Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Town Plan Implementation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regional trainer urges capital budgeting, supporting plans to make town plans actionable in the Rutland region
Summary
At a Rutland‑region planning training, a presenter reviewed statutory tools in 24 V.S.A. ch. 117 subch. 8 and emphasized capital budgeting, supporting plans and advisory groups as practical steps to get projects “shovel ready” and competitive for grants.
A regional planning presenter told local officials that statutory tools and simple implementation practices are essential to turn town plans into built projects.
At the training, which opened with a review of 24 V.S.A., chapter 117, subchapter 8, the presenter highlighted section 4430—"the capital budget and program"—as a foundational tool because, the presenter said, "nothing can get done without money, right?" That tool, the presenter said, lets towns create a capital investment program and a multi‑year capital forecast that aligns spending with town‑plan priorities.
Why it matters: The presenter said capital budgeting creates predictability for residents, developers and funding agencies and can influence eligibility for bond or grant funding. "The Vermont Bond bank is one entity that's looking at maybe in the future even requiring capital planning to seek bond bank funding," the presenter said, arguing that an organized capital program demonstrates a municipality's commitment to manage large sums responsibly.
How to use supporting plans: The presenter urged towns to adopt supporting plans—master plans, access management plans, neighborhood or center plans and targeted feasibility studies—so discrete projects can be moved from concept to construction. "What we're trying to do is move those ideas from concept to construction by concept development, cost estimates and phasing strategies," the presenter said, noting that these steps help make projects "shovel ready."
Local examples and capacity issues: Attendees raised local examples—housing studies in Mount Holly, a Fair Haven feasibility study on a town‑owned parcel, culvert and road erosion inventories—and discussed capacity constraints in smaller towns. Jason, a participant, agreed to share the presentation file when asked.
Advisory groups and coordination: The presenter recommended joint meetings and routine communication among planning commissions, select boards and municipal staff to avoid siloed decision‑making. Participants praised "all boards" meetings and joint sessions for issues such as preferred‑site letters for solar projects. Brian joked that "there's more articles written about transfer development rights in Vermont than has ever actually happened," underscoring how some statutory tools are infrequently used in practice.
Access and meeting law: Near the close, participants discussed open‑meeting access and federal disability law. One attendee noted that "the Americans with Disability Act is an overriding umbrella," raising inclusion concerns for remote and in‑person meetings.
What comes next: The presenter said staff would look into examples of purchase/acceptance of development rights under section 4431 and reminded attendees that municipal planning grants are typically available each fall; the presenter gave a ballpark figure that the statewide program recently made about $1 million to $1.5 million available and that individual grants can be up to $30,000 for a single town or $45,000 for multi‑town applications. The session closed with a notice that Two Rivers will hold a follow‑up session on regulatory mechanisms for plan implementation on June 18.
Attributions in this article use speaker labels from the training: Presenter (the session speaker), Jason and Brian (participants who spoke during Q&A) and Bay Wheeler (an online participant who identified multiple municipal roles).
