Table of Contents of Village Advancement Committee Minutes on Essex Junction Web Site

This page last updated
08/30/07

D R A F T
(Draft minutes to be approved at next meeting of the Village Advancement Committee)

VILLAGE OF ESSEX JUNCTION
VILLAGE ADVANCEMENT COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING
August 15, 2007

Present at meeting:  Mary Jo Engel, Lesley Mooney, Saramichelle Stultz, Steve Eustis, John Lajza, Jerry Firkey, George Tyler, Marla Durham

There were no public comments. The meeting opened with the approval of the minutes of the July meeting.

Saramichelle presented the results of preliminary survey taken at the Village Block Party. The total number of surveys submitted was 75. She said the questions broke down as follows:

- 36% of respondents said they would prefer to take a survey online

- 28% said they would prefer being surveyed by mail

- 32% said they preferred being surveyed in person

Of the areas of interest presented on the survey, the results broke down as follows:

- 63% answered that Village-Town relations were a priority

-52% answered that municipal services were a priority

-48% answered that how the budget drives the tax rate was a priority

- 44% answered that housing and commercial development were a priority

-31% answered that safety and emergency services were a priority

-27% answered that access to local government was a priority

-21% answered that volunteer opportunities and community involvement were a priority

Saramichelle also presented a list of write-comments compiled from the surveys (Note: the write-in comments can be read under a separate heading from minutes).

Members of the Village Advancement Committee (VAC) said they felt that the sampling obtained from the preliminary survey was adequate to provide guidance on how to proceed with the full survey, and that it was not necessary to attempt to obtain more preliminary survey results.

The VAC decided that the next step is to actually begin formulating questions for the survey and use the questionnaire results as a guide. Members of the VAC had been asked to submit ten questions to Saramichelle to serve as a basis for beginning the process of formulating the survey. Saramichelle said many of the questions were similar  She and the rest of the survey subcommittee agreed to meet independently and collate the questions. They agree to meet on August 22 at the Brownell Library for that purpose to meet the following week also if necessary.

There was a discussion about how many questions in total should be on the survey -- it was suggested that 20 - 25 might be a reasonable number.

Jerry commented that the results from the preliminary survey at the Block Party were encouraging and that there seemed to be some agreement on what people wanted to talk about and suggested narrowing the list of questions down to coincide with the preliminary survey results. He said that 25 might be too many and suggested making it shorter.

John said it was important to make the questions easy to answer, easy to answer and reliable.

Marla suggested that there be an introduction about some of the background issues relating to the questions. She also wondered if the possible changes to IBM’s tax assessment would suddenly give people a different perspective on community issues.

Steve said it would be very difficult to anticipate exactly how the IBM change would play out and how it might effect other budgetary issues in the village.

Mary Jo agreed but added that it might be a good idea to include some information about how the budget drives the tax rate.

Marla said it might be worthwhile to try to ascertain on the survey how much knowledge people have of specific issues.

John noted that some of the questions on the survey could serve as a basis for further actions by the village trustees and that some of those actions might require additional expenditures.

Sam suggested a question asking what do you feel most knowledgeable about in village affairs.

It was suggested that because including too much information on the survey might make it cumbersome, that background information be put on the village web site and a note be included on the survey informing people that if they needed more information they could access the village site.

The VAC then discussed how to break the survey into sections.  Steve suggested using the preliminary survey results as a guide but for the survey committee to use their own judgment He said that with the questions that other members had already developed, much of the material might already be at hand. He said it was understood that the rest of the VAC would be consulted to ensure that questions they felt were important were not left out,  but that the survey subcommittee should exercise their judgment in trying to keep the survey fairly brief and user-friendly.

George suggested that the VAC try to have the actual survey ready by October. That would allow two months for the results to be tabulated and presented to the trustees for the start of the new year.  He also pointed out that the school districts will be holding the vote for the unified union school district on November 6, and that that might present an opportunity to poll village voters in person. He noted that the survey would also be mailed and, possibly, emailed to voters prior to that, but the live polling might add to the overall result total.

Steve suggested the possibility of mailing the survey out with the village newsletter that is sent in the mail.

George suggested that the VAC may need to meet more frequently, now that summer is over, in order to get the survey ready by October.

Steve suggested the whole group meeting in mid-September and then, possibly, again at the end of Sept or the first of Oct.  It was agreed that the whole VAC would meet again on Sept 12. The survey subcommittee agreed to meet with Aug 22 and, if necessary, Aug 29.

The VAC briefly turned its attention again to the upcoming Unified Union School District (UUSD) vote. Saramichelle wondered if the VAC should invite one of the Unified Union Study Committee (UUSC) members to a VAC meeting to explain what is going on. George said that the UUSC has produced its required articles and they are no longer seeking community input on how to proceed. He said he anticipated that the CCSU and the school districts would hold public hearings.

Jerry questioned why the UUSC vote would be of interest to the VAC. George said that a member of the UUSC had expressed interest in the VAC and suggested the possibility of the VAC including a question about the unified union school district on its survey. Marla said that there had been no independent analysis of the projected budget being offered by UUC and had great concerns about the vote and possible results, for that reason.

George then opened discussion about a proposed website for the village municipality. He said after comparing a number of local and national web design firms, the firm that seemed to offer the best content management system, graphic design capability, pricing, and personalized service was Vermont Web Design in Winooski, VT. He asked the committee’s approval to present a proposal to the village trustees to approve the necessary expenditure to have Vermont Web Design proceed with a new municipal web site. 

Steve emphasized the need to make sure that all the content that is presently on the site be included on the new site. Jerry made a motion to recommend the VT Web Design proposal to the trustees with the condition that VT Web Design be available to work with village staff at no extra charge on problems that arise during the contract period.  The other committee members unanimously approved the motion.

Steve then discussed research he had done on legislature’s dealings with the historical issue of Montpelier and East Montpelier in regards to village-town charter changes He also reviewed his own experience with Essex Junction’s charter change attempt in 1999 with regards to the Legislature. He said it pretty clearly demonstrated that when it comes to such municipal issues the Legislature “does what it wants” and that politics weighs heavily in its decisions. He said the lesson for Essex Junction in terms of an considered charter changes is that a controversial charter change proposal has a much better chance of passage if it is supported by a large majority. He said he believed a favorable charter changes would be possible for the village if it was clear that most of the community favored it.

Marla presented some organizational information about the Chittenden Central Supervisory Union and how the local school districts are organized.

The meeting adjourned at 8:50.

Respectfully submitted by George Tyler

Back to Village Advancement Committee