Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/21/2020CITY COUNCIL 21 DECEMBER 2020 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 21 December 2020, at 6:30 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote participation. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden, D. Kaufman ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; D. Kinville, City Clerk; A. Lafferty, City Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; T. Leblanc, Assessor; J. Simson, N. Simson, S. Simson, M. Simoneau, L. Black-Plumeau, J. Slason, B. Britt, P. Taylor, P. Thompkins, M. Cota, R. Batterson, A. Strong, D. Crawford, K. Ryder, S. Dooley, J. Bellevance, B. Burkhardt, C. Trombley, V. Bolduc, B. Sirvis 1. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items: Mr. Hubbard asked to delete Agenda item #13. It will be presented at the next Council meeting. 2. Comments and Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements & City Manager’s Report: Mr. Barritt: Thanked Public works for putting in the sidewalk along the jug handle at Spear and Williston Rd and for the lighted bollards. Ms. Emery: Noted receipt of concern from a resident who uses Dorset Street and said that cars are stopping in the road to look at the beautifully decorated homes which almost caused an accident. Mr. Barritt added that sometimes people even get out of their cars. Ms. Riehle asked if there could be any city liability. Mr. Dorn said he can’t imagine so. Ms. Riehle: Joined the City Town Hall Meeting with all employees and found it very informative regarding COVID issues and reports from Department Heads as to what they are doing. Mr. Dorn said he will invite all Councilors to the next such meeting. It’s a great way for staff to keep in touch. Mr. Dorn: Last Friday, the transfer of ownership of 19 Gregory Drive was completed, and the city now owns the entire building. There is now a tenant and the city is receiving rent. He CITY COUNCIL 21 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 2 suggested the city do something special for Bobby Miller’s children who turned the building over years before the agreement called for. As of last week, Firefighters began receiving the COVID vaccine. Many of the trained paramedics have also volunteered to give the shots on their own time. The Council’s legislative priorities have been transmitted to the city’s delegations in the State House and Senate. There has not yet been a response from the State regarding the City’s request to reduce the speed limit on Hinesburg Road. The request will be submitted again. The City Hall lock down continues. The City Clerk’s office is open by appointment only. This will probably continue for some time. 4. Consent Agenda: a. Approve Disbursements b. Approve South Burlington participation in Chittenden County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and Local Share Agreement c. Approve Grant Application for Design of Irish Farm Stormwater Treatment Practice Upgrades d. Designate the traffic signal at the intersection of Community Drive (east) and Kimball Avenue as an official traffic control device pf the City, to be owned and maintained by the City e. Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Contract for Shelving for the South Burlington Public Library f. Approve Minutes from 6 July and 7 November meetings Ms. Emery pointed out an inconsistency in numbers on p. 4 of the shelving contract. Mr. Rabidoux said both numbers should be 30. Ms. Riehle asked who is paying for the traffic signal at Kimball Ave./Community Drive. Mr. Dorn said it is being paid for entirely by the applicant. Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a roll call vote. CITY COUNCIL 21 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 3 5. Consider and possibly approve a resolution honoring resident John Simson for his service to the community and his advocacy for affordable housing: Ms. Dooley read the Resolution honoring Mr. Simson for his many years of service to the City. Mr. Chittenden moved to approve the resolution as presented. Mr. Kaufman seconded. The motion passed unanimously via a roll call vote. 6. (previously #15): Reports from Councilors on Committee Assignments: No reports were presented. 7. CCTV Annual Report: Ms. O’Rourke said that Town Meeting TV has been working for the last 9 months of the pandemic covering meetings. South Burlington’s allotment is for 60 meetings per year. They are looking for level funding of $20,000 for the next fiscal year. That money covers only a portion of the meeting coverage cost of $43,000 a year. Ms. O’Rourke noted the decline in franchise fees that have been paying for the work they do. The need to innovate has also grown exponentially. This year they did live streaming, archiving, and an amazing election coverage. They also do media education to school groups, and many of their people originally came as interns or volunteers. Ms. O’Rourke noted that Town Meeting TV is also working with Ilona Blanchard on the planning for the new City Hall, so that it is fitted up with cameras and audio facilities for meeting coverage. She also noted the increase in people being able to access meetings remotely during the pandemic. Ms. Riehle said the Council is thinking of how to integrate both live and remote forms of meetings. Ms. O’Rourke said they will be installing a hybrid meeting model in Williston in January. The South Burlington set up will depend on how quickly the move into the new City Hall takes place. The system will be like a “glorified telecasting.” There would be a screen on the wall so that the people attending the meeting in person could see the people at home. This would all be done remotely by their operators. CITY COUNCIL 21 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 4 Mr. Barritt asked if Town Meeting TV got any CARES or PPP funds. Ms. O’Rourke said they did get a PPP loan which covered some of what they lost. She noted that almost all of their field producers had to be furloughed. Mr. Dorn said the city wants to be sure they have both live and remote meetings, even when meetings can again happen in person. The new Auditorium is being designed for this. Mr. Crawford encouraged the city to have Planning Commission meetings covered as they are so important. Ms. Riehle said the issue is the cost. 8. Consider and possibly approve the Errors & Omissions Report from the Assessor for the Grand List: Mr. Leblanc said that these are items where he had to make changes after the tax bills went out. The changes are mainly on addresses, misspellings, correcting ownership from a person to an estate, etc. Mr. Chittenden moved to approve the Errors & Omissions Report from the Assessor for the Grand List as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a roll call vote. 9. Discussion and Possible Action related to procedures and potential legislation regarding the South Burlington Annual Meeting: Ms. Kinville said that she has already begun thinking about the March election. She got a call from Rep. Ann Pugh indicating that the State Legislature will allow meetings to be moved to a later date and will allow ballots to be mailed to all voters. The Secretary of State’s office will also be able to institute all the things it did for the November election. Ms. Kinville said there are a lot of decisions to be made by the Council and by the School Board. If the legislation passes, it is anticipated the Governor will sign it by 19 January 2021 so that municipalities will know what they can/cannot do. Ms. Kinville then asked if the Council has any interest in moving the vote to a later date. Mr. Chittenden asked what Ms. Kinville thought about that. She replied that in November almost 12,000 people voted. What happens in March will depend on the interest in what is on the ballot. There are usually only 3,000-4,000 voters in March elections, and the question is whether more people would vote with a mail-in ballot. If the election is held in March, people would have to be told to get any address changes in. Ms. Kinville stressed that there are only CITY COUNCIL 21 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 5 20 days between the time ballots are received and Election Day. Mr. Barritt said he saw no reason to change the usual format. People would still have the ability to request a mail-in ballot. Mr. Chittenden agreed, but he wanted to know what the School Board is thinking. Mr. Kaufman also agreed as long as Ms. Kinville is comfortable with that. Ms. Emery noted there were grants to cover some of the costs for the November election and asked if that would be the case in March. Ms. Kinville said it would not. The State will just provide the envelopes. Other costs would be split between the City and School District. Ms. Burkhardt said the School Board has not yet discussed what they would prefer, and there are pros and cons on both sides. They still have a lot to do on the budget. An extension would help, but it would leave less time for hiring. Her personal opinion was to go with the March date, but the School Board will discuss this at its next meeting. Ms. Riehle cited the significant cost to send postcards and ballots to every voter. Ms. Kinville said mailing the ballots costs $28,000. She stressed that people will not automatically get absentee ballots. Mr. Barritt said that 3 months into the new year things will be in a different place regarding the pandemic. They need to decide whether it is different enough not to mail a ballot to every voter. He added that he was amazed by the large number of people who came into the polls to vote in November. He felt mailing ballots to all was a waste of money, and that the responsibility for getting a ballot should be on the voters. Ms. Emery didn’t think it was outrageous to send ballots to every voter and that it should be considered. She felt it was important to have as many people vote as possible. Mr. Chittenden said he would be OK with it if that is what the School Board wants. Ms. Burkhardt said their next meeting is 4 January when they could discuss it. Ms. Kinville said that date would be OK if everything is ready to go on 5 January. She stressed that there would be issues both ways and cited the number of ballots returned as “undeliverable” and also the added work to accept phone calls requesting mail-in ballots. Mr. Kaufman said people should be encouraged to call for ballots and not spend the $28,000. CITY COUNCIL 21 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 6 Ms. Emery then moved to approve the 2 March 2021 election date with an all mail-in ballot, contingent upon School Board and Legislature approval, with the cost to be split between the City and the School District. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-1 via a roll call vote with Mr. Barritt voting against. 10. Council Update on the Status of Proposed Amendments to the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinances: Mr. Conner explained that the Impact Fee Ordinance was amended 12 years ago. He also noted that he has been working with John Slason from RSB regarding the “impact of impact fees.” Mr. Slason said that the purpose of impact fees is to mitigate the effects of growth on the transportation system. The fees complement the city’s philosophy to focus growth that supports multi-modal travel by assessing the fee on new PM peak hour vehicle trips in order to fund additional transportation capacity. He then explained how impact fees are calculated based on level of service, what is provided today and what will need to be provided in the future. Mr. Slason said it is estimated that by 2030, there will be 1000 new homes and 3430 employees in the city. This translates to 1900 new vehicle trips and 900 new trips via bus, biking, walking, etc. In considering revisions to the Impact Fee Ordinance, the city’s infrastructure projects were reviewed, and projects not completed were identified as well as those in the Penny for Paths list. The list of projects was then prioritized based on how difficult the project is, other possible funding sources, whether the project is of significant benefit to the whole community, and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. After that process, they identified 16 projects must suitable for funding through impact feels, the total of which is $4,933,800. These projects are of enough benefit to the city to merit impact feels. It is also possible that developers will pay for parts of some of these projects. Mr. Slason then showed a list of comparative impact fees in surrounding communities. He also noted that South Burlington’s fees are almost twice as high as some regional communities. He noted that feels have to be charged based on a consistent basis (i.e., vehicle trip ends) ,and all land uses have to be charged the same way. CITY COUNCIL 21 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 7 Mr. Slason then explained that there is a 6-year horizon to encumber the fees. If this does not occur, the payee can request a refund. Funds cannot be used to repair something; they must be used for a new project. Mr. Barritt asked when the fees are charged. Mr. Conner said they are charged at the time the zoning permit is issued or as late as when a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Ms. Emery asked if there are “cons” to charging impact fees. Mr. Conner said the higher the number, the more impact on the developer, and the fees do not eliminate the work that is required as part of the approval. Mr. Rabidoux added that there were 72 projects that were “left behind” and not included in the list. Mr. Conner said there was a question of offering a “break” to some users (e.g., affordable housing), but that meant others would have to pay a higher fee or money would have to come from another source (e.g., grants). He stressed that these projects are not amenities. They are ways to provide mobility for future land uses and visitors to the city. Mr. Barritt said he didn’t think they city had a choice. 11. Staff response to request to amend the South Burlington Wastewater Ordinance: Mr. Conner reviewed the history of the ordinance and a presentation from the South Burlington Land Trust. He noted that currently much of the ordinance is focused on administrative roles. Any building located near the city system must connect to the system, and there are rules for buildings that are not served by the city’s system. In addition, when a property or properties join the sewer system, any nearby area must also connect to the system. Mr. Conner showed a city map indicating the areas served by the two wastewater treatment facilities. He also showed a map of conserved areas (not served by the sewer system) and indicated potential forest blocks. Mr. Conner noted that the allocation for City Center was recently increased to 150,000 gallons per day (gpd). A sewer allocation is now valid for 10 years. Mr. Conner also indicated possible areas of policy that could be considered. These include: expiration of an allocation, reserved capacity allocation, rate of new allocations, and priority CITY COUNCIL 21 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 8 location of allocation/development. In order to become a policy, the terms must be spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan and must be aligned with zoning. The amendments suggested by the South Burlington Land Trust include: excluding the Southeast Quadrant, the I-Ag and I-Open Space zoning districts for allocation, having a “capacity allocation plan” in 5-year increments with a maximum amount that could be used, allocating 70% for residential and 30% for non-residential with an added allocation for affordable housing, and having the City Council set the allocation for City Center and the Transit Overlay District within each 5-year period. Ms. Lafferty said that most of the policy options are within the Council’s authority though it would require a fair amount of work to be accomplished. The question would be: what is the basis for making these decisions. There would have to be an evaluation of capacity and an analysis regarding where certain development is prioritized and what are the priorities of the city. For each decision, there would have to be an analysis and some balances. Mr. Conner added that there is also a question of the right split between residential and commercial. What happens when the limitations are met in a given year, and what if a business wants to come into the city and would take the allocation over the 30%. Mr. Conner also noted that technologies have improved in recent years for non-municipal sewer systems, so that development could still occur with private systems. Mr. Chittenden said the city may have the authority but questioned whether they should do any of this. Mr. Conner said some of the infrastructure was designed to carry more capacity. If zoning allows for 4-8 homes, but this doesn’t align with where there is wastewater available, there is a problem. Ms. Emery asked if the 150,000 gpd for City Center is defensible. Ms. Lafferty said it is. The city wanted to prioritize that area and reserved that capacity for it. She added that there are different ways to meet the goal of making an area a priority. Setting aside allocation is just one of those ways. Mr. Conner noted that only a small portion of the 150,000 City Center reserve has been used. Mr. Rabidoux said that figure was based on 700 housing units. CITY COUNCIL 21 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 9 Mr. Barritt said he would like to see this plan next to plans for the 2 wastewater facilities and capacities. He said the proposal looks like a straightforward attempt to limit development in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). This is a huge issue. He felt the ordinance has served the city well, and it seems like it would be a lot of work to change it with very little payback. He is opposed to adding regulations where they are not needed, and he felt the city had more important things to worry about than that. Mr. Rabidoux said use history is the best indicator. Every 25-30 years you want to update and modernize a facility. The costs for this are about $50,000,000 at Bartlett Bay and $20,000,000 to $25,000,000 at the Airport Treatment Plant. He stressed that adding capacity is not the main cost driver and noted that the system is designed to pay for future upgrades. He also said that property owners would have the right to build a private system if a public system is not available. He also noted that the city’s growth rate is slower than the Comprehensive Plan predicted, and there is no capacity concern in the next 50 years. Ms. Bellevance said other communities use sewer allocation to focus development where they want it. She acknowledged it would be a lot of work but thought the city could “piggy back” off what other towns have done. Ms. Dooley said she has been following the work of the Planning Commission and there is a tremendous amount of work regarding where and how development can take place. She said the Land Trust proposal doesn’t take any of that work into consideration. She also noted that the Transit Overlay District is already well developed and only some infill is probably going to happen. She felt the proposal “uses a sledge hammer instead of a scalpel” and isn’t congruent with Interim Zoning. Mr. Chittenden said it could be a tool if growth was more than the capacity, but Mr. Rabidoux said that is not the case. Ms. Riehle said she feels this falls into the Planning Commission’s work, but she would not put it on their plate until they finish with Interim Zoning. 12. City Council review and possible action to warn a ballot item for the 2021 South Burlington Annual Meeting related to incurring Tax Increment Financing debt to construct connections of Garden Street to Midas Drive to the north and Dorset Street to the South as well as construct pedestrian improvements along Mary Street: CITY COUNCIL 21 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 10 Ms. Blanchard showed an overhead photo indicating where Garden Street will go. She noted they are currently looking at only a portion of that road and some modifications to Midas Drive (which would be renamed Garden Street). Ms. Riehle asked if it covers a sidewalk on Mary Street. Ms. Blanchard said it does not. That sidewalk is eligible for funding by impact fees, so it is not a TIF project. Ms. Blanchard then showed a plan of the project area which would include a new water main. At the northern end, they would add a streetscape along Midas Drive and some curbing. Ms. Blanchard then provided an update of where the city is regarding TIF status. Of the $25,400,000 authorized, the city has issued or is scheduled to issue $10,430,000. She showed a chart of what the city has been paying in debt. She also noted the annual income (increment) from development which in 2021 will be $264,380.07. In 2020, that income was $153,819.51. The total potential vote authorization is $4,002,500. Ms. Blanchard said it is unlikely that a Bond Anticipation Note (BAN) would be used due to the very low current interest rate; however, the authorization information will acknowledge a possibility of using a BAN as required by TIF statutes so as not to preclude this use should it be prudent. Ms. Blanchard then showed a chart of the anticipated income from new projects through 2031, including some commercial development and some condos (which have a higher value). Mr. Chittenden asked how conservative the estimates are, and is there a “worst case scenario.” Ms. Blanchard said there are some things that have not been counted in (e.g., tax rate income increase, accounting for reassessment). The model is conservative but based on development happening. She added that a significant amount of money has already been invested in permitting new projects. There is also room for the values to be much more. Ms. Blanchard also noted that the bond debt authorized by the voters would still need to be reviewed by the City Council at a future date. She then showed the language of the proposed ballot item. Ms. Emery moved to approve warning a ballot item as presented for the 2021 South Burlington Annual Meeting related to incurring Tax Increment Financing debt to construct connections of Garden Street to Midas Drive to the north and Dorset Street to the South. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a roll call vote. CITY COUNCIL 21 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 11 It was noted that the correct motion should have been to warn a public hearing on the ballot item. Ms. Emery then withdrew her previous motion and moved to warn a public hearing on the proposed ballot item for 19 January 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Barritt seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kaufman noted the importance of educating the general public so they are not put off by the numbers. Mr. Dorn said the city will put out plenty of information for the public. 13. Preliminary FY22 General Fund Budget Overview: Mr. Hubbard said the budget is as .97 increase in the tax rate. This assumes a 1% growth in the Grand List and would result in an increase for the average condo of $13.00 for the year and for the average single family home of $18.76 for the year. The budget reflects an increase in spending of $146,000 (to cover bargaining units, Workers Compensation, medical insurance, funding for opening of the Library, and lower interest rates). There is also an anticipated loss of $262,000 in revenue from local option taxes. Some of the cuts made to achieve the tax rate include reducing paving from $1,000,000 to $700,000, one RIF’s position in Stormwater, 2 positions being shared positions, and leaving a number of positions unfilled (1 in Planning & Zoning and 3 in the Police Department). Mr. Hubbard noted that the public hearing on the CIP is scheduled for 4 January 2021. On that night, the Council will also hear from Department Managers. Mr. Kaufman noted that most of the shortfall is due to the local option taxes, which means the city hasn’t taken too bad a beating due to COVID and is in good shape, all things considered. Mr. Hubbard noted that the Public Works/City Hall bargaining agreement has been signed. The Fire Department is considering signing. Negotiations with the Police Department will be reopened. Ms. Riehle asked about funding for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and the charities. Mr. Hubbard said both of those items are still funded. Mr. Hubbard stressed that there were major sacrifices made to meet the challenges of this budget. CITY COUNCIL 21 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 12 14. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Council Mr. Chittenden moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:44 p.m.