Authored by: SpudHill on Saturday, May 09 2009 @ 06:59 AM GMT+4

About these sidewalks....how do the local merchants feel about months of drilling, concrete dust flying about, access to stores being blocked by poured concrete and the general disruption that will be caused by this project, especially in this economic climate when they're already a little short of customers. I certainly won't be too interested in having a cup of coffee, checking out the paintings or merchandise if it means listening to constant drilling out front or walking through pulverized concrete.

Also when will this be done...spring/summer/fall? Seems you can't pour concrete in winter so will we do this in spring when people first start coming out and shopping more downtown, summer and fall when the tourist season is on? Was that every discussed?

I've lived through projects like this and they are messy and disrupt business...those concrete pavers don't just lift up, they must be removed by drilling which is extremely loud. Maybe the store owners could just open up during Gallery Walk and close their businesses during the weekdays....actually it may turn out that they might as well. Is this some sort of plot to force them to stay open during Gallery Walk?

Authored by: P on Saturday, May 09 2009 @ 07:37 AM GMT+4

I'm really surprised about many people on the list who didn't vote.

Authored by: annikee on Saturday, May 09 2009 @ 07:39 AM GMT+4

I am, too. Tom Finnell is on vacation, but where was Spoon? He just wrote all that stuff about the sidewalks?

---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: ScottMcCarty on Saturday, May 09 2009 @ 11:13 PM GMT+4

I have to say that I was surprised that more people didn't vote against the plant proposal. I voted for all of these bond issues and I really had to hold my nose and vote for the plant even though I feel that the engineers are completely ripping off the town. However, as Chuck Robb Sr. said, we have to bite the bullet on this one. It's a necessity.

Glad to also see that the sidewalk issue past. However, I hope that we can get some work done on sidewalk repair on High Street, Putney Road and some of the side streets. My street could certainly use some improvements but I also just walk in the middle of the road when I walk Hallie.

---
www.scottforbrattleboro.org

Authored by: SpudHill on Sunday, May 10 2009 @ 05:17 AM GMT+4

Scott,
You don't think almost $2 million to replace sidewalks on the downtown area (which isn't that bad) too much money. It would have made more sense if you had put it towards the sidewalks on Canal Street or somewhere else.

However the waste treatment plant seems like a necessity. The cost there considering the project actually makes some sense.

If you want to do something to improve conditions for pedestrians and drivers for that matter the money would have been better spent creating some sort of safer walkway between the bridge by the Marina over to Hannafords. There's no sidwalk at all there and plenty of pedestrians creating a very dangerous situation. It's tricky walking and tricky driving because of the pedestrians. That would have made sense. An accident waiting to happen and yet we're replacing something that didn't really need replacing. Sorry but this just shows me very little discussion about where real problem areas are.

I'll repeat, in this economic climate you replace what absolutely needs to be replaced (i.e, the wastewater plant) and if you're going to be spending infrastructure money then do it where it absolutely needs to be done. I walk one of the roads you mentioned daily and while not a promenade it's just fine for now. I'd much rather see situations where there are no sidewalks and people constantly walking on the edge of roadways fixed.

Authored by: ScottMcCarty on Sunday, May 10 2009 @ 11:05 AM GMT+4

All good points and well taken. If you check out my comments in the "Quorum Calling..." post, you'll see that I actually agree with you that the funds should have been directed at needier areas such as Green, Canal, Western Ave, Putney Road and many of the side access streets. I was specifically focusing on District 3 but I'm sure there are streets that could use improvements in District 2 and District 1.

All good points, though. I would be interested to hear how other Town Meeting Reps voted on this issue.

---
www.scottforbrattleboro.org

Authored by: SpudHill on Sunday, May 10 2009 @ 04:22 PM GMT+4

"I actually agree with you that the funds should have been directed at needier areas such as Green, Canal, Western Ave, Putney Road and many of the side access streets."

Scotty...don't you think in these economic times we should only be doing projects that ARE "needy"....if it ain't broke don't fix it, if it only needs patching, patch it?

Economically we are not all that stable yet and things could go downhill very rapidly. The Selectboard should be taking a very conservative approach to spending right now because we are still on the edge economically (the country that is) and it could be devastating for a lot of homeowners if they are burdened with huge tax bills because of projects like this and the economy drops even more. It's not going to hurt me that much, I can handle it but the reason why is years of being fiscally prudent and making careful decisions.

I'm seriously worried that the SB is not being fiscally prudent enough...now with these funds going to downtown which really truly is not in bad shape we are going to loose the opportunity to use the fed funds for the streets that really need fixing and that means the taxpayers will pay for the total cost of those projects. Don't count on matching funds so much and don't misuse the matching funds we have access to.

Authored by: Timmy on Monday, May 11 2009 @ 09:52 AM GMT+4

I just want to chime in to remind folks that it's not like we could have taken that $300,000 and just used it for fixing sidewalks that are more in need.
This is a grant that Barb Sondag has applied for, but the grant requires a $300,000 town commitment in order to secure a total of $1,200,000 more funds for the project. It's sort of a "you gotta pay to play" thing - if you want the money, you gotta chip in the 300 k.
I agree that there are areas that need the work MUCH more, but this is not about that - this matching grant is specifically for downtown area, and there are plenty of spots that do need help there.
So I can see someone arguing that spending the $300 k to get the 1.5 million is not worth it at this time, but it is not the case that we could use this grant for those more needy areas.
I deliberated for quite awhile on this one, but ended up voting yes after recognizing that maintaining and improving our downtown is very important, and this was a good opportunity for the town.

By the way, Representative Kathy Urffer made a great speech about looking into porous concrete to improve groundwater retention and alleviate strain on our storm water systems, which was welcomed with much applause, and Steve Barrett and Barb promised to look into that possibility.

Authored by: pjmelton on Monday, May 11 2009 @ 10:13 AM GMT+4

Thanks for explaining how this all works.

I think those of us who area sort of dropping our jaws over this number are thinking something like this:

If we have $300K to spend on downtown sidewalks, why can't we spend it somewhere else instead?

Sure, no matching funds - but $300K is $300K. So when do we get our turn out in West B.? When does super-dangerous Putney Road gets its turn? Why not save that $300K for something else altogether?

If part of what they are planning to fix is around Malfunction Junction, i will feel slightly better about the spending, but for the most part the downtown sidewalks seem pretty good to me, unlike the sidewalks (and lack thereof) out where I live. The co-op area and just up the hill from there are the one exception I can think of. Do you know specific target areas where the money will be spent?

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: cgrotke on Monday, May 11 2009 @ 11:44 AM GMT+4

The money could have been spent on anything. Reps chose to raise
and spend the money as Timmy says, to match an opportunity from
the state to do downtown sidewalks.

In theory they could have said no to everything, or yes to the
treatment plant but no to the sidewalks, or.... Reps could have asked
for money anything they wanted if enough of them voted in favor.

Putney Road is a bit like the sidewalks - the state has plans to re-do
it, sometime, someday. There are lots of neat plans for Putney Road -
check around the Brain Trust for the Master Plan and various maps.

Authored by: Timmy on Monday, May 11 2009 @ 11:48 AM GMT+4

Well it's not like we have 300k just sitting around - it's being borrowed at a very good rate (money is 'cheap' these days) for this purpose.
Yes a similar bond could be taken out for say $100 K to do the worst areas too, but that would be a separate issue... or, more conservatively, an existing repair budget could be modified to direct more money into sidewalk repair of course.
Your questions about what will be replaced should be directed to Town Manager's office. My sense is that it is not yet set in concrete (sorry, couldn't resist) so public input might be valuable to make sure the money is well spent for the best use.

Authored by: pjmelton on Monday, May 11 2009 @ 12:55 PM GMT+4

It still seems to me that $300K is $300K. If you can borrow it to get matching funds, you can borrow it to repair different sidewalks instead, right? This has become a rhetorical question, though. I know a dead horse when I see it.

I actually have a lot of faith in Barb Sondag's judgment, and if I were a rep I would likely have voted for this as well. But just from the point of view of living in constant fear walking along and across my own street, I do get this knee-jerk reaction watching downtown's nice, wide, unbroken sidewalks getting $300,000 poured into them while there are extremely dangerous places in other parts of town that get neglected year after year because of lack of funds. I figure even if I support the downtown sidewalk project, part of my job as someone who wants to commute by foot and bike more often is to be a squeaky wheel to make sure people realize we ARE still paying attention out here in West B., so maybe next time there are matching funds for something nice we are more likely to be graced with a few pennies.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: ScottMcCarty on Monday, May 11 2009 @ 12:33 PM GMT+4

Kathy referred to her ideas as "sexy."

The only problem is that the proposition is fairly expensive. I believe they did a porous concrete at UVM and UNH. I'm going to look into it. Regardless, Main Street is going to get a face lift.

However, I do agree that Putney Road and West B deserve some of this money.

Baby steps. We'll get this taken care of.

---
www.scottforbrattleboro.org

Authored by: cgrotke on Monday, May 11 2009 @ 01:06 PM GMT+4

Porous concrete is great. It's larger chunks of stone and the water gets
sucked away faster than if it were topsoil. A engineer I spoke with said
the one thing to consider is cleaning it. You'd want to vacuum it on a
regular basis, or else debris gets in there and defeats the purpose.

Authored by: SpudHill on Monday, May 11 2009 @ 01:22 PM GMT+4

This whole conversation (or at least on the part of the reps that chimed in) is really upsetting because at no point is there any discussion that shows any concern or acknowledgment of current economics overall. It's pretty obvious to me that the decision was made to spend $300,000 because the grant money was tied to it.

I find it even more upsetting that there's a suggestion that the application was made for downtown specifically...who made the decision that the sidewalks needed to be redone...just Barbara? If an application was made to get this money specifically for the downtown area what was the process, who decided that taxpayers should spend the money on what really are perfectly good sidewalks? How was that application made?

Is there some sort of thought that in the midst of a countrywide economic slowdown that people are going to be more likely to visit the town if the sidewalks are new? I mean, really, what is the thought process behind this.

Someone mentioned that crazy intersection by the coop...now there's an accident waiting to happen and could really need a light or some sort of work. That would make sense but to redo the entire area is, in my humble opinion, nuts. Personally I think this is a waste of infrastructure money and I think it's indicative of a lack of fiscal responsbiility on the part of those making these decisions in town.

But I've made my opinion perfectly clear, now I'll watch as the poor store owners deal with the mess, noise and construction that will probably drag on for twice as long as thought...you know how those deadlines always work in construction. That oughta really draw the tourist trade.....

Authored by: cgrotke on Monday, May 11 2009 @ 02:23 PM GMT+4

The state offered the grant. The town noticed and told the Selectboard. The Selectboard liked it and decided to put it on the agenda for the special town meeting, to see if the Town Reps would approve it or say no thank you.

The Town Meeting Reps made the real decision. They voted for borrowing money to do the downtown sidewalks. (And to fix the chiller barrel. And to borrow money for the new treatment plant. They said no to buying property to help build the treatment plant, though.)

It seems the reasons for voting for it were varied, but mostly it seemed like a "deal" to many to pay $300k and get $1.5 million in results.

Authored by: SpudHill on Monday, May 11 2009 @ 02:36 PM GMT+4

So now I'm really confused.
The money for the sidewalks is separate from the money for the treatment plant and chiller barrel right?

So there was a grant for the whatever million tied to a payment by the town for $300,000 that was open to any project that involved infrastructure and this is what our Selectboard decided needed to be done?

Is that correct?

Authored by: cgrotke on Monday, May 11 2009 @ 02:50 PM GMT+4

The projects were separate.

Town Meeting Reps decided on each one.

The Selectboard presented the options to the reps for their
consideration, but could not force them to do decide one way or
another. They could only put them on the agenda, and argue the
merits.

They did argue for the $32.8 million for the wastewater treatment
plant. The Rec Dept argued for the chiller barrel and explained that it
would be paid for by user fees. They argued for the land purchase,
and for the sidewalk improvements.

Town Meeting Reps didn't go for their land purchase argument, and
they could have said no to everything. They could have proposed
alternatives, too.

I think your confusion is in the deciding - the Reps decided - the
others brought up the matters for discussion because they felt they
were important for Town Meeting members to weigh in on.

If the reps had said no, no sidewalks would be replaced downtown at
this time, even if the Selectboard or Town really, really wanted them.

Authored by: SpudHill on Monday, May 11 2009 @ 03:55 PM GMT+4

Thanks Chris....that does make this process more clear.
I still think it's a wasteful spending of infrastructure money when there are so many other areas in town that could use the work.

It also makes me curious about the make-up of the Reps....how many are actual homeowners and hence bearing the immediate impact of these decisions...and then what about renters of which we have many who will see these decisions reflected in rent increases....what is the median age hence experience with economic downturns and/or recessions....you don't really need to answer these questions but I do wonder....

it seems like such an odd choice of ways to spend infrastructure money as if the thinking is that the economy is going now steadily move upwards and taxpayers can just spend more on those areas that have been mentioned here that really do need attention. At what point will we end up with tax bills like Connecticut and areas of Massachusetts...which would be crazy as we don't have the economic base to support those sorts of expenditures.