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?

                

Weekly Roundup - Norwich News, for week ending March 2, 2013

Dresden Election Brochures Are MIA

Informational brochures about the election and annual meeting mailers were late going in the mail.  I guess the dog ate the memo. Read the brochure here. Valley News Staffer Sarah Brubeck reports about the annual  meeting in the story below.
Dresden Contracts Questioned
By Sarah Brubeck, Valley News Staff Writer
March 1, 2013
Hanover — The number of School Board members rivaled the number of attendees at last night’s annual meeting for the Dresden budget, and it might have been because people didn’t receive mailers announcing the meeting.
At the end of last night’s hour-long meeting, former School Board member Kari Asmus took to the microphone and criticized the board for not getting information out to voters in a timely fashion.
The School Board decided not to mail out annual reports to each household this year because they are expensive and many residents toss them aside.
Instead, annual reports are available at town halls, libraries and the SAU 70 office, and small informational mailers would be sent out.
When Asmus didn’t receive a mailer before last night’s meeting, she was a little taken aback. But she shrugged it off and said she thought, “Oh well. I can come to this meeting and learn what I need to learn.”
So she headed to Hanover High School, but to her surprise, the doors were locked. Without the mailer, she hadn’t realized that the meeting had been moved to Richmond Middle School.

Read the rest of the story.
LINKS:
http://www.sau70.org/budgets/13-14_budget/brochures/Dresden_Brochure.v3a.pdf
http://www.vnews.com/news/schools/4767060-95/board-contract-meeting-teachers

Opinion

Does democracy suffer when the Town Manager has an agenda? Is the ballot box an adequate remedy?
Column: Direct Democracy Is Struggling in Norwich and Other Towns
Watt Alexander, For the Valley News
February 26, 2013
“Practice makes perfect,” it’s often said, but surely not in reference to democracy. We’re clearly not getting any better at it.

The democratic debate over competing interests — from New England town meeting to state legislatures to the U.S. Congress — remains as fractious and messy as ever. Messier, maybe, as that democratic debate is increasingly filtered through a vast and growing bureaucratic layer of government administrative roles and regulation.

Indeed, throughout the Upper Valley, New England’s experiment with direct democracy is giving way to a more modern, suburban bureaucracy. More and more town meetings are replacing customary floor debates and votes with annual Australian ballots. Volunteer selectboards cede ever more authority to professional administrators, signaling that American government, even in small communities, may no longer be a matter for amateurs.

Here in Norwich, our experiment with professional administration began in 2002 when we hired our first town manager. Barely 10 years later, convulsed by a series of public controversies, we’re on to our fourth town manager with new controversies brewing. While the details of these spats are fascinating to the participants — and make for good Valley News headlines — the underlying struggle they signify is relevant to all of your readers: Where do we, the amateur citizen-taxpayers, fit within this increasingly bureaucratized democracy?

Read the rest of the story.
LINK:
http://www.vnews.com/opinion/columns/4692948-95/town-democracy-manager-selectboard

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

Wage Increases In The Budget Are Way Too Much

Seven full-time Town employees that primarily work from Tracy Hall will be receiving raises that average over 16%, if the budget is approved by voters.  For context, police officers in Norwich are getting a 3.68% increase in pay.  My Social Security check went up 1.7% this year.  Wall Street bonuses rose 8% in 2012.

Call me a Tea Party wannabe, but those bumps (jumps!) in pay strike me as imprudent. Norwich faces significant but not budgeted expenditures in the coming years: $200,000 for communication gear on the Tower (with or without VTel), at least $500,000 for record restoration, and $2 million for a new police and fire station. These are spread over years but the cumulative budget impact is unknown. 

The uncertainty is not just for big ticket items.  Union contracts expire this June.  We might add hours for an assistant Town Clerk. In addition, the Town Manager wants to let employees choose cash in lieu of benefits, which no doubt will cost the Town more.  And, health care costs in 2014 will be more uncertain than usual as Norwich is required to be part of a health exchange.  

The Condrey and Associates report was not cheap, costing $15,000. Norwich has 20 full-time employees, 9 of which are in a union.  Why did  the Town need to hire an international consulting firm to develop a plan for 11 non-union workers? That is over $1300 per employee. 

Admittedly, the study covered union and part-time employees, making the total 29.  But if Norwich needs an expert from afar to set part-time wages, then the Town Manager is not doing his job.  Union pay is set through negotiations, not by reference to a study. 

The Town did not hire a consultant for advice on economic terms with VTel.  Negotiating a tower lease must be at least as complicated as setting wages.

Town Manager Fulton wanted a classification and compensation plan to treat employees uniformly. He told me that a prior Town Manager had gone “local and cheap” and got little to show for it, wasting $6000. However, as noted in the Valley News, getting Norwich to adopt a step-and-grade compensation plan is a project Mr. Fulton "has been working on since 2002,” when he was on the Selectboard.  Was it needed? If so, a flawed consultant’s report is not the way to go. 

For critiques of the Condrey and Associates report, check out the Finance Committee listserv post on March 1, Harry Roberts letter to the Selectboard on November 30,  my blog post from January 17 and the charts on the municipalities surveyed by Condrey and Associates and on the percent increase in pay.

How did the Selectboard and Town Manager respond to the outcry about jumps in pay? They reduced spending by $50,000.  But only $4800 was cut from salaries -- less than 1.4% of the amounts involved and only from three employees. Seven employees are getting big increases.   The Selectboard approved the budget by a 3-2 vote. (Moran and Cook voted no).

The elephant in the room is the Town Manager's pay.  At over $97,000, he makes nearly 23% more than the next highest employee.  The pay is a stretch for Norwich but circumstances support it. But, it is not a basis to give big raises to others, particularly when the Finance Committee cannot justify the increases after looking at market data. Similarly, if the Town is overpaying some employees, that needs to be sorted out over time.   Defter management and Selectboard vigilance for taxpayers seems a better course than simply handing out big raises.

To me, it almost appears as if  some members of the Selectboard are afraid to say “no” to the Town Manager, rather than fight for the taxpayers. Telling is the action of the Selectboard regarding the Town Manager's pay.  On January 9, the Selectboard approved a cost of living increase. Town Manager Fulton said the increase was “unacceptable” and reflected poorly on his performance, because it  was $614 less than the “scale” set by Condrey and Associates. CATV [01/09/13 Selectboard, minute 211- 220]; Valley News.  

At the next meeting on January 16.  the Town Manager presented a revised budget, making the cuts in  the dollar amount - $50000 - the Selectboard requested.  What was ADDED to the budget was the full amount the Town Manager wanted, not the lesser amount the Selectboard had approved by a vote a week earlier. No member of the Selectboard called the Town Manager out on this action.  

LINKS:

http://catv8.org/videos-demand.html 

http://lists.valley.net/lists/arc/norwich/2013-03/msg00017.html

http://norwich.vt.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/SBc121130-Roberts.pdf

http://norwichobserver.blogspot.com/2013/01/salary-study-by-condrey-associates.html

http://norwichobserver.blogspot.com/2013/02/towns-in-salary-study.html

http://norwichobserver.blogspot.com/2013/02/percent-increase-in-wages.html

http://www.vnews.com/news/3766559-95/fulton-budget-selectboard-town

http://www.vnews.com/news/townbytown/norwich/4397511-95/town-budget-selectboard-increase

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

The Norwich Finance Committee Position On The Town Budget

2013-2014 Proposed Norwich Town Budget:

The Norwich Finance Committee voted 4-0 (one member was absent from the meeting and two seats are vacant) not to support the proposed Norwich Town Budget.

Members of the Committee are concerned that the large raises proposed for several positions are excessive and, as currently proposed, are not supported by a majority of voters based on voter feedback provided to members of the Committee. An annual VLCT survey of Vermont Municipal Director Elected positions based on 2011 data, shows that Vermont towns with populations under 5,000 generally paid Municipal Director positions between approximately $32,000 and $60,000.  The inflation adjusted salaries proposed in the FY14 budget are at the top end of that range ($57,422), but the data does not demonstrate a compelling need to increase the salaries of these positions to be in line with other communities. The current salaries for the Norwich positions are in the mid- to high-$40Ks, which is squarely within the survey range.  In addition, the Consultant used by the Town justified the raises based upon three local Towns with much larger populations (and much larger overall budgets) than Norwich’s:  Hanover, Lebanon, and Hartford. The Consultant’s report appears to be designed to support a predetermined outcome as opposed to providing an objective analysis.  Accordingly, the survey also does not demonstrate a compelling need to increase the Director or Elected position salaries by such large percentages.  The Committee is not opposed to the objective of equalizing town employee pay, but is opposed to making large increases all in one year when the town tax rate is already increasing by approximately 6% (before other monetary articles).  Furthermore, lack of turnover in these Town positions supports the opinion that the positions are not significantly underpaid.
In addition, while members of the Committee appreciate the Selectboard’s willingness to reexamine the budget to reduce the initially proposed 10.65% tax rate increase to approximately a 6% increase, the Committee urges the Selectboard to critically evaluate the needs (versus wants) to provide a necessary level of services to the town and find additional ways to reduce the budget.


Norwich Finance Committee
Nate Stearns, Chair

Published on the Norwich listserv on March 1, 2013
http://lists.valley.net/lists/arc/norwich

The Norwich Finance Committee Position On The School Budget

2013-2014 Proposed Norwich School Budget:

The Norwich Finance Committee voted 4-0 (one member was absent from the meeting and two seats are vacant) to support the proposed Norwich School Budget.
Members of the Committee were initially concerned by the 5.4% increase in the Norwich portion of the budget, but found that two of the items driving the increase (special education spending—which gets partially offset with increased funding from the state--and building maintenance) provided a good explanation for the increase, and that the balance of the increase was reasonable.  In addition, the Committee notes that the projected CLA of 99.7% results in what we believe is a manageable tax rate increase with respect to the overall school budget (Norwich, Dresden, and SAU), but there is a very large caveat here:  If the CLA were to stay the same as the current year, at 93%, the tax rate increase would be almost 8%.  

In light of the projected tax rate increase of only 0.8%, the Committee also looked favorably on proposed additions to the building maintenance reserve and the special education reserve.

Looking forward, the Committee expects that if the bond issue (for roof and univents) is approved, that the project will be bid out and that anticipated cost savings will be realized both from doing the work all at once and in energy cost savings in future years.  One item of concern to be watched in future years is the long-term projection of a declining student enrollment.  To the extent that student enrollment is projected to decline over time, the Committee would like to see variable costs reduced in an effort to keep per pupil costs in line with, or even reduced from, the current proposed budget.

Norwich Finance Committee

Nate Stearns, Chair

Published on the Norwich listserv on March 1, 2013 

http://lists.valley.net/lists/arc/norwich

Courthouse Needs An Upgrade

Valley News Letter to Editor
Courthouse  Needs an Upgrade

To the Editor: For too long the Windsor County Courthouse and its services have been inaccessible to anyone with a physical disability. Windsor County voters finally have an opportunity to fix this inequity. Built in 1855, our beautiful and historic courthouse has been renovated several times but never to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Whether you have a temporary disability (hip or knee surgery) or a permanent one, you cannot serve on a jury, participate in a trial or access the courthouse for any of its services.

The proposed $2 million bond will not only help make this treasured centerpiece accessible, but also vastly improve the security of the building with updated metal detectors and an integrated security system. This will cost about one-quarter of one cent per $100 of property value for 10 years. For example, every owner of a property valued at $200,000 would pay $5 per year to support this project. A million-dollar property would pay $25 per year for 10 years. This is a cost-effective use of our tax dollars as a new courthouse would cost a great deal more than this thoughtful renovation. We urge all Windsor County residents to vote and support the proposed bond on the ballot at Town Meeting.

Alison Clarkson

For the Woodstock Area Accessibility Task Force 

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

Photo Op: Norwich Police Train

 Officers Frank Schippert, left, and Mike Scruggs of the Norwich Police Department practice responding to a hypothetical shooter in a Woodstock Union High School classroom. (Rick Russell Photo)

Police, Emergency Officials Training At WUHS

Vermont Standard

February 22, 2013
Law enforcement personnel were at the campus of Woodstock Union High School on Friday for a training session, practicing their response to emergencies, including an active shooter situation.

LINK: 
http://www.thevermontstandard.com/2013/02/police-emergency-officials-training-at-wuhs/

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.

Weekly Roundup - Norwich News, for week ending February 23, 2013

Norwich, VT Man Gets 30 Days; Police Chief Not Happy
“I think he pretty much got away with it,” [Police Chief] Robinson said. “When a guy has a lot of marijuana, thousands of dollars of stolen property, (acted inappropriately) with a little girl and possessed 40 guns, a 30-day sentence is ludicrous. I was in disbelief.”
Chief Questions Norwich Man’s Sentence
By Mark Davis, Valley News Staff Writer
February 23, 2013
A Norwich man was recently sentenced to 30 days in prison on a slew of state and federal charges, including weapons possession and lewd conduct, in plea deals that the town’s police chief says were overly generous.
A federal judge last week ordered Jeff Bogie, 50, sent to federal prison for 30 days for unlawful possession of a firearm. Days later, state prosecutors finalized a deal that called for the same sentence — which will run at the same time — for charges contributing to the delinquency of the minor, prohibited acts, marijuana possession and possessing stolen property.
Bogie was initially charged in 2010 with lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, for allegedly engaging in sexual misconduct with a 14-year-old girl after providing her alcohol. During that investigation, police searched his home and found more than a half pound of marijuana, pills and 44 firearms, including machines guns, rifles and pistols, according to police affidavits.
Federal authorities prosecuted Bogie for being a drug user in possession of firearms: The rest of the case was handled at the state level.
Norwich Police Chief Doug Robinson said that he believes Bogie should have spent at least a couple of years in prison, and was disappointed in the leniency.

Read the rest of the story.
LINK:
http://www.vnews.com/news/police/fire/courts/4632593-95/federal-bogie-state-charges

King Arthur Flour Voluntarily Recalls Flour
Press Release
February 22, 2013

King Arthur Flour has initiated a voluntary recall of a limited number of its bags of flour due to the possible presence of small (7-9 mm) blue polyurethane balls that are used in the sifting process. The balls have a smooth surface and no sharp edges and are made from food grade material. Because of their bright blue color and size (about half the diameter of a dime), they are easily seen in the flour.

Only 5-lb. bags of King Arthur Unbleached All-Purpose Flour and King Arthur Unbleached Bread Flour that have a Best Used By Date and Lot Codes noted below are affected. This information is printed on the side of the bag beneath the nutrition panel. If the Best Used By Date and Lot Code number are printed on the TOP of the bag, then the product is NOT affected.


Read the rest of the story.
LINK:
http://www.kingarthurflour.com/voluntaryrecall/press-release.html

Preview Of School Vote

Summary of issues on the ballot on March 5th for Norwich and Dresden schools.

Elementary Schools Plan Renovations

By Sarah Brubeck Valley News Staff Writer

February 22, 2013 

Both the Ray School and Marion Cross School are proposing to upgrade aging facilities in the coming years, and residents Hanover and Norwich residents will see the impacts at this year’s district meeting.

*  *  *

Across the river at Marion Cross School, voters will be asked to approve borrowing $450,000 to pay for a gym roof replacement and energy and ventilation improvements.

Three school budgets are in play in the Dresden towns: the Hanover budget, which covers the Ray School; the Norwich budget, which accounts for Marion Cross School; and the Dresden budget, which covers the cost of the Richmond Middle School and Hanover High School.

Additionally, a negotiated contracts for Dresden and Hanover teachers are on the ballot after voters rejected a contract last year, and there’s a contested Hanover School Board race.

Read the rest of the story.

LINK: 

http://www.vnews.com/news/schools/4556299-95/hanover-budget-dresden-board

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