BRATTLEBORO — The feds say gathering public input is the state’s responsibility.
The state says it takes its cue from the Selectboard.
The Selectboard says it’s up to the state.
The state says it’s regulated by the feds.
The feds say members of the public need to take responsibility and engage with the process.
So, whose responsibility is it to get public opinion on proposed mast arm traffic lights for Main Street?
“There is a public process here. We followed the process, and some input was taken. No matter what you say, some people will like the process and some people won’t,” Selectboard Chair Dick DeGray says.
The state Agency of Transportation (AOT) wants to install mast arm traffic lights along Main Street as part of the Route 5 repaving project that’s due to start within weeks.
The choice has ignited a fiery debate over public participation and historic preservation.
Selectboard Vice Chair Dora Bouboulis is circulating a petition requesting that the AOT hold public input meetings on the traffic lights and that the AOT, Selectboard, state legislators and congressional delegation “advocate for a public process.” Bouboulis says at least 500 people have signed.
“I’m always looking for more public process on anything. The more people see it, the better plan you come up with,” Bouboulis says.
The AOT started planning and designing the Route 5 project in 1996. It includes repaving the road to Putney, expanding some sidewalks and and narrowing others, adding traffic lights at “Malfunction Junction,” and replacing the traffic lights at the intersections of Main, Flat, Elliot and High streets. Federal and state monies are funding the project. According to Town Manager Barbara Sondag, the state waived the 10 percent municipalities are usually required to contribute.
The project received unanimous support from the Brattleboro Traffic Safety and Control Committee in December 2008 and a unanimous vote from the Selectboard in October 2009.
“We did our due diligence and maintained communication with the town reps,” AOT project manager Ken Upmal says.
“From my standpoint, why isn’t this going through the Planning Commission?” Bouboulis asks.
The Traffic Safety and Control Committee is not a public committee, unlike the Planning Commission, which is designed for public process and looking at the town’s growth holistically.
Bouboulis, who originally voted in favor of the project, raised concerns about the mast arm street lights at a June 1 Selectboard meeting [The Commons, June 10] and in an interview on iBrattleboro.com.
“If people change their minds after the fact, I don’t know if there’s much the agency can do,” Upmal says.
The type of project dictates the type of public hearings required by the federal government.
According to John Zicconi, AOT’s director of planning, outreach and community affairs, the Route 5 project dictated AOT hold a public hearing — required when there are right-of-way issues — and obtain a historic preservation clearance.
The AOT met both requirements, Zicconi says. The agency held the first public hearing in 2003. A historian at the AOT ruled the project had “no adverse [historical] impact” on the downtown and awarded the clearance Sept. 14, 2009.
“Just because the state works slowly doesn’t mean you get to approve [the project] and 10 years later do it,” Bouboulis says.
Zicconi says Brattleboro is not the first historic downtown AOT has developed projects for and that the agency must meet federal and state safety standards, especially when receiving federal funds.
The mast arm lights meet the standards for visibility and safety.
“We followed all procedures required by law. If the community wants to put the brakes on this project, we take our cue from the Selectboard,” he says.
He suggests in the future citizens engage earlier when the project is being shaped.
How public is public debate?
The mast arm debate has raised questions as to whether the Selectboard sidestepped public process.
“That’s totally inaccurate. We’ve taken public input,” says Selectboard Clerk Jesse Corum. “I have no problem with public input, but you have to do it on a schedule.”
Corum says the Route 5 project was passed by the Traffic Safety and Control Committee and discussed at publicly warned meetings. He cites the creation of the Recycling Coordinator and budgeting $150,000 for PAYT bags for people who can’t afford them as examples the Selectboard incorporating public input.
He added that the state open meeting law requires the town to inform, or warn, the public about meetings. He cautioned against going beyond the required legal minimum because the town could get into trouble if an extra notification, step or action is used for one meeting but not another.
Matt Mann, transportation planner with the Windham Regional Commission, participated in the municipal committee, working with the AOT beginning in 2008. The committee included Sondag and Planning Director Roderick Francis. He feels AOT employees did their due diligence.
“[They were] willing to do outreach, but also had to keep to a fast-tracked schedule,” he says.
Mann suggests it may be helpful if the town hosts a “talk-through” meeting following municipal meetings where large projects like Route 5 have been presented. People can have a chance to digest the information, but it will still be fresh in their minds.
“For me, I’m wondering why people feel they didn’t get opportunity to participate. When people want to discuss something, they find their way to a Selectboard meeting,” says DeGray.
But Brattleboro voters don’t make it a habit to attend meetings or cast their votes.
DeGray uses the Brattleboro Union High School annual budget meeting as an example. About 1.5 percent of the 15,000 registered voters attend to discuss a $27 million budget. To his knowledge, only 255 absentee ballots have been processed for the upcoming pay-as-you-throw vote June 29.
“People need to take some responsibility,” he says.
Building a Better Brattleboro members sent a letter listing their concerns — among them, preserving the town’s historic character — in 2009.
Executive Director Andrea Livermore says in an ideal world the whole process would have been better, yet it was not a failure. She used the example of grades: there is a difference between an A+ and a C–, but they are both passing marks.
“The public process [with this project] does not get an A+, but it also gets a check in that [passing] box,” she says. “Let’s trust each other that we’re all [in Brattleboro] trying to do the right thing.”
Upmal says the project is still moving forward. The agency, which needs to start work within weeks to meet a Dec. 12 completion, will work with the contractor to find potential ornamentation for the mast arm lights to help mitigate the situation. They will send the contractor’s findings to the town.
“When it’s all said and done, I think the community will be pleased. I hope the community will appreciate what we’ve done,” Upmal says.