Selectboard Meeting Minutes

TOWN OF SHELBURNE
SELECTBOARD MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 9, 2003

MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Dates, Chairperson; Norm Silcox, Jim Dudley, George Faris. (Steve Good was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT: Paul Bohne, Town Manager; Peter Frankenburg, Financial Officer.

OTHERS PRESENT: Dick Reid, Emily Morrow, Robert Furrer, Bill Rockford, Joyce Errecart, David Sheldon, Sue Davis (Shelburne News), and others.

EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board entered Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of discussing personnel matters where premature knowledge would place the Town at a disadvantage, and invited the Town Manager to attend. The Board adjourned Executive Session at 7:24 p.m.

1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Dates, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Changes to the agenda were as follows: 4b) VELCO Resolution 8b) Liquor License 12b) Executive Session (continuation)

3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There were no comments.

4. VELCO – Status Report Mr. Dates reviewed the proposed resolution regarding a VELCO plan to run a 115 kV above-ground transmission line through Shelburne. The resolution addresses concerns, authorizes pre-hearing testimony to forward to the Public Service Board (PSB), and financial forecasts. Emily Morrow reported on the VELCO committee status regarding the following items: • Pre-file testimony progress. • An analysis of scenic viewsheds to be funded via the Shelburne Museum and a private donor. • Testimony from the Shelburne Town Planner. The Shelburne Museum has hired Liam Murphy, attorney, who has drafted questions/answers in coordination with Robert Fletcher, Town Attorney. • David Grake was hired on behalf of the Meach Cove Trust regarding transmission line impacts and easement issues related to Limerick Road. • Shelburne Farms will draft general testimony related to tourist impacts on Shelburne. • The Town Manager was working on testimony from the Town’s point of view (what makes Shelburne a special place and impacts on quality of life). The Selectboard Chair will coordinate testimony regarding public investment. • Betsy Wong, Natural Resources Committee representative, will compile a list of natural resources and Plan A design (overhead line) impacts. • The Selectboard Chair will draft testimony regarding Plan B (underground and routing changes) related to Shelburne’s Open Space Plan and conserved land. • Devise future strategies if the resolution is adopted. • Meet with Marty Miller, VELCO CEO, and Tom Dunn and Richard Watts regarding a potential Plan B corridor. • A proposal to hire an engineering consultant to review Plan B and financial costs on behalf of the Town (funding to hire an engineer needed further clarification). • Submit Plan B to the PSB prior to February. Ms. Morrow reported other issues were costs or delays if homeowners elect to litigate. Mr. Dates said that $128 million budgeted by VELCO for the project was insufficient to pay for Plan B. VELCO should go on record regarding budgeting (for example, a budget column added to the proposed pricing format included in a letter to be sent to Mr. Miller from the Town). There was discussion regarding planning language that would include 1913 GMP easements, potential litigation issues, EMF issues (XLPE) associated with underground lines versus overhead lines, exploring the potential to include relocation of the Harbor Road substation in Plan B (consider a low profile substation versus 57’ high tower), consideration of a location behind the Town garage as a substation site if it would not interfere with future Town plans, potential $2-6 million differential in the starting “broken” Plan A budget versus Plan B, asking residents to write public letters to the PSB in support of the Town position, potential right-of-way conditions for underground lines along Limerick Road (Ms. Errecart said the route was based on an existing GMP easement), and utilizing pre-file testimony to present Shelburne’s “story” to the PSB. The Board thanked the VELCO Committee members for their input. Dick Reid read a statement regarding the location of the Harbor Road substation, which should be included in the pre-file documents. A VELCO Subcommittee meeting was scheduled for Thursday, 12/11/03, 3:00 p.m. 4B) PROPOSED DRAFT VELCO RESOLUTION Mr. Dates read the draft VELCO Resolution regarding the proposed NRP 115 kV line through Shelburne. The draft was reviewed by the Town Attorney. Proposed language changes were as follows: • 5th Whereas, 3rd line, change to read: “…the best interests of the Town to actively participate…” • 6th Whereas, 3rd line, change to read “… along the present…” There was discussion of expense concerns (should expenses be spread town-wide versus localized [residents along the route]), authority to fund legal expenses via ‘carrying on town business with the best interests of the Town (with oversight) which did not require a town vote, the potential cost of Plan B, and costs of hiring an electrical engineer consultant to review Plan B and expenses. Mr. Dates suggested requesting the Town Attorney to review Plan B, and exploring what resources would be tapped to meet expenses. MOTION by Mr. Faris, seconded by Mr. Silcox, to adopt the draft resolution regarding the VELCO proposal to run a 115 kV transmission line through Shelburne, subject to clarification regarding expenses. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. Mr. Dates read a draft letter to Mr. Miller, VELCO CEO, regarding Plan B, dated 12/09/03, which included a pricing format outlining a breakdown of costs. Mr. Dates asked for Board input. Ms. Morrow suggested adding language that would clarify choice (alternate price #1). Suggestions include: • Add “any other costs, if any”. • Change the 1st paragraph and substitute a paragraph written by the Town Attorney (Mr. Dates read the paragraph “As you requested…the same and/or mutually modified.”. • Differentiate costs: as “’x’ costs of underground lines that included transitions to above ground” and incorporate new technology (costs associated with up and down transitions was $400,000 for every transition). • Plan B, #3, add “at its intersection with Depot Road.”. • The height of the trees at Pole #209 should be checked. MOTION by Mr. Faris, seconded by Mr. Silcox, to approve a draft Town letter to Marty Miller, VELCO CEO, as revised and to send the letter. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried,

5. REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF JOSH FLORE’S PARTICIPATION IN THE POLICE UNITY TOUR MOTION by Mr. Faris, seconded by Mr. Dudley to approve a $100 donation in support of Josh Flore for participation in a national Police Unity Tour as presented. DISCUSSION: Mr. Silcox asked if Officer Flore was participating on his own or on department, time. Mr. Bohne replied that it was on Officer Flore’s time. Mr. Silcox asked what the $100 would be used for. Mr. Bohne answered it would go to the Police Unity Tour in support of a National Law Enforcement memorial. Officer Flore was participating at his own expense. Mr. Dudley suggested a higher contribution. Mr. Silcox cautioned restraint in responding to solicitations.
CALL THE QUESTION by Mr. Dates. Discussion ceased. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

6. PROPOSAL TO INCREASE MOORING FEES Mr. Bohne reviewed that currently the Town has 60 moorings and proposes a fee increase from $450 to $500. The increase was reasonable and competitive. There have been increases in the operating costs of the moorings. Mr. Dudley expressed concern that the Board was taking over Mooring Committee responsibilities. Mr. Faris said the committee had last met in 1995 and was originally formed as an Ad hoc Committee charged with reviewing existing rules and regulations. Mr. Bohne said the Harbormaster has taken over committee responsibilities. An ordinance gives the Harbormaster the authority to change the rules and regulations. MOTION by Mr. Silcox, seconded by Mr. Dudley, to increase the mooring fees from $450 to $500 for the next sailing season as presented. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

7. APPROVAL OF ROAD NAMES AT WAKE ROBIN MOTION by Mr. Silcox, seconded by Mr. Faris, to approve three street names at the new Wake Robin development as presented in a memo, dated 12/03/03, as follows: Poplar, Hawthorne, and Crabapple Streets. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

8. REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM PENALTY FOR DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAXES Mr. Bohne reported that a request for relief from penalty from Richard Poston consisted of telephone communications. It was the Town Attorney’s opinion that state statutes authorize relief from penalty only, not interest. MOTION by Mr. Faris, seconded by Mr. Silcox, to grant relief from penalty of $116.56 for Richard Poston, for property taxes due 11/15/03. DISCUSSION: Mr. Dates reviewed that payment was mailed Sunday, 11/16/03, but was returned to sender due to no stamp. Mr. Poston received a delinquency notice. Mr. Bohne noted that the Town received payment on 11/22/03. Mr. Poston said as soon as he got the mail back, he re-mailed it, explained Mr. Bohne. VOTE: 0 ayes, 4 nays (Dates, Faris, Silcox, Dudley); motion did not carry. Mr. Bohne reviewed that a tax payment from Linda and David Barnebl was damaged and delayed in the mail, arrived late with no other postmark than 11/18/03. The damaged envelope was placed in a plastic sleeve and the sleeve was postmarked at White River Junction. There was discussion regarding further proof that the payment was mailed on time, such as a date on the check and a copy of the check register, and if the payment was indeed mailed from Connecticut. MOTION by Mr. Faris, seconded by Mr. Dudley, to grant relief from penalty of $249.50 for Linda and David Barnebl for property taxes due 11/17/03. VOTE: 3 ayes, 1 nay; motion carried.

8b) LIQUOR LICENSE Mr. Bohne reviewed the request for a liquor license for Sitara’s, formerly Fibonnacci’s. The Board signed the liquor license application.

9. ENDORSEMENT OF THE TOWN’S EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM MOTION by Mr. Silcox, seconded by Mr. Dudley, to endorse a Town Employee Recognition Program as presented. DISCUSSION: Mr. Dates asked for clarification regarding selection of prizes as shown on the Forms of Recognition schedule. Mr. Bohne explained a nominee might be eligible for several of the forms of recognition and this given a choice. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF 11/11/03 AND 11/25/03 NOVEMBER 11, 2003 MOTION by Mr. Dudley, seconded by Mr. Faris, to approve the minutes of 11/11/03 with the following discussion: DISCUSSION: Mr. Dudley suggested a change to the stormwater motion to include language related to stormwater systems responsibilities “if not installed as permitted….” Mr. Dudley asked about a retention pond that should be installed but is not, and if the Town would pay for the pond. Mr. Faris explained that if a pond was not installed as permitted, then the development association would bear the cost of installing a pond. Mr. Bohne pointed out that while a pond was the responsibility of an association, or developer, the Town might be responsible for a share of the cost if the Town was discharging into the pond from a Town street. A pond installed after the fact would have to come up to 2002 standards. Mr. Dudley said the Town should not bear the responsibility if a pond was not put in or if a pond filled in with silt. This would be a capital expense. Mr. Bohne said the minutes were accurate in recording the discussion at the meeting, and suggested that the Board approve the minutes and amend the policy at the next meeting. VOTE: 3 ayes, 1 abstention (Mr. Dates); motion carried. NOVEMBER 25, 2003 MOTION by Mr. Silcox, seconded by Mr. Dudley, to approve the minutes of 11/25/03 as written. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

11. MANAGER’S REPORT Mr. Bohne reported that the ZBA did not grant a permit for the development of a Route 7 parcel (across from the Lighting House) and an appeal was upheld. The Chittenden County Superior Court Annual Budget meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, 12.16/03 at 2:00 p.m.

12. BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS Mr. Dudley asked for clarification regarding the date of the next meeting of the Board. Mr. Bohne clarified that the meeting date was scheduled for 12/18/03. Mr. Dudley reported that draft charters between the Selectboard and Recreation and Conservation committees were created. A simple ‘handshake’ approach was taken. Copies would be forwarded to the Board for review. Mr. Faris said format and content were two issues.

13. EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION by Mr. Dates, seconded by Mr. Faris, to enter Executive Session for the purpose of discussing contract matters where premature knowledge would place the Town at a disadvantage, and to invite the Town Manager to attend. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. The Board convened Executive Session at 9:35 p.m. MOTION by , seconded by , to adjourn Executive Session and reconvene the regular meeting. VOTE: The Board adjourned Executive Session and reconvened the regular meeting at p.m.

14. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by , seconded by , to adjourn the meeting.

VOTE: unanimous; motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary. Accepted,  Stephen B. Dates Chair

TOWN OF SHELBURNE SELECTBOARD
MINUTES OF MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2003

MEMBERS PRESENT: Norm Silcox, Acting Chairman, Steve Good, Jim Dudley, George Faris. (Steve Dates was absent.) STAFF PRESENT: Paul Bohne, Town Manager.

OTHERS PRESENT: Christine Forde, Darin Benoit, Bill Rockford, Joyce Errecart, and others.

EXECUTIVE SESSION The Selectboard entered Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. for the purpose of discussing personnel matters where premature knowledge would place the Town at a disadvantage. The Town Manager was invited to attend. The Board adjourned Executive Session and opened the public hearing on the zoning bylaw amendment related to residential/commercial district setbacks.

PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT SETBACK IN THE RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Mr. Silcox, Acting Chairperson, opened the public hearing on a proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment to setbacks in the Residential/Commercial district. Mr. Bohne reviewed Planned Residential Development (PRD) changes in the Residential/Commercial district along Route 7/Webster Road area. The proposed change would give the Planning Commission the ability to reduce the front yard setback to up to 20 percent minimum under certain conditions. In response to a Board question, Mr. Bohne reported that a resident (Ellen London) did call with a concern that changes to setbacks would lead to heavily developed commercial strips. The Zoning Administrator said that he did not feel prepared to respond to Ms. London’s concern. The amendment applies to a narrow set of circumstances and was for PRDs only. A PRD project required a 90 foot setback versus a 150 foot setback for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Lot coverage, impervious surface and size of the proposed development would affect the setbacks. Mr. Bohne reviewed a brief history regarding front yard setbacks for a PRD. There has been dissatisfaction with setbacks by the Planning Commission relative to a current project which has not gone forward in the approval process at this time. The development hearing before the Planning Commission has been continued until 01/08/04. There were no further comments. MOTION by Mr. Dudley, seconded by Mr. Good, to close the public hearing on the proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment related to setbacks in the Residential/Commercial district, and to table action until the next Selectboard meeting on 01/06/04. VOTE: unanimous (3-0) [George Faris not present for vote]; motion carried.

1. CALL TO ORDER (regular meeting) Mr. Silcox, Acting Chairperson, called the regular meeting to order.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda changes: Executive Session #7, Stormwater policy - tabled #9 Request from penalty for delinquent tax payment - tabled until 01/13/04 MOTION to Mr. Good, seconded Mr. Dudley, to approve changes to the agenda as stated. VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried.

3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There were no public comments.

4. VELCO – Status Report Bill Rockford, VELCO Committee representative, reported committee progress to date and estimated costs. Pre-file testimony is complete. Due to conflicts, the engineering consultants, Power Technologies and E-pro, were ruled out as resources. Power Cable Consulting has submitted a proposal. A summary was available for Board review. Mr. Dudley asked for clarification regarding scope of work. Mr. Rockford said that the consultant would review Plan B as proposed. Costs for Plan B were in line. The consultant would provide expert testimony before the Public Service Board (PSB) if necessary. VELCO has not expressed interest in Plan B at this time. Mr. Faris said that step one was a negotiation with VELCO regarding the cost of Plan B. If that was unresolved, then step two was to have the expert appear on behalf of the Town. Mr. Silcox asked Joyce Errecart if VELCO would appear before the PSB 01/15/04 with a cost estimate. Ms. Errecart replied VELCO indicated that 01/12/04 was a tentative date. The (Town) committee was trying to educate VELCO regarding Plan B. The expert has experience regarding underground lines. Also, there are property owners in Shelburne who could delay VELCO for years regarding the cost of right of way and health issues, noted Ms. Errecart. Mr. Rockford said that the PSB should begin hearings the middle of February. It was hoped that VELCO was ‘on board’. In response to a Board member question, Mr. Rockford reported that Charlotte has contracted with the same engineer. Charlotte was exploring underground lines as well. Ms. Errecart stated a “drop dead date” was before the PSB. Shelburne needed to have the “ammunition” to help VELCO make a decision via information. It might be early June before there was a settlement. The committee was trying to set up a meeting with VELCO the second week of January to move the process along. Mr. Silcox noted that legal expenses regarding the VELCO issue were not included in the budget. Mr. Faris noted that the Burlington Free Press reported the PSB has heard pre-filed testimony, and asked if the PSB was for or against the towns. Ms. Errecart replied it was a matter of educating the PSB regarding the costs of underground lines versus overhead lines. Mr. Silcox commented the PSB had listened politely and said that Plan B was the best plan brought forward. Ms. Errecart said she would speak with Dave O’Brien. Mr. Bohne said the Pubic Service Department testimony was on-line for review. Mr. Rockford reviewed a summary of estimated costs for landscape architects and legal testimony, engineering costs (as proposed), and rebuttal testimony, if necessary. Donations received and/or anticipated amounted to $19,000 at this time. Outstanding legal expenses were $13,000 thus far. Mr. Silcox asked if the town was liable for $13,000 for pre-file testimony. Mr. Bohne noted there was an additional $1,000 due for printing material for a total of $14,000. Mr. Silcox calculated that there was $12,000 available, but the town was liable for $16,500 total. Mr. Rockford said that the engineering consultant could be paid by the pledges and donations. Mr. Silcox said Town funds of $2,500 were meant to be used for modest items, but things were not modest any longer. Mr. Silcox asked the committee to determine if they need to tap into the $2,500 or not. Mr. Faris expressed concern regarding the legal fees, and suggested an oversight of costs be done. Mr. Rockford said that it was the opinion of the committee to move forward. Mr. Faris said that there was no question regarding the immediate effect of a power line on residents near the line, but there is concern about reaction by the rest of the Town regarding the use of Town funds for this issue. Ms. Errecart said she had not heard any concerns. Ms. Errecart noted that Gail Henderson’s testimony centered on the Shelburne beach viewshed. There were questions of how many jobs were dependent upon tourism that could be affected by overhead power lines in the viewshed, or the effects on the real estate tax roll. Mr. Silcox cautioned against using the real estate angle. Mr. Silcox asked for clarification regarding escalating legal fees. Ms. Errecart said now that the issue was in litigation, the committee needed the Town Attorney at the VELCO meetings. There were attorneys and other experts on the committee, which would minimize legal costs. There was further discussion regarding attorney roles in the pre-trial preparations, meeting with VELCO, preparing responses, and financial concerns. NEXT STEPS: • Determine if $16,000 should be authorized for legal expenses, and if attorneys should be involved in negotiations. • Seek $2,500 in donations to replace Town funds. • Formalize the contract with the engineering consultant to conduct a study if the recommended engineering firm was retained. • Formalized donations to be used for engineering costs (Plan B analysis for $8,000 and hearings/rebuttal). The Selectboard suggested a financial cap regarding the engineering scope of work. • Consider a change the use of the $2,500 in Town funds for legal use. • Identify who would track the legal fee expenses, and what the legal counsel roles should be in negotiations and PSB hearings. Mr. Silcox asked the Town Manager to outline what needs to be done for the Selectboard meeting on 01/13/04. The Board thanked Mr. Rockford for the efforts of the VELCO Committee on behalf of the Town.

5. PIERSON LIBRARY REPORT – Marti Fiske Ms. Fiske, Pierson Librarian, reviewed a written analysis of upcoming projects that included the Vestibule project, Freeman Foundation Library grants, and a request for an expansion of hours in FY04/05. There was discussion regarding technical support (including software upgrades), an increase in on-line computer use, and private school use of library services (Ms. Fiske said that private school use did not impact Shelburne residents’ use of library services.).

6. BAY ROAD UNDERPASS – MPO REQUEST FOR MODIFIED PROJECT Mr. Silcox reviewed a brief history of the proposed Bay Road Bridge, which was included in the CCMPO TIP for FY05. There were concerns regarding the VTrans proposals related to changes to the bridge approaches. Mr. Silcox introduced Christine Forde, CCMPO, and Darrin Benoit, engineering consultant. There was lengthy discussion of the local match to federal funds (Ms. Forde noted that funding was 80/10/10 between federal/state/town), railroad alignment and changes in the project, preliminary engineering of proposed road corridor options and conceptual planning, the public informational hearing process related to property impacts, final design and right of way phases. Ms. Forde explained that realignment of the roadway would improve safety and line of sight issues to the bridge approach. Bridge funding in Vermont was tight at this time. Mr. Faris asked if a multi-modal funding approach would be eligible for federal funding. Mr. Benoit replied no. The rail was 100 percent funded for the welded rail. If the railroad did not participate (in the project), VTrans proposed to move the road bed 20 feet. Mr. Benoit explained that a spur line at a cost of $100,000 could save $300,000. There was further discussion regarding potential options in bridge abutment orientation related to safety issues, the complete project timeframe (10-15 years for the bridge construction), the road piece budgeted through Chittenden County MPO (construction in FY07), and a cost breakdown for the road at $350,000 and the bridge at $1.5 million. MOTION by Mr. Faris, seconded by Mr. Good, that the Shelburne Selectboard authorize acceptance of the proposed Modified Bay Road Underpass Project as presented, and move the project forward for Vermont Department of Transportation for approval.

DISCUSSION: Bill Rockford, resident, spoke in opposition to changes in the road, and submitted two letters of opposition from Bay Road property owners. Mr. Rockford said if the bridge orientation was changed, then the roadway alignment would need to change. There were concerns regarding safety, such as speeding. The abutments slow traffic currently. The bridge is old and only one and a half lanes wide. There was no way for a person to walk through the bridge safely. Mr. Rockford suggested making the bridge two lanes wide. Ms. Errecart said she drives the road daily, and when walking along the road, has to run under the bridge to quickly get through). If the road was fixed but not the bridge, then the bridge would not get on the state bridge priority list. Mr. Faris asked if speed would increase if the road was widened to two lanes. Mr. Dudley suggested widening the lanes, but keeping the curves to help slow traffic. Mr. Silcox asked if speed bumps were acceptable. Mr. Silcox said he talked to Alec Webb who felt road improvements would increase visitors to Shelburne Farms. The boating/fishing access will be improved next summer. Mr. Dudley suggested widening/improving the road, but not changing the height of the bridge. Mr. Benoit said if 14’5” of clearance was not needed, then the height could remain as is. Mr. Benoit explained calming devices, such as a reduced land or gateway appearance in the bridge approach, striping or blinking lights. Another resident noted the narrow bridge and the current road approach acts to slow traffic down. Mr. Silcox asked if the road would be straightened out if the bridge and road improvements were done at the same time. Mr. Benoit said that the plan included widening the roadway for ditches and drainage to correct an on-going water problem under the bridge. Mr. Good observed in the nine years he has driven through the bridge, he has not noticed any puddles under the bridge. Mr. Benoit explained alignment options for line of sight distances for driving and a lower grade approach to bridge. There were certain standards to meet. At 35 mph, a sight distance of 325’ was a requirement. At 30 mph, a sight distance of 300’ was required. VTrans allows a 10 mph leeway as long as there was signage. Mr. Faris said he was in favor of improving sight distance and urged the Town to pursue all traffic calming devices, including a 30 mph speed limit. Mr. Rockwood said that he had talked to a state engineer who confirmed increasing sight distance does increase speed and increases the risk of danger. Mr. Benoit said he could agree to some extent. The speed limit was too high for the current sight distances. The improvements would allow a motorist to see through the bridge. Current sight distances and distance needed to stop were explained. Mr. Silcox noted the lack of a full Board being present to vote (tie vote means the motion fails), and if there was adequate time to reconsider action of the issue when there was a full Board present. Ms. Forde replied that if the Town wanted a different plan, they could forward it. The MPO would not pursue the project with VTrans until the Board was ready. There was no ‘drop dead’ date to forward a project to VTrans, however, the TIP money would be reallocated to another project. A future MPO budget could be changed. The engineering costs were under $50,000 for the project, noted Ms. Forde. Mr. Silcox commented Chittenden County projects, such as the Circumferential Highway, Southern Connector, and Route 7, would eat up a significant amount of VTrans funds. There might not be funds in the future for more Chittenden County projects. Ms. Forde said that the MPO has held discussions regarding that issue, and there would be construction funds for the bridge. There were no further comments. VOTE: 2 ayes, 2 nays (Mr. Good, Mr. Dudley); motion did not carry. The Town will be in contact with Ms. Forde. Copies of the letters submitted would be provided to the CCMPO and VTrans.

7. APPROVAL OF STORMWATER POLICY AS AMENDED Tabled. 8. PRESENTATION OF FY05 GENERAL FUND BUDGET Mr. Bohne reviewed the draft preliminary FY05 General Fund Budget and highlighted the following: • Expenses were down 1.1 percent from last year • A 3.5 percent increase in the tax rate to be raised for a $0.014 cent increase in the tax rate • Anticipating a flat Grand List or less • Police/Emergency dispatch revenues of $22,965 • An increase in Recreation revenues • An ambulance purchase of $174,000 • Miscellaneous transfer of funds • Anticipating several legal issues currently and upcoming • Building and grounds increases (for example: the Pierson building roof repairs) • A recommendation to establish a Public Works Department (in FY05) • Stormwater maintenance • Highway Department (Equipment Sinking Fund increases) • Library • Debt Service decrease • Health benefits and insurance premium increases • Selectboard Discretionary Fund decrease • Shelburne Bay Park budget (includes the Harbor Master)

9. REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM PENALTY FOR DELINQUENT TAX PAYMENT Tabled until 01/13/04.

10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2003 Tabled.

11. MANAGER’S REPORT Mr. Bohne noted a written Manager’s Report was included in the Board packet. The 12/30/03 Selectboard Budget Review meeting was rescheduled to 01/06/04.

12. MEMBER CONCERNS There were no Board member concerns.

13. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Good, seconded by Mr. Dudley, to adjourn the meeting.

VOTE: unanimous (4-0); motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Minutes transcribed from tape and respectfully submitted by Kathlyn Furr, Recording Secretary. Accepted,  Stephen B. Dates Chairman