All together now … Waterbury convenes first in-person Town Meeting in three years
March 13, 2023 | By Lisa ScagliottiWaterbury voters and town officials dusted off the cobwebs and put on their first in-person town meeting in three years that featured some spirited debate, but ultimately ended with all questions being approved on voice votes without any changes.
Town officials at the start of Town Meeting at Brookside Primary School, left to right: Moderator Jeff Kilgore, Town Clerk and Treasurer Karen Petrovic, Municipal Manager Tom Leitz, Select Board Chair Mike Bard, Select Board members Roger Clapp, Chris Viens, Alyssa Johnson. Photo by Lisa Scagliotti
Somewhere between 100 and 150 voters were in attendance for the Town Meeting Day ritual held in the gym at Brookside Primary School on Tuesday. The last in-person Town Meeting Waterbury and most Vermont towns held were in 2020 shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic put an end to large gatherings for more than two years.
There was a report from the town’s state representatives to the Legislature, a salute to the former municipal manager now seated in the audience, a couple of attempts to alter the proposed town budget (spoiler: they failed), and the start of a community conversation about how future town meetings may be held to potentially involve more citizens.
Most took seats in folding chairs and in the bleachers; some came and left as the meeting progressed, lasting nearly three and a half hours after convening at 9 a.m.
Those speaking got gentle reminders from Moderator Jeff Kilgore on the stage to get “embarrassingly close” to the microphones so those in the back could hear. During it all, additional voters came and went from the polling stations set up across the gym, casting ballots and leaving after taking just a few minutes to do their civic duty.
Just some cookies left as Char Sugai and Donna Barr from the Waterbury Area Senior Center finish serving lunch in the Brookside cafeteria during Town Meeting. Photo by Lisa Scagliotti
Outside of the gym, there was activity on two levels of the school as Girl Scouts with a supply of this year’s cookies staffed a sale table near the front entry. Nearby on another table, voters left boxed and bagged donations of food for the Waterbury Area Food Shelf.
Downstairs in the kitchen, staff from the Waterbury Area Senior Center put out a lunch spread with chili, cornbread and cookies with a donation jar on the counter. A wellness fair with booths from an array of community organizations spread out around the cafeteria as well.
Manager handoff complete
Before getting to the articles on the warning, Kilgore asked the crowd if anyone objected to new Municipal Manager Tom Leitz speaking to the various issues during the meeting. This was the first Waterbury Town Meeting for Leitz, who officially began his new role on Jan. 1. He lives in Cambridge and technically, a non-resident of the town cannot address Town Meeting without permission.
After a half-second of suspense following Kilgore’s question, no one objected.
In the audience for the first time was former Municipal Manager Bill Shepeluk, seated next to his wife Ingrid. When he addressed the gathering, state Rep. Tom Stevens, D-Waterbury, remarked on the transition and also acknowledged former Town Clerk Carla Lawrence seated in the bleachers beside her wife Polly. “It looks funny to see them in the audience,” Stevens quipped.
“It feels funny, too,” Shepeluk shot back, getting a laugh from the crowd.
Multiple transitions were apparent as new Town Clerk Karen Petrovic sat beside Leitz on the stage. Even Kilgore announced that this was his 20th year as moderator and he does not plan to continue the role after this year.
Up first from the floor were Stevens and fellow state Rep. Theresa Wood, D-Waterbury, to offer summaries of their activity at the State House so far this session. Wood is chair of the House Committee on Human Services and Stevens chairs the House General and Housing Committee.
Wood said her committee’s to-do list includes bills to update protective services, address homelessness, update Medicaid rates, improve child care and more. The committee’s purview is legislation that affects people “from birth to death,” she said.
The mid-session deadline for bills to move from the House to the Senate and vice versa is approaching, she noted, so the coming days would be busy.
Before discussing his committee’s work, Stevens remarked on how good it felt to see so many community members gathered. He reflected on the COVID-19 pandemic that suspended in-person Town Meeting Day since 2020.
“Three years ago, there was a pandemic happening someplace else. There was no handbook on how to handle it, what to do,” he said. “But government continued. We were on Zoom for two years. We were not in the State House for 22 months.”
Some adjustments due to the pandemic have become routine, he noted. “Zoom has opened up government. People can testify from every corner of the state without having to travel to Montpelier, and it’s broadcast every day on YouTube,” Stevens said. “It’s really like watching paint dry, but at least it’s out there. Now we’re incredibly visible.”
Stevens explained that much of his committee’s focus this year is on housing given the statewide shortage of affordable housing exacerbated during the pandemic. The state by the end of this year will have directed nearly a half billion dollars to fund construction of new housing, he said.
His committee also has passed a bill to create a paid family leave law that would allow people to take paid time off from work to care for family members and create an insurance program to fund it. The measure still has multiple steps to clear before it would land on the governor’s desk, he noted.
Wood and Stevens also shared the resolution the Legislature recently adopted honoring Shepeluk. Stevens read it aloud and P. Howard “Skip” Flanders was sure to get a photo for the Waterbury Historical Society.
Ingrid and Bill Shepeluk with state Reps. Tom Stevens and Theresa Wood and the legislative resolution honoring Bill Shepeluk for his years as Waterbury’s town manager. Photo by Lisa Scagliotti
Votes begin
All of the votes during the meeting were decisive voice votes. None needed a show of hands.
Several articles were approved quickly:
Articles 5 and 6 asked to extend the terms of the town clerk and treasurer from one year to three years. Select Board members Mike Bard and Chris Viens introduced them as a way to simplify the workload for the clerk and treasurer (often the same individual) to not have to go through the process of running for office every year as they also oversee elections. Shepeluk cautioned that a clerk or treasurer could not be removed from office outside of an election, although the Select Board could cut the pay and benefits for the positions. Nonetheless, the measures passed easily.
Article 8 set the compensation for town officers: $1,450 for the chair and vice chair each of the Select Board; $1,200 each for the other three Select Board members; $500 each for listers.
Article 9 set July 1 as the date to set the tax warrant and the two dates for property tax payments to be due at the town offices: by 4:30 p.m. on Aug. 11 and Nov. 3. There was discussion cautioning residents to ensure their payments arrive on time by not mailing too close to the deadline; also that electronic payments are possible by credit card (with a fee) or by bank transfer (free).
The town Annual Report is online at waterburyvt.com and paper copies are still available at the town offices. Photo by Lisa Scagliotti
Article 7 brought some discussion when Kilgore asked if anyone had questions about anything in the Annual Report. Resident Tom Gloor asked if there’s still a plan to merge the Edward Farrar Utility District into town government – something district and town officials discussed in 2022, but plans have not moved forward.
Leitz, who is manager for both the town government and the utility district, said that overall, the district is financially healthy, but the sewer fund is in the red by about $500,000. He said he believes EFUD needs to deal with that shortfall which will require a rate increase before the town would be interested in merging.
Leitz noted that the district’s board recently adopted a loan policy for a community development loan fund it oversees that now allows for it to consider applications from businesses throughout the municipality. It previously only applied to businesses located in the utility district which aligns with the former Waterbury village municipality. “So it’s essentially a town loan fund now,” he said.
Details in the budget
The discussion of the proposed town budget in Article 10 received the most discussion. It included a presentation by Leitz where he explained how the 2023 proposed budget continues services from 2022 at the same levels with no significant staffing changes, although it does include pay increases for town staff to retain employees.
He shared an anecdote of a recent attempt to hire a job candidate employed by another municipality making $26-27 per hour. The Waterbury offer was higher, Leitz said. “The other town came back with $40 per hour. All we could do was congratulate him.”
Leitz said state payments to the town in lieu of property taxes for state-owned property continue and the town can likely rely on that revenue continuing as it is funded by the portion of local option taxes that the state collects from communities that add to their sales taxes. At least five more Vermont municipalities were looking to add such taxes this year, he said. The budget anticipates $360,000 in what’s called “PILOT” state revenue.
The town currently is in the last year of its second three-year contract with the Vermont State Police for local police coverage. Leitz said a new contract would be negotiated soon and he hoped the state would like to continue the arrangement.
Another public safety item that will see an increase this year and likely will require more in the next few years is Waterbury Ambulance Service, Leitz said. The nonprofit agency sets its fees on a per-capita basis and that is increasing by $4 this year. Leitz said that needs to grow by another $6, so increases are expected in 2024 and 2025. The ambulance service also currently credits the town for use of its station on Guptil Road. It plans to build and own a new station on Rt. 100. After the move, Leitz said the town’s $30,000 annual credit. Bottom line: ambulance fees likely will grow by $50,000 a year in the coming years.
Justices of the Peace John Bauer and Liz Schlegel, who chairs the Board of Civil Authority, listen to the meeting discussion while waiting to check in voters coming in to cast ballots. Photo by Lisa Scagliotti
Focus on ARPA funds
The first comment on the town budget came from Cheryl Gloor saying she was unhappy to see allocations of federal American Rescue Plan Act funds included as line items in the budget and not individual articles for voters to consider.
Leitz shared that the Select Board “wrestled with” how to handle the ARPA spending choices in the budget. “They spent a couple hours debating how to be transparent,” he said.
Ultimately, he said, the board decided to list those choices as line items given that they were guided by priorities that emerged from a public survey that received over 500 responses – “direct feedback from you,” he said to the audience. The survey indicated strong support for spending on infrastructure, he noted.
The 2023 budget contains $991,000 in ARPA allocations of the $1.54 million the town has received. Coupled with funds allocated in 2022, that will leave just over $300,000 to decide before the end of next year, Leitz said.
He ticked off the uses for ARPA funds in the 2023 budget: $435,000 to refurbish two bridges over Thatcher Brook on Guptil Road and Armory Drive; $200,000 for a townwide property reappraisal; $150,000 to the Edward Farrar Utility District to help make up for customer fees it waived during the pandemic; $100,000 to Downstreet Housing and Community Development for construction of affordable housing at 51 S. Main Street; $76,000 for Waterbury Ambulance Service’s new ambulance station; $30,000 for work on town gravel roads.
The two challenges from the floor to the budget involved ARPA funds – one request to add an allocation, and another to cut one in half.
Linda Gravell who is an elected Justice of the Peace is also the town’s delegate to CVFiber, the regional municipality formed to expand broadband internet service in Central Vermont. She made a request to amend the budget to add in $50,000 of ARPA funds for CVFiber.
Waterbury’s CVFiber delegates Linda Gravell and Christopher Shenk address the meeting. Photo by Lisa Scagliotti
The sum would have doubled the town’s allocation after the Select Board last year gave the same amount to CVFiber at Gravell’s request. CVFiber cannot accept local tax dollars, she explained, and the federal funds could be matched dollar-for-dollar with a grant the organization can access.
Gravell and alternate CVFiber Delegate Christopher Shenk explained how CVFiber plans to target under- and un-served properties in its 20 member towns and to eventually offer low-cost, “lightning-fast” internet service. Grant funding and ARPA funds would be used to pay for connections with customers ultimately paying for the service they receive, she said.
Select Board Chair Mike Bard said the board considered the additional allocation and decided against it, saying members felt other infrastructure projects would warrant using the federal windfall dollars.
“Broadband is infrastructure,” Gravell said, comparing it to the rollout a century ago of electrical power. “It took 40 years to get [electricity] to rural Vermont. We are in the same situation with broadband, but we think we can do it in three years.”
The request failed on a voice vote.
Next, Cheryl Gloor used the same rationale – the need to spend ARPA money on infrastructure – to call for a reduction in the $100,000 designated to Downstreet for the 51 S. Main St. affordable housing construction, cutting it to $50,000.
Bard defended the allocation saying that housing is a top priority alongside infrastructure. “We want to support affordable housing. We heard loud and clear that people in the community want to see more affordable housing,” he said.
Cheryl Gloor addresses the meeting. Photo by Lisa Scagliotti
Leitz noted that the cost estimate for the Downstreet project to build 26 apartments on the site of the former municipal offices is $13 million. “Our $100,000 is a small token,” Bard said.
“This is less than 1% of the buildout cost,” added board member Roger Clapp. “We saw a tremendous outpouring of support for this effort,” he continued referring to the meeting last fall of EFUD voters who voted overwhelmingly to support selling the property to Downstreet.
The allocation also carries a requirement that it is used only for construction, not preliminary design or permitting expenses, the officials said.
Select Board member Alyssa Johnson pointed out that she currently rents but would “someday hope to own a home in this community.” She explained that competition among housing proposals around the state for financing is tight. Having community financial support would benefit Downstreet’s chances to make the project happen, she said.
Several community members spoke in favor of keeping the $100,000 allocation. “If people can’t afford to live here, they can’t afford to work here, businesses will shut down,” MK Monley said.
Liz Schlegel, also a Justice of the Peace, said she knows that dozens of people would like to live in Waterbury if they could find an affordable place to live. “Let’s invest these scarce resources into one of our highest priorities,” she said. “We need to put our money where our mouth is.”
Moderator Jeff Kilgore and Town Clerk Karen Petrovic strain to hear a speaker at the floor microphone. Photo by Lisa Scagliotti
Gloor’s request got support from Lisa Walton who questioned whether local workers would actually rent the new apartments. “Just because we have an agency like Downstreet, it does not guarantee there will be housing for people who are actually working and have a job.”
Bard and Johnson strongly disagreed, saying that Downstreet would need to follow rental regulations and that tenants would need to demonstrate that they have income to pay the rent.
Shepeluk joined the discussion to oppose Gloor’s request saying, “It’s important to remember, everyone deserves housing.” Tenants may be working-class individuals or even retirees who don’t have a regular job, he pointed out.
The current market’s supply and demand are out of balance, Shepeluk said. Adding 26 new units won’t solve Waterbury’s need but “it will shuffle the deck some,” he said. “Buiding more units is what’s needed. This is one way to do it.”
The request to reduce the ARPA allocation to Downstreet failed on a voice vote.
Budget articles win support
After these two items were settled, a vote on the budget received unanimous approval. Those in attendance approved $3,946,387 for the general budget, $2,532,112 for the highway budget, $561,191 for the library budget and a tax rate of up to 54.5 cents per $100 assessed property value to support this year’s spending. The tax rate will be set this summer. The budget article also authorized using $1.15 million from reserve accounts that will not involve new tax dollars.
Overall, the $7 million budget represents an increase of 5.8% over the 2022 budget of $6.7 million.
Article 11 covering capital budget allocations also was approved on a voice vote. That contains spending for items financed over multiple years such as equipment, vehicles, paving, sidewalks and roads, and building improvements. Among the expenses using tax dollars are $140,000 for a one-ton truck, $95,000 for a mini excavator, and $85,000 for new Fire Department equipment to fill breathing gear used by firefighters. Another $405,000 for paving is listed, the same amount as in 2022.
“I hope to be here a year from now with an expanded budget for paving,” Leitz said.
The capital budget also has $45,000 to explore a possible stone and gravel quarry site on Sweet Road and $12,000 to assess the condition and maintenance, etc. of the town swimming pool.
Voters approved a total of $1,736,105 for the combined capital allocations.
Articles 12 through 20 contained requests from 25 nonprofit organizations for tax dollar contributions. All were approved on voice votes for a total of $39,357 added to the budget.
Town Meeting format discussion
With all of the official business completed, the discussion turned to the last item on the warning to discuss the format of Town Meeting and possible alternatives for the future.
The past two years during the pandemic, Waterbury like many Vermont communities relied solely on deciding all town elections and Town Meeting business by paper ballots. No traditional in-person meetings were where voting is done by just those in attendance.
Turnout for the past two years was nearly 24% of registered voters in 2021 and just under 25% in 2022, according to town election results. That compares with 17.7% in 2017, 13.6% in 2018 and 13.9% in 2019. All of the turnout figures come from Australian Ballot voter participation. In the pre-pandemic years and this year, however, only elections were decided on paper ballots. In 2021-2022, voters decided all business including town budget questions by Australian ballot.
(As it turned out this Town Meeting Day, Waterbury’s Australian ballot turnout was 14.9%.)
Select Board member Alyssa Johnson began the discussion, explaining that it was intended to solicit public opinion. No vote was to happen to alter Town Meeting format yet. That would need to be warned and decided at a future in-person meeting, according to state law.
Not surprisingly, most who spoke favored keeping the in-person format for Town Meeting in some way, although various suggestions for modifying it were offered.
Katya d’Angelo comments while other speakers John Malter (seated front row) and Matt Abair (standing) listen in the audience. Photo by Lisa Scagliotti
John Malter spoke first pointing out that most town residents were not at Town Meeting. “I would really like to figure out a hybrid system, perhaps an evening meeting – the next day having the opportunity to vote by Australian ballot – to try to get as many people involved as possible,” he said.
Given how the discussions went earlier in the current meeting, Charlie Sayah said he would oppose voting by ballot exclusively. “Two people proposed amendments [today]. It’s a valuable thing to be able to do that,” he said, suggesting that it may be worth holding a meeting at a different time such as an evening or weekend to gauge participation.
Anne Imhoff agreed. “It’s important that people be present and can speak their minds,” she said.
Katya d’Angelo said that after seven years, this was the first time she’d been able to attend Town Meeting because of work. “It feels crappy when you can’t participate,” she said, adding that meeting and voting in person on a weekday morning excludes many people for many reasons such as work, child care, mobility issues, etc. “You’re leaving out huge swaths of people,” she said. “We need to think about the requirement of voting in person very seriously.”
Shepeluk weighed in saying it’s unclear whether tinkering with the Town Meeting format will result in more people participating or just different people taking part. In 34 years as Waterbury’s municipal manager, Shepeluk said Town Meeting Day “was my favorite day of the year.” But having studied research on Vermont Town Meeting Day by UVM professor and expert Frank Bryan, he suggested that meeting at a different time might result in “fewer gray heads” in the crowd and more people with young children. “If you have it on a Saturday you’d get everyone who doesn’t want to go skiing,” he offered. “These are just choices we make.”
One of those younger voters, Ariel Mondlak, said she took Bryan’s class at UVM but she thinks it’s worth investigating a hybrid solution. “I guess most of us who are here are retired or have flexible work schedules,” she said, putting herself in the latter category. The increase in turnout the past two years when everything was on Australian ballot is significant, she said.
The key to voting all questions by Australian ballot, Shepeluk said, would be to have a meeting where public input could be incorporated before the ballots are finalized. (Duxbury changed its Town Meeting process this year to do just that.) A mere informational meeting before voting would not be the same, Shepeluk said, pointing to his experience just the night before attending the Harwood Unidifed Union School District’s annual meeting. Some district business was decided in person, and a presentation was made on the budget that voters would decide by ballot the following day. Aside from school board members though, Shepeluk said he was the only member of the public attending in person to inquire about the district’s $45 million budget.
“You might as well forget an informational meeting before an Australian ballot vote. It doesn’t work. People don’t attend,” he said, looking around at the seated crowd. “I think that losing this would be sad.”
The debate aspect of a meeting is important, Matt Abair agreed. “Two articles today got some really good debate. You’re not going to get that with Australian ballot. The floor meeting is an important part of the process.” He suggested integrating Zoom or a weekend time as options.
Others spoke in favor of continuing Town Meeting just as it is. Lisa Walton said she values the sense of community a meeting offers.
Post-meeting spotted in the Brookside school lobby: Food donations to the Waterbury Food Shelf and someone’s forgotten town report, hiking guide and oatmeal raisin cookie. Photo by Lisa Scagliotti
Michael Frank agreed. “If something is really, really important, people come out,” he said, recalling past town meetings with important issues that attracted larger crowds. “I love being part of this in Waterbury. We should continue it.”
Bard was last to speak, saying he recognizes the shortfalls of both in-person and paper ballot voting. However, he would like to preserve the opportunity for debate such as what had transpired earlier. “That’s what Town Meeting is all about,” he said.
He closed by thanking all for coming. “This is a start. We wanted this to be a discussion,” he said. “It’s an important conversation. It will continue.”