Waterbury’s proposed charter gets a first look at the State House
February 3, 2024 | By Lisa ScagliottiMONTPELIER – Waterbury’s proposed town charter that voters approved in December is on its way through the legislative process at the State House after its first hearing this week in a House committee.
The House Government Operations Committee discusses Waterbury’s proposed charter in bill H. 801 on Feb. 1. Municipal Manager Tom Leitz (bottom center) testifies. Screenshot
The House Government Operations Committee reviewed the bill, H.801, that would establish a short, specific charter for Waterbury enabling town government to levy local option sales taxes. A second provision in the draft addresses town staff management giving the municipal manager the authority to hire all staff and to delegate some responsibilities for hiring and firing to department heads.
The measure was created last year primarily as a way for the municipality to gain the authority to raise revenue from several sales taxes in addition to the property tax. It calls for allowing the town establish a 1% local tax on local sales, rooms, meals, and alcoholic beverages.
The personnel items were added as housekeeping measures to streamline processes away from relying on volunteer boards to interview and hire some town staff positions such as planning and zoning directors.
A special election was held on Dec. 5 and voters approved the charter proposal 162-75, with 68% in favor; the personnel question passed by an even larger margin, 195-40, with 83% supporting it. The turnout of 237 voters was light – 5.4% of the town’s registered voters – a third of the turnout last March on Town Meeting Day.
Any matters pertaining to creating or amending charters for Vermont cities and towns must receive legislative review and approval and then the governor’s signature. The December vote was held so that this request could be put before lawmakers early in the current session that began a month ago.
Waterbury’s state Reps. Theresa Wood and Tom Stevens attended Thursday’s meeting along with Municipal Manager Tom Leitz.
Committee Chair Rep. Michael McCarthy, D-St. Albans City, commented that Leitz is missed in St. Albans where he previously worked as the city’s director of administration before accepting the town manager position in Waterbury in late 2022. Leitz succeeded longtime Waterbury Town Manager Bill Shepeluk who retired at the end of 2022.
“I’m a little bit mad at Waterbury for stealing Tom who used to be our finance guru in the city of St. Albans,” McCarthy quipped. “You are all lucky to have him.”
Wood thanked the committee for taking up the Waterbury charter request so quickly. She pointed out that it is a bill to create and not revise a charter. “Waterbury is one of those communities that’s never had a charter,” she said.
Attending via Zoom, Stevens clarified that this request creates a very specific charter for the town of Waterbury, but that Waterbury Village had a charter which was dissolved in 2017. Operations of the municipal water and wastewater departments from that process remained separate and were organized under a new charter at that time, forming the Edward Farrar Utility District, Stevens noted.
Committee members had few questions on the matter. “What was the conversation like around the local option tax? Was it a pretty robust debate?” McCarthy asked.
Wood said past debate around local option taxes did not elicit strong support, but last year’s discussion was different as town leadership has changed and businesses recognize local option taxes to be common in many communities around Vermont.
“Waterbury has really transformed itself over the last 15 years or so, particularly since Tropical Storm Irene,” Wood said. “It really has become a destination point for folks in the tourism industry. We have a big foodie mecca in Waterbury that’s continuing to grow.”
After Irene, Wood related, the local economic development organization Revitalizing Waterbury did a survey with local businesses that tracked zip code information from patrons. “We learned that a very high percentage of people who actually would be paying this tax are people from out of state, out of region, and it would not be as detrimental to local individuals as what people might have thought,” she said. “It’s also become more the norm for communities that have a high tourism base…. It really met with very little opposition. It wasn’t anything like a merger vote. People saw it as a win-win for our community.”
Stevens agreed, commenting on the local hearing he also attended. “The amount of support at the public hearing was pleasantly different than these policies have seen in the past,” he said, adding that the request to modernize the personnel procedures drew no objections as well.
Leitz noted that hearings before the vote were not controversial. “At the public hearings, we did not have a single business in Waterbury oppose the tax,” he said.
Leitz also explained how the personnel language would streamline staffing decisions so that select board and planning commission members are not involved in hiring staff. Delegating some responsibilities to department heads would also minimize the situations where citizen boards are called upon to take part in staffing matters, he noted.
A short discussion with the committee’s legislative counsel brought up minor wording revisions needed before a committee vote. Those would likely be made soon with the committee putting H.801 on its calendar for a vote next week.
The bill next would go to the House Ways and Means Committee which has authority over revenue-generating legislation, and then to a vote by the full House. The Senate would then get the bill and a similar process would take place in that body before it is sent to Gov. Phil Scott for a signature.