if we could say the permit was never issued, or was issued for a non- existent address, and we apologize for an error. Fisher noted the bold print saying it is only for the town right of way, but they would still be cutting trees on someone else’s property, because the town doesn’t own that land beyond the road; it can only maintain it for the purposes of the highway. Cutting trees on another’s property is both a civil and criminal issue, which the town is not a party to.
Jones wanted to know if the town can remove the permit from the record or record something near it. Fisher said if there was a motion for suspension would be in the minutes to the Selectboard and should be filed in the Town Clerk’s records as well, adding to the official record. Jones also asked if he or his neighbor applied for a driveway permit in the same place, if the Selectboard could deny or condition it on them on giving access to the parcel of the neighbor, the back parcel. Fisher felt this was enough of a hypothetical that he didn’t think it was a basis at this time for a revocation. He didn’t the town could condition an access permit to Jones on the condition that he then provide access to a landlocked parcel. Fisher noted that the landlocked parcel has its own real property issues to overcome for access. That is a private right of action about whether there is an implied right of way, or whether there’s a right of way or easement by necessity, there are different avenues that owner could take to obtain access, but that’s a civil matter between landowners that would not involve the town.
Discussion ensued by what the motion should be, tied to the culvert installation (which has not been done), and lifting a suspension. There is no end date a driveway permit, which again should be a condition.
Phelan asked about implied easement laws. Mr. Lefebvre recently bought a 10-acre parcel there, which Phelan wondered if that essentially re-landlocked the parcel, and she wondered if there would be an implied easement there. Fisher said he had not looked the deeds or land records specific to these parcels adjacent to the roads and cannot offer an opinion on that on in a meeting like this. He noted that case law on easements in Vermont disfavors landlocked parcels, and courts will look for a way to find an easement. Sometimes they are reserved but aren’t brought down in the chain of title, other times it is by necessity, typically by done landowners through a declaratory judgment action. This is where a party asks the court to rights of landowners to declare that an easement exists, and the parites will argue different sides of that.
Edwards asked the board for their agreement to suspend the permit.
After some back and forth, Christofferson made the motion:
I move to suspend the driveway permit issued by the Selectboard on April 2, 2024 for the property identified as WHO.052B, and to include a record of the suspension of the permit in the town records of the permit previously issued, until such time as the necessary easement for the use of the land with frontage is negotiated by the affected landowners and confirmed by the town for access to frontage on Woodard Hill Road.
Edwards seconded. (Fisher left the meeting at the mark of 1:21 in the meeting recording.)
Further discussion: Roberts apologized to the Phelans as well. Hope Phelan had left the meeting at this point, but Edwards agreed. Pike noted that this was the best path to fix this but felt it was an unusual situation and we could hopefully prevent similar things going forward. Jones would appreciate the board voting in favor but noted that the mistake has had real world consequences, including costly legal fees. Lefebvre seconded Jones’ thoughts, and said he couldn’t imagine someone asking for a driveway permit without even checking in with the abutting owners, and he was glad to see the town try to correct the mistake now and going forward.
The motion carried 5-0.
This discussion lasted until 7:30 PM.
Edwards made another statement:
The Halifax Selectboard acknowledges that our issuance of a driveway permit at 420 Woodard Hill Road was handled without the full care and consideration we would like to afford our neighbors and constituents. The state law for driveway permits (19 VSA 1111) does not require towns to determine property ownership/title, easements, or the right of way beyond the town property. Nonetheless, we all would have been served better in this case if the Selectboard had directed the applicant to give special attention to the section of our form that states, as shown in bold on the form:
“Further, an approved permit is only valid for work done within the Town Right-of-Way.”
The current board cannot bind a future board to go above and beyond statute in the interest of neighborly and public service, but we can amend our own practices for what we see as improvements.
- Driveway permits will be scanned and sent via email to all Selectboard members for their review prior to public meetings.
- Driveway permits will be noted on the meeting agendas under Correspondence.
- All Selectboard members physically present will sign Driveway permits.
- Having recently split the role of Road Commissioner from the Highway Supervisor, this board will request one or both of our current Road Commissioners do the site visit with the Highway Supervisor, so that many eyes can help reduce the risk of oversight on important context. The Road Commissioners shall then recap the visit during the approval process.
- While we cannot direct the work of another elected town official, we will respectfully request that unusual circumstances in a permit be brought to the explicit attention of the Selectboard.
- We have a “touch base” conversation with the Zoning Administrator also to ensure lines of communication are open and appropriate.
- We will make updates, and then request a legal review for improvement of our driveway permit form with the goal of completing this not later than 12/31/2024.
Excavator / loader equipment replacement was brought up at 7:32 PM. Edwards’ objective was to determine if we are going to issue an RFP for one of more of these pieces of equipment. Edwards stated that the refurbishment option for the excavator would cost somewhere between $140,000-$178,000 which is unbudgeted, likely not something we could borrow for, and that would delay action for at least a year, IF the voters would fund it in March 2025. She felt this was a medium to high risk of putting the town in a situation to have unusable equipment and unhappy staff. She fears a crisis.
For purchasing, her tightened up and more realistic costs, updated from the informational meeting, would be an annual payment of $52K for the excavator with a 7-year loan. A more realistic expectation on loan cost with the loader with a trade in would be somewhere around $35K year for 7 years. The Municipal Loan program for the loader is an interesting idea, but we don’t have the 25% cash down payment of $51-58K and there is a limit on how much you can borrow, so that seems possibly unreachable as well.
Edwards said finding out more about what M&T might loan money for would be helpful. Christofferson asked for a separate meeting to discuss this all with Mike Fournier presence.
Edwards states historically, 10% of our overall budget has been for equipment leases, then it ticked down when equipment went off list, down to 6 and 7%, making this unevening.
Pike still feels like refurbishment is a great idea. He asked for the refurbishment quote information to look over. He feels like newer equipment with more electronics may have more problems. He had checked with neighboring towns like Whitingham, which goes for 15-20 years replacement for larger equipment. Their grader is 28 years old. He does note that he doesn’t know how to pay for refurbishment.
Chait asked what equipment Whitingham uses instead of an excavator. Pike answered, a backhoe, but scheduled rental of an excavator for 3 months, for $15000 and use grant funding to help cover that.
Jones noted the need for holistic review expected equipment life length, including staff time and comparable for financing.
The board wants to have a meeting devote to this as soon as we can, with refurbishment quotes. We went over schedule and didn’t meet our objective.
Action items: Christofferson to ask Patty to schedule a meeting with bank. Edwards will try to find meeting time.
Road Commissioner Updates
The new 5500 Truck (chassis only) is waiting at Automall. We need to figure out bank financing, which Patty is checking into, and Mike is hoping to pick up the truck, which will sit unusable at our garage (but insured) until it goes to be fitted with the dump body and other equipment in December. At that point we turn in existing our trade in. This smaller dump truck is sometimes called a “one-ton”, and the replacement is noted as truck 7 which is a 2014 model, in our equipment schedule.
Pike noted that Wilmington’s replacement schedule is 10 years for their big trucks, Whitingham tries to get 15 years on big trucks.
Hatch School Road structure grant has been awarded to us, to replace a culvert which currently has a beaver deceiver on it. An RFP needs to go out; permission was given to Christofferson at the August 6 2024 meeting.
New Project: Better Backroads; Road Erosion Inventory (REI).
ACTION ITEM: Christofferson is filling out a letter of intent for VTRANS, with a plan to work with Windham Regional to do the work with us.
New Project: Data Collection for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Local Highway Finance Report for FY24. Edwards and Roberts are not aware of this, despite it supposedly being a bi-annual task.
HEARING OF VISITORS
Jones for the Halifax Connectivity Program is trying to hit the third priority group of seniors.
He noted we had a highway permit in our hands, and is hopeful we can approve this one and get two others approved at the time of the next meeting. With the earlier discussion tonight, there was consternation about trying to deal with under road conduits, generally new to us, with a time crunch, and potentially many more to come. Fournier said the conduit must be 4 feet deep, or if it can’t be, encased in concrete. Christofferson wanted a detailed understanding of the specifications we require to return the road to the original state to all be attached to the permit. The board will take this up at our next meeting if possible.
Action Items: Edwards to put on the agenda for Thursday. Jones to write basic specification. Christofferson to ask VTRANS and WRC. Fournier to detail the specifications.
Huebner raised a concern about the road cut-through at Whitneyville and Brooks Road. She owns the triangle and the cut-through, with a historic problem in getting a loan due to liability. The road has increased in size since she purchased her land. Currently, there is an increase in bad behavior such as drag racing at all hours, ATV, cars, and pickups. There is a lot of trash, it’s dangerous, scary and loud. She fears for personal liability. She had been told boulders to block the road or protect the triangle. Roberts asked what Huebner’s desired end state. She wanted to either block the road, or the town to take ownership of the area.
Action item: Edwards to discuss with Windham County Sheriff for monitoring a problem area. Try to research the current road layout. Schedule for future meeting.
Roberts had to drop from the meeting at this point (at 8:50 pm or so).
Putnam said he wanted to suggest we rent an excavator for 6 months of the year, and ensure it is not being used when not strictly necessary. He also noted bad driving around Shearer Hill.
APPROVAL PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES was inadvertently skipped and will be taken up at the next meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
The board signed again a liquor license for Arboreal Habits on Rte. 112. He was confused about the process with the state and needs us to sign again.
CORRESPONDENCE
Driveway Permit going back to Patty Dow to handle the check; Mike Fournier to work with Road Commissioners. Road closure is another concern here.
There were brief discussions based on looking at a report of their activity in town, about Windham County Sheriff’s Office and their plans for regional policing.
Edwards Jones needs to go to Patrick McAllister for Trustee of Public Funds.
SELECTBOARD ORDER
Confirmed the Nido pre-buy of heating oil $6,320 is on highway order. We need to get back to everyone who bid on June 18th, as it appears no notification occurred.
Action Item: Ashcraft will notify the bidders, with Christofferson’s help, copied to Pike as FYI.
The highway order included: Shop equipment $1399, Central Petroleum oil $1579.05; road signs $180.10; WRC grant work: $432.82; other things like Cintas fire protection; hydroseed; Consolidated Communications phone and internet $146.82, with Edwards noting that DVFiber should now be an option at the garage. Scrap metal is written for cash so Mike can use to buy snacks/meals for people during long shifts, about $243. Edwards noted to the board next year that she may not want to be delegated this responsibility to do anything beyond payroll, as having more eyes can mean greater oversight.
The Selectboard Order was read into the record. The total was: $38,638.86
ADJOURNMENT
Ashcraft made a motion, Pike seconded. Motion carried 4-0 at 9:32 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Edee Edwards, Secretary Pro Tempore
Zoom meeting recording: https://youtu.be/NdvoPWEO7Js