Council backs pool opening plan, energy ordinance panned – Barre Montpelier Times Argus

Though opening the pool with no changes except for following pandemic protocol such as wearing masks and social distancing was technically an option, it wasn’t one that was recommended or seriously considered by councilors.

Acknowledging the need to accommodate a licensed day camp that operates on site in the summer and needs the pool house in case of inclement weather, councilors said they favored a plan that would maximize use of the pool by creating physical separation.

The other option — scheduling around the day camp, which operates from 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. — was viewed as a break in case of emergency alternative to designating the pool house and one-quarter of the pool — including one of the rafts — for exclusive use by the camp while it is in session.

Recreation Director Arne McMullen said that will mean creating a new gate and installing portable toilets for pool users, as well as a window in the pool house where they could check in and buy snacks.

While slightly more expensive, councilors agreed providing more hours of pool use for those not attending the city’s summer camp was a priority.

McMullen said he is actively recruiting lifeguards and planning to apply for federal funds available for summer programming to help cover the cost of operating the pool. However, he warned staffing the pool could be an issue that might curtail hours.

Assuming staffing isn’t a problem, McMullen said hours would be similar to past years, though a portion of the pool and the pool deck and all of the pool house couldn’t be used by those who show up to swim.

In addition to the other adjustments, all pool users will be required to wear masks when not in the water, maintain 6 feet of separation from people not in their group, and sign waivers relieving the city of any liability associated with COVID-19.

Though some expressed hope the pool could open before July, McMullen said he wasn’t sure that would be possible given the adjustments to be made and the time it will take to reopen a pool that was closed because of the pandemic last summer.

Councilors acknowledged the plan may need to be adjusted on the fly based on a range of variables that are beyond the city’s control, but agreed allowing overlapping, but physically separate use of the pool by summer campers and pool users was a workable solution.

Meanwhile, councilors again heard from critics of an ordinance that would create a new energy-related hurdle for Montpelier residents who want to sell their homes.

The proposed “home energy labeling ordinance” provoked a flurry of questions and concerns from residents and some councilors during its first reading earlier this month and the reception wasn’t any better during Wednesday night’s second reading.

Residents were told the ordinance is still being vetted by an attorney and a final version won’t be available until the third reading, which is set for May 12.

Local realtor Tim Heney said that was problematic given the fact council could technically adopt the ordinance that night.

“It feels rushed,” Heney said of an ordinance, which would, among other things, mandate Montpelier residents looking to sell their homes to use an online tool to create an “energy profile” and share it with prospective buyers.

For the second straight hearing, the proprietary algorithm that would be used to estimate annual energy costs for homes came under fire and the value of the “Home Energy Profiles” it spits out was seriously questioned.

More than one residents suggested it would be “irresponsible” for the council to adopt the proposed ordinance one said — at best — would be an “annoyance” and another argued could “harm the city’s most vulnerable homeowners.”

Susan Labarthe wasn’t either one of them, though her two-word reaction to an ordinance she said was “not ready for prime time” spoke for itself.

“God, no!” she said.

Though Labarthe said she had no plans to sell her home, she won’t live forever, the property will eventually change hands, and the mandate if the ordinance is approved would have to be met.

“For my son to have to dredge up the information needed to do this accurately I think would be a nightmare,’ she said.

Labarthe said she had difficulty getting access to the site and was underwhelmed by “vague promises” with respect to the environmental benefit and was hungry for tangible studies.

“Please lets have some data,” she said.

Benjamin Huffman renewed his skepticism of the proprietary algorithm and questioned the credibility of the energy profiles it produces.

“For the city to use the (home energy) profile as it stands, I believe would be irresponsible,” Huffman said, suggesting the information was somewhere between inaccurate and irrelevant.

“It’s going to quickly become realized or recognized as something that’s essentially meaningless, but a necessary annoyance that you have to tolerate in order to sell your house,” he added.

That view was shared by resident Peter Kelman, who reiterated his support of the city’s goal of being completely free of fossil fuels by 2050, but argued the proposed ordinance wouldn’t advance that initiative and, he believed was poor public policy.

“As well-intended as this ordinance certainly is it’s provisions, even if carried out flawlessly, would do very little to help Montpelier attain its net-zero energy goal,” he said, challenging those who have sought to justify the ordinance as a form of consumer protection.

“This ordinance stands a very good chance of causing harm to some of the city’s more vulnerable … individuals and homeowners, particularly senior homeowners,” he said.

Like Heney, Kelman said he was troubled by the prospect the council could adopt the ordinance after entertaining another round of public comments at its May 12 meeting, and encouraged them not to do that.

“It would be irresponsible for the city council to pass an ordinance like this without first carrying out a fiscally and socially responsible cost-benefit analysis of it,” he said. “I see no evidence that has happened. None whatsoever.”

Mayor Anne Watson said the feedback was “helpful,” and while councilors didn’t commit to delaying adoption of the proposed ordinance that isn’t yet available in its final form, they didn’t rule it out either.

david.delcore @timesargus.com