Without Inquiry, Selectboard Approves Use Of 'Designated' Funds For Non-designated Purpose

When can designated funds be used for non-designated purposes? To my consternation, no public official gave the question much thought, at least publicly at the [Norwich, VT] Selectboard meeting on November 20, as seen on CATV.  I was hoping for somewhat better oversight of taxpayer money.

Police Chief Frank at Norwich Selectboard meeting on November 20. Source: CATV screen shot.

At the meeting, Police Chief Jennifer Frank made a compelling case for the Police Department to purchase new computers for the station and for the four police cruisers, without waiting for the next budget cycle.

The expense is not the issue, but rather the funding source. The Police Chief sought, and the Selectboard okayed, funding for the purchase from the remaining balance in the "Communication Study Designated Fund", about $16,000. Not a peep from any Selectboard member, Treasurer, or Town Manager about whether this was an appropriate use of that Designated Fund.
Residents may recall that the Communication Study Designated Fund was established to study options for building the emergency communication tower. After the tower was built, a balance of over $28,000 remained in Communication Study Fund.  At Town Meeting in 2018, voters approved using the balance in that fund to pay down bond debt regarding the tower.

Excerpt from Minutes of the Annual Meeting, March 5, 2018 Town of Norwich, Vermont, 2018 Norwich Town Report at I-6.

I wish a town official had asked these three questions at the November 20 Selectboard meeting, even if just to keep the public informed.

1. Isn't voter approval required to use 'designated' funds for non-designated purposes? The Selectboard thought so in 2018. Then, the Board asked voters for approval to use the Communication Study Designated Fund to pay bond debt. See Article 10 above. Three Selectboard members as well as the current Town Manager held office at the time the Article was placed on the ballot. Prior practice in Norwich is to the same effect. Voter approval was sought at Town Meeting in 2009 to move money from the Fire Training Facility Designated Fund to the Tracy Hall Designated Fund. See 2009 Town Report at I-5 (Minutes of Annual Meeting). I don't know the answer to this question but past practice indicates voter approval is the preferred course. I also don't know if the Selectboard even considered the issue before approving the Police Chief's request.
2. Why not use money in designated funds earmarked for the police department? The Town has at least three designated funds set aside for police department expenditures. According to information in the Selectboard packet for that meeting, they are (and the balances in each): Police Cruiser ($80,754), Police Special Equipment ($12,385), and Police Station ($10,630). No Selectboard member asked why those designated funds were not being used to fund these police department purchases.
3. Isn't the money in the Communication Study Fund already spoken for? As noted in Article 10, voters approved the speeding of "any remaining" funds in the Communication Study Designated Fund to "reduce" Communication Tower Bond debt. Apparently, that debt has not yet been retired. A preliminary iteration of next year's proposed budget has $30,738 allocated for "DEBT SERVICE ON TOWER BOND". If the debt is outstanding, it would seem the voter mandate is not satisfied.

Questions 1 and 3 go to the legitimacy of the Selectboard approval. Perhaps the Board will address the topics at its next meeting, before releasing the funds.

======================
Originally posted on HereCast on November 24, 2019.

Weekly Roundup - Norwich News, for week ending May 4, 2013

Columnist Praises Girl Scouts and Norwich Boy Scouts For Inclusiveness

Jim Keynon: Two Kinds Of Scouts
Valley News
May 1, 2013
For an organization that prides itself on teaching survival skills, the Boy Scouts of America seems to have a death wish.
As long as the Boy Scouts’ national leaders continue to insist it’s OK to discriminate against gays, the organization grows increasingly irrelevant in a society where — thank goodness — a person’s sexual orientation becomes less and less a big deal.
As you may have read, the Boy Scouts of America’s executive committee has proposed a change in membership rules: openly gay youths will no longer be excluded.
This is progress?
Hardly. The Boy Scouts will continue to ban openly gay adults from being Scout leaders.
Read the rest of the story.

VTel Loses Part Of State Grant
$5 million VTel cell service grant cut in half
by Nat Rudarakanchana, vtdigger.org
May 4, 2013
A state agency has cut a $5 million telecommunications grant to Vermont Telephone Company in half.
This is the third time the Vermont Telecommunications Authority has pulled VTel grant money in recent months. On March 29, it revoked two broadband grants to VTel worth $3.4 million.
The most recent decision, made at a board meeting on Friday, comes after negotiations between the VTA and the private firm VTel stalled. The $5 million cellphone grant was announced at a news conference by Gov. Peter Shumlin in December 2012.
Read the rest of the story.

Earlier This Week In The Norwich Observer 
Norwich Selectboard Condemns Hate Speech

LINKS:
http://www.vnews.com/search/5939600-95/jim-keynon-two-kinds-of-scouts
http://vtdigger.org/2013/05/04/5-million-vtel-cell-service-grant-cut-in-half/http://norwichobserver.blogspot.com/2013/05/selectboard-condemns-hate-speech.html


A subscription may be required for access to the Valley News stories. 

Tower: Last Stumbling Blocks Resolved

Two more stumbling blocks to building the emergency communication tower were resolved by the Selectboard at its meeting on Wednesday March 27 at Tracy Hall.  First, the tower will be limited to non-commercial use, at least until the debt to erect it is paid off.  Second, the Town Manager dropped his request for a special Town Meeting, finding a bank to do a lease-purchase financing.  That should end the public debate, as all major concerns of residents have been resolved.  The Selectboard gave the Town Manager fast-track authority to build. The Town Manager is going the 248a permit route, meaning at least 4.5 months before construction begins.  Two  reports are below; one from the listserv, the other in the Valley News.

The Norwich Tower

listserv post by Watt Alexander

March 27, 2013.

Just back from Selectboard meeting this evening which was notable for several 

reasons.

By strong majorities the SB voted to go with a lease-purchase eliminating the 

need for another bond.

They also voted to restrict the tower application to municipal emergency 

communications use only. 

Our Town Manager recommended switching to the lease-purchase option in a memo 

distributed at the meeting and appeared comfortable with the non-commercial 

restriction on the tower itself. 

The SB also adopted an amended resolution that allows the town to draw upon 

existing funds to press ahead with tower construction and reimburse those 

funds with bond proceeds as they become available. 

The lease purchase agreement responds to concerns about the overall cost of 

the project. 

The non-commercial restriction satisfies concerns about the potential 

negative precedent a commercial tower would have on our zoning regulations. 

The Town Manager is confident we now have in hands the funds necessary to get 

this system built.

Those of us who live near the tower can take some solace in knowing this 

tower won't be broadcasting or built out any more than is necessary for 

public safety needs. 

All the major issues now resolved, the TM has been given fast-track authority 

to build and equip this tower as quickly as practicable.

Thanks to all of you who supported the bond vote on March 5th.

Here's hoping this is the last listserv post on this tower.

I think we're done

Norwich To Build Tower: Town Bows to Voters and Ends VTel Deal 

Sarah Brubeck, Valley News Staff Writer

March 28, 2013

The Selectboard has decided to build a new 180-foot communications tower, for municipal purposes only, without the help of a private firm.

Last night’s action marks a course reversal for Town Manager Neil Fulton, who last summer negotiated with Springfield, Vt.-based broadband provider VTel to build and operate the tower on New Boston Road for its own commercial use, in exchange for allowing the town free access to install new emergency radio communications equipment.

The deal was billed as a win-win: Norwich would get the tower it needed at a minimal cost, and VTel would be able to provide high-speed Internet service in an area in sore need of it.

But many Norwich residents were uncomfortable with handing the tower over to a private operator and organized a vote at Town Meeting earlier this month to authorize the town to borrow money in order to build the tower itself. A majority of the Selectboard was initially in favor of the VTel deal, but changed its mind after residents made their sentiments clear.

The board voted last night that the tower should remain in municipal hands through the life of the bond, which could extend 10 to 20 years. Once the debt is retired, however, future Selectboards will have the authority to decide if commercial companies can use the tower.

Read the rest of the story. 

LINK: 

http://www.vnews.com/news/5347177-95/norwich-to-build-tower-town-bows-to-voters-and-ends-vtel-deal

See our related post:  Building The Norwich Tower -- PSB or DRB.

A subscription may be required for access to the Valley News stories. 

The Norwich Observer. Aggregating news and information about Norwich, Vermont with occasional commentary ... . 

Building The Norwich Tower -- PSB or DRB

"Fulton said there had never been an intention of bypassing the DRB process."  

CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANNING & BUDGETING COMMITTEE PRELIMINARY DRAFT Meeting Minutes Thursday, July 5, 2012,

In fact, a hearing before the Norwich Development Review Boardwas scheduled for July 19.  Then came VTel.  For whatever reason, it preferred the permit process of the Vermont Public Service Board under Act 248a.  With VTel out of the picture, it is time for the Selectboard and Town Manager to revisit the issue or at least explain why eschewing the Norwich DRB makes sense from a policy or practical standpoint.  A member of the public -- not me -- raised this issue at the Selectboard meeting on March 13, but it was ignored.  The comment did not make the draft meeting minutes. 

The PSB process favors tower builders -- a plus for the Tow n, in this instance. Nonetheless, the process takes 4.5 months. Time is safety. Before that time line can begin, a lot of engineering and lawyering work needs to be done.  The downside to the PSB permit is that it may set precedent for any company that wants to build a tower in Norwich that is 60 feet above the tree line.  

In contrast, the DRB already had a hearing scheduled.  The DRB is no pushover, but the process is less formal and time consuming.  The current Selectboard chair, Mr. Flanders, opined at the August 15 Selectboard meeting that the Norwich Zoning Regulations had an "exemption for public good", according to meeting minutes.  Given that exemption, why avoid the DRB, when approval should be easy.  Approval under Act 250 could occur  without a hearing.

It would seem that going through the DRB saves time (and money) in the permitting process. Time is safety.  With VTel out of the  picture, it is time for the Selectboard and Town Manager to revisit the issue. Or at least provide an explanation for using the State PSB, instead of the Norwich DRB. 

Weekly Roundup - Norwich News, for week ending March 16, 2013

Gala A Success; Fraser Family Says Thank You 

From the listserv

The Fraser family wishes to thank the Norwich Women’s Club and all of the members who worked so hard to organize the Gala event that was held on Friday night, March 15. We were humbled to be honored as this year’s recipient.  It was a wonderful evening that was flawlessly organized and every detail was perfect- Great food, nice drinks, fun neighbors!   For those of you that have not attended before, it is a night of celebration that allows for everyone in town to come together and enjoy what is so special about Norwich.  It should not to be missed.  The money raised is well spent on town projects that the Women’s club undertakes. Previous projects such as the welcome sign, the water fountain on the school green, supporting the school, library, scholarships and all the other things these  incredibly ladies do for the town!! Keeping the money local is what it is all about.  The event was a near sell out, so be sure to buy your tickets next year as soon as they go on sale so you don’t miss the festivities.

More photos at:  http://www.norwichwomensclub.org/
LINKS:
http://lists.valley.net/lists/arc/norwich/2013-03/msg00311.html
http://lists.valley.net/lists/arc/norwich/2013-03/msg00320.html

No Decision On Tower By Selectboard 

The Selectboard made no decisions about the emergency communication tower at its March 13 meeting. Despite the 2-1 vote at Town Meeting in favor of a town-owned tower, the VTel option was not eliminated and discussed in executive session.  Also at the meeting, Town Manager Fulton proposed that the Town build a temporary tower to comply with conditions in two grants and that the Town hold a Special Town Meeting to authorize additional bond authority.

Norwich Board Signals on Tower

By Sarah Brubeck, Valley News Staff Writer

March 14, 2013 

The Selectboard made no firm decisions last night about how it will proceed with the controversial emergency communications tower, but it strongly indicated it was leaning toward backing out of a previous deal with VTel and instead elect to build the structure on its own.

Last week, residents passed an article at Town Meeting that authorized the town to borrow $275,000 to help finance construction of the tower. The vote, which passed 689-341, signaled to the Selectboard that residents were willing to underwrite the cost of the tower rather than accept VTel’s offer to build the tower in exchange for using it for its own commercial purpose.

The town has said it needs the tower to improve impaired radio communication for the police, fire and public works departments. The Selectboard voted 3-2 in August to allow VTel, a Springfield, Vt.-based telecommunications company, to build and own the tower while allowing Norwich to place it’s antennas on top of the structure. But residents have opposed the deal and urged the Selectboard to choose a town-owned option.

Read the rest of the story. 

LINK:

http://www.vnews.com/news/5101890-95/town-tower-selectboard-fulton

7 Make UVM Deans List For Fall 2012 

The Valley News reported on Tuesday that the following student from Norwich, Vermont  earned Dean's List honors at the University of Vermont: Erica C. Andrus, Daniel M. Degan, Daniel F. Elliott, Beryl R. Frishtick, Dylan B. Ness, Eva S. Sachsse,and Emma C. Waters.

LINK: http://www.vnews.com/news/4966397-95/store-center-students-norwich

State Rep Cheney Pushes for Energy Efficiency With Tax On Heating Oil

VPR reports that State Rep. Margaret Cheney, D-Norwich, is pushing one of the few climate change related bills that is likely to see a vote by the Legislature this session. The measure, which comes from a thermal efficiency task force, raises money for Vermonters to insulate their buildings - both commercial and residential - by adding a tax on home heating oil.

As Legislature Reconvenes, Lawmakers Push for Energy Efficiency
Kirk Carapezza, Statehouse Digital Reporter
March 11, 2013 

Lawmakers reconvene for the second half of the legislative session on Tuesday. And, despite budget woes and federal cuts, some of them are hoping to stay focused on a goal set at the beginning of the session: fighting climate change and promoting energy efficiency at the same time.
Given the climate crisis, one of the things legislators agree Vermont must do is to reduce its use of energy. Rep. Margaret Cheney, D-Norwich, is pushing one of the few climate change related bills likely to be voted on. It's a measure that proposes to make it easier for Vermonters to insulate their buildings - both commercial and residential - so they can save money on their heating bills and cut down on their carbon emissions.
"We have done well with electricity - with our efficiency and our ramping up of renewables - but we have not tackled the thermal problem, which is the heat problem, and we haven't tackled the transportation problem," Cheney said. "They're much harder to solve."

Read the rest of the story.
LINK: http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/97751/as-legislature-reconvenes-lawmakers-push-for-energ/

A subscription may be required for access to the Valley News stories. 

The Norwich Observer is in Norwich, Vermont 

Just Build The Tower

from the listserv on March 13:

Hard to believe but on July 19, 2012, a DRB hearing was scheduled to start
the permitting process for the tower. What is on the Selectboard agenda for
tonight -- more discussion about an additional bond. Sheesh!

If I was tower czar, I'd be dusting off my tower plans that predated VTel and
contacting our Planning Director [to whom the Town voted a nice raise] to
find out the earliest date the Town could get on the DRB calendar.
Money to pay for the site plans, communication gear and tower? There is
enough to get started. As tower czar, I would ask the Selectboard for
permission to use the Town's emergency fund, IF necessary.

Money. There is $45,000 in the communication reserve fund. Two weeks ago
the Town Manager was set to finance the purchase the communication gear with
$120,000 from Lake Sunapee Bank. Keep that in place. Paying under 2% is a
good deal. The $275,000 bond approved by voters can be borrowed from a
local bank, instead of waiting for the Vermont Bond Bank. The two loans total
$395,000. Even under the worst case scenario, less than $90,000 is needed
from the emergency fund.

Asking for another bond is just procrastination. Why are we considering a
Special Town Meeting when public safety is at issue. How much will the
typical property taxpayer save --$10 a year, $20?

Come on. Beg the DRB to fast track the tower application. Begin preliminary
site work. VTel moved at glacial speed. Let's have a sense of URGENCY and
get the tower built. If the Town Manager feels unsure about managing the
project, then find a project manager. Norwich voters approved the bond so
that the Town could control its destiny. Carpe diem.

Selectboard meeting starts at 6:30 pm. at Tracy Hall in Norwich, VT.

Weekly Roundup - Norwich News, for week ending March 9, 2013

Election March 2013

All budgets and other articles passed. Incumbents survived in all uncontested races. Of significant note was the passage of Article 34, petitioned on the ballot by Norwich residents and opposed by the Town Manager.  The bond vote was largely viewed as a referendum on whether Norwich or VTel should build and own the emergency communication tower.  Voters resoundingly supported Town ownership with 689 voting yes to 341 voting no.

Official Election Results
Official election results for Norwich are on the Town web site.
LINK: http://norwich.vt.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/VotingResults030513.pdf

Dresden Teachers Contracts, Budgets Pass
By Sarah Brubeck, Valley News Staff Writer
March 6, 2013
After going two years without a contract, Dresden and Hanover teachers yesterday won voter approval for new contracts as residents also approved the Hanover and Dresden school budgets and all accompanying warrant articles.
The Dresden contract passed by a ratio of 2-to-1 with 1,221 in favor and 574 against, and the Hanover contract passed 584-198.
Hanover School Board Chairman Robin Carpenter said he wasn’t surprised by the overwhelming support for the Hanover and Dresden districts, but the margins were larger than he had guessed.
“When an article is in trouble there is a buzz about it, letters to the editor and phone calls. I didn’t get any of that,” Carpenter said.
Read the rest of the story.
LINK:
http://www.vnews.com/news/4908909-95/hanover-contract-dresden-teachers

Norwich Balks At Tower Deal
By Sarah Brubeck, Valley News Staff Writer
March 6, 2013
 Voters sent a firm message to the Selectboard yesterday by voting overwhelmingly in favor of borrowing money to build a communication tower rather than have the town partner on the project with a private firm.
Selectman Steve Flanders, who in the past has supported the agreement with Springfield, Vt.-based VTel, said last night that the results likely means that the town would try to fund and manage the construction of the tower on its own.
“I will respect the fact that I’m pretty sure that the people voting thought that the town should have the tower itself instead of going through VTel and I will proceed with that expectation,” Flanders said.
Selectboard Chairman Christopher Ashley and Selectwoman Linda Cook both stood in front of the polls yesterday with signs that said they each supported the warning article for the communication tower.
Read the rest of the story.
LINK:
http://www.vnews.com/news/4876377-95/town-tower-vtel-selectboard?ID=abcde&CSAuthResp=62892%3A24547117%3A248%3A15%3A24%3Asuccess%3ADDA9E51B83A1515E8EF9F989E9729525

Shumlin taps Michael Kainen as State’s Attorney

By Christian Avard, Rutland Herald Staff Writer
March 09, 2013
Gov. Peter Shumlin appointed Michael Kainen as Windsor County state’s attorney on Friday.
Kainen is an Orange County deputy state’s attorney in Chelsea and ill replace Robert Sand who will be assisting the Department of Public Safety in redefining drunk-driving sentencing and treatment efforts in Vermont.
Kainen was informed of the governor’s decision Thursday. He will begin his new job March 23 and said he is pleased to represent Windsor County.
“I’m happy to have the appointment,” Kainen said. “I’ll be working on some transition items while in White River Junction and button up what’s left up here in Orange County and go from there.”
Shumlin said in a statement that Kainen is known for his common-sense approach to law and is seen by many as a consensus builder. Kainen attributed these traits to Sand, with whom he worked at the state’s attorney’s office in Windsor County for 15 years.
Windsor County Democrats nominated Kainen and Windsor County Deputy State’s Attorney David Cahill of Norwich as candidates to succeed Sand. The committee thought both candidates were well qualified for the job.
Cahill also heard about the governor’s selection Thursday and congratulated Kainen in his new role.
“It was a hard fought campaign among colleagues and I wish him the best,” Cahill said in an email. “It was an honor to have earned the trust and confidence of the many people who do the difficult, often thankless work of delivering justice to crime victims, offenders, and the taxpaying public. I look forward to playing a continued role in public service and in modernizing our criminal justice system for the benefit of all of its stakeholders.”
Read the rest of the story.
LINK:
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130309/NEWS02/703099914/1003

VTDigger Named Best Political Blog in Vermont 

Kudos to VTDigger for being named by Washington Post as the best political blog in Vermont for 2013.  In 2011, VTDigger shared the honor with Green Mountain Daily and Vermont Daily Briefing.
The VTDigger story is here and the Washington Post's 50 state rundown is here.
LINKS:
http://vtdigger.org/2013/03/06/washpo-puts-vtdigger-on-best-state-based-political-blog-list/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/05/the-fixs-best-state-based-political-blogs-list-is-here/

A subscription may be required for access to the Valley News stories.

Town Meeting 2013

Norwich Divided Over Tower

By Sarah Brubeck, Valley News Staff Writer
March 5, 2013
Residents and Selectboard members last night were once again divided over whether a proposed communication tower should be owned by VTel or the town, and they haggled over salary increases for some department heads.

More than 160 people filled Tracy Hall for the discussion portion of Norwich’s Town Meeting, with voting to take place by Australian ballot today from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

After a 40-minute budget presentation by Town Manager Neil Fulton, Town Treasurer Cheryl Lindberg, a member of the Norwich Finance Committee, noted that the panel voted 4-0 not to support the proposed budget. In the town report, the Finance Committee cited large salary increases for several town employees.

The proposed $4 million municipal budget is essentially flat this year and is $10,000 less than the current budget. The budget includes large salary increases for the planning, finance and recreations directors of about 14 percent, 19 percent and 27 percent, respectively.

Selectboard Chairman Christopher Ashley soon stood up and spoke his mind.

“Our director of planning, director of finance and our director of recreation, I think we owe them a legitimate salary on what they currently do,” Ashley said.

But as is accustomed in Norwich, not all agreed. Both Selectboard members Linda Cook and Keith Moran said they didn’t support the increases because they didn’t think a $15,000 salary-comparison study conducted by Condrey & Associates for the town was accurate.

Read the rest of the story.
LINK:
http://www.vnews.com/home/4873651-95/town-tower-norwich-vtel

A subscription may be required for access to the Valley News stories. 

Norwich, VT 05055 

Are You My Tower?

Norwich-VTel Tower 

Page  16 of proposed Lease.  The tower height will NOT change regardless of who owns the tower.

Are you my tower?

I have never seen an artist's sketch of how the proposed tower may look, until the proposed Lease was made public.  These images below are four of the results from a Google Image search of "lattice communications  tower".  The tower height will NOT change regardless of who owns the tower. 

The second through fourth images shows an array of antenna that may or may not be on the tower.  I just don't know.  If VTel owns the tower, the Town has no say on who leases space on the tower. One can only guess what antennae will look like in 25 years.

Are you my tower?

LINK: 

http://sell.bizrice.com/selling-leads/1326762/Communication-Tower-50m-Telecommunication-Tower.html

Are you?

                

VTel Placed On Hold

Norwich Holds Off On Tower

By Sarah Brubeck, Valley News Staff Writer
February 28, 2013 
Bowing to political reality, the Selectboard chose to put off a decision to finalize a controversial communications tower agreement and instead will wait until after residents have a chance to weigh in at Town Meeting next week.
For the past six months, the Selectboard has been divided 3-2 in favor of allowing VTel, a Springfield, Vt.-based telecommunications company, to construct a tower on New Boston Road in exchange for letting the town use it for new emergency communications equipment. But last night, Selectman Keith Moran, who previously supported the plan, leaned in favor of public outcry.
“I think the voters have spoken,” Moran said after last night’s meeting.
Town Manager Neil Fulton had placed items on last night’s Selectboard agenda that would have finalized a site lease agreement with VTel for a communications tower. At the same time, there is a bond vote scheduled for Tuesday’s Town Meeting that essentially asks residents if they support the VTel agreement or would rather assume the cost of building the tower themselves.
If the board would have voted to finalize the VTel agreement last night, it would have made next week’s Town Meeting vote moot.
But much to residents’ surprise, the Selectboard chose to put off the decision. At the start of the meeting, before many of the 40 attendees had a chance to sit down, Selectman Stephen Flanders made a motion to delay any decision until a March 13 meeting and others agreed.
“My opinion hasn’t changed, but I think it makes sense to wait and give people a chance to vote,” said Selectman Ed Childs, who has historically voted in favor of the VTel agreement.
About an hour later, Moran gave residents even more hope by telling them that he would switch his vote. If Norwich voters are willing to bear the financial costs and risks, then that’s their decision, Moran said.

Read the rest of the story. 
LINK: 
http://www.vnews.com/news/4743931-95/vtel-tower-residents-town

A subscription may be required for access to the Valley News stories. 

Is VTel married to Norwich or just shacking up?

Last Friday, the Brattleboro Reformer reported that a signed contract  between the Windham County Sheriff and VTel was no more. Not much detail was provided about the break-up, other than VTel had found a different site and had made a $15,000 donation to the Sheriff. The deal was similar to the proposal the Selectboard has under consideration  -- at little cost to the taxpayer, VTel agreed to replace an aging tower next to the Sheriff’s office, with a taller tower that VTel and the Sheriff would share..    

That led me to ask: how legally committed is VTel to Norwich to deliver a tower by Fall 2013.  The answer is: not much. Under the Lease, the company is not required to act with any kind of dispatch. At present VTel may be highly motivated  to build the tower, but it isn’t married to the idea.  

The Lease contains no general timetable.  VTel has TWO YEARS under the Contract to obtain the necessary permits to build the Tower. [§3, page 2.]   Admittedly, the company must use “commercially reasonable efforts”  to obtain the necessary permits.  [§2(g), page 2.]  But that is far from the “all deliberate speed” that Norwich would exercise if it was pursuing permits to assure the safety of first responders and residents.

Worse, section 20 allows VTel to terminate the Lease at any time, if the company “determines that it will be unable to attain optimal use of the Facility within its communications network.” [§20(a), page 9.]  I am not sure what this means but it seems as if the company can end the arrangement if the site is no longer fits the business plan.  That is a huge LOOPHOLE.  The decision is in VTel’s “sole and absolute discretion“.  

[As an aside, I am not even sure VTel is obligated to build a tower.  Once permits are obtained, VTel must pay rent, but we are not charging any.  That is a topic for another day.]

These provisions protect VTel, but not Norwich.  They make more sense to a landowner who is passively collecting rent.  I accept that permitting is something of an unknown.  But if VTel needs two years, perhaps we are better off going it alone.  Also, the loophole noted above gives great pause. 

These contract terms seems hardly the stuff of a public/private partnership or the way to assure that a much needed tower gets built.  There may be “understandings” about a timetable but if not the “definitive agreement”, then they are unenforceable.

I am not a telecommunications lease expert.  To me, the Lease gives far too much wiggle room to VTel to say that the company is committed to build the tower PROMPTLY.  Is VTel married to Norwich or just shacking up?

LINK: 

http://www.reformer.com/ci_22642405/vtel-finds-alternate-newfane-site-cell-tower

Is The Tower FOREVER?

posted on listserv on February 24, 2013 

Does VTel have the right to buy the land at the end of the 60-year lease.  If so, then the Tower could be a landmark in Norwich FOREVER.  

There is some odd language at the end of section 3, that I think may give VTel the right "to purchase the Property at fair market value," at the end of 60 years.  Obviously that would be a disaster.  Town Manager Fulton should converse with the lawyer advising us on the LOI (please say we had a lawyer)  because the lawyer failed to advise the Town Manager on a vital term.  

My detailed analysis is after my signature.  I fear the Town is in over its head. 

Why give VTel a right of first refusal at all.  The company gets a rent-free lease for 60 years.  That is it ... done. 

[I am not a fan of the economics of the VTel deal.  We need a consultant with expertise in the industry. That is for another post.]

I'm hoping to be wrong about the right to buy and labelled an alarmist.  My advice: Sign no contract with this type of language in it. 

Thank you for reading.

Chris  

My detailed analysis is as follows.  Be forewarned, it is a snoozer.  If your kid wants to go to law school, this should help dispel the notion

Here is the pertinent text of section 3 of the LOI

"If at any time during the 60 year term the Town should seek to sell all or a portion of the Property, or should VTel exercise all renewal options for the full 60 years, VTel shall have the right of first refusal to purchase the Property at fair market value, as determined using an independent appraiser. The mechanics of the right of first refilsal will be set forth in greater detail in the Definitive Agreement."

A quick read of the provision suggests that VTel simply has a right of first refusal, if Norwich decides to sell.  But, there is an oddity.  In a typical right of first refusal, VTel has the right to buy the land on exact same terms as the proposed buyer. Here, the price VTel pays is set by an "independent appraiser".  Very strange, until looked at in the context of the clause "should VTel exercise all renewal options for the full 60 years." Stripped of non-essential terms, the right VTel has reads as follows:

"Should VTel exercise all renewal options for the full 60 years, VTel shall have the right to purchase the Property at fair market value, as determined using an independent appraiser."  The Tower is forever.

Town Manager Wants To End-Run Bond Vote And Sign Contract With VTel

Town Manager Fulton will ask the Selectboard at its February 27 meeting for authority to sign a contract with VTel regarding the Communication Tower.  This would seemingly moot the bond vote warned for Town Meeting.  Backers of the bond want the Town to build and own the tower itself.  The option would be foreclosed once a binding agreement is in place with VTel.  Mr. Fulton does not believe the bond will raise enough money to build the tower, although the amount is the same that the Town said it needed in a prior bond vote that was defeated in the Summer.

Should make for robust discussion at Town Eating Day the evening before.

See: Background Information on Bond Vote at Town web site.

LINK: 

http://norwich.vt.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Communications-System-Background-Information-01-29-13.pdf

Tower Petition Succeeds

from the listserv
Thanks to all who signed our VTel/bond article petition

Our final count is 526 -- two hundred more than necessary to compel the bond 

vote. 

Thanks to all of you who took a moment this past week to help us get this 
question before the voters. If we had known how many signature gatherers 
were out there we might have saved a couple hundred of you the trouble. 

As you all know, this simply places the bond article on the Town Meeting 
ballot, allowing voters a clear choice between the current VTel proposal and 
building/owning the tower ourselves. More importantly, this creates an 
opportunity for public meetings and debate to learn about the ramifications 
of each option so we can decide for ourselves in an informed and open manner. 

Stay tuned... 

LINK:

http://lists.valley.net/lists/arc/norwich/2013-01/msg00428.html