282 A.3d 1184
Vt.2022Background
- Barnet Fire District No. 2 Prudential Committee sought to buy and rehabilitate the private water system and obtain an SRF loan, which required issuance of a municipal bond.
- Statute required a committee necessity resolution at a committee meeting and a warned bond vote; the Committee never formally adopted a necessity resolution and misstated meeting actions in warning documents.
- The bond question was warned, an informational meeting and vote were held, and voters approved the bond 30–6 in February 2014; plaintiff challenged the process in June 2014.
- The Committee adopted two validation resolutions (June 2014 and April 2015), the latter invoking 24 V.S.A. § 1757 to cure the procedural defects.
- The trial court found Open Meeting Law violations but concluded they resulted from oversight/mistake, that the second validation cured the defects, denied plaintiff’s requests for a new trial and attorney’s fees, and rejected the curb-stop fee challenge; the Supreme Court affirmed and remanded for final judgment for the Bond Bank as well.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 24 V.S.A. § 1757 may cure Open Meeting Law violations in the bond process | §1757 cannot cure Open Meeting Law violations; cure requires a new public meeting and independent vote | §1757 broadly cures statutory defects in bond proceedings, including Open Meeting Law errors | §1757 may cure Open Meeting Law violations when defects result from oversight, inadvertence, or mistake and validation vote requirements are met; court affirmed cure |
| Whether plaintiff was entitled to a new trial to admit excluded evidence | Trial court improperly excluded Exhibit 16 and related testimony; new trial warranted | Exclusion was within trial court discretion; no transcript provided to show error | Denied; appellant failed to provide transcript and did not show abuse of discretion |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees under 1 V.S.A. § 314 | New attorney-fee statute should apply retroactively or otherwise supports fees here | §314 is substantive and enacted after suit; cannot be applied retroactively; even if applied, statutory pre-suit steps not followed | Denied; §314 does not apply retroactively and trial court’s alternative bases for denial were upheld |
| Whether District had authority to impose curb-stop fees or violated equal protection | Curb-stop fees exceed statutory authority and unconstitutionally favor some residents | 24 V.S.A. § 3315 authorizes municipal water ordinances, including compel/penalize connections and fees | Denied; statute authorizes ordinances allowing fees for leaving system and no valid constitutional claim shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Conn v. Town of Brattleboro, 120 Vt. 315 (1958) (validation statute intended to cure technical irregularities and prevent frustration of electorate’s vote)
- Valley Realty & Dev., Inc. v. Town of Hartford, 165 Vt. 463 (1996) (municipal actions taken in Open Meeting Law violation may be ratified at a public meeting rather than treated as void)
- Putter v. Montpelier Pub. Sch. Sys., 166 Vt. 463 (1997) (voiding public action is an extreme remedy and used only in extraordinary situations)