trengthening overnment d s n vlct d

1 • VLCT News • November 2000

STRENGTHENING VERMONT LOCAL GOVERNMENT

INSIDE THIS ISSUE...Board Member Profile . . . . . . . . . . 2Legal Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Ask the League . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Risk Management Notes . . . . . . . . . 9PACIF Appraisal Service . . . . . . . . 10Federal Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . 14VTCMA Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Classifieds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

November 2000

(Continued on Page Three)

(Continued on 1)

Deputy Director of Group Services DavidSichel dropped the word “Deputy” from hisjob title this month when he was named thenew Director of VLCT Group Services.Sichel fills the position vacated by ThomasLoPizzo, who recently left the League for a

DAVID SICHEL IS NEW VLCTGROUP SERVICES DIRECTOR

position with the Compensation Funds ofNew Hampshire.

Most members of the three VLCTinsurance trusts know Dave Sichel from thehundreds, if not thousands, of selectboardmeetings he has attended in his 12 years withVLCT. He has traveled to almost everyVermont municipality, fire district, solid wastedistrict and regional planning commission toexplain coverages, services and costs topotential and current PACIF members.Dave’s knowledge of our members’ riskmanagement needs is well grounded by theseyears of experience in the field, and iscomplemented by the national experience hehas gained as a current member of NationalLeague of Cities (NLC) Mutual InsuranceCompany Board of Directors and as a formermember of the Board of Directors of the NLCRisk Information Sharing Consortium.

VLCT’s Group Services Department is itslargest in terms of staff with 15 individualsperforming a variety of services for the VLCT

Health Trust, the VLCT Property andCasualty Intermunicipal Fund (PACIF) andthe VLCT Unemployment Trust. Together,the three Trusts have 370 municipal members,and manage over $26 million in municipalfunds to meet their risk management needs.

Patrick Scheidel, President of the VLCTPACIF Board and Essex Town Manager, waspleased with the appointment. “TomLoPizzo’s shoes will be hard ones to fill,”Scheidel said, “but we are pleased that we havefound in our midst a person with David’spersonal qualities and experience. He bringsqualifications to the job that we will need tocontinue to provide the quality services we’vegrown to expect from the League. We lookforward to working with David to developnew products and services essential to meetingthe needs of Vermont municipal governmentin the 21st century.”

Dave came to the League in 1988 as FieldRepresentative/Loss Control Coordinator forVLCT PACIF. Shortly thereafter he movedinto the position of Risk Management/FieldServices Director, and became DeputyDirector of Group Services in 1995. Prior tocoming to VLCT, he served as the FinanceDirector for the Town of Brattleboro for sixyears and as Administrative Assistant in the

At its Eleventh Annual Meeting heldthis month at the Inn at Essex, Essex,Vermont, the VLCT Health Trustannounced rate increases of 10% for itshealth benefit plans for 2001. The oneexception was a 15.2% rate increase forBlueCare Plus, the Blue Cross Blue Shieldof Vermont HMO. Trust board membersand staff were also pleased to announce a$788,000 premium distribution back tomember municipalities for the 1999 fundyear. The refund, representing 5.9% of all

VLCT HEALTH TRUST ANNOUNCES 2001 RATESISSUES FIRST PREMIUM REFUND SINCE 1995

premiums collected for that year, is aresult of total claim liabilities andadministrative costs coming in at a levelbelow what was collected in premiums.This refund brings the total distributionsback to Health Trust members toapproximately $6 million since 1992, andwill be credited against Trust members’February 2001 bills from Blue Cross andBlue Shield.

The rate increases are in sharp contrast


89 Main Street, Suite 4Montpelier, VT 05602-2948

Tel.: (802) 229-9111 • Fax: (802) 229-2211E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.vlct.org

VLCT Board

Peter Clavelle, PresidentMayor, Burlington

William Shepeluk, Vice-presidentManager, Waterbury

Bridget Collier, Past PresidentClerk/Treasurer, Greensboro

Steven E. Jeffrey, Secretary

Jane ChadwickSelectperson, Dover

James CondosCity Councilor, South Burlington

Gail FallarClerk/Treasurer, Tinmouth

William FingerManager, Shelburne

William FraserManager, Montpelier

Larry KemptonSelectperson, Franklin

Leigh LarocqueSelectperson, Barnet

Charles LuskSelectperson, StoweSusan SpauldingManager, Chester

Stephen WillbanksSelectperson, Strafford

VLCT Staff*

Steven E. JeffreyExecutive DirectorKaren B. Horn

Director, Legislative and Membership ServicesDavid Sichel

Director, Group ServicesJon Groveman

Director, Municipal Law CenterB. Michael Gilbar

Director, Administrative Services*Partial List

Katherine B. Roe, Editor, VLCT News

The VLCT News is published monthly by theVermont League of Cities and Towns, a non-profit,nonpartisan organization founded in 1967 to servethe needs and interests of Vermont municipalities.

The VLCT News is distributed to all VLCT membertowns. Additional subscriptions are available for $25

to VLCT members and $63 for non-members.Please contact the League for subscription and

advertising information.

Two qualities from his previous journalismjobs have come in handy for Straffordselectboard chair Steve Willbanks. Persistenceand an ability to “work the phones” arevaluable skills, Willbanks says, for anyoneserving as selectperson in Vermont.

Willbanks was elected to the VLCT Boardof Directors at September’s annual meeting.He has served for nine years on the Straffordselectboard so he can comment with authorityon the persistence necessary to get things doneat the local government level. And as anadmittedly frequent caller to VLCT forinformation and advice, Willbanks knows thatit is often helpful totap into statewideresources to solvesmall townproblems.

“Things don’thappen instantly,”Willbanks said,adding, “if you areon the selectboardover a period oftime, you have toadjust yourexpectations, bepatient and have abroad view.” Thisis not necessarily abad thing inWillbanks’s mind,as he believes it isdifficult for aselectboard togauge the ripple effects of quick change. It isalso something that he would like to see theVLCT Board devote some time to.

“I’m not sure whether we need leadershiptraining so much as training in how to bepatient and how to avoid burnout,” Willbankscommented. “The additional responsibilities[of being a selectboard member] can wearsomeone out fast.”

Willbanks initially got involved inStrafford’s local government in the late 1980s,after devoting time to the Parent TeacherAssociation and helping organize the StraffordLion’s Club. He is still not sure how ithappened, but he went to one meeting of alocal planning group and ended up spearhead-ing the group’s efforts from that point

VLCT BOARD PROFILEMEET NEW MEMBER STEPHEN WILLBANKS

SELECTBOARD CHAIR, TOWN OF STRAFFORD

forward. The group had received a stateplanning grant, and used it to conduct anextensive town-wide survey of residents’opinions on the town’s future. In the course ofwriting the survey and compiling the results,Willbanks delved into Strafford’s history,researched all aspects of the current commu-nity and wrote up its hopes for the future inthe form of a final “white paper.” “It was avery unique opportunity to understand thecommunity, one that most people don’t get,”he noted.

From the planning group, Willbanksmoved to the planning commission for two

years and then tothe selectboard in1991. He continuesto attend planningcommissionmeetings as theliaison between thetwo boards and wasprincipal author ofthe Strafford TownPlan in the mid-1990s. The switchfrom one board tothe other seemednatural toWillbanks. “It wasa move frombacking specificideas and gettingthem going to beingin a position to keepthem going,” he

noted. Asked about his favorite accomplish-ments in a decade plus of local governmentservice, the planning survey, its positiveinfluence on the Town Plan, and several localland conservation projects identified asimportant in the survey came immediately toWillbanks’s mind. Another project, thevolunteer-run recycling program he helpedstart, is on his list for not only being environ-mentally responsible, but also for givingvolunteers and community members a chanceto chat over the recycling bins on Saturdaymornings.

In a town that seems blessed with a strongvolunteer ethic, the recycling program standsout. The key to its success, Willbanks feels, is

(Continued on next page )

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.vlct.org


WILLBANKS -(Continued from previous page) (Continued from Page One)

SICHEL -

City of Delaware, Ohio. While atBrattleboro, David served on the Board ofDirectors that created PACIF and managed itin its formative years.

Dave received his undergraduate degree inpolitical science and his graduate degree inpublic policy issues from the University ofMichigan. Though born right next door toVermont in Albany, New York, Dave grew upin Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Dave is jumping right in at the Trusts’busiest time of year. Three budgets are beingprepared for 2001 and three renewals areunderway. As soon as these projects arebehind him, Dave will take a close look at theorganization of the Group Services staff anddecide whether or not to replace himself. Hewill be working with existing staff, the Trustboards and members to determine how theGroup Services staff can be configured toprovide the best service to members of theHealth Trust, VLCT PACIF and the Unem-ployment Trust. Congratulations, Dave, andgood luck!

that one person, in this case himself, isresponsible for the overall program, whichallows the almost 40 other volunteers to takeon smaller jobs that fit into their busy lives.“This is nothing new,” he said, “but I’vefound that the key to getting people involvedin local government is to not overwhelm themwith responsibility, and to have someoneavailable with the knowledge and priorexperience to give guidance if needed.”

Willbanks has also served as Strafford’srepresentative on two solid waste districtboards. He is currently chair of the GreaterUpper Valley Solid Waste District Board, andif it finalizes plans to build a new landfill inthe next few years, this will definitely make hislist of accomplishments. “Developing alandfill site,” he said, fully aware of hisunderstatement, “attracts obstacles.”

Willbanks is looking forward to his workon the VLCT Board, particularly as the Boardprepares for the upcoming legislative session.‘I’m certainly not an expert,” he said, “but itseems that we could be more successful in the

legislature if we focus our leverage on certainkey issues.” One issue important to him isadequate funding for highway and bridgeprojects that are suitable for Vermont’s smalltowns. “State transportation fundingshouldn’t be siphoned off to the general fund,”he said, adding that he now finds it difficultto get state highway projects done in a timelymanner and done so that they are not over-engineered.

Willbanks fits his local government serviceinto a life that is already full, but flexibleenough to absorb the fluctuating needs of thetown. As he put it, “you never know when anissue is going to come up that can suck upyour time.” He raises sheep on a farm that heshares with his wife Stephanie, who is a Deanof Academic Affairs and professor at VermontLaw School. They have one son at home, inthe eighth grade, and a daughter who is acollege sophomore. Willbanks received aBachelor of Arts in English and a Master’sdegree in social work, and has worked as acounselor, writer and journalist – all skills thathe has probably put to good use as a localgovernment official and can now apply to hiswork on the VLCT Board. Welcome aboard,Steve!


Summarizing recent court decisions of municipal interest

The impact of the decision is that a state agency that submits to the local permit process is bound bythe terms of the permit, unless the permit decision is appealed within the period prescribed by law.

(Continued on next page)

LOCAL ZONING & THE STATE; IMPACT

FEES; RIGHT TO SUE

STATE AGENCY SUBJECTTO LOCAL PERMIT

In City of South Burlington v. VermontDepartment of Corrections, the VermontSupreme Court held that a state agency is notexempt from the exclusivity-of-remedyprovisions of state zoning law and that a stateagency must raise the issue of “sovereignimmunity” within the applicable appealsperiod for the permit or else the right to raise

this issue is forfeited. The Court also stronglyimplied that the Vermont Department ofCorrections (Department) is not exempt fromlocal zoning under the legal theory ofsovereign immunity, which provides thatgovernmental entities are immune fromcertain legal actions. (See also “VermontDepartment of Corrections Bound byConditional-Use Permit,” August, 2000 VLCTNews.)

The Department applied for and obtaineda permit from the planning commission for an

expansion to an existing prison. The planningcommission granted the permit with condi-tions, including a limit on the number ofinmates that could be housed at the prison.The Department violated this condition.When the city attempted to enforce thepermit seven years after it was issued, theDepartment claimed the permit was voidbased on the legal theory of “sovereignimmunity.”

The Court ruled that by accepting thepermit with conditions and not appealing itwithin the statutory time periods, theDepartment failed to employ its exclusiveremedy under 24 V.S.A. § 4472 to challengethe condition. Accordingly, the Court heldthat the Department is bound by thecondition. Unfortunately, the Court did notaddress the Department’s sovereign immunityargument because it decided the case on thegrounds that the Department failed to raise itsclaim of sovereign immunity within thestatutory appeal period. Accordingly, this is

an open issue that may be decided in anothercase.

In conclusion, the impact of the decision isthat a state agency that submits to the localpermit process is bound by the terms of thepermit, unless the permit decision is appealedwithin the period prescribed by law. Inaddition, the Court did not address the issueof whether the state is exempt from localzoning under the legal theory of sovereignimmunity. Accordingly, municipalities shouldproceed as if state agencies are not exemptfrom local zoning until a decision to thecontrary is rendered by the Court.

CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURTDECIDES IMPACT FEE CASE

In Home Builders Association of NorthernVermont, Inc. v. Town of Williston, theChittenden County Superior Court upheldthe Town of Williston’s impact fee ordinance.It remains to be seen whether the HomeBuilders Association of Northern Vermont(HBA) will appeal the decision to theVermont Supreme Court. However, theSuperior Court decision provides a detailedlegal analysis of impact fee ordinances that any


LEGAL CORNER -(Continued from previous page)

Vermont city or town considering adoptingimpact fees should review.

The central issue in the case is the validityof the Town of Williston’s impact fees forrecreation and schools. The HBA challengedthe basis for the impact fees by questioningthe methods that Williston utilized tocalculate its recreation and school impact fee.In its decision, the Chittenden CountySuperior Court concludes that the townemployed “reasonable” formulas to calculateits impact fees and that there is an adequatenexus between the nature and amount of thefees and the projected impacts from newdevelopment.

The Superior Court began its analysis byrestating the established legal principles that“Vermont municipalities have only suchpowers as are expressly granted by thelegislature” and that all “reasonable andsubstantial doubts concerning municipalauthority are resolved against the municipal-ity.” The Superior Court also recognized thatmunicipal acts are presumed to be reasonableand the individual or entity challenging themunicipal act has the burden to prove such actis unreasonable.

The Superior Court’s decision highlightsthe fact that the key to adopting a validimpact fee ordinance is to develop a “reason-able formula” for assessing impact fees thatreflects “the level of service for the capitalproject to be funded.” 24 V.S.A. §5203(a)(2). In addition, a city or town must

develop a means of assessing the impactassociated with the development. 24 V.S.A. §5203(a)(2).

To meet its burden of proof, the HBAmade several specific arguments related to thebasis of Williston’s impact fee and Williston’sfailure to comply with Vermont’s impact feestatute. These arguments include a claim thatWilliston should have factored in the impactof existing dwellings on schools – not justfocus on the impact of new-home construc-tion; Williston provided no documentedexplanation for imposing 30% of the cost ofnew recreational facilities on new dwellings;Williston failed to utilize the state minimumrequirements to calculate school costs;Williston’s capital budget did not includespecific impact fees; and Williston failed tocomply with law by not providing an annualaccounting for each impact fee collected. It isimportant to note that these are just some ofthe arguments that HBA raised in attempt toinvalidate Williston’s impact fee ordinance.

With regard to the HBA’s argumentsrelating to the basis for the impact fees, theSuperior Court held that the HBA failed tomeet its burden to prove that the fees are notreasonable and there is not a “rough propor-tionality” between the fee imposed and theimpact from the development. The SuperiorCourt’s conclusion on these points is bestsummarized in the following finding:

In general, Home Builder’s experts haveconvinced us that specialists with Ph.D’scould engage in more sophisticatedanalysis, and arrive at impact feeprojections and calculations involvinggreater subtlety. But they have notpersuaded the court that Williston’s“cookbook” methods resulted in the newdevelopment paying more than itsproportional share of the capital costs ofschool or recreational facilities necessary toserve its own marginal needs.This is an important point for municipali-

ties. The Superior Court recognizes thathighly educated experts can propose viablealternatives to the developing impact feeprojections. However, the standard forenacting valid impact fees is not whetherexperts will agree with a municipality’sprojection. The standard is that the impactfees must be based on a reasonable formulathat results in new development paying itsproportional share for the capital project thatwill benefit or is attributable to the project.24 V.S.A. § 5203(b). Moreover, a developermust prove that the fee is not reasonable, notthat experts can arrive at an alternative feethat may be viable.

The Superior Court also rejected HBA’sclaim that Williston is precluded fromenacting impact fees because it omittedimpact fees from its capital budget. TheSuperior Court recognized that the statuterequires a municipality to adopt a capitalbudget and program pursuant to Title 24Chapter 117 as a prerequisite to enactingimpact fees. 24 V.S.A. § 5202(a)(1). How-ever, the Superior Court stated that whilemandated, the capital budget and program are“proposals,” and these proposals are notinvalid for failure to include a specific impactfee component.

In deciding this issue, the Superior Courtheld that the statutory requirement thatmunicipalities state the proposed method offinancing for capital projects, including theamount to be financed by impact fees, doesnot mean that municipalities must includeimpact fees in their capital budgets prior tolevying impact fees on new development. TheSuperior Court views the capital budgetprocess as a flexible planning process that isnot intended to bind municipalities withregard to funding capital projects. As a matterof practice, however, municipalities shouldinclude impact fees in their capital budgets ifimpact fees to fund long-term capital projectsare being contemplated at the time that thebudget is proposed.

Finally, the Superior Court agreed withHBA’s argument that Williston did notmaintain an annual accounting as required bylaw. 24 V.S.A. § 5203(e). The SuperiorCourt rejected Williston’s defense that, whileit did not provide a detailed annual account-ing, all the data necessary for an accountingwas available to HBA. However, the SuperiorCourt found that HBA suffered no damagesas a result of Williston’s failure to perform theaccounting. Accordingly, the Superior Courtdid not impose a penalty on the town.

In sum, municipalities should be encour-aged by the Superior Court’s decision touphold Williston’s impact fees as reasonable inthe face of expert testimony intended to callinto question the basis for the town’s fees.Municipalities must continue to developreasonable impact fee formulas and establishthat the fees relate to specific capital projectsthat will be affected by the project. However,in the eyes of the Chittenden County SuperiorCourt, municipalities are not required to hirePh.D. economists in order to enact validimpact fees. VLCT will track this case andinform its membership if the HBA appeals thedecision to the Vermont Supreme Court.

(Continued on Page Eight)


Questions asked by VLCT members and answered by the League’s legal and researchstaff

SCHOOL TAXES; TAXOVERPAYMENT; SIGNING CHECKS;

RESTORATION RESERVE FUND

(Editor’s Note: We are pleased to share withyou this month a series of questions that wereasked at the Treasurer’s Roundtable offered at theVLCT Town Fair in September.)

When must the town treasurer depositthe school district’s share of the taxes in theschool district’s account?

Sixteen V.S.A. § 426 provides severalanswers to this question. First, the generalrule is that within 20 days after the schooltaxes are due and payable, the treasurer mustdeposit the amount collected into the district’saccount.

Second, the exception to this rule is thatthe selectboard and the school board mayagree, in writing, to have the money trans-ferred at some other time.

Note that the rule and the exception applyonly to the money actually collected. Forexample, total school taxes assessed were$1,000,000. The amount actually collected asof day 20 was $900,000. Therefore, by day20 the treasurer must deposit $900,000 in theschool district’s account.

The third part of the answer is that “within120 days after the date on which [school]taxes become delinquent, but in no event laterthan the end of the school year,” the entireamount of school taxes assessed must bedeposited in the district’s account. Thus, ifthe total amount of school tax assessed was$1,000,000 but the amount collected so far isonly $950,000, the town must dip into itsown pocket to make up the difference and besure that the school gets its entire $1,000,000within those 120 days.

Finally, not withstanding 16 V.S.A. § 426,a “sending town” under Act 60 will be billedby the state commissioner of taxes to send itsproperty tax liability payments to the state byDecember 1 and June 1 of the followingcalendar year. 32 V.S.A. § 5402. This statutehas the effect of partially overriding 16 V.S.A.§ 426 in the case of towns that send to thesharing pool. The 20 and 120 day provisionsare still in effect for direct payments to thelocal school district, but the money which

goes to the sharing pool goes directly to thestate on December 1 and June 1.

If an individual overpays his or herproperty tax by a few dollars, what shouldI do with the overpayment?

Paul Gillies once commented on a similarquestion by saying that “The law is sorrow-fully silent on the question.” We agree.However, 32 V.S.A. § 4774 “sort of ” applies.That statute says that where a taxpayer hasmade a tax overpayment as a result of payingearly and neglecting to take a discount allowedfor early payment, an excess of $2.00 or lessmay be retained by the town. It also providesthat the taxpayer has one year to realize theerror and demand a refund of the excess paid,in which case the treasurer must return it.

Can this statute be stretched to apply toother tax overpayments of $2.00 or less?Stretching statutes is rather ill advised.However, a court would probably find that atown could adopt a policy that any propertytax overpayment of $2.00 or less will beretained by the town, unless the taxpayerreports the error and asks for a refund withinone year.

Can a municipality adopt a policy thatthere be a second signer of all checkswritten for more than a certain amount?For example, the chair of the selectboardshall co-sign all checks that are written foran amount exceeding $500.

This is another one where Paul Gillies saidit best. The following is from his Book ofOpinions p. 743-4, with his permission.

The treasurer complained that thelegislative body of the municipality hadinsisted that no check be made out andsent without the co-signature of one ofthe members of that body.

We advised that no co-signature isrequired. The necessary securityprovided by the system of orders signedby a majority of the legislative body issufficient, without further concern about

writing a check.Our municipal law is based on a

fundamental trust of individuals fillingelective office. A treasurer is elected orappointed to be responsible for his or herduties. Mandated oversight by trusteesin this case offends that principle, and isunnecessary, redundant and improper.

Thirty-two V.S.A. § 1671 providesauthority for the legislative body of amunicipality to create a “restorationreserve fund … which shall be used solelyfor restoration, preservation, and conserva-tion of records.” What do these termsmean? Can they include purchase of acopier or computer software to copy or storerecords? Could they mean only safekeepingof records in their original form?

There are no easy statutory or legaldefinitions of the terms used in the statute.Using definitions from the general dictionary,the intent of the statute seems to be to preventdamage or harm to original records and torepair or undo damage that has alreadyoccurred.

(Continued on Page Eight)


ASK THE LEAGUE -(Continued from Six)

Proceeding from the premise that “a stitchin time saves nine,” prevention of damageshould be a priority. Prevention may includea better vault (fireproofed, temperature andhumidity controlled), hanging files for maps,or improved shelving. Prevention would notinclude copiers since photocopying actuallyaccelerates deterioration of records throughincreased handling which causes stress onpages and bindings and increased heat andlight exposure from the copier itself.

Software to be used for the storage ofrecords, while it may ultimately decreasehandling of the original paper copies, shouldnot be a priority at this time because of thesomewhat iffy legal status of electronicrecords. Resources should be put into takingcare of the original records rather thancreating electronic copies that may not beadequate for legal purposes. This advice, ofcourse, may change as definitions of what is alegal record change.

Restoration of the original records by avendor who can do deacidification and repairsis vitally important. Although the cost ofsuch work seems high, when that cost iscompared to the millions of dollars invested inthe land listed in the records, restoration costsare well worth it. Likewise, genealogy recordsare priceless and irreplaceable.

Each town should develop a plan or list ofpriorities for its use of the funds based on thecondition of its records and storage facilitiesand the money available.

For more information, Greg Sanford, inthe Secretary of State’s archives division,suggests the following:

· Secretary of State’s Report on Conditionof Municipal Records, 1999, available athttp://Vermont-towns.org/munrec/munrprt.htm.· Grant opportunities to help develop plansfor assessing needs and actively managingrecords, available at http://Vermontarchives.org/boards/vhrab.htm.

COURT FINDS NO RIGHT TO SUEMUNICIPALITY

The Vermont Supreme Court has ruledthat when a municipality fails to enforce anordinance that was adopted for the purpose ofprotecting the general public, an individualwho suffers damages as a result of the non-enforcement cannot bring a legal actionagainst the municipality. Lunenburg Fire Dist.No. 2 v. Maciejko, Vt. Entry Order No. 98-385 (Aug. 21, 2000).

The Maciejkos suffered property damagewhen water and sewage backed up in theirbasement as a result of a blockage in thesewage system operated by the Fire District.The case initially went to Small Claims Courtwhich held the Fire District liable for damageson the theory that it had a duty to maintainthe sewer system and that it breached thatduty, resulting in damage to the plaintiff.

The Superior Court heard the case andruled that there was insufficient evidence toprove that the lack of a maintenance plan wasthe direct or proximate cause of the damage.However, the Superior Court held that theFire District was still liable for damagesbecause it had failed to enforce its own sewageordinance. The ordinance required that theowner (landlord in this case) keep a cap inplace over the drain so that it could not backup. The landlord had been warned to do sobut had not complied and the District hadtaken no further steps to require him tocomply. Thus, the Court said, if the District

had enforced its ordinance, the backup intothe basement would not have occurred, even ifa blockage in the sewer occurred.

The Supreme Court considered the caseand found that the plaintiffs had no basis onwhich to bring this action. First, the commonlaw provides no basis for a private citizen tosue a municipality for failure to enforce itsordinances. Second, the pertinent statutes in24 V.S.A. Chapter 101 give no indication thatthe Legislature intended to create a basis forsuch action. (Editor’s note: Certain statutes dogrant citizens the ability to compel a municipal-ity to enforce bylaws. For example, a zoningadministrator who fails to enforce a zoningbylaw may be brought to court by a citizen andbe ordered by the court to enforce the law.)Third, the ordinance itself specifically statedthat its purpose was “the protection of thehealth and safety of Fire District No. 2 and ofthe general public….” Id. at 4 (internalquotes omitted). In other words, it did notcreate a duty to individuals or a mechanism bywhich individuals could bring such an action.

This decision is consistent with prior cases.For example, there was no private actionallowed based on failure to enforce a housingcode which was adopted for the good of thegeneral public. Corbin v. Buchanan, 163 Vt.141 (1994).

One lesson from this case is to draftordinances carefully so that they do not createsome liability for the municipality. However,an equally important lesson is that regularmaintenance and effective enforcement of theordinance might have prevented the blockageand subsequent, costly lawsuit.

(Continued from Page Five)LEGAL CORNER -

��

��


Promoting healthy lifestyles and safe work practices for Vermont’s municipal employees

A monthly column by the VLCT Property and Casualty Intermunicipal Fund (PACIF)

VLCT PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INTERMUNICIPALFUND, INC.

(VLCT PACIF)A GROUP SERVICES PROGRAM

89 Main Street, Suite 4Montpelier, VT 05602

1-800-649-7915 • 802-229-9111FAX 802-229-2211

ADVANTAGES:

• Financial Benefits• Risk Management• Loss Prevention• Local Control• Education

COVERAGES INCLUDE:

• Comprehensive General Liability• Property• Auto Liability• Auto Physical Damage• Workers’ Compensation• Boiler & Machinery• Law Enforcement Liability• Specialized Coverages• Public Officials’ Liability• Employment

Practices Liability• Public Officials’ Bonds

Meeting Vermont’s Municipal Insurance and Risk Management Needs


Accidents can happen at any municipality.Even in cities and towns with excellent safetyprograms, accidents may still occur. Manymunicipalities are unprepared when it comesto investigating an accident. But when anaccident happens at a well-prepared munici-pality, it is ready to learn from its mistake byusing a pre-planned and well-executedaccident investigation. Information gainedfrom an investigation will improve themunicipality’s safety program, and save thetime and money that further accidents wouldotherwise consume.

So how are accident investigations

DETERMINING THE “ROOT CAUSE”OF AN ACCIDENT

ASK WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY, HOW

conducted, and how can they be used today toprevent accidents from happening tomorrow?Follow these steps from VLCT’s RiskManagement Department to safety success,and remember, good interviewing skills andtechnique are important.

· What happened?�What was the employee doing?�What was the employee workingwith?�Type of accident - e.g., fall fromladder.�Type of injury - e.g., fracture.

�Part of body affected.

· Why did it happen?People�Was the right person selected for thejob?�Was the job suited to the person’sability?�Was the employee adequately trained?�Was attitude a factor?

Equipment�What equipment was used?�Was the proper equipment selected?�Was it used properly?�Was it properly maintained?

Material�What material was involved?�Was the proper material selected?�Was it placed properly?


ACCIDENT -(Continued from previous page)

�Was it handled properly?�Was it processed properly?

Environment�Proper lighting?�Too hot or cold?�Too much noise or vibration?�Did chemicals play a part?�Windy day?�Plant, animal or insects?

·What should be done?�Based on investigative results from“Why did it happen?”�How will such action improveoperations?�Seek to prevent accidents, then seekto prevent injuries.

Corrective action taken�Denote those corrections alreadyimplemented.�Results of investigative report shouldbe shared with employees at staff/safetymeetings.�Discussion of results should includesolving daily operation problems.�Develop an increased ability torecognize conditions that can causeaccidents in their early stages.�Treat each injury and incident asthough it produced a major injury ordamage.

·Ultimate goal�Reduce accidents, minimize injurythrough active loss prevention tech-niques and programs.

In June 2000, VLCT PACIF instituted twonew programs for its members. Don Stubbs,former Loss Prevention Manager for VLCTPACIF and now a seasonal consultant, spentthe summer and early fall months traveling toPACIF member municipalities to gather dataon municipal buildings. (See also “NewVLCT PACIF Program Commenced forMembers,” August, 2000 VLCT News.) Thedata were then entered into an appraisalprogram for municipally-owned buildings andwill be used to determine the replacement costin the event a building suffers damage or loss.The appraisal program is based on a commer-cial estimating computer program purchasedfrom Marshall & Swift, Los Angeles, Califor-nia. Stubbs also prepared a separate photoreport of all municipally-owned property toassist with property inventory and manage-ment.

NEW VLCT PACIF FIELD SERVICES

CONCLUDE FIRST SEASON36 MEMBERS VISITED

What is the difference between theappraisal and the photo report? Theappraisal applies to building replacement costonly, and does not include building contents.For example, if an existing building isdestroyed, the program estimates a value forits current replacement cost. Data must becollected for each municipally-owned buildingand entered into the computer program. Thetypes of data required are: type of construc-tion, ceiling height, square feet, perimeter,heating and cooling system information, typeof exterior, number of stories, sprinklersystems, fire alarms, number of elevators,basement finish, balconies, mezzanines,building use, and condition. Using thisinformation, the computer program estimatesthe average replacement cost for the particularbuilding based on zip codes. This programdoes not figure a market value for resale orproperty listing information - only replace-ment cost. Every six months, Marshall &Swift updates the replacement costs so theestimates remain current. Other propertysuch as covered bridges, gazebos, statutes, orother unique structures occasionally used bymunicipalities will not be included in theMarshall & Swift program because they donot meet the criteria required.

The photo report is separate from theMarshall & Swift commercial estimatingreport. A color photo of every municipally-owned property, including covered bridges,gazebos, statutes, monuments, shelters, as wellas those included in the Marshall & Swiftreport, will be taken. Detailed informationabout the photo will be included on a separatedocument identifying the name of the objectin the photo. In addition to some of theinformation included in the Marshall & Swiftestimator program, unique information aboutthe particular building or structure will beidentified. Some examples are size andlocation of gasoline, diesel, or propane fueltanks, whether or not the building is equippedwith an emergency generator, age of thebuilding or structure, unique characteristicssuch as bell towers, national historic recogni-tion, location of described property, anddetailed use of the building. Each building orstructure will be on a separate page of the

(Continued on Page Twelve)

PROPERTY APPRAISALAND GASB 34

Property value information beinggathered by the new VLCT PACIFappraisal program will be useful tomunicipalities at audit time. Under theGovernment Accounting Standards BoardRule 34 (GASB 34), municipalities haveto maintain a listing of fixed assets and arecord of the initial real cost of theseassets. New GASB 34 rules will requirethe fixed asset list to be included in acombined balance sheet, making theiraccuracy more important.

If initial real cost records are notavailable, and a municipality has beenunsuccessful in finding them, it may usethe replacement value list of its propertygenerated by the PACIF program. To doso, it must start with the fixed asset’sreplacement value and go back as far as isnecessary in consumer price index recordsto get an estimate of the initial real cost ofthe asset.

VLCT PACIF is pleased to becontributing to its member municipalities’accurate financial, as well as insurancerecord keeping!


(Continued from Page One)HEALTH TRUST -

to last year, when most indemnity plan ratesincreased by almost 16% and BlueCare Plusrates increased by more than 30%. They alsocontinue the Health Trust’s tradition oftracking below the average statewide increases.However, for most local government officialstrying to set their budgets for the coming year,10% rate increases and rising health insurancecosts in general continue to be a seriousfinancial problem.

For this reason, the VLCT Health TrustBoard of Directors began to work hard inearly August to negotiate the 2001 rateincreases noted above. The Board sought thelowest possible rate increases while at the sametime retaining the best plan benefit packagesavailable and remaining financially sound tocover 2001 claims. “Utilization of servicescontinues to be the number one factor drivinghigher claim costs year after year,” outgoingVLCT Group Services Director ThomasLoPizzo noted. “Prescription drug costs,” headded, “continue to take a larger bite out ofevery premium dollar collected by us on ourmembers’ behalf.”

Although the costs of medical services andprescription drugs are rising only moderately,it is the fact that more medical services andmore prescription drugs are being used that isdriving the health benefit plan rate increases.“There is a little good news,” LoPizzo said.“Although statewide utilization is going up,utilization by VLCT Health Trust membermunicipalities is tracking slightly lower.”

LoPizzo also announced that there will beno benefit changes for 2001. After extensivechanges last year to comply with newcoverages mandated by the state legislature,Health Trust plan benefits will remain thesame in 2001. On the near horizon, however,is a new and improved life and disabilityinsurance program. And for 2002, the HealthTrust is looking to replace Vermont FreedomPlan office visit maximums with office visitco-pays, and to replace its two-tiered prescrip-tion drug card rider with a new three-tieredplan. For more information about theseproposed changes, or any other Health Trustsponsored health benefits plan, please callSuzanne Schittina, Trust Marketing Represen-tative, or David Sichel, Director, GroupServices, at VLCT, tel. 800/649-7915.


PROPERTY APPRAISAL -(Continued from Page Ten)

report. A cost estimate will not be included inthe photo report.

Who benefits from the service? VLCTPACIF benefits by having a complete andaccurate inventory of each individual structurein the member municipality. Informationconcerning replacement costs for buildingswill help the PACIF staff assist members withadequate coverage for their property.

The individual member municipalitybenefits by having an inventory of all propertyunder its direction and control. VLCTPACIF will send a completed Marshall &Swift commercial estimator report, along witha completed photo report, to each member.

How does a PACIF member apply forthis service? Application is not required.VLCT PACIF is automatically extending thisfree service to every PACIF member. BetweenJune and October of this year, Don Stubbsvisited 36 members, collected information on372 buildings/structures and entered the datainto the program. Appraisal efforts began atthe southern border of the state and willcontinue north to Canada until completeinformation is obtained from every PACIFmember.

Progress was slow during this initialsummer while Stubbs familiarized himselfwith the Marshall & Swift program require-ments and finished up two other unrelatedprojects. Now that a total commitment to theappraisal program is possible, the project willgo faster when it resumes in 2001.

What does the appraisal program costthe member? There is no cost for theappraisal program or reports. This is anotherservice provided to VLCT PACIF members toassist them with sound risk management andcost control.

What should the member be prepared todo when visited by the PACIF staff? ThePACIF staff member will have a copy of thebuildings currently covered by PACIF. Beprepared to review that list with the staffmember and add or delete any property asappropriate.

Have good directions, a map or guide toeach property to minimize time spent“searching” for property. Be sure everybuilding is accessible so the PACIF staffmember can enter it to get the requiredinformation. Try to have informationavailable about size and location of oil tanks,year the building was built and use(s) of thebuilding.

The length of time a PACIF staff person

will have to spend in each municipality willdepend on the number and complexity ofbuildings to be appraised, difficulty inlocating buildings and availability of informa-tion concerning the building. There will be aminimum of interference to the municipalitywhile the staff person gathers the requiredinformation.

How will a PACIF member know whena PACIF staff person will visit? Letters willbe sent to each PACIF member announcingan approximate time a staff person will bevisiting them to gather information for theappraisal program. The most productive timefor PACIF staff to gather appraisal informa-tion is during the late spring to early fall.PACIF staff will resume the program again inJune 2001.

How long will it take to complete theprogram? The project will take several years.It is impossible to determine an exact datebecause it is difficult to project how manybuildings will have to be identified for theprogram. As is customary with VLCT PACIFprograms, we will focus on completeness andprecision in order to achieve a worthwhileprogram.

VLCT PACIF is pleased to offer thisservice to assist our members with their riskmanagement needs. For questions or

additional information, contact PatrickWilliams, Risk Management Services Man-ager, at VLCT PACIF, tel. 800/649-7915.

VLCT STAFF NOTESMichael Gilbar has accepted the

position of Director of AdministrativeServices and will begin work at the Leagueon December 18. Michael, who iscurrently Director of AdministrativeServices for the town of Hanover, NewHampshire, is filling the position vacatedlast month by Jana Bagwell. A profile ofMichael will appear in the DecemberVLCT News.

Molly Dugan, Associate, Legislativeand Information Services, and herhusband, Francis Churchill, became theproud parents of Eleanor Patrice DuganChurchill on November 7. Eleanorweighed 7 pds., 8 ozs. and was born at9:45 p.m., just about the time Floridaswung from Al Gore to George Bush –certainly an exciting time in our nation’shistory to be born! Eleanor joins her two-year old sister at home, where both girlswill keep Molly busy until her return towork in early February.


In the past several years, Congress hasdeveloped a penchant for passing laws thatpreempt local officials’ authority overmunicipal governmental issues. ThisCongressional session two bills were proposedthat would have limited local government’sability to administer and enforce local landuse, or zoning, bylaws. Both bills would haveextended more federal control over the alreadytricky question of when land use regulationsunfairly take away the rights of privateproperty owners. One bill passed and theother did not … for now.

“TAKINGS LEGISLATION” –ONE WIN, ONE LOSS IN

CONGRESSS. 1028 & “TAKINGS”

A priority of Senator Hatch, S. 1028, “TheCitizens Access to Justice Act” came very closeto passage in the U.S. Senate before itadjourned for the elections last month. Undercurrent law a property owner must make everyeffort to resolve land use disputes through thelocal public hearing, review and appealsprocess, including the state court, before goingto federal court. Under the provisions of S.1028, a property owner could bring his or her“takings” complaint directly to federal court,bypassing the state system completely. The

result of such a bill would be to significantlyincrease the costs of litigation in defense ofzoning decisions for local governments. Itwould take any opportunity for compromiseout of the hands of local officials. In addition,passage of S.1028 would make it much harderto put in place or uphold zoning bylaws thatprotect the community from the over-enthusiastic proposals of one well-financeddeveloper. “Takings” cases are often compli-cated and in the past they have been broughtagainst cities and towns around the countryfor a variety of reasons, including efforts toregulate illegal drug trafficking, nude dancing;and liquor licensing.

As S. 1028 headed to the Senate floorwithout any committee hearings or opportu-nity for discussion among senators, onlySenator Leahy stood in the way of its passage.With the urging of VLCT, he slowed downthe bill’s progress until legislators from otherstates began to express misgivings as well. Inthe end, S. 1028 was pulled, although SenatorHatch has made clear that he continues tobelieve passage of a bill wresting zoning lawfrom the local and state appeals process is apriority.

S. 2869 & LOCAL ZONINGIn other action, in late September,

President Clinton signed into law a similar billpertaining to religious institutions, S. 2869,the “Religious Land Use and InstitutionalizedPersons Act of 2000” (RLUIPA). This Actaccords special status to religious institutionsupon the assumption that zoning laws havediscriminated against religious institutions inthe past (a claim that was unsubstantiated in

WHY ZONING AND PLANNING?In the face of recent congressional action, and continued attacks on land use regulation

by private property rights advocates, a brief pep talk is needed. Municipal comprehensiveplans are an expression of a city, town or village’s vision for its future. Zoning bylaws arethe mechanism by which those visions are implemented on the ground. Without clearplans and specific zoning bylaws, municipalities have no recourse when a telecommunica-tions company announces its plans to put an enormous cell tower on the most visible peakin town, or a shopping center is proposed for the spot along the river that a town washoping to use for a park and walking trails. With zoning bylaws in place, a municipality isempowered to require that the cell tower does not extend above the tree tops; that it is farenough away from neighboring structures that it won’t fall on them; and that if theproposed site is inappropriate, another should be selected. Shopping centers can beredesigned to accommodate walking trails and to provide parking and bicycle racks forboth the park and the mall at the same time. In summary, the zoning and planning processis a good arena in which to reconcile the rights of private property owners with the health,safety and welfare needs of the general public.



the only comprehensive study of the issue byan independent researcher at the University ofArizona).

The RLUIPA prohibits any governmentfrom imposing or implementing any land useregulation in a manner that imposes asubstantial burden on a religious exercise of aperson, assembly or institution. “Substantialburden” is not defined and the prohibitionapplies to the implementation of land useregulations that make individualized assess-ments of a proposed property use.

The RLUIPA also states that no substantialburden shall be imposed on the religiousexercise of a person residing in an institution(even if the burden results from a rule ofgeneral applicability). The exception to thisrule is if the “burden” furthers a compellinggovernmental interest and is the leastrestrictive means of doing so. “Religiousexercise” is broadly construed, meaning anyexercise of religion, whether or not compelledby, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Vermont zoning and planning officialsshould be aware of this new federal law as theygo about the day-to-day administration oftheir bylaws.

CONGRESS -(Continued from previous page)

The Vermont Town and City ManagementAssociation (VTCMA) held its fall meeting inStratton on October 19 and 20. Theeducational agenda included an analysis offederal and state court decisions affecting localgovernments and requirements for municipalcompliance with VOSHA and the federalBureau of Mine Safety (if a town or city ownsa gravel pit). The Association’s annual awardswere also announced.

The VTCMA gives out two awardsannually. The Distinguished Service awardhonors someone who has served municipalgovernment exceptionally well over a career ora number of years. The Frances B. ElwellAward for Outstanding Achievement Awardhonors someone who has recently undertakenand completed a specific project or initiativeof significance in his or her community.

Paul McGinley received the award forDistinguished Service in recognition of acareer in town management that has servedmany Vermont towns in times of crisis. Paulwas manager in Barre Town for several yearsand after leaving he served as long and short

VTCMA ANNOUNCESANNUAL AWARDS

term interim manager in Rockingham/BellowsFalls, Shelburne and Northfield. In thoseplaces he provided stability and continuity asthe towns went through the processes ofdeciding their future direction and hiringpermanent managers. Additionally, McGinleyserved briefly as manager in Williston.

Phil Swanson, manager in the Town ofWoodstock, received the OutstandingAchievement award for his service to thetown, and particularly for his directing itsfireworks displays over the past few years. Philhas been manager in Woodstock for 15 years.

The VTCMA is a membership organiza-tion created in 1977 to “increase the knowledgeand ability of local government managers, andto promote increased professional management ofVermont municipalities.” Eligible members arepersons appointed town or city manager, chiefadministrator, assistant town or city manageror administrative assistant to a town or citymanager, or who hold a similar position inany municipality. VTCMA is affiliated withthe International City Management Associa-tion (ICMA).

IN THE MAILFROM VLCT

2000 – 2001 MUNICIPALSALARIES & BENEFITS REPORTMunicipalities that responded to

VLCT’s 2000 – 2001 salary and benefitsurvey will receive their copy of the finalreport by the end of this month. One freecopy of the report was sent to the clerk orclerk/treasurer, mayor and manager in eachof the responding towns, cities or villages.

The report contains information on237 municipalities and is divided intoseparate sections for larger and smallercommunities. The survey had an excellentresponse rate of 87% from VLCT membermunicipalities. The extensive informationcontained in the report should be useful tomunicipalities preparing their 2001budgets.

Municipalities that did not respond tothe survey must pay for the report; the costis $50. Additional copies for respondingtowns are also available from VLCT.Please call Niki White, tel. 800/649-7915,for ordering information.


STORMWATERMANAGEMENT

RESOURCES AVAILABLEMEETING DECEMBER 12, 2000

The Vermont Agency of Natural Re-sources, Department of EnvironmentalConservation, is in the process of developingstormwater management rules pursuant tolegislation passed by the 2000 GeneralAssembly. The Department is posting interiminformation and resources for public viewingas it develops scientific data and a handbookof acceptable management practices throughthe fall. This material is located on theAgency’s web site, http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/stormwater.htm.

There will also be a meeting on December12, 2000, from 1 – 4 p.m. at the PavilionAuditorium for people who wish to reviewand comment on a draft Technical SupportDocument prepared by the Department. Thedocument is available on the web sitementioned above. For more informationabout the meeting or the draft document,contact Karen Horn, VLCT Director,Membership and Legislative Services, tel. 800/649-7915; e-mail, [email protected].

The National Civic League and AllstateInsurance Company announced recently thatthe application for the year 2001 All-AmericaCity Award is available online.

For over 50 years, the All-America CityAward has encouraged and recognized civicexcellence, honoring communities of all sizesin which citizens, government, businesses and

ALL-AMERICA CITY AWARDAPPLICATIONS

NOW AVAILABLE ON-LINE

voluntary organizations work together toaddress critical local issues. Since 1949, nearly500 communities have earned the All-AmericaCity designation.

For more information about the All-America City Award, contact Sharon Hartmanat the National Civic League at 303/571-4343, or email [email protected]. To applyfor the award visit www.ncl.org/NCL/aacapp.htm. The deadline to apply is March29, 2001.

The National Civic League is a 106-year-old non-profit, non-partisan organizationdedicated to strengthening citizen democracyby transforming democratic institutions. TheNCL accomplishes its mission throughtechnical assistance, training, publishing,research, and the All-America City Awards.The National Civic League is headquarteredin Denver, Colorado and also has an office inWashington, D.C. The Allstate InsuranceCompany has been the sole sponsor of the All-America City Awards since 1988. AllstateInsurance Company is the nation’s largestpublicly-held personal lines insurancecompany, insuring one of every eight homesand automobiles in the country.

GREENBACKS FORGREENWAYS

RECREATION TRAIL GRANTSPROGRAM

The Vermont Recreation Trails GrantProgram is seeking proposals from municipali-ties for recreation trail grants under the 2001-2002 round of funding. The Department ofForests, Parks & Recreation expects approxi-mately $500,000 in matching funds to beavailable from a combination of federal andstate funds. Both funds require a minimum20% sponsor match for projects, except forMini Grants which require no local match.

Up to $3,000 of available funds will be setaside for the Mini Grant option. Mini Grantsof up to $500 are available at 100% of projectcosts.

The Recreation Trails Grant Programprovides matching grants for a variety of trailrelated expenses. Applications must bereceived by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, February 2,2001. For more information on this pro-gram, contact Laurie Adams, VermontDepartment of Forests, Parks & Recreation,103 South Main Street, Bldg. 10 South,Waterbury, VT 05671-0604, tel. 802/241-3690. e-mail, [email protected].

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/stormwater.htm

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/stormwater.htm



http://www.ncl.org/NCL/aacapp.htm

http://www.ncl.org/NCL/aacapp.htm



Workshop for Collectors of DelinquentTaxes. Thursday, November 30, 2000,Steakhouse Restaurant, Berlin. Sponsored bythe VLCT Municipal Law Center, this day-long workshop offers sessions on delinquenttax collection basics, conflict management,legal issues and a roundtable discussion.There will also be a brief report from thePresident of the Collector of Delinquent TaxesAssociation. For more information about theworkshop, contact Jessica Hill, VLCTConference Coordinator, tel. 800/649-7915;e-mail, [email protected].

Vermont Recreation and Park Associa-tion: Budgeting Challenges. Friday,December 1, 2000, Three Stallion Inn,Randolph. The winter quarterly meeting ofthe VRPA features an educational program onbudget management skills. For moreinformation contact VRPA Executive DirectorGeorge Plumb, tel. 802/883-2313; e-mail,[email protected].

Workshop for Constables. Thursday,December 14, 2000, Lobster Pot Restaurant,Berlin. Sponsored by the VLCT MunicipalLaw Center, this annual workshop providescontinuing education and training forconstables. Sessions will cover liability issues,making an arrest stand up in court, aroundtable discussion, a Constable Associa-tion update and a review of the new UnderageDrinking Law. For more information aboutthe workshop, contact Jessica Hill, VLCTConference Coordinator, tel. 800/649-7915;e-mail, [email protected].

Part-time Basic Phase I TrainingAcademy. January 28 & 29 and February 3& 4, 10 & 11, 2001, Vermont PoliceAcademy, Pittsford. The Vermont PoliceAcademy is offering a three-weekend series oflaw enforcement trainings for Provisional Part-time Certification. For more informationabout the trainings, contact the PoliceAcademy at 802/483-6228.

HELP WANTEDDirector of Parks and Recreation. Town

of Killington, Vermont. Resort municipalitydesires highly motivated professional forprogressive full-service department. Competi-tive salary (range low to mid $30’s) dependingupon qualifications, plus excellent benefits.Desire degree in Recreation and municipalrecreation high level administrative experi-ence. Ability to work independently,administer and supervise the Town’s recre-ational facilities as well as plan and coordinateprograms and activities. Submit resume,including present salary, by January 15, 2001,to David W. Lewis, Town Manager, P.O. Box429, Killington, VT 05751, tel., 802/422-3241.

FOR SALEIncinerator. Combustall Model 800 Solid

Waste Incinerator. Best offer to purchase andremove from site. For more information,please call the Stamford Town Office, tel. 802/694-1361.

VLCT NEWS CLASSIFIEDADVERTISING POLICY

The VLCT News welcomes classified advertisements frommunicipal entities, public agencies, businesses and individuals. Thisservice is free for VLCT members (regular, contributing andassociate); the non-member rate is $37.00 per ad. Ads are generallylimited to 150 words and are accepted in the following categories:Articles for Sale, Help Wanted, Situations Wanted and Services.

The VLCT News is published every month and usually reachesreaders by the third week of the month. Ads are also placed on theVLCT web site as soon as they are received.

The copy deadline for advertisements is the first Friday of themonth for that month’s issue.However, space is occasionallyavailable for late additions. Pleasefeel free to check with the editor foravailability.

For more information onclassified and display advertising inthe VLCT News, please contactKatherine Roe, Editor, VLCT News,89 Main Street, Suite 4, Montpelier,VT 05602, tel. 800/649-7915, fax802/229-2211, [email protected].

&






89 Main Street, Suite 4Montpelier, VT 05602-2948

PRSRT STDU.S. Postage

PAIDMontpelier, VTPermit No. 358

trengthening overnment d s n vlct d

Documents