1.      CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Paquette called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.  The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

2.      ROLL CALL

SELECTBOARD:        L. Richard Paquette, Marc Landry, Mickey Palmer and Nadine Scibek.

ADMINISTRATION:   Al Voegele (Town Manager), Joan Boehm (Asst. Town Manager/CFO), Bob Vickery (Assessor), Amy Akerlind (Rescue Chief), Mike Chmielewski (Fire Chief) and Lt. Doug Allen (Police).  

3.      CITIZENS TO BE HEARD

Joyce George, Vice President of Mills point Association spoke for leaseholders of Mills Point, Colchester Point, Sand Dunes and Coates Island.  She requested that the hand-out information she presented at the last Selectboard meeting be included in these minutes along with the presentation information she will hand out tonight, since the minutes did not reflect all of what was said. (See Supplements #1 and #2 for exact language). In tonight’s handout she quoted several Statutes that she believed the Town was not in compliance with and requested that the Town respond with a legal position referencing each paragraph and Title.  They also requested that the land portion of their taxes be held in escrow by a third party for the Town until land/amenity/leasehold assessment is resolved and that the Town budget for a loss in revenue, court costs and reimbursements of illegally collected taxes.  They ask that the Town confirm in writing that it will immediately bring the Town into compliance with Statues, Act 68 and the Uniform Tax Code and delete the land/amenity/leasehold assessment or remain in violation where the Association will have no choice but to go to a higher authority.

Lydia Wislowski a camp owner on Coates Island wished to speak to the human face of the issue of reappraisal. She quoted the Supreme Court Justice of 1819, John Marshall who said “The power to tax is the power to destroy”.  There have been many appeals and they have all been told it’s all about Fair Market value but she believes it’s also about being fair.  She listed several items that were not fair about the appraisal: not differentiating between seasonal and non-seasonal camps or leased and owned land; market values being determined by small samples of a slow 2-year market when only the wealthy have been able to get financing mostly for lakefront property; assessors and appraisers reaching beyond two years for values when values were high and she cited the Lesage vs. Colchester case; the majority of tax payers now have level or decreased taxes while lakeshore had an average assessment increase of 300%; communities not being taxed equally throughout Vermont with Colchester taxing leasehold property when other Towns are not; being taxed without representation because seasonal property owners aren’t residents and can’t vote; and flawed computer programs being valued over people and common sense. The 300 to 600% increases on lakefront property should have warranted Town officials to see the appraisal was fair and equitable.  This taxation will destroy the nature of summer camps for generations of families and taxing leased lakeshore destroys affordable housing.  Seasonal properties are already taxed at a higher homestead rate and they don’t use schools, sewer or water, and maintain their own roads.  She shared a letter she received from Brenda Larson who converted an old camp into her home to accommodate for her illness. She has refinanced her house recently and the bank appraisals came in at $200,000 and $100,000 under Colchester’s appraisal. The Town won’t budge on their value even with that input.  She wants a petition circulated for a vote of no confidence in Vision Appraisal and the management of them by Colchester Officials. Ms. Wislowski asked the Town to please reconsider their use of the power to tax on the reassessment that’s been done. 

4.      CONSENT AGENDA

5.      FINANCIAL REPORT

6.      SPECIAL BUSINESS

a. Report from the Honorable Judge Charles Delaney re: Relation of County Government with Towns

Judge Delaney introduced Judge Constance Ramsey, Ann Williams, County Clerk and Kevin McLaughlin, County Sherriff and stated they were going to different Boards in Chittenden County to explain what the Assistant Judges do for the County. Their basic duty is to insure facilitation of the court system in Chittenden County, to address the mutual needs of the public and mutual projects between the Towns.  They also develop the County budget, and maintain the county courthouse, properties and employees.  Right now they are in the process of developing a 10-year County plan to address what Towns can do to do help one another.  There have been changes in the Judicial Restructuring Law and it was decided to keep the County Judges to facilitate restructuring. With that, their budget was cut 29% on the County level. 

They are also empowered to sit in civil and family court and there are arguments coming up with the Town of Colchester regarding the Grand List and educational tax.  Another item they would like to address is a countywide dispatch.  Census shows an increase in population coming up and there needs to be cooperation among the Towns in order to be fiscally responsible and they’d like to help with that.   They are asking what it is that Town’s need and what can they do to help while continuing to address the public need.

The Board questioned if there were any plans to get Towns together and what were the other needs they’ve seen countywide.  Judge Delaney responded that one item that has come up was the issue of having a county dispatch. 

Sherriff Kevin McLaughlin, said there are models out there that could give Chittenden County a more efficient dispatch.  He’s requesting that the two side Judges work to get a countywide dispatch back on the table. There could be some savings and efficiencies in personnel and equipment by combining dispatch.  This item has come up before and has been on the table way too long.  Mr. Voegele recommended that the two side judges speak to the Regional Planning Commissioners.

Marc Landry reported that the MPO and RPC recently consolidated.  He believed it was easier for them to consolidate because the people that would be affected were recent hires and were open to consolidation. Some of the county issues are that there have been people in their jobs for a long time.  He also felt there was a better way to do dispatch in the area and encouraged them to look into it.

The Board thanked them for their report since presentations like this don’t happen often countywide. 

BACK TO AGENDA ITEM #5 FINANCIAL REPORT

a.  Chief Financial Officer’s Report

Ms. Boehm reported that they continue to receive revenues and make expenditures from purchases prior to June 30^th.  The surplus will be smaller than her report showed since revenue will be reduced by $200,000 because of a tax sale reclassification, but they still won’t need to dip into the Fund Balance this year.  She reviewed revenues and expenditures, the trends report and general funds report.  There will be a Fund Balance of $1.7 million which is 17.9% of General Fund Budget.  Some believe there should be 2 months’ worth of expenditures and others that the reserve be 5-15% of the General Fund Budget. If we look at having 2 months’ worth of reserves we are only $76,000 over. Reasons for the surplus are mostly due to salary reductions because of changes within departments, Police being called to active duty, and a library position put on hold.  Health Insurance came in under budget due to a change in vendors.  We will end this year with 700,000 less than last year due to paving projects. 

They are starting to plan for FY13 budget.  She will be asking for some direction from the Selectboard for parameters to keep taxes as low as possible.  Auditors will be here the last week in September and will present to the Board the first meeting in December.

AGENDA ITEM 6 (CONTINUED)

         b.  Yearly Update from Rescue

Amy Akerlind gave a presentation on the Rescue Department.  They responded to 1,000

calls this past year.  They have 33 active volunteers, 5 paid staff, and 6 junior members.  They have taken on 12 new volunteers and had 9 others that resigned.  Four members completed the EMT Basic Course, 5 members go onto the next level of EMT, and 4 members are attending the paramedic course.  She explained the advantages of having paramedics on Board.  The new ambulance will be in service soon and they will be looking at getting an intercept vehicle early next year. 

The Board questioned the new power cot, the cost of equipment, how they recruit, cost of

training and use of grant money.

Mr. Voegele commended Ms. Akerlind for being an able leader growing the department

and improving the ambulance service in Colchester.  The Board thanked Ms. Akerlind for

the hard work she does and the services the Department offers the community.

7.      APPROVAL OF PETITIONS & LICENSES

8.      APPROVAL OF LIQUOR LICENSES – Recess to Liquor Control Board.

         There were no liquor licenses for approval.

9.      OLD BUSINESS

10.    NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Voegele reported the City of Winooski approached Mr. Paquette asking if Colchester would allow Winooski to include Saint Michael’s College as part of their Legislative voting district, as a result of the reapportionment of the Legislature.

Mr. Landry gave a history stating that part of Colchester was considered part of the Winooski district years ago, and the Town had to work at getting them to be considered part of Colchester.  Winooski needs to pick up three percent to be on their own and they are appealing the census which may get them more numbers. Mr. Landry suggested that the Board of Civil Authority be informed that Colchester is fine with four representatives and that we prefer not to segment off an important part of our community. Let Winooski see what they can do about finding additional numbers. The rest of the Board was in agreement.

Mr. Voegele asked how the Board wanted to market Camp Holy Cross and if they wanted to meet the marketing firm to map out a strategy. The Board did want to meet with the firm. Mr. Voegele suggested he could put out an RFP for more firms.  The Board was okay with the firm chosen and did not recommend an RFP.  Mr. Landry suggested that a Selectboard meeting in August be done at the Camp Holy Cross Chapel.  Mr. Palmer added that a picnic/barbeque could also be done and that members of the Town Committees be invited.

Mr. Voegele reported that he had spoken to the Assessor, Bob Vickery after the Public to be Heard agenda item and Mr. Vickery said that minutes were taken at all the hearings.  Also, the Listers did check with the Attorney to see if it was okay to divide up the Listers in hearings and the Attorney felt it would be okay because people could go to the Board of Civil Authority if they were not satisfied with the results of their grievance.  The Board recommended that the Town Attorney be given the document from Joyce George to respond to. 

11.    ADDITIONAL BUSINESS – MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS

         There was no additional business.

12.    INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

13.    FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

August 9, 2011

·    Colchester Center Fire Company’s request for Fire Truck Loan from USDA.

14.    ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

15.    APPROVAL OF WARRANTS

16.    EXECUTIVE SESSION

At 10:10 p.m. MOTION was made by Marc Landry, and SECONDED by Nadine Scibek, to enter executive session to discuss (labor relations, negotiations, civil action) where premature general public knowledge would clearly place the state, municipality, other public body, or person involved at a substantial disadvantage.  The MOTION carried 3-0.

At 11:00 p.m. the Board exited Executive Session.

MOTION was made by Mickey Palmer and SECONDED by Nadine Scibek to appoint Coralie Magoon to the Colchester Cemetery Commission for the remainder of a five year term from April 1, 2011 to March 30, 2016.

The MOTION carried 3-0.

17.    ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 11:01 p.m.

Minutes respectfully submitted by June Campbell, Recording Secretary.

SUPPLEMENT #1

July 12, 2011, Joyce George, Vice President Mills Point Association

In the Town of Colchester’s email dated 6/1/11 (copy attached) they described the assessed difference between the structure and the sale price of a camp on leased land as a “lease hold value”. 

In the Town of Colchester’s email dated 6/28/11 (copy attached) the town did an about face and stated this is not an assessment on the lease or the land, this difference between the structure and the sale price of a camp on leased land is an “amenity”.

We can only assume that after the Town of Colchester sent the first email they realized that assessing our “lease hold value” was:

1) not permitted per the Vermont Listers Handbook because it is not “Real Estate”, only buildings and land are real estate (see Attachment)

2) discriminatory because the Town of Colchester does not assess all leases within Colchester (On 6/24/11 in the closed meeting the Select Board gave an example of business leases not being taxed)

SUPPLEMENT #1 (Continued)

3) inequitable because this method of assessment is not universal throughout Vermont, thereby resulting in an inequitable application of the state wide education tax within the State of Vermont

I assume, that because of the above arguments, the Town of Colchester decided to switch their terminology and call the “lease hold value” an “amenity value”.  You can put lipstick on a Holstein and it is still a Holstein…you can call “lease hold value” an “amenity” but is still a “lease hold value”.

In the sale of a camp on lease land you have the structure and the difference between the value of the structure and the sale price.  This difference is clearly the value of the seller giving up their right to lease the property…nothing else.  We cannot sell our lease, we can only relinquish our right to lease…HVL can choose or not choose to give the buyer a lease.

Therefore….We have no “amenity” that we are selling to a buyer, we are simply giving up our “right to lease” and that is not assessable by the Town of Colchester (reference our “land” grievance appeal of 7/1/2011).

Webster’s Dictionary defines “amenity” as “the attractiveness and value of real estate or of a residential structure” and Webster’s Dictionary defines “Real Estate” as “Buildings” and “Land”; therefore, if you are going to attempt to assess an “amenity” you must attach it either to “Structures/Buildings” or to the “Land”.

You cannot assess an “amenity” against our “structures” because:

1)You have stated that an identical raised ranch on Shady Lane has the same “structure” assessment as an identical raised ranch in Biscayne Heights. 

2) If someone in Colchester was leasing a house and someone offered them $10,000 to give up their lease, is the Town of Colchester proposing to assess to the new lease holder, each and every year going forward, an “amenity” of $10,000, we think not, how would you manage that.

3) If we remove our “structure” from the land, the “amenity” you allude to doesn’t go away; therefore, any proposed “amenity” cannot be attached to the “structure”.

The only other choice the Town of Colchester has is to attach the proposed “amenity” to the “land”:

1)     The leaseholder cannot be assessed since we do not own the land

SUPPLEMENT #1 (Continued)

2)     The Town of Colchester assesses HVL based on the income derived from the leases at Mills Point, Colchester Point and Sand Dunes.  Since any “amenity” value is built into our lease rates, the Town of Colchester has already assessed any “amenity” value to HVL.

Any attempt by the Town of Colchester to assess an additional “amenity” value to the lease holders or HVL would be double taxation.

We disagree with the 6/28/11 email (copy attached) from the Town of Colchester wherein you state you are “charged with valuing “properties” in the Town of Colchester at fair market value (FMV)”.

Page 1 of the Vermont Listers Handbook states: “only the real estate belonging to individuals, and not the detailed categories of personal possessions, are now entered in the grand list.”     

The State of Vermont requires the Town of Colchester to assess “Real Estate” at FMV not “properties” at fair market value.  “Real Estate” per the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is buildings and land. 

In the sale of a camp on lease land the value of the building being sold is “Real Estate” and is required by the State of Vermont to be assessed at FMV.  The difference between the value of the building and the sale price of the “property” is the seller’s “willingness to give up their lease”.   This “willingness to give up a lease” is not “building or land” and therefore not subject to a “Real Estate” tax. 

We have two additional issues with the 6/28/11 email from the Town of Colchester:

First, the email states:   “This method was used in prior town wide reappraisal …”.   In the past the Town of Colchester has not been transparent or forthcoming and previously put this “amenity” value under “out buildings”, people did not know it was there.  Since the Town of Colchester previously appraised leaseholders for more than just the FMV of the structure, and that is not allowed per Page 1 of the Vermont Listers Handbook,  we believe we are entitled to a refund of past taxes because the Town of Colchester has been taxing leaseholders for something that was not “Real Estate” (building and land).

Second, the email also states: “This method…is used in other towns that have similar types of properties”.  Since this method has not been used by all towns in the State of Vermont, this difference in assessment results in an inequitable application of the state wide education tax within the State of Vermont.  Until

SUPPLEMENT #1 (Continued)

this discrepancy is corrected and the State of Vermont legislates a consistent treatment, we hereby request the “land” portion of the current individual assessments at Mills Point be deleted.

Attachment 1 - The following email from the Town of Colchester on 6/1/11 states: “ This value on the right to lease or the lease hold value is not a value on the land…” 

SUPPLEMENT #2

July 26, 2011 Select Board Meeting

 Joyce George, Vice President, Mills Point Association, on behalf of leaseholders of Mills Point, Colchester Point, Sand Dunes and Coates Island

1.       The Town of Colchester’s response to our July 12, 2011 presentation to the Selectboard is not adequate.  On July 12, 2011, I gave a presentation centered on the Town’s assessment of a leaseholders “land/amenity/lease hold value” and provided written copies of that presentation to the Selectboard, the Town Attorney and the Town Assessor. 

·          The brief summary that was included in the Selectboard minutes did not address the three pages of issues that were presented, and the three sentence response was not adequate.  The residents of Mills Point, Colchester Point, Sand Dunes and Coates Island hereby request that the Town of Colchester provide a written legal opinion addressing each of the issues brought forth in the July 12, 2011 presentation.  We request you include the three page presentation and the Town of Colchester’s response under each paragraph.

2.      Minutes of all Listers and BCA meetings, including grievance meetings, must be filed within five days of each meeting.  The following is a direct quote from  “A Handbook on Property Tax Assessment Appeals” (Revised 2009 and published by the Office of the Secretary of State and the Division of Property Valuation and Review of the Vermont Department of Taxes):  

Section I. Minutes - “Listers are required to keep minutes of all public meetings, including grievance meetings.  The minutes must include the names of the members present, as well as those of all active participants; all motions, proposals, and resolutions made, offered and considered, and an indication of how these have been resolved; and the result of all votes, with a record of the individual vote of each member if a roll call vote is taken. 1 V.S.A 312(b).  All minutes must be completed, even though unapproved by the board, within five days of each meeting, and should be filed with the town clerk, so that members of the public have access to them” (Page 21).  There is a similar requirement for the BCA on Page 35. 

One of the leaseholders at Mills Point approached the Colchester Town Clerk and requested a copy of the minutes of her grievance meeting as

SUPPLEMENT #2 (CONTINUED)

well as copies of all the subsequent meetings that the Listers held up to and including their final determination meeting regarding her assessment; she was told there were no such minutes.  Another leaseholder was given her “minutes” however it only contained a list of the five points she made, there were no comments from the Listers.  When she asked for copies of the “minutes” for all of her neighbors she was told it would take 3-4 weeks.

·         A taxpayer has the right to dispute their position to the BCA with details from their appeal hearing, including members present, comments and final decision.   The Town of Colchester (Assessor’s Office) is not complaint with State requirements.  We request that all appeals [from leased lot owners] be voided and that those appeals be repeated with the proper procedures followed.  We request that the Select Board will ensure that, for future appeals, the Listers and BCA will follow these requirements.  If it is not the responsibility of the Selectboard to ensure compliance with State requirements, who is responsible?

3.     All Listers should appear at all grievance meetings.  The following is a direct quote from  “A Handbook on Property Tax Assessment Appeals” (Revised 2009 and published by the Office of the Secretary of State and the Division of Property Valuation and Review of the Vermont Department of Taxes):  

Section E.  The Hearing - “All Listers should appear at the grievance, rather that leaving the work to a single member.  Since the Listers sit in a quasi-judicial capacity, all members must hear all of the evidence in order to make a supportable decision following the grievance hearing.  At least two members of the board of Listers must agree in order to issue a grievance decision which will be respected by the courts."  It is our understanding that for the first two days all board members did attend grievance meetings, then they split up for the rest of the hearings.  This resulted in little consistency; some leaseholders got a reduction in their assessment while like leaseholders did not.

·         The Town of Colchester (Assessor’s Office) is not complaint with State requirements.  We request that all appeals [from leased lot owners] be voided and that those appeals be repeated with the proper procedures followed.  We request that the Select Board will ensure that, for future appeals, the Listers and BCA will follow these requirements.  If it is not the responsibility of the Selectboard to ensure compliance with State requirements, who is responsible?

SUPPLEMENT #2 (CONTINUED)

4.    Grievance Decisions and change of appraisal notices must be sent registered, certified, or certificate of mail.  The following is a direct quote from  “A Handbook on Property Tax Assessment Appeals” (Revised 2009 and published by the Office of the Secretary of State and the Division of Property Valuation and Review of the Vermont Department of Taxes):  

Section F Grievance Decision “Remember, this notice, like the change of appraisal notice before it, must be sent registered, certified, or certificate of mail, or the law will regard it as unsent. 32 V.S.A 4224

·          The Town of Colchester (Assessor’s Office) is not complaint with State requirements.  We request that all appeals [from leased lot owners] be voided and that those appeals be repeated with the proper procedures followed.  We request that the Select Board will ensure that, for future appeals, the Listers and BCA will follow these requirements.  If it is not the responsibility of the Selectboard to ensure compliance with State requirements, who is responsible?

5.     The Uniform Tax Code is not followed by the Town of Colchester.  We have spoken with the Town Assessors in Burlington, South Hero, North Hero, Grand Isle and Charlotte and it is our understanding that they do not assess leaseholders for anything other than the structure (and yard items in the case of Burlington).  We understand that the City of Burlington investigated the legality of taxing “lease hold interest” and decided against it. The “Vermont’s Education Funding System April 2009” on line states, “Regardless of the level of per pupil spending approved by the voters, property tax payers with homesteads of the same market value living in districts that have the same per pupil spending amount, pay the same tax within the tolerances of the system…This taxing system provides the equity to Vermont’s school funding system.”   Since the City of Burlington assesses the value of the “dwelling/yard items” to a lessee and not a “land/amenity/lease hold value” to the lessee, the Town of Colchester, by attempting to assess the “land/amenity/lease hold value” to a lessee, is in violation of the State of Vermont’s policy of taxing all taxpayers equitably. As support for this claim we offer the following information from Burlington’s Property Record Cards;  note there is no assessment for “land”/”amenity”/”lease hold value”, only “structure” and “yard items” are assessed; “Land Value” is clearly “0” :

SUPPLEMENT #2 (CONTINUED)

Total Assessed Values:

Address                     Sale Price      Building Value         Land Value  Yard Items    Total Value

3 Starr Farm              $299,000       $140,900                   0                      0                      $140,900

            8 Starr Farm              $375,000       $57,500                      0                      $100               $57,600

            11 Starr Farm           $375,000       $66,200                      0                      0                      $66,200

·         The Town of Colchester is not in compliance with the Uniform Tax Code.  We request that the Select Board ensure that only dwellings/yard items are taxed as real estate in Colchester, thereby bringing the town of Colchester into compliance with the Uniform Tax Code.

6.       The Town of Colchester is in violation of the Vermont Statutes. The Vermont Statutes Online, Title 32: Taxation and Finance, Chapter 135: Education Property Tax, 32 V.S.A 5401. Definitions, states “(7) “Homestead”: (A) “Homestead” means the principal dwelling and parcel of land surrounding the dwelling, owned and occupied by a resident individual as the individual’s domicile” Many of the leasehold residents in Colchester fall under the “homestead” portion of Act 68; therefore, Colchester can assess the “dwelling” to a leaseholder but are prohibited per the above from assessing the “land/amenity/lease hold value” to a “Homestead” leaseholder.                             

·         The Town is not in compliance with the Homestead portion Vermont Statutes. We request that the Select Board ensure that the Town conforms to the Homestead portion of Vermont Statutes.

7.       The Town of Colchester is in violation of the Vermont Statutes. 32 V.S.A. § 3651, Vermont Statutes On Line, states the general rule that "Taxable real estate shall be set in the list to the last owner or possessor thereof on April 1 in each year in the town, village, school and fire district where it is situated."     32 V.S.A. 3608 states the general rule that “Buildings on leased land or on land not owned by the owner of the buildings shall be set in the list as real estate”.  Note:   this only allows assessment of “buildings” on leased land and nothing else.  This is in agreement with the definition of real estate which is “building” and “land”. 

·         The Town is not in compliance with 32 V.S.A. 3608 with respect to the assessment of buildings only on leased land.  We request that the

SUPPLEMENT #2 (CONTINUED)

Select Board ensure that the Town conform its assessments to State Statute by assessing “buildings” and not “land/amenity/leasehold”.

8.      Amenity vs. leasehold value. 

a.     We sell a camp for $100,000 with a structure assessment of $50,000

b.     Since the Town of Colchester has stated in writing that the difference between the structure and the sale price is not the value of the “lease” we have decided not to give up our “lease”.

c.     Since we have retained our lease we will not allow the buyer to trespass on our leased land to get to the structure/amenity that they purchased.

Does the Town of Colchester’s written position that they are not assessing our “lease” make any sense? 

A lease hold value is ‘personal property’ which is not taxable as ‘real estate’ per the following:

·         Merriam-Webster dictionary defines real estate as: “buildings and land” and

·         From Act 68:   Sec. 54.  32 V.S.A. § 9701(7) is amended to read: “(7)  Tangible personal property:  means personal property which may be seen, weighed, measured, felt, touched or in any other manner perceived by the senses” and

·         The Vermont Statutes Online, Title 32: Taxation and Finance, Chapter 135: Education Property Tax, 32 V.S.A 5401. Definitions,  state  “(10) “Nonresidential property” means all property except:….(D) Personal property” and

·         Page 1 of the Vermont Listers Handbook states: “only the real estate belonging to individuals, and not the detailed categories of personal possessions, are now entered in the grand list.”

We request the Town of Colchester comply with the definition of real estate, Act 68, the Vermont Statutes and Vermont Listers Handbook by deleting the current “land/amenity/leasehold” assessment.    

9.      Over valuation in the new assessment exacerbates the problem of affordable housing and foreclosures.  In the last four years there have been at least two year round residencies on Mills Point that sold in an arm’s length transaction for under $63,000, and in both cases the “land/amenity” assessment by itself is $75,000 each, now does this make sense?  This is affordable low cost housing in its purest form.  The State of Vermont has been trying to encourage affordable low cost housing for several years, however, by coming out of the closet (previously Colchester placed a token assessment for “land/amenity/lease hold value” under

SUPPLEMENT #2 (CONTINUED)

the category “out buildings”) and assessing a substantial “lease hold value” (which is not allowable per the State of Vermont Statutes), the Town of Colchester will be eliminating one of its largest communities of affordable low cost housing.   Only the wealthy people from out of state will be able to buy properties on Mills Point, Colchester Point, Sand Dunes and Coates Island.   On Mills Point there are 66 year round structures and the majority of these provide affordable low cost housing to their residents.  Many of these residents have stated they will no longer be able to afford to live in their home and Colchester will lose one of their largest bases of affordable low cost housing.    Almost 4% of our house sites are currently in foreclosure and that number could grow to 45% by forcing the people who need affordable low cost housing from their only home.

The fact that a few wealthy people from out of state came to Colchester and admittedly overpaid is no reason for the Town of Colchester to eliminate affordable low cost housing at Mills Point.  Is the Town of Colchester concerned that they are causing foreclosures and eliminating affordable housing?

10. Principle and interest on current and prior taxes attributable to the “land” assessment for leaseholders should be held in escrow by a third party for the Town of Colchester.  Since the Town of Colchester charges us interest when we are late, we assume the Town of Colchester is prepared to refund the "land" portion of our taxes with interest when the “land” assessment is reversed by the courts. 

·         We request that the “land” portion of our taxes be held in escrow by a third party for the Town of Colchester until such time as the “land/amenity/leasehold” assessment is resolved.

11. The town must budget for a loss in revenue, court costs and reimbursement of illegally collected taxes.  Should the Town of Colchester fail to act now, and court action becomes our only recourse, the town is advised to budget accordingly for the loss of currently planned revenue (the land portion taxed to lease holders), for the court costs, and for reimbursement of illegally collected past (including the formerly concealed “out building” line which has been documented as being in fact, the land tax) and present taxes.

·         We request the Town of Colchester immediately begin budgeting for a loss in revenue, court costs and reimbursement of illegally collected taxes.

SUPPLEMENT #2 (CONTINUED)

Taxpayers of Mills Point, Colchester Point, Sand Dunes and Coates Island hereby request that the Town of Colchester include the full text of this presentation and our presentation submitted on July 12, 2011 in the minutes of this Selectboard meeting.  We also request that the Town of Colchester’s legal position, referencing applicable Vermont statutes, be inserted after every paragraph of the two presentations.  We have numbered the paragraphs in this presentation to aid you in your response.

In summary:  The Town of Colchester is clearly in violation of Vermont Statutes, Act 68 and the Uniform Tax Code.  Colchester can either confirm to us in writing that will immediately bring the town into compliance with Vermont Statutes, Act 68 and the Uniform Tax Code and delete the “land/amenity/leasehold” assessment or they can knowingly choose to remain in violation.  If you choose to knowingly remain in violation of the Vermont Statutes, Act 68 and the Uniform Tax Code, we as taxpayers will have no choice but to raise these issues to a higher authority resulting in additional legal expenses to the taxpayers and the Town of Colchester. 

Respectfully submitted 7/26/2011 on behalf of leaseholders on Mills Point, Colchester Point, Sand Dunes and Coates Island.  Joyce George, Vice President, Mills Point Association.

SIGNATURE PAGE:

The minutes were approved on August 9, 2011.

COLCHESTER SELECTBOARD:

__________________________________                ___________________________________

L. Richard Paquette                                                 Marc Landry

__________________________________                ___________________________________

Myron Palmer                                                           Nadine Scibek