FHWA Emergency Repair Program Manual Analysis
The FHWA Emergency Relief Program description is also online here in case you want to read it online: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/er/guide.cfm
Now, after reading the FHWA material I dug into its manual, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/erm/ermchap2.cfm#a
Blue highlights are mine. Right on the first page we read:
The ER program provides for repair and restoration of highway facilities to pre-disaster conditions. Restoration in kind is therefore the predominate type of repair expected to be accomplished with ER funds. ER funds are not intended to replace other Federal-aid, State, or local funds for new construction to increase capacity, correct non-disaster related deficiencies, or otherwise improve highway facilities.
Added protective features, such as the relocation or rebuilding of roadways at higher elevation or lengthening or raising bridges, and added facilities not existing prior to the natural disaster or catastrophic failure, such as additional lanes, upgraded surfacing, or structures are commonly referred to as a betterment. Betterments are not generally eligible for ER funding unless justified. The eligibility of betterments is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
…
2. Permanent Repairs
a. General
b. Restoration-in-Kind
- The ER program provides for the repair and restoration of highway facilities to pre-disaster conditions. Restoration in kind is therefore the predominant type of repair accomplished with ER funds. Any additional protective features or changes to the function or character from that of the pre-disaster facility are generally not eligible for ER funding unless justified on the basis of economy of construction, prevention of future recurring damage, or technical feasibility.
c. Replacement-in-Kind
i. Existing Location
Where extensive damage has occurred, ER funds may be used for replacement-in-kind as the proper solution. If a facility has been damaged to the extent that restoration to its pre-disaster condition is not technically or economically feasible, a replacement facility is appropriate. Replacement facilities should be constructed to meet current design standards.
ER participation in a replacement roadway will be limited to the costs of a roadway built to current design standards, and of comparable capacity, (e.g., number of lanes), and character, (e.g., surfacing type, access control, rural/urban section), of the destroyed facility. ER reimbursement for a replacement bridge will be the cost of a new bridge built to current design standards for the type and volume of traffic the bridge will carry during its design life.
d. Deficient Bridges (note – QB not considered structurally deficient)
This category includes structural conditions only. It does not consider waterway opening, functional obsolescence or serviceability, etc. Permanent repair of a structurally deficient damaged bridge is eligible for ER funding provided a replacement bridge is not under construction or the bridge is not scheduled for replacement (in the FHWA approved STIP) with other Federal funds. Inclusion of bridge replacement work in a city or local agency capital improvement plan is viewed by FHWA as prior scheduled work and therefore is not eligible for ER funding (see Chapter II, Section C-7, Prior Scheduled Work). The intent is to ensure that ER funds do not replace other Federal funds that would have otherwise been used to construct a replacement facility. The following represent two common situations:
-
- Bridge is damaged but is repairable.
ER funds may participate in:
- Reasonable emergency repair to restore travel
- Permanent repair of disaster damage if bridge will be structurally safe upon completion of disaster damage repair (meaning that repair of disaster damage corrects structural deficiency)
- Permanent repair of disaster damage if other funds are used to simultaneously correct the structural deficiencies (meaning that repair of disaster damage will not correct structural deficiency)
- No permanent repair if bridge is scheduled for replacement
- Bridge is destroyed or repair is not feasible.
ER funds may participate in:
- Reasonable emergency repairs to restore traffic
- New comparable replacement structure to current design standards and to accommodate design-year traffic volume if bridge is not scheduled for replacement
- No permanent repair if bridge is scheduled for replacement in the current FHWA approved STIP or local capital improvement plan or a replacement bridge is under construction.
- Bridge is damaged but is repairable.
Betterments:
Betterments, for the purposes of the ER program, are defined as (i) added protective features, such as the rebuilding of roadways at a higher elevation or the lengthening of bridges, or (ii) changes which modify the function or character of a highway facility from what existed prior to the disaster or catastrophic failure, such as additional lanes or added access control.
Betterments Involving Added Protective Features:
This category of betterments involves adding features to highway facilities that help protect these facilities from possible future damage from ER-eligible disasters or catastrophic failures. Examples include:
- Raising roadway grades
- Relocating roadways to higher ground or away from slide prone areas
- Stabilizing slide areas
- Stabilizing slopes
- Installing riprap
- Lengthening or raising bridges to increase waterway openings
- Deepening channels
- Increasing the size or number of drainage structures
- Replacing culverts with bridges
- Installing seismic retrofits on bridges
- Adding scour protection at bridges
- Adding spur dikes
If a betterment involving an added protective feature is included in an ER repair project, the betterment may be considered eligible for ER funding if it can be economically justified based on an analysis of its cost versus projected savings in costs to the ER program should future ER-eligible disasters occur within the normal design year for the basic repair work. This cost/benefit analysis focuses solely on benefits resulting from estimated savings in future recurring repair costs under the ER program. The analysis does not include other factors typically included in highway benefit/cost evaluations, such as traffic delays costs, added user costs, motorist safety, economic impacts, etc.
***************************************************
Candidate for Selectboard 2012
I’ve taken out petitions from the Town Clerk and will be collecting signatures this weekend to run for a seat on the Hartford Selectboard this winter.
Having attended most of the Selectboard meetings this year, I appreciate the amount of time and energy this position requires, and the difficult decisions that face our town now and in the foreseeable future.
I’d like to think that because I enjoy writing and type quickly I will be able to help provide the citizens of Hartford with a greater sense of the key issues and their relationships to each other. As a member of the board, I will want to see us schedule open sessions for dialog among the board and citizens earlier in the decision making process. Today, major decisions with significant long term implications are often made without full consideration by the board in open session.
For example, the board has just concluded a series of meetings reviewing the budget prepared by Town Manager Hunter Rieseberg. The budget will be adopted on Tuesday Jan 10, and it includes — as of this writing — using $250,000 of reserves to hold down the tax rate. This begs a number of questions. For example, why not disburse all the reserves back to the taxpayers in the form of spending it? Alternatively, why disburse any of it at all when there are longstanding projects waiting for funding in order to get started? Between these two opposite positions there is a great deal of room for the Hartford Selectboard to develop a written policy that guides the use of these funds — instead of making policy on the fly at the end of a long evening of reviewing a 2500 line spreadsheet.
For another, consider the related questions of paying for damage to town property caused by the Irene flooding on August 28, 2011. Most all of that will be expensed during the current fiscal year, which runs July 1, 2011 until June 30, 2012. The town has reserves and can use them, but no decision has been made as to how the accounting will be done. One alternative would be to total up the anticipated expenses and put everything into a bond issue — after all, the repairs to the parks, the replacement of equipment at the treatment plants, the replacement of the Quechee Covered Bridge — all these efforts will be for the long term benefit of the citizens of Hartford, and by paying for them with a bond issue, the future users, deriving the benefits, will also be the ones paying.
It strikes me that the Selectboard could have placed a general discussion about setting a policy to guide future decisions on the agenda for any of its meetings in November, and made a determined effort to get citizens to show up and provide input . Making such a decision would have greatly benefited the budget discussions, which were constantly punctuated with references to uncertainty about how Irene costs would be dealt with.
And then there is the longstanding need to rehabilitate both the ice hockey arena (WABA) and the Municipal Building. Here too, without any publicly scheduled discussion, the board has turned away from the idea of putting together bonds for these necessary actions. Instead, the current board seems satisfied to take the chance that nothing will break down in either building for another year or so.
Given the need to do all this work, there should at least be some discussion of an omnibus “Hartford Believes in the Future” bond, a bond that would cover the Municipal Building Renovation, the Barwood Arena Rehabilitation, and Hartford’s share of fixing up after Irene, including replacing the Quechee Covered Bridge. At $7.5 million, the very low cost of borrowing spread out over the next 10 years would cost about 840K annually, roughly $90 per $100,000 of assessed value. Doing it as a 20 year bond would lower the cost to 500K annually, roughly $55 per $100,000 of assessed value.
I hope to bring this kind of information to my fellow citizens and help our self-governing discussions take place earlier, and more fully, with explicit adoption of written policy directives.
So — what do you think about the idea of an omnibus bond?
VT Healthcare Board announced
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Sept. 13, 2011
Contact: Susan Allen
802-279-8493
Gov. Shumlin announces appointments to Green Mountain Care Board
Team brings knowledge and commitment to controlling health care costs
MONTPELIER – Gov. Peter Shumlin today announced his appointments to the Green Mountain Care Board, a body that is central to the implementation of health reform in Vermont. The Board is responsible for creating the first single payer health care system in the country, which will control costs and guarantee coverage regardless of employment status.
“In putting together this team, I looked for five really smart people who are fully committed to the goal of controlling health care costs, achieving universal coverage, and who can work as a team,” Gov. Shumlin said. “I also looked for people who could think creatively about how to encourage and reward Vermonters and Vermont health care practitioners for improving health and getting the most value out of our health care dollars.”
The Governor’s appointees include a business person, a practicing Vermont physician, an internationally-known health policy leader, an experienced state leader with extensive health care experience, and an expert in state-based health care reform. They are:
Chairwoman Anya Rader Wallack, Ph.D. of Calais. Wallack will chair the Green Mountain Care Board. Wallack has served as Gov. Shumlin’s Special Assistant for Health Reform since January and spearheaded his legislative effort on health reform during the 2011 session. Wallack is a native Vermonter who has lived for the past 13 years in Rhode Island. She staffed then-Gov. Howard Dean on health care in the 1990s and ran the Vermont Program for Quality in Health Care. More recently she ran the Massachusetts Medicaid Policy Institute and served as interim President of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation before launching a consulting business in state health policy.
Al Gobeille of Shelburne. Gobeille owns a restaurant business in Chittenden County. He is active in the Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce and serves on the Shelburne select board. He also is a board member of the Visiting Nurse Association and a member of the state of Vermont’s payment reform advisory committee.
Karen Hein, M.D. of Jacksonville. Hein is immediate past President of the William T. Grant Foundation, which funds research to improve the lives of adolescents throughout the U.S. Previously she served as Executive Officer of the Institute of Medicine, overseeing the IOM Quality Initiative and numerous projects and publications aimed at informing efforts to improve health care delivery. Hein was a Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellow with the U.S. Senate Finance Committee in 1993-94. She also is a longstanding faculty member at Columbia University and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, where she has conducted extensive research on adolescent HIV/AIDS. Hein has served on a number of non-profit boards, including the Dartmouth Medical School Board of Overseers and the board of RAND Health.
Con Hogan of Plainfield. Hogan has worked for the past 10 years as an international consultant and co-authored two books about Vermont health reform with Dr. Deb Richter. Previously he served as Secretary of Human Services under Governors Dean and Richard Snelling. Hogan was President of the Montpelier firm International Coins and Currency from 1980-1991. Before that he served in numerous positions in the State’s Department of Corrections. Hogan is a well-known single payer advocate who has authored several books on Vermont health reform.
Allan Ramsay, M.D. of Essex Junction. Ramsay is a family physician in Colchester. Ramsay has been a professor in UVM’s Department of Family Medicine since 1980. He has been a national leader in developing unique models for making sure that patients’ wishes are followed at the end of their lives. Before coming to Vermont, Ramsay served as Medical Director for an HMO in rural Colorado and served in the National Health Service Corps.
Gov. Shumlin said he was pleasantly surprised at the level and volume of talent exhibited by applicants to the Green Mountain Care Board. More than 100 people applied for the five jobs. A nine-member nominating committee reviewed their applications and forwarded to the Governor 22 candidates who they deemed “qualified” to meet the requirements set forth in Act 48, the state’s health reform law. Gov. Shumlin thanked the nominating committee for their work and also thanked those who applied for the board and were not chosen as appointees.
“All of the candidates showed a strong commitment to meaningful health system reform and had impressive skills and experience,” the Governor said. He said that in making his choices, he focused on competence, experience, and a proven ability to affect real change in the health care system.
“These five people have their job cut for them,” Gov. Shumlin said. “But I have no doubt that they will rise to the challenge and lead Vermont toward a bright future in which all of our citizens can afford access to quality care and our health care system is an asset unmatched by that of any other state.”
The Green Mountain Care Board will begin work on October 1.
Susan Allen
Special Assistant to the Governor
802-828-3333
After the flood
Don’t really have time to fully develop my thinking right now, but I wanted to use this blog entry as a place to identify some questions I have.
In no particular order…
There isn’t a lot of fat in the town budget, in fact, there’s more than a little muscle missing — for example, the town has no IT expertise on staff. Now we are confronted with emergency expenses and the reality that our grand list has just shrunk by a measurable amount. There are some painful choices on the horizon.
Should the Quechee Village core be redesigned? As Gov Shumlin noted, flooding events like these are predicted to increase as a warmer planet has more moisture in the atmosphere. As difficult as it is to imagine, the rainfall between midnight and 3pm was 7″ in Quechee and 12″ on top of Killington. If the storm had been just 10 miles east there would have been 12″ along the entire Ottaquechee River. Instead of being gutted on the ground floor, the three buildings at the Quechee bridge might well have gone down. The town’s decision about how to reconstruct the bridge in that vicinity has enormous implications.
Thoughts?
5 Steps to New Municipal Offices
Having been so critical of the process, I feel the need to offer a detailed, constructive suggestion for how the subcommittee proceed. It’s easy to stand up at a selectboard meeting and be critical, and persuasively argue that $8000 shouldn’t be spent on drawings. The difficult part is backing up that criticism with an alternative that everyone can buy into. I’m going to take a crack at it in this post.
In outline, we need to do five things:
1. agree on the end-in-view, or goals, or outcomes
2. identify all the limitations and barriers we’ll have to work around
3. define solutions that work around the limits and deliver the desired outcomes
4. find out which solutions are favored by key stakeholder groups in town: the selectboard, school board, town and school staff, non-govt organizations such as the Historical Society, Downtown Development Committee, Vital Communities and so forth
5. present the alternatives to the voters in an IRV-style ballot to discern majority sentiment, with a bonding authority incorporated into the balloting
If we do these 5 things, the town can be on its way to resolving the matter of municipal offices in time for next year’s construction season, if construction is part of the preferred solution.
Let’s take it point by point:
1. agree on the end-in-view, or goals, or outcomes
Each outcome needs to be specific and have a date associated with it. There can be multiple goal statements.
Since the main drivers for the current effort are
(a) maint & repair costs on current building are soaring due to rapid ageing of the building systems
(b) the systems are so inefficient they impose significant extra cost especially for heating and cooling
(c) the systems work so poorly staff productivity is significantly hampered,
we have some goals that are easy to state, and we can make some guesses about reasonable dates:
* Reduce annual operational cost of municipal office space by 25% by July 1, 2013 (beginning of the fiscal year 2014)
* Improve work environment of town employees by Oct 1, 2011 (renovating would require short term rental. Let’s do it whatever the solution is)
But there are other outcomes as well that I sense broad agreement on:
* Impact on the grand list should be neutral or positive for the GL of April 1, 2014 (this allows for land swaps, new location property purchase and sale of existing municipal building, etc)
* Bond issue for cost should spread expense among future taxpayer/users; hold current taxpayers harmless by July 1, 2014
* Town and School offices consolidated by July 1, 2013
* Increase public space in municipal office building for meeting, library satellite and other purposes by July 1, 2013
* Increase security for staff by Oct 1, 2011
Then there are a few goals which dictate a particular approach to the solution. There is not widespread agreement on these outcomes, and some are directly in contradiction with each other:
* Preserve existing Municipal Building shell in an adaptive reuse, either as municipal offices or commercial use by July 1, 2014
* Office space should be green in every aspect even if payoff at current prices doesn’t justify expense by July 1, 2014
* Office space should be barebones, least cost alternative by July 1, 2014
So for the first step, we need to develop a list of desired outcomes, and identify ones we can all agree to and which are married to a particular approach, and therefore, should be identified not as goals, but as strategies. These belong, then, in the third step.
Step 2: Identify barriers and limits
This is an important task, because there are many things that need to be spotted before we start. Just like the Titanic would have been better off not leaving the dock until they knew where the icebergs were, before we start drawing up strategies for delivering on the goals we should list everything we can about the icebergs in our own way. Sometimes it helps to split these into two groups, organizational barriers and technological barriers, and two classes, organizational limits and technical barriers.
For example
Existing building is on the 100 year flood plain (technical limit, i.e., there’s nothing we can do about it)
Current Municipal Office building is on the Federal Registry (organizational limit, i.e. the town is stuck with this limitation)
WRJ downtown is location targeted by town and state planners (organizational barrier to building at a new location: they would have to be persuaded)
Town & School relationship (organizational barrier: would need to be fixed if joint project were to succeed)
Need 24,000 sq ft of space (technical barrier, i.e., it is the amount of space town operations needs)
…and so on. There will be specific limits that need to be added — for example the SqFt requirements developed back in 2007. This list probably contains around 100 items, in contrast to the goals, which have 3 to 7 statements.
Step 3: Articulate possible solutions and their costs, benefits and drawbacks
Right now there are 5 different strategies on the table in pursuit of goals that are both shared and wildly at odds. Each will address the barriers/limits and deliver on (some) of the articulated goals:
Renting
Renovate
New in Place
New in New Location
Purchase & Refit Existing Location
Each of these needs to be fleshed out, with an analysis of how each would meet the established goals by dealing with the limits/barriers. Since total cost would have a big impact on the ability to deliver the main goal of reducing operating costs, this is the point where the town will incur expense in working up the numbers. However, they don’t need to be worked up to precision at this point; just ballpark.
Step 4: Finding out where the major stakeholders stand
There are important representative bodies, like the Select Board and the School Board, who are tasked with leading the citizenry. The collective buy in of the people’s representatives is important. Also important are the buy in of key non-goverment stakeholder bodies like the Chamber, the PTOs, and outfits like Vital Communities. These organizations are in a position to help lead on the issue and will be critical to the success of a bond issue.
Step 5: Going to the Voters
Finally, with all this homework done, a special town meeting could be called to vote on a bond issue. However, it would be set up as an instant runoff, or IRV type vote, where the voters would rank their preferences. Each preference would also contain language authorizing a bond issue, and the rules of the election would be that an option would have to have the support of half the voters. One of the choices would be to continue as is.
I’ve only sketched out this process and haven’t gone into great detail, but I hope I have offered enough to show that it would be the kind of process that would be open and accessible and lead to a decision with widespread support.
WRJ Parking
Last night at the select board meeting several business owners described the problems that have surfaced in WRJ because of the closing of the lot across from the Briggs building.
The selectboard explained why they had not purchased the property and stated that the lease offered by the new owner was too much in comparison to what they had been paying the railroad.
Then David Briggs got up and explained that the lease the downtown development committee had brought to the selectboard was fair and represented a break-even proposition for the new owner, and to the extent the town was paying more it mostly boiled down to the new owner’s cost of capital being higher than the cost of capital to the town.
What I got out of his statement is this: the selectboard has balked at a lease because the 18,000 is so much higher than the 2,500 that had been being paid. However, that is the WRONG EQUATION to look at.
The correct equation is more like:
5000 instead of 2500 because the railroad had set that to be the new amount just before they sold the property, so the rent was doubling
Plus additional costs of maintenance, insurance and so forth which the town was spending that amounted to another 4K – 5K annually that would now be the responsibility of the owner not the town
Plus the cost of amortizing the purchase
Dave suggested the real difference in cost between the town owning and not owning the lot wasn’t the difference between 18K and 2.5K — 15,500 dollars — but instead more like 9,000 dollars.
Not sure I have this exactly right, but this is an important aspect of the story. $16,000 sounds like a hold up. $9,000 for around 45 parking spaces sounds like we need to make $200 a spot each year, or $1 per space for 40 workweeks (40 x 5 = 200).
Live Blogging 22 March Selectboard meeting
Off to a late start as sb waits for tv to be set up
Alex DeFelice asks for show of hands on who is here for DISMAS house, Municipal Building, WRJ parking lot.
Easily 60 people here maybe 85. Pct are abt 40% dismas, 35% municipal, 25% parking lot
First up Dave Briggs presenting 3rd Q report from downtown development ctte.
AD: would it be beneficial for the board to fill in the history on the parking lot or not?
Trudy Abbott — parking lot needs to be leased by town and put up parking meters
Hunter Reiseberg — giving history of parking lot issue. Railroad wanted 600K plus wanted buyer to hold RR harmless against any pollution claims on the site (which used to be the location of a gas station). Second, that buyer would indemnify RR against claims from anyone else. Meanwhile another buyer came along. Town trying to either lease or purchase property.
TA again — doesn’t VT help out with such sites?
HR – VT has a program for tanks, but we don’t know what is there or what might have come off tracks. We aren’t asserting property is contaminated but board at the time wasn’t comfortable with the deal.
Mary — my business — the Polka Dot restaurant — down 50% because of lack of parking. Besides that not enough handicapped parking in town. What are we going to do as a community about this?
Sonia Knight – what would you do if you were in our position?
Mary – business is a risk, take the risk
SK – we didn’t want to gamble with your money
Mary – I don’t believe you. You’re sitting with your hands in our pocket and you are going to gamble on the municipal building
AD – we are still negotiating, not sitting on our hands
Bonnie Latham – I still feel that we need an assessment before we purchase the property, it’s not just from the gas station, it could go back 150 years, before any of our memories. Businesses can walk away, municipalities cannot.
Mary – I have one more question. How did the owner have the right to take down the town signs off the poles?
HR – we are aware of the question and are trying not to exacerbate the situation
Mary – up the ticket to $20 instead of $7
Lynn Bohi – list of contaminated sites, it is not on it
AD – nobody knows either way. That list is only for proven sites
Dave Briggs – Lease from Mike Davidson was rejected by town, not by Mike. It’s really just $9,900 and is just a pass-thru. Of the 18000, 5,000 is pass through to the RR. The other 13,000 is his cost on the mortgage. He’s only trying to stay whole for this year. He resisted closing off the lot all winter, but you turned down the lease.
AD – he is not really negotiating
DB – you asked us to bring a lease and we did
AD – we were paying 2500 and now its 18000
DB – it went from 2500 to 5000, 2500 is ancient history
BL – why does the triple net have to go? we’re leasing.
DB – just cause you are leasing those costs don’t go away. He asked for retroactive payments to October
{Wow, I got to say that Dave Briggs just blew the lid off the facts here. Seems like the board didn’t approve a reasonable lease that represented a fair deal.}
Mary’s son Mike Chapman — today was first day I saw someone chalking tires, and we need to fix parking in downtown.
AD – there is a study for realigning parking on Main St
Nelson Fogg of Wilder — I have history with RR, I own bldg on S Main we used to have 30 day leases– would have to move the building on 30 day notice. Bought a lot of the RR land when they sold it. Think about it — when you owned IGA in Wilder, what if someone came and said this parking is no longer yours. Now you are bouncing around the municipal building.
AD – you only have to answer to yourself, we have to answer to all of them.
Clair Lovell – rants a bit about the board dropping the ball.
Chris Sneddon – how much to do the env study (5K – 10K says AD). Pursue angle of trying to push getting the land tested.
Chris Riley – one of the owners of CJ’s Tavern. We’re fairly new. Had my doubts. The parking has been a real kick in the teeth. This is an upcoming area. That’s what this guy saw. We’ll be out of business if this takes a year. The board is not getting the urgency of this.
AD – We didn’t say that. We were talking about the parking alignments on Main st. The situation is controlled by the owner
CR – we had a parking problem before this, now we have a crisis. People park there overnight. You have to deal with the situation. You’re yanking the rug out from underneath us.
Matt Bucy — now the Tip Top lot is being used as a municipal lot. It puts a big burden on the businesses in the TipTop. It’s telling that taking 48 spaces out of downtown creates such a huge problem. My tenants are extremely unhappy. Move as quickly as possible
AD – I’ve had some conversations with people in town — ask employees to park in the VFW / Legion lot. It’ll open 10-12 spaces. We’ll move fast as we can but that would help some.
Tim Johnson WRJ – Sunday I parked at court house. There was a volvo with smashed back window. You guys have to shit or get off the pot. Please put meters out there.
DISMAS house – Marybeth Christie Redmond, Executive Director, presenting: we have a lengthy history in Vermont, flawless record, unanimous support of police chiefs who said the houses have improved public safety in their towns. These people are not sex offenders, or people with recent records. Most are or have been dealing with addiction issues. We’ve never had any crimes against neighbors, robberies, etc. All our existing houses are located near schools and preschools — we’ve never had a problem. Currently there are 133 folks in Hartford unsupported right now — this would dramatically help them. Please feel free to call me (802)-879-8100 or email: marybeth@dismasofvermont.org
This is the culmination of a 2 year project. She introduces two members local staff and outreach.
Lonnie Jackson – been interesting to watch – restoration. Public notified DISMAS house — since it wasn’t published — to discuss where. This is the first time a correctional facility would be next door to a school. Reading a letter — wanting to hear from all residents and chiefs of police, etc.
AD – Board has no authority over this — it would be vented in the planning and zoning process. Board can’t convene the public meetings you are asking for.
Kathy Janesey — I just found out about this 12 days ago from a call from Marybeth Redmond. Right on property line of the school and next to 4 family unit with 6 kids. My husband was on the selectboard for many years. Idea of building a prison came up. It was all up to Zoning and Planning board. Think of yourselves as first line of defense for this town. They did and they brought it in front of the people. We’re against this being next to a school. These prisoners are furloughed — they will be finishing up to 180 days of their minimum sentences within the house. It will drastically alter the character of our neighborhood.
New org called Citizens of Hartford Alert Committee — you will receive a petition from the community.
AD – Hunter and I get together and put the agenda together. We didn’t have March 29 as a meeting date
Mike of Polka Dot again – 2 years ago I lived in MO, I had 60 employees who were former prisoners. They were 2 most loyal and dedicated. One was 30 and had been in prison for 12 years. Just my personal experience.
Sean Donovan of Dismas house. We were told it would be Mar 28. Subsequently we heard the 29th. Yesterday I heard it was tonight and we rearranged out schedule. We have been meeting with churches for 2 years. We haven’t withheld info. We alerted abutters after we signed the deal. Confusion over date is accidental.
BL – if 5 or 10 years from now your mission changed to allow sex offenders, then….
Redmond — no, no way.
SK – you looked at several locations why take one abutting a school?
Redmond – I understand Cathleen’s contention that she just found out, but we have reached out and they did reach out to the Praise Chapel church but never heard back. There are very few locations in Hartford zoned to allow this type of house. We didn’t know about the day care. There are state agencies willing to invest in this house because of its status now as a VT low income.
SK – college students?
Redmond – there are professional trained staff there, the college students are not there running the place.
SK – I have concern that this is near where kids of people I love go to school.
Jackie Robins – I haven’t received a letter. Kids at Potter House school are afraid and I don’t know how to allay their fears.
Chris Sneddon – school district has no authority on the Potter House school
Jonathan Silvia – I’ve heard misperceptions tonight. I’m in the middle – I’ve been volunteering at Windsor prison, meeting with inmates with substance abuse issues. They are people like you and me. Right now these people are here, and within a stone’s throw of the schools, and they are unsupervised. Tells story of a guy who went to Dismas in Rutland. Where are the facts that Dismas would drastically alter a neighborhood? No, there is no evidence for that in Rutland, Burlington, etc. No foundation of fact. The “alert committee” is a great concept — but let’s have facts, not fear and emotion. Nobody is in this business to destroy a neighborhood. It’s about rehabilitation. It’s about giving a sense of family to people who are hopeless. As a fellow Christian I appreciate the Praise chapel folks and we need dialog.
Karen Pearson – teach at Potter House school. My comment to Mr Silvia is that sometimes we need to clarify the discussion. I personally feel the program is great, and for people getting second and third chances, but it is next to a day care center. I beseech you to look for other options. If we don’t set a standard today who knows what will happen down the road. Things always come in little by little. Who knows what the next thing next to a school will be in 5 years, 10 years.
? Davis – For 20 years I’ve been in the business — I have ex-prisoners working for me. Dismas is a good program. Tony missing the boat here -(Tony: great program, but NIMBY).
AD – Again, board has no jurisdiction. Will be zoning or planning — maybe. But, would the board be willing to use our meeting as a forum to discuss things and bring it to public. Second is Dismas willing to step back 2 wks, 4 wks to talk to neighbors. Would neighbors be willing to sit down? When you are ready we will use board meeting as a forum.
BL – No,.
Mark Donka – No. We don’t have a real say in this.
Sam Romano – I think we are a forum and should be allowed to come in to see us. Dismas has PR problems because neighbors
Redmond – Reason is Twin Pines would not allow us until they had contacted their tenants about their relocation. We’ve been meeting for 2 years with the community. There was never ever an effort to keep this from the community.
Sam R – that is a very good answer. I recommend anyone coming into the town to use selectboard as a forum. Earliest I ever heard of it was at church.
{battery draining..I am going to stop such frequent updates}
Discussion Group Heats Up
Check out Ken Parker’s terrific email on the Hartford Discussion List tonight:
http://lists.valley.net/lists/arc/hartford/2011-03/msg00039.html
Anyone can subscribe to this group by sending a blank email message to:
hartford-subscribe@lists.valley.net
Nope, you don’t need to put in a subject line!
Town Hall – 6 Questions
There are six big questions the Board of Selectmen need to answer before the town will sign off on any new building or major renovation:
1) Rental Options.
If working conditions are the only major reason for moving ahead, why not rent space — particularly the empty Saturn dealership or the about-to-be empty Navy office building (behind the Post Office on Sykes Av)? To answer this question, the board must present a three year cost for renting appropriate space, and identify all the reasonable options available in town — including spaces on Main St in downtown WRJ, out on Rt 5 in Wilder, etc. A 3 year horizon would get the offices moved by, say, September 1 and give the town breathing space to assess municipal needs — both town and school — in a disciplined, strategic, comprehensive manner.
2) Revisiting the Renovation Option
Many in town feel the Town Hall renovation bond issue should have been put in front of the town again, that it was doomed to fail by being offered in the same year as the water treatment plant bond. That option needs to be put on the table and re-costed in light of the devaluation of both labor and materials the current depression is causing. One cannot argue that building new is now the “same” cost as a renovation that was priced out in 2007.
3) Site selection / Addressing the grand list consequences
If a new municipal office building is in fact the best way to proceed, the question of location cannot be tossed aside. Locating the municipal building on a 100 year flood plain, in an era when 500 year events are happening with alarming frequency, is only one aspect of the siting question. Another is the long-term future of municipal government in Hartford. Looking ahead 50 years, its possible that Hartford will be where the municipal operations for a dozen or more surrounding towns are located. A location nearer the interstate exit at Sykes Ave or out on Rt 5 in Wilder might be a more appropriate long-term location.
These two factors themselves don’t take into account the possible impact on the Grand List. Renting office space, for example, would keep the property on the grand list, and the town could pay part of the rent in the form of a tax credit to the landlord. In addition, the existing town hall could be converted to private property and turned into really cool riverside condos that would fetch a premium and preserve the building.
4) The new-building quality issue
There are inherent conflicts between what the subcommittee suggests in terms of pricing vs what the subcommittee says about quality. On the one hand, they suggest the 20K sqft building can be done for around $4 million — $200/sq ft including outfitting the offices with new furniture and the like. Maybe. That doesn’t sound like the kind of building designed to last a century; it suggests modular construction, possibly with a bricked veneer. While the committee wants to bypass the bidding process to get specific plans drawn up, this would put the power of specification into the hands of one person — Alex DeFelice, chair of the subcommittee. He’ll be the one meeting with the architect and calling the shots about what’s important and what isn’t.
Better: a community-developed spec put out into an international design competition. “Design a Vermont Municipal Building that will last 100 years and lead the transition to the future economy where energy is far more expensive than it is today.” There are hundreds of architectural firms looking to prove their mettle in the area of smart buildings for a very different energy future.
5) Integration of school offices and municipal offices
Getting both arms of local government into the same building would save the taxpayers a lot of money on shared systems, shared maintenance, even shared staff — particularly in the area of finance and technology. The subcommittee admits it has not brought the schools into the discussions at all. This area must be answered in depth and not waved away. It represents an area of continuing cost control that will save the taxpayers millions of dollars over the long term.
6) Offering the citizens real choice
With the first 5 questions, or areas of concern, answered, there are going to be 3 or 4 possible solutions that reasonable people can favor in different degrees. With the technology available to the Town Clerk in our scanning tabulators, it is very easy to set up a “instant runoff” type vote where 3 or 4 or 5 different options would be available on the ballot. Voters would rank the choices in their order of preference; the preference-voting works to identify a choice that a majority would support, either as a 1st or second or 3rd choice.
The prospect of such a vote would create a tremendous opportunity for discussing and debate in Hartford and guarantee the way forward had the backing of a broad cross-section of the citizens of the town.
Live Blogging 15 Mar 11 Selectboard Meeting
Alex DeFelice opened the meeting by giving the chair to Sonia so that he could make a presentation on the state of the board’s thinking about the town hall — basically whether to renovate the existing structure or to build a new building on the same spot. Options such as using the WRJ elementary school, or the Ottaquechee school, or the Saturn dealer up at Sykes Av are all found wanting.
The new building would be on a slab and somewhat larger, in order to accommodate a library space.
Other needs are more space for Town Clerk papers, and providing increased security for staff. Need to move ahead now while construction costs will be lower.
DeF – reading a comment from Art Peels against tearing down the old building. Sam’s desire to build a central library means he should recuse himself. DeF then says this is not about a central library.
Presentation at April 11 Town Meeting, possibly with sketches. Bond vote in September. Claims that $500,000 will be saved if construction can begin next spring.
He’s calling for a waiver of the board policy for town purchasing, Section 5., Competitive sealed bidding so that they can go to architects/engineers without delay for sketches/plans.
Libbey – are demolition costs part of this? How about asbestos abatement?
DeF – we have the issue whether we renovate or new
Parker – What about offices for schools?
DeF – no consideration given to putting Superintendent’s Office in new building. They haven’t asked us.
Parker – there would be savings, e.g., internal network systems, phones etc would be one system instead of two.
Libbey – would we still be in the flood plain?
DeF – yes, but we can build the building a little higher off the ground and be above the 100 year flood.
Parker – when are you looking for a vote? what about the public hearings?
DeF – in 2 weeks, and public is invited to our subcommittee meetings; and the April 11 meeting will be an opportunity for the public to chime in
Libbey – green as possible?
Def – so long as the “green effect” pays for itself in good time I assume we will have solar panels somewhere on the new building. Lifespan of this building 100+ years.
Libbey – has subcommittee given any thought of bringing in members of public
DeF – Yes, after this meeting we will try to get more people involved
Open to public questioning:
Joanne Roth – what about the renderings of the renovation?
DeF – people voted against it last time — 3 bond issues at once may have had something to do with it.
Roth – this is such a central part of the town it should be preserved.
DeF – we will document the building and provide photos etc to other town facilities
Briggs – this building is part of fabric of downtown, and is a decision for the ages. April 11 is a good starting point but I don’t feel the urgency. The building environment is OK despite its shortcomings. Suggests an Annex would be better idea. Some tenants in the building should be going back to public sector space. Must be transparent and patient about this process.
Art Peel — talking about the libraries. If town builds one in building there will have to be a town library.
DeF – nothing definite about the so-called library space
Parker – what about costs
DeF – we aren’t going to ask for any specific amount, we don’t have a budget yet
Birdie Emerson – project mgr at Upper Valley Food Co-op — we bought the building in June 2010. We’ve learned that time is money but every time we’ve slowed down we’ve saved money. The experience and technology out there is incredible, phenomenal resources in town. Why hasn’t town put out RFP over the past 3 years? I don’t think you can put something together in a month.
DeF – it’s a tentative schedule, we realize that. We need to set a goal to have a vote otherwise we’re not going to get it done.
Laurna Ricard – board to vote in 2 weeks? The board doesn’t seem to know what is being discussed
DeF – you people elected us as a board and it is up to us to put proposals together, and up to you to vote it down (ed: or up, you know what he means!)
Karen DeVille – I lived in a town where all the historic buildings came down and now that town regrets it.
Kye Cochran – Mgr Upper Valley Food Coop — we have a satellite of the Quechee/Wilder library in the Upper Valley coop. People go online and they order the book and can pick it up and drop it off.
DeF — we know that, that it is in the coop on the other side of the river (ed: I jump in and correct him “Upper Valley Coop”)
Karen Gainey – rep of Transistion Town — we’re about solutions to climate change and peak oil. Concerned about his comment on paybacks. Think about technologies we will be using 100 years from now. Instead of being scared of numbers, look at ways of being on cutting edge of technology. Have to have the right attitude. Open up to the expertise that is in the area.
DeF – some info I have looked at personally I think there is a way of doing the building so there is no cost to heating it.
Susanne Abetti — Mary Nadeau and Pat Stark do not represent the Hartford Historical Society and their remarks to the subcommittee don’t represent the position of the HHS nor are they representative of the preservation community in Hartford. A rehabilitation of this building is a valid approach — if you want a new building, build it elsewhere. This is being pushed far too fast. The idea of new construction for a new generation [DeF – history has to start someplace] . The younger generation I know loves old buildings like this. Don’t tear this beautiful building down.
Knight – denies they were invited to represent Society, Sonia claiming she invited them because they were friends.
SA – but it is in the minutes that they represent the preservation community.
Q regarding competitive bidding
DeF – policy is board policy not a legal policy
Abetti – minutes say Laurin suggests it goes to bid to satisfy public
Brent Knapp – what sq footage you are looking at
DeF 20K – 24K sq ft 3 stories on a slab.
Knapp – green doesn’t have to be exclusively about saving money
DeF – I agree 100% but we have to appeal to 10K citizens.
Me – Is the principle driver the working conditions in this building?
DeF – yes
Me – what about leasing the Saturn building? Also, subcommittee should think about presenting 3 or 4 choices in IRV type vote; secondly to really be selling the building as a 100 year building, then how about an international design competition?
Meeting ended and board went into exec session.
_____addendum morning of 16 March:
Here’s the recap I posted to the Hartford Discussion List:
Last night the select board held a meeting that consisted of selectman Alex DeFelice presenting the findings of a subcommittee consisting of himself, Sonia Knight and Sam Romano and then taking questions from the other members of the board and the public.
I live-blogged the action and you can read it at www.Flinn4VT.com
The meeting was not videoed by CATV so you won’t be able to see it on TV.
I’ll bottom line it for you:
* the board feels there is an urgent need to significantly improve working conditions for staff, that the current building environment is very bad, especially in terms of temperature control in winter and summer; that security needs to be improved; that the town clerk needs more space (presentation and q&a)
* they’ve determined that because the town voted down a bond to pay for renovation of existing town hall, the town would reject that proposal again (per question from audience)
* they’ve decided the easiest thing to do is throw down a slab foundation in front of the existing building, build a 24,000 sq ft 3 story office building, and then tear down the current town hall (see 2/22 video of select board discussion)
* Alex DeFelice intends to have the board vote to suspend the board policy of competitive bidding so that design work can begin immediately (presentation, a to q from Lynn Bohi)
* There will be a presentation to the town at the April 11 town meeting
* There will be a vote on a bond issue in September
So it’s all happening pretty quickly.
The subcommittee meets again next week 4pm – 5pm at Town Hall
There was one very telling moment in the Q&A session when Susanne Abetti, Pres of the Hartford Historical Society, questioned the subcommittee on an item in the minutes of the subcommittee regarding input from the Historical Society. The society had not been contacted and asked to send a rep; instead committee member Sonia Knight merely invited two persons who are friends of hers to come to the subcommittee meeting to give input. This isn’t how town governance and consensus building is achieved, it’s how constituencies are made to feel marginalized. I think it became clear to Sonia that she’d made a mistake, but to me it was a very revealing moment that showed how insular Hartford town governance can be.
DeFelice gets Chair; Knight Vice-Chair
On Wednesday afternoon the new selectboard met and elected officers for the next year. Ken Parker was dismissed as chair, and vice-chair Alex DeFelice was elected chair, with Sonia Knight becoming vice-chair.
For Alex, a retiree who was a legend in Hartford High School football history, the sky is now the limit on his ability to wander around town getting involved. I predict this will create issues among town employees who will wonder whether they work for Alex or Hunter.
In a town-manager form of government, it’s vitally important that the selectboard deal with policy and leave the day to day management of town operations in the hands of the town manager. We’ll see how this all works out.
Why isn’t the Charter being followed?
As I’ve explained in earlier posts, I ran for the select board in order to get public discussion and debate going around the issue of committing to a strategy of regionalization. However, I was stymied by the lack of opportunity to engage in debate and discussions. First, the town made no provision to bring information about folks running for office to the public’s attention. There was no opportunity provided for us to have space on the town website to make our case or even to provide links to our blogs, email addresses, or phone numbers, much less a position paper or resume. The Valley News and other media outlets gave the barest coverage to Hartford’s town meeting, with just 2 articles in the Valley News, the second of which gave the wrong date for the election (the correction published a few days later was effectively invisible).
Worst of all, the Select Board, School Board and Town Clerk failed to follow the law — our Municipal Charter — which stipulates that the Town should have a standing committee planning Town Meeting. Here’s what our Charter says:
“Standing town/school district meeting committee. Responsibility for organization, (including comfort, presentation, publicity, program, refreshments, entertainment), budget discussion/candidates night meeting and town/school district meeting, other than as stated in this chapter and state statute, shall rest with a committee of five registered voters of the town. Appointing authority by: Town Clerk-one for two years; Selectboard-one for two years, one for three years; School District-one for two years, one for three years. The appointing authority may work with the committee but may not self appoint.”
The Board of Selectmen has never appointed anyone to this committee.
The School Board has never appointed anyone to this committee.
The Town Clerk has never appointed anyone to this committee.
In defense of the Select Board, they report that they have asked people and have been turned down. However, in the reports of the Selectboard, School Board and Town Clerk no mention is made of any difficulty in this regard.
The only notice that the positions are open is a list on a piece of paper slapped on the door of town hall and replicated on the Boards and Commissions page of the website. There isn’t any date, there’s no information as to how many people are still needed, and there hasn’t been any effort to stimulate interest by engaging the public through op-ed pieces by town officers or the town manager or the town clerk, nor has there been any posting to the hartford@lists.valley.net listserv, nor has there been any outreach to various citizen groups. The only conclusion one can draw is that the community of people who respond to pieces of paper slapped on the door of Town Hall is no longer interested in participating in local government.
Meanwhile, there are hundreds of us who engage in civic activity in alternative arenas, where email, blogs, websites, twitter, facebook and the rest stitch together vibrant communities of interest. This subset of the Hartford population is invisible to the current Hartford govenment, no matter how much they may like the idea of a creative economy and all that.
But, I digress. Let’s return to the original subject matter: the inability to get a useful debate on the merits of taking a strongly proactive approach to regionalization as a way of reducing the tax burden and creating jobs in Hartford. At a minimum, I was counting on the pre-town meeting as a place where a vigorous debate would be stimulated. Instead, the budget presentations took an hour, then questions from the audience followed, with repetitive dialogs on the same topic consuming nearly 50 minutes of the second hour (schools, the 500K Barth lost track of and LaPlante wasn’t on top of; town, the parking lot across from the Briggs building) . Lacking a moderator, the speakers were called upon to speak and once each had their say, the meeting was ended. No Q&A; no debate. The reporters had fled in boredom sometime earlier. CATV failed to get the first part of the meeting on for 2 days, the candidate speeches for 5. All in all it was, in my opinion, a complete failure of the town government’s duty to live up to the letter and the spirit of the Charter.
We need to do better in the next election cycle.