HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 01/25/2012 - Special Meeting r
south. ,w
VERMONT
AGENDA
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
Frederick H. Tuttle Middle School Library
550 Dorset Street
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Special Meeting Wednesday, January 25, 2012
To Begin Immediately Following Steering Committee Meeting
(Please Note: Steering Committee Meeting Begins at 7:00 p.m.)
1. Discuss Charter Change request being considered by Charter Committee.
2. Discuss Petition Ballot request being circulated by citizens.
3. '*'Consider approval of draft Warning for March 6, 2012 annual meeting.
4. Possible Executive Session.
5. Adjourn.
Respectfully Submitted:
Sanford I. Miller, City Manager
***Attachments Included
South Burlington City Council Meeting Participation Guidelines
The City Council Chair is presenting these guidelines for public participation and attendance at City Council meetings in an effort to insure that everyone has a chance to be
heard and meetings function as smoothly as possible.
1. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak. The Chair will make every effort to recognize the public in the order in which hands are raised.
2. Once recognized by the Chair,please identify yourself to Council.
3. If the Council has suggested time limits,please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available
for Council to conduct business items.
4. In order for City Councilors and other members of the audience to hear speakers'remarks,side conversations between audience members should be kept to an
absolute minimum. The hallway outside the Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully.
5. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not interrupt others when they are speaking.
6. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others.
7. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before speakers address the Council for a second time.
8. Council desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Council meeting is an opportunity for Councilors to discuss,debate and decide upon
policy matters. Council meetings are not"town meetings". To this end,after the public has had the opportunity to make comments,the Chair may ask that discussion be
among Councilors.
WARNING
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
ANNUAL CITY MEETING
MARCH 6, 2012
The legal voters of the City of South Burlington are hereby notified and warned to meet at their
respective polling places at the Chamberlin School on White Street,the Frederick H. Tuttle Middle School
on Dorset Street and the Orchard School on Baldwin Avenue on Tuesday, March 6,2012, at 7 o'clock in the
forenoon,at which time the polls will open until 7 o'clock in the evening, at which time the polls will close,
to vote by Australian Ballot on the following Articles:
ARTICLE I ELECTION OF OFFICERS
To elect all City Officers required by law.
ARTICLE II APPROVAL OF CITY BUDGET
Shall the City adopt the City Council's proposed budget for FY 2013 totaling twenty-eight million,
four hundred twenty-two thousand,seventy-nine dollars($28,422,079)of which it is estimated
eleven million,two hundred ten thousand,four hundred eighty-three dollars($11,210,483)dollars
will be raised by local property taxes?
ARTICLE III PETITIONED ARTICLE—ADVISORY
In light of the United States Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that equates money with
speech and gives corporations rights constitutionally intended for natural persons,shall the city of
South Burlington vote on March 6,2012 (town meeting date)to urge the Vermont Congressional
Delegation and the U.S.Congress to propose a U.S. Constitutional amendment for the States'
consideration which provides that money is not speech, and that corporations are not persons under
the U.S. Constitution,that the General Assembly of the State of Vermont pass a similar resolution,
and that the town send its resolution to Vermont State and Federal representatives within thirty days
of passage of this measure?
POLLING PLACES ARE THE CHAMBERLIN SCHOOL ON WHITE STREET, THE FREDERICK H.
TUTTLE MIDDLE SCHOOL ON DORSET STREET AND THE ORCHARD SCHOOL ON BALDWIN
AVENUE. VOTERS ARE TO GO TO THE POLLING PLACE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICT.
Dated at South Burlington,Vermont,this 25 day of January,2012.
S ra Dooley, C i Meaghan Emery, ce Ch.'
osa ne Gre , rk James Knapp l
Paul Engels Received and Reco ded th' to day of January,2012.
Donna Kinville, City Clerk
January 25, 2012 City Council Meeting
Please Print
Name Name Name
1 -�41/4tyjciv ctv 18 35
2 _ L..p_�, 19 36
3 = 20 37
4 Lf ' -Q_41 )44 ( ivi 21 38
7
5 i dG. I ` J �f 2n pJ 22 39
6 '; hi_ /( t ,2__ 23 40
7`{ 7/0 74- /Ir4 i la(5 24 41
8 =)h, ftgatti-li 25 42
9 \-Igrt4/--/pei 26 43
10_._ 0Vr, ,)) k/Cl2 27 44
11 d 'f4-ev- <, 28 45
12 azt,'
, C-GC ,. 29 46
13 11,411� 30 47
14' 31 48
15 32 49
16 33 50
17 34 51
WARNING
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
ANNUAL CITY MEETING
MARCH 6, 2012
The legal voters of the City of South Burlington are hereby notified and warned to meet at
their respective polling places at the Chamberlin School on White Street, the Frederick H.Tuttle
Middle School on Dorset Street and the Orchard School on Baldwin Avenue on Tuesday,March 6,
2012, at 7 o'clock in the forenoon, at which time the polls will open until 7 o'clock in the evening,
at which time the polls will close,to vote by Australian Ballot on the following Articles:
ARTICLE I ELECTION OF OFFICERS
To elect all City Officers required by law.
ARTICLE II APPROVAL OF CITY BUDGET
Shall the City adopt the City Council's proposed budget for FY 2013 totaling twenty-eight
million, four hundred twenty-two thousand, seventy-nine dollars($28,422,079)of which it
is estimated eleven million,two hundred ten thousand,four hundred eighty-three dollars
($11,210,483)dollars will be raised by local property taxes?
POLLING PLACES ARE THE CHAMBERLIN SCHOOL ON WHITE STREET, THE
FREDERICK H. TUTTLE MIDDLE SCHOOL ON DORSET STREET AND THE ORCHARD
SCHOOL ON BALDWIN AVENUE. VOTERS ARE TO GO TO THE POLLING PLACE IN
THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICT.
Dated at South Burlington,Vermont,this 25 day of January, 2012.
Sandra Dooley, Chair
Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair
Rosanne Greco, Clerk
James Knapp
Paul Engels
Received and Recorded this day of January, 2012.
Donna Kinville, City Clerk
Sandy Miller
From: Rick Hubbard [rick@rickhubbard.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:48 AM
To: 'Sandy Dooley'; Meaghan Emery; P Engels; R Greco; James Knapp; Sandy Miller
Cc: rick@rickhubbard.org
Subject: Request for S.B. City Council to place petition resolution on the ballot March 6th
Greetings:
I'm writing to report huge success in collecting signatures requesting that City Council vote to place the
bolded wording which follows on the ballot March 6th
City Clerk Donna Kinville stated that approximately 610 valid signatures would constitute 5% of South
Burlington's registered voters. Over 40 South Burlington petition gatherers have, in only 3 weeks,
gathered 940 signatures to date with more still to come. I will be submitting these to Donna by this
Thursday.
This issue clearly resonates with South Burlington voters. Of the 8% of total registered voters we've
contacted to date, there is immense support for this resolution. Collectively, petitioners' experience is
that eight to nine out of every 10 voters actually approached want to sign and feel strongly that this issue
goes to the very heart of our democracy. Thus I'm convinced that a vast majority of all South Burlington
voters would like the opportunity to similarly speak to this resolution in March.
For one elderly South Burlington resident, signing this petition was one of his last ways to voice support
for change. He died the next day.
Here is the resolution language.
In light of the United States Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that equates money with
speech and gives corporations rights constitutionally intended for natural persons, shall the city of
South Burlington vote on March 6,2012 (town meeting date) to urge the Vermont Congressional
Delegation and the U.S. Congress to propose a U.S. Constitutional amendment for the States'
consideration which provides that money is not speech, and that corporations are not persons
under the U.S. Constitution, that the General Assembly of the State of Vermont pass a similar
resolution, and that the town send its resolution to Vermont State and Federal representatives
within thirty days of passage of this measure?
Without a petition drive, the Burlington City Council voted 12-2 on December 20th to include a similar
resolution on their ballot on March 6.
I've spoken with Chair, Sandy Dooley and am aware of South Burlington's long standing practice of
only putting on our ballot items that directly relate to South Burlington.
However, I'm also aware that this decision is within the discretion of City Counselors. With many new
members, I therefore am asking you to reconsider this practice in light of the following:
This resolution, if considered by South Burlington voters, will voice our opinion on a matter that goes to
the very essence of our democracy, our freedom of speech and the way that money currently financing
federal campaigns is influencing laws, regulations and policies. We're all affected by this, regardless of
whether we are conservative, moderate, liberal or progressive. Without an opportunity to voice our
1
opinion on this resolution, it is much more difficult for all South Burlington citizens to be heard. There
simply isn't any other way that is as effective in giving voice to our feelings on this issue.
I ask you to place this item on the agenda for discussion at an upcoming City Council meeting. With
appropriate notice, I and others would be happy to attend in support.
Thank you,
Rick Hubbard
E-mail: rick(a,rickhubbard.org,
Cell: 999-3905)
2
TirOON'tSUPREME OU
Nab CLEPikit OFFICE
ENTRY ORDER JAN 18 2007
2007 VT 3
•
SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2006-155 D u u •
DECEMBER TERM, 2006 JAN 1 9 2007
By
Agnes Clift, John Clift, Sue Metcalf, } APPEALED FROM: .
Angela Crady, Kathryn Flynn, Francis Myers, }
Ruth Milhouse, Mary Lou Newhouse, et al. }
Chittenden Superior Court
V. }
}
City of South Burlington } DOCKET NO. SO468-05 CnC
•Trial Judge: Ben W. Joseph
•
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: •
¶ 1. Petitioners are a group of South Burlington voters who signed a petition requesting
that the City of South Burlington add an advisory article to its 2005 town-meeting warning. The
City refused because the article did not relate to "city business." Petitioners filed a complaint in
Chittenden Superior Court, claiming that the South Burlington City Council was required by law
to include the article in the warning. The superior court granted summary judgment to the City and
we now affirm.
2. Petitioners and other South Burlington residents, totaling more than five percent of
city voters,petitioned the Council to include the following article in the 2005 annual town-meeting
warning:
Shall the City of South Burlington, on behalf of concerned citizens,
advise the City Council to ask our state legislators, in writing, to
enact legislation that will protect young girls by requiring clinics to •
notify at least one parent prior to providing a surgical or chemical
abortion to their minor daughter, with special provisions to protect
girls in abusive situations?
At a duly warned meeting in April 2005,the Council took up for consideration the issue of the 2005
town-meeting warning. After a discussion that included Council members and city residents,
including several petitioners, the Council decided not to submit the petitioned article to voters
because it did not concern "city business." This led the Council to approve the warning without
inclusion of petitioners' article.
If 3. In May 2005,petitioners filed a challenge to the Council's decision in superior court,
seeking an order—in the nature of mandamus—to compel the City to include the advisory article
either in the 2006 town-meeting warning or a special-meeting warning. In reply, the City asserted
that its refusal to include the article in the warning was within its lawful discretion. The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment. In March 2006,the superior court granted the City's motion,
opining that the article submitted by petitioners, "does not relate to city business in the sense that
it does not address a matter under the general supervision, legal authority or control of the City or
of City voters." This appeal followed.
¶4. We review a grant of summary judgment using the same standard as the trial court.
In re Griffin, 2006 VT 75, ¶ 11, Vt. , 904 A.2d 1217. We will affirm the lower court's
decision"if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law." Id. There are no material facts in dispute in this case; however, the parties
disagree as to whether including petitioners' article in the warning is a ministerial duty of the City
compelled by law.
¶5. Under 17 V.S.A. §2642(a),a municipality is required to include the following in its
annual town-meeting warning:
the date and time of the election, location of the polling place or
places,and the nature of the meeting or election. [The warning]shall,
by separate articles, specifically indicate the business to be
transacted,to include the offices and the questions to be voted upon.
The warning shall also contain any article or articles requested by a
petition signed by at least five percent of the voters of the
municipality and filed with the municipal clerk not less than 40 days
before the day of the meeting.
While petitioners complied with the procedural requirements of the statute—that the petition be
signed by more than five percent of voters and submitted more than forty days before the meeting
date—our precedent indicates that the City was nonetheless justified in declining to include
petitioners' article in the town-meeting warning.
¶6. Over the past thirty-seven years,this Court has consistently held that municipalities
must have some discretion over the issues that are presented to voters at town meeting. Beginning
with Royalton Taxpayers' Protective Ass'n v. Wassmansdorf, we have interpreted our statutes to
compel municipalities to present an article to voters only when"the purpose stated in such petition
set[s]forth a clear right which[i]s within the province of the town meeting to grant or refuse through
its vote." 128 Vt. 153, 160,260 A.2d 203,207(1969). In Whiteman v.Brown,we determined that
the predecessor statute to 17 V.S.A. § 2642(a) implicitly limited a municipality's duty to warn to
"business to be transacted:" 128 Vt. 384, 387, 264 A.2d 793, 795 (1970). "If the article sought to
be included does not, in any way, constitute business proper and appropriate for transaction by the
meeting, the statute ought not to be construed to compel its inclusion." Id. We dealt specifically
with the issue of whether a properly petitioned advisory article must be warned in Brewster v.Mayor
2 •
•
of Rutland, 128 Vt.437,266 A.2d 428 (1970). There,we held that the effect of the advisory article
petitioned by local voters would be nugatory and serye no lawful purpose and therefore declined to •
issue a writ of mandamus to compel its inclusion in a special-meeting warning.* Id. at 440,266 A.2d
at 430. More recently,in Town of Brattleboro v. Garfield,we stated that the statutory right of voters
to petition an article for a municipal vote is "subject to the restriction that the business petitioners
seek to conduct at the meeting is properly delegated to the voters' authority." 2006 VT 56, ¶ 12,
Vt. , 904 A,2d 1157.
¶7. We find petitioners' attempt to distinguish the present case from Wassmansdorf and
its progeny unavailing. Here,petitioners requested a town-meeting vote on an issue wholly outside
the purview of the City and its voters. Neither South Burlington's voters nor its city council are
required to advise the Legislature on a bill pending at the State House. While the City could have
warned the advisory article and presented it to voters,it was under no obligation to do so. To decide
otherwise would be to subject the town meeting—a forum primarily for conducting municipal
business—to debate on every social issue of interest to voters. Allowing the City discretion to warn
advisory articles, such as the one presented by petitioners, furthers the Council's ability to balance
the efficient transaction of city business with the provision of a local forum for discussing state and
national issues.
¶8. Petitioners' claim that the 1978 amendment to 17 V.S.A. §2103(27)defining "public
question"to include nonbinding articles requires the Council to warn the petitioned advisory article
is likewise without merit. The amendment authorizes nonbinding advisory votes at town meeting.
It does not, however, change our general analysis that § 2642(a) provides municipalities with
discretion over whether to present an article to voters—even a nonbinding article included under
§ 2103(27)—when it does not at all relate to municipal business-or any matter falling within
municipal authority. Mandamus is inappropriate here because inclusion ofpetitioners' article in the
town-meeting warning was not a ministerial duty compelled by 17 V.S.A. §2642(a), and we
therefore uphold the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. See Sagar v.
Wan-en Selectboard, 170 Vt. 167, 171, 744 A.2d 422, 426 (1999) (holding that mandamus is
generally inappropriate for discretionary decisions absent a showing of arbitrary abuse of
discretion).
4119. As a final matter, we briefly consider petitioners' argument that the City's action in
refusing to warn the advisory article was a violation of petitioners' right to assemble under Chapter
I, Article 20 of the Vermont Constitution. Petitioners offer no legal authority for their claim. On
the contrary,they admit that they lack case law to support their position and rely on faulty reasoning
to reach the conclusion that a town-meeting vote on a petitioned advisory article is a constitutional
right. Petitioners reason that because Chapter I,Article 20"has remained unchanged for 229 years
* While the Wassmansdorf line of cases decided in the late 1960's and early 1970's
involved predecessor statutes to the one at issue—including 24 V.S.A. § 704—the language of
those statutes was sufficiently similar to 17.V.S.A. § 2642(a) to warrant a similar interpretation
here.
3
•
and within that time; use of the nonbinding, advisory article "has been a regular feature of town
meeting," there must exist a constitutional right to a town-meeting vote on petitioned advisory
articles. One does not necessarily have anything to do with the other, however, as Vermont
municipalities have historically had the discretion to present advisory articles to voters. Thus, we
are unpersuaded by petitioners' constitutional claim.
Affirmed.
•
B7 COU
\
1
( ,
• Paul L. R-'ber, Chief Ju,tic
a --i
Deni.e il . o ► s•n, Associate Justice
El Publish
/
/ 4/
❑ Do Not Publish Marilyn S. S ': n• Associate Justice
Brian L. : :- s, AsgoolPrae Justice
. Wi Liam D. Cohen, Superior Judge,
Specially Assigned
4
.. Pita IN CLERk OFFICE
ENTRY ORDER JAN 18 2007
2007 VT 3
• SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2006-155 D �i 0
•
•DECEMBER TERM, 2006 • JAN 1 9 2007
. . By
• Agnes Clift, John Clift, Sue Metcalf, } APPEALED FROM:
. Angela Crady, Kathryn Flynn, Francis Myers, }
Ruth Milhouse, Mary Lou Newhouse, et al. . } •
} Chittenden Superior Court
v. } .
1
1
City of South Burlington • } DOCKET NO. S0468-05 CnC
• -Trial Judge: Ben W. Joseph
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter: •
Ti 1. Petitioners are a group of South Burlington voters who signed a petition requesting
that the City of South Burlington add an advisory article to its 2005 town-meeting warning. The
City refused because the article did not relate to "city business." Petitioners.filed a complaint in
Chittenden Superior Court, claiming that the South Burlington City Council was required by law
to include the article in the warning. The superior court granted shrnmaiy judgment to the City and
we now affirm.
2. -Petitioners and other.South Burlington residents, totaling more than five percent of
•
city voters,petitioned the Council to include the following article in the 2005 annual town-meeting
•
• warning: . .
• Shall the City of South Burlington, on behalf of concerned citizens,
advise the City Council to ask our state legislators, in writing, to
enact legislation that will protect young girls by requiring clinics to
• . notify at.least one parent prior to providing a surgical or chemical
abortion to their minor daughter, with special provisions to protect
• girls in abusive situations?
At a duly warned meeting in April 2005,the Council took up for consideration the issue of the 2005
town-meeting warning. After a discussion that included Council members and city residents,
including several petitioners, the Council decided not to submit the petitioned article to voters
• because it did not concern "city business." This led the Council to approve the warning without
•
inclusion of petitioners' article.
•
•
¶3. In May 2005,petitioners filed a challenge to the Council's decision in superior court,
• seeking an order—in the nature of mandamus—to compel the City to include the advisory article
either in the 2006 town-meeting warning or a special-meeting warning. In reply, the City asserted
that its refusal to include the article in the warning was within its lawful discretion. The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment. In March 2006,the superior court granted the City's motion,
opining that the article submitted by petitioners, "does not relate to city business in the sense that
it does not address a matter under the general supervision, legal authority or control of the City or
of City voters." This appeal followed.
¶4. We review a grant of summary judgment using the same standard as the trial court.
• In re Griffin, 2006 VT 75, ¶ 1 1, Vt. 904 A.2d 1217. We will affair the lower court's.
decision"if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law." Id. There are no material facts in dispute in this case; however, the parties
disagree as to whether including petitioners' article in the warning is a ministerial duty of the City
compelled by law. •
¶5. Under 17 V.S.A. §2642(a),a municipality is required to include the following in its
annual town-meeting wanting:
the date and time of the election, location of the polling place or
places,and the nature of the meeting or election. [The warning]shall,
by separate articles, specifically indicate the business to be
transacted,to include the offices and the questions to be voted upon.. •
. The wanting shall also contain any article or articles requested by a
petition signed. by at least five percent of the voters of the
• municipality and filed with the municipal clerk not less than 40 days
before the day of the meeting.
•
While petitioners complied.with the procedural requirements.of the statute—that the petition be
signed by more than five percent of voters and submitted more than forty days before the meeting
date—our precedent indicates that the City was nonetheless justified in declining to include
petitioners' article in the town-meeting warning. •
•
¶6. • Over the past thirty-seven years,this Court has consistently held that municipalities
must have some discretion over the issues that are presented to voters at town meeting. Beginning
with Royalton-Taxpayers' Protective Ass'n v. Wassmansdorf, we have interpreted our statutes to
• compel municipalities to.present an article to voters only when"the purpose stated in such petitioin
set[s]forth a clear right which[i]s within the province of the town meeting to grant or refuse through
its vote." 128 Vt. 153, 160,260 A.2d 203,207(1969). In Whiteman V. Brown,we determined that
the predecessor statute to 17 V.S.A. § 2642(a)implicitly limited a municipality's duty to warn to
"business to be transacted:" 128 Vt. 384, 387, 264 A.2d 793, 795 (1970). "If the article sought to
be included does not, in any way, constitute business proper and appropriate for transaction by the
meeting, the statute ought not to be consumed to compel its inclusion. Id. We dealt specifically
with the issue of whether a properly petitioned advisory article must be warned in Brewster v.Mayor
• •
of Rutland, 128 Vt.437,266 A.2d 428 (1970). There,we held that the effect of the advisory article
petitioned by local voters would be nugatory and serve no lawful purpose and therefore declined to
•
issue a writ of mandamus to compel its inclusion in a special-meeting warning.' Id. at 440,266 A.2d
at 430. More recently,in Town of Brattleboro v.Garfield,we stated that the statutory right of voters
to petition an article for a municipal vote is "subject to the restriction that the business petitioners
seek to conduct at the meeting is properly delegated to the voters' authority." 2006 VT 56, ¶ 12,
Vt. _, 904 A.2d 1157.
117. We find petitioners' attempt to distinguish the present case from Wassmansdorf and
its progeny unavailing. Here,petitioners requested a town-meeting vote on an issue wholly outside
the purview of the City and its voters. Neither South Burlington's voters nor its city council are
required to advise the Legislature on a bill pending at the State House. While the City could have
warned the advisory article and presented it to voters,it was under no obligation to do so. To decide
otherwise would be to subject the town meeting—a forum primarily for conducting municipal
• business—to debate on every social issue of interest to voters. Allowing the City discretion to wan-I
advisory articles, such as the one presented by petitioners, furthers the Council's ability to balance
the efficient transaction of city business with the provision of a local forum for discussing state and
national issues.
¶8. Petitioners'claim that the 1978 amendment to 17 V.S.A. §2103(27)defining "public
question"to include nonbinding articles requires the Council to warn the petitioned advisory article
is likewise without merit. The amendment authorizes nonbinding advisory votes at town meeting.
It does not, however, change our general analysis that § 2642(a) provides municipalities with
discretion over whether to present an article to voters—even a nonbinding article included under
§ 2103(27)—when it does not at all relate to municipal business-or any matter falling within
municipal authority: Mandamus is inappropriate here because inclusion ofpetitioners' article in the
•
town-meeting warning was not a ministerial duty compelled by 17 V.S.A. §2642(a), and we
• therefore uphold the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. See Sagar v.
•
Warren Selectboard, 170 Vt. 167, 171, 744 A.2d 422, 426 (1999) (holding that mandamus is
generally inappropriate for discretionary decisions absent a showing of arbitrary abuse of
discretion).
¶9. As a final matter, we briefly consider petitioners' argument that the City's action in
refusing to warn the advisory article was a violation of petitioners'right to assemble under Chapter
I, Article 20 of the Vermont Constitution. Petitioners offer no legal authority for their claim. On
the contrary,they admit that they.lack case law to support their position and rely on faulty reasoning
to reach the conclusion that a town-meeting vote on a petitioned advisory article is a constitutional
right. Petitioners reason that because Chapter I,Article 20"has remained unchanged for 229 years
•
* While the Wassmansdorf line of cases decided in the late 1960's and early 1970's
•
involved predecessor statutes to the one at issue—including 24 V.S.A. § 704—the language of
•
those statutes was sufficiently similar to 17.V.S.A. § 2642(a) to warrant a similar interpretation
here.
•
••
•
•
•
and within that time; use of the nonbinding, advisory article "has been a regular feature of town
• meeting," there must exist a constitutional right to a town-meeting vote on petitioned advisory
articles. One does not necessarily have anything to do with the other, however, as Vermont
•
municipalities have historically had the discretion to present advisory articles to voters. Thus, we
are unpersuaded by petitioners' constitutional claim.
Affirmed.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Paul L. R-be, Chief Ju tic
Deni e o i► sill, Associate Justice
a Publish •
/IL 4/
•
•
Do Not Publish Marilyn S. S. •• rn• Associate Justice
•
•
Brian LI : :- s, AsjoSte Justice •
•
•
•
Wr rani D. Cohen, Superior Judge,
Specially Assigned •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sandy Miller
From: Rick Hubbard [rick@rickhubbard.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:48 AM
To: 'Sandy Dooley'; Meaghan Emery; P Engels; R Greco; James Knapp; Sandy Miller
Cc: rick@rickhubbard.org
Subject: Request for S.B. City Council to place petition resolution on the ballot March 6th
Greetings:
I'm writing to report huge success in collecting signatures requesting that City Council vote to place the
bolded wording which follows on the ballot March 6th.
City Clerk Donna Kinville stated that approximately 610 valid signatures would constitute 5% of South
Burlington's registered voters. Over 40 South Burlington petition gatherers have, in only 3 weeks,
gathered 940 signatures to date with more still to come. I will be submitting these to Donna by this
Thursday.
This issue clearly resonates with South Burlington voters. Of the 8�°/ of total registered voters we've
contacted to date, there is immense support for this resolution. Collectively, petitioners' experience is
that eight to nine out of every 10 voters actually approached want to sign and feel strongly that this issue
goes to the very heart of our democracy. Thus I'm convinced that a vast majority of all South Burlington
voters would like the opportunity to similarly speak to this resolution in March.
For one elderly South Burlington resident, signing this petition was one of his last ways to voice support
for change. He died the next day.
Here is the resolution language.
In light of the United States Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that equates money with
speech and gives corporations rights constitutionally intended for natural persons, shall the city of
South Burlington vote on March 6, 2012 (town meeting date) to urge the Vermont Congressional
Delegation and the U.S. Congress to propose a U.S. Constitutional amendment for the States'
consideration which provides that money is not speech, and that corporations are not persons
under the U.S. Constitution,that the General Assembly of the State of Vermont pass a similar
resolution, and that the town send its resolution to Vermont State and Federal representatives
within thirty days of passage of this measure?
Without a petition drive, the Burlington City Council voted 12-2 on December 20th to include a similar
resolution on their ballot on March 6.
I've spoken with Chair, Sandy Dooley and am aware of South Burlington's long standing practice of
only putting on our ballot items that directly relate to South Burlington.
However, I'm also aware that this decision is within the discretion of City Counselors. With many new
members, I therefore am asking you to reconsider this practice in light of the following:
This resolution, if considered by South Burlington voters, will voice our opinion on a matter that goes to
the very essence of our democracy, our freedom of speech and the way that money currently financing
federal campaigns is influencing laws, regulations and policies. We're all affected by this,regardless of
whether we are conservative, moderate, liberal or progressive. Without an opportunity to voice our
1
opinion on this resolution, it is much more difficult for all South Burlington citizens to be heard. There
simply isn't any other way that is as effective in giving voice to our feelings on this issue.
I ask you to place this item on the agenda for discussion at an upcoming City Council meeting. With
appropriate notice, I and others would be happy to attend in support.
Thank you,
Rick Hubbard
E-mail: rick@rickhubbard.org,
Cell: 999-3905)
2
‘41.414
*, Niro
southburitngton
Sanford I.Miller,City Manager
smiller43buri.com
Financial Management Plan for Fiscal Year 2013 — City Manager's Proposal
Executive Summary -December 30, 2011
Revised to Reflect City Council's January 18, 2012 Approved Budget
Dear City Councilors, South Burlington Residents and Taxpayers:
As required by the City Charter,I am presenting the City Manager's proposed budget for FY
2013 as amended by City Council. This proposed budget does much to restore service and staff cuts
instituted in FY 2011 and FY 2012.
While the FY 2011 General Fund ran a deficit, we project the FY 2012 budget will be balanced or
in surplus. Many changes in how our budgets are constructed and monitored—including sound revenue
and expenditure projections and greater accountability—have accounted for this turnaround. We also
expect all the Enterprise Funds to be balanced or run a surplus in FY 2012.
Considering all the services residents and taxpayers receive from the City of South Burlington
(roads,plowing, recreation,library,police, fire, ambulance,vital records,planning and water, wastewater
and stormwater utilities),the City is providing a relative bargain. Many households have higher cable and
interne or wireless phone bills than the cost of municipal services they are asked to contribute to.
The FY 2013 General Fund budget expenditures are$18,970,660, an increase of$1,300,108, or
7.36%. General Fund non-property tax revenues are estimated to increase by$840,895, a 12.15%
increase over the current year. The property tax rate needed is estimated to be$0.4036, an increase of
$0.021 (2.1 cents), or 5.49%.
Special Funds (200, 300 and 600) continue to be consolidated into the General Fund. The FY
2013 Special Funds budget expenditure is proposed at$790,284, a decrease of$169,594 from the FY
2012 figure of$959,878.
The Water Fund budget for FY 2013 is proposed at$2,370,308, an increase of$32,873, or 1.41%
over the FY 2012 budget. Water user fees are proposed to increase 2.8%.
The Water Pollution Control Fund budget for FY 2013 is proposed at$2,668,971. This is a
decrease of$38,439 or 1.42% from the current year's budget. A rate increase of 1.5%is proposed.
The Stormwater Fund budget is proposed at$3,621,856, an increase of$1,884,238 which is offset
by$1,786,114 in additional revenues mostly related to capital expenditures. No rate increase is proposed
for FY 2013.
The total of all funds for FY 2013 is $28,422,079, compared to $25,412,893 for FY 2012, an
increase of$3,009,186. A large portion of this increase, $1,670,650, is due to Stormwater capital projects
expenditures and will be offset by revenues in the Stormwater Fund.
A spreadsheet, entitled, "FY13 - Summary,All Funds, Expenses and Revenues"provides a quick
overview and is attached to this Executive Summary.
Copies of the FY 2013 proposed budget, including this Executive Summary and the full Budget
Message are available for inspection at the following locations: the South Burlington Community Library,
the City Manager's Office,the City Clerk's Office and on the City's website at www.sburl.com.
Acknowledgements: I extend my thanks to all our City employees for their continued dedication and
hard work. I also extend the administration's appreciation to the many volunteers who serve on the City's
boards, committees, commissions and who aid us in many other ways year round.
Special thanks to all division and department heads who participated in the development of the
budget and have continually found ways to avoid waste and produce innovative solutions. I want to
single out the contribution of Justin Rabidoux in assisting in the development of the Enterprise Fund
budgets. Kudos to Deputy Finance Officer, Sue Dorey,who participated in all budget meetings and
provided assistance in many facets of this process and to Janice Ladd,Human Resources Coordinator,
who helped with compensation and benefits calculations.
Last,but not least,I acknowledge the extremely capable work performed by Deputy City
Manager Bob Rusten. Bob,working with department and division heads and other staff,has developed a
budget process which will serve South Burlington well for many years to come. It is based on accuracy,
trends and collaboration among team members, all of which are essential to achieve the level of
transparency we are striving for.
Responsibility for reviewing,revising and finalizing the budget to go to voters now shifts to City
Council whose assistance during the past year is also greatly appreciated. Councilors,with assistance
from City Staff,will hold a number of meetings over the next several weeks in accordance with the
attached schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
Sanford I.Miller
City Manager
ii
A B C D E I F I G H I J K L IP
-
1 FY 2013 - Summary,All Funds Expenses and Revenues •
FY 12-13 FY 12-13
FY 11 Budget FY 2012 FY 2013
3 FY 10 Actual FY 11 Budget Actual Unaudited Proposed FY 2012 Estimated Proposed $Change %Change
4 General Fund Expenditures 14,928,182, 15,662,939 15,408,186 17,670,552 17,357,715 18,970,660 1,300,108 7.36%
5 General Fund Non-Property Tax Revenues 5,025,710 5,875,544 5,593,095 6,919,284 7,143,422 7,760,177 840,893 12.15%
6 Mgt/Staff Challenge-reduce costs/iincrease.$ 250,000
7 net to be raised by property tax 9,902,472 9,787,395 9,815,091 10,501,268 10,214,293 11,210,483 709,215 6.75%
8 estimated tax rate, 0.3826 0.4036 0.0210 5.49%
9 ,2012GL
10 SPECIAL FUNDS 27,775,000
FY 12-13 FY 12-13
FY 11 Budget FY 2012 FY 2013
11 FY 10 Actual FY 11 Budget Actual Unaudited Proposed FY 2012 Estimated Proposed $Change %Change
12 Budget Expenditures 2,140,017 959,878 1,589,378 790,284 -169,594 -17.67%
13 Revenues 2,387,691 1,078,587 2,568,149 1,008,294 -70,293 -6.52%
14 net 247,674 118,709 978,771 218,010 99,301 83.65%
15 1
16 ENTERPRISE P 0 s
FY 12-13 FY 12-13
FY 11 Budget FY 2012 FY 2013
17 FY 10 Actual FY 11 Budget Actual Unaudited Proposed FY 2012 Estimated Proposed $Change %Change
18 Water Pollution Control Expenditures 2,579,820 2,852,736 2,851,553 2,707,410 2,739,790 2,668,971 -38,439 -1.42%
19 Revenues 2,578,707 2,852,736 2,845,665 3,259,908 3,259,908 3,322,532 62,624 1.92%
20 net -1,113 0, -5,888 552,498 520,118 653,561 101,063 18.29%
21
22 Water Expenditures 1,981,020 2,027,652 2,053,554 2,337,435 2,343,530 2,370,308 32,873 1.41%
23 Revenues 1,931,613 1,999,789 2,142,881 2,337,435 2,349,300 2,370,308 32,873 1.41%
24 net -49,407 -27,863 89,327 0 5,770 0 0
25
26 Stormwater Expenditures 1,309,994 1,607,770 1,107,970 1,737,618 1,292,523 3,621,856 1,884,238 108.44%
27 Revenues 1,310,908 1,607,770 1,563,953 1,836,000 1,836,000 3,622,114 1,786,114 97.28%
28 net 914 0 455,983 98,382 543,477 258 -98,124 -99.74%
29
30 TOTAL OF ALL FUNDS
31 Total EXPENSES 22,939,033 22,151,097 21,421,263 25,412,893 25,322,936 28,422,079 3,009,186 11.84%
32 Total Non Property Tax Revenue 13,234,629 12,335,839 12,145,594 15,431,214 17,156,779 18,083,425 2,652,211 17.19%
33 Net 9,704,404 9,815,258 9,275,669 9,981,679 8,166,157 10,338,654 356,975 3.58%
34 all surpluses 198,068 -27,863 539,422 769,589 2,048,136 871,829 102,240 13.29%
35 net 9,902,472 9,787,395 9,815,091 10,751,268 10,214,293 11,210,483 459,215 4.27%
36 challenge -250,000 0 250,000 -100.00%
37 Money to be raised via property tax 9,902,472 9,787,395 9,815,091 10,501,268 10,214,293 11,210,483 709,215 6.75%
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
1/24/2012 iii
Sanford I.Miller,City Manager
smiller@sburf.com
City Council Budget and Regular Meetings Schedule
January 3, 2012through March 6, 2012 for FY 2013
Budget meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, unless otherwise notes. Staff expected to attend
budget meetings are in parenthesis for each budget meeting date.
Regular meetings typically start with an Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. and Open Session at 7:30 (please
consult www.sburl.com for exact times. Unless otherwise noted these meetings will be held at City Hall.
rd
• January 3 —Tuesday— Regular Council Meeting at Chamberlin School (moved from January 2nd
due to observance of New Year's Day holiday).
th
• January 5 —Thursday—Overview of General Fund Expense & Revenues, Debt, City Council,
City Manager, Legal, Finance, GL/Payroll, Administrative/Insurance, Assessing and Tax& Compensation
Schedule (Rusten and Miller).
• January 9th— Monday— Public Safety Budgets including Fire, Ambulance and Police (Brent,
Whipple, Miller and Rusten).
• January 11th— Wednesday—The following departments and their"related" budgets: Recreation
(including any supplemental questions about Parks), Library, Planning, City Clerk/Treasurer. (Hubbard,
Murphy, Conner, Kinville, Miller and Rusten).
• January 12th—Thursday— Revenues, Expenditures and Debt for Water, Stormwater, Water
Pollution Control plus Public Works and Parks Expenditures. (Rabidoux, DiPietro, Crosby, Miller and
Rusten).
• January 17th—Tuesday— Regular Council Meeting at Orchard School (moved from Jan. 16 due
to observance of Martin Luther King, Jr., day).
th
• January 18 —Wednesday—Capital Budget, "200", 300 &"600" accounts. Review of Outstanding
Questions. Summary and Possible Action by CC. (All department/division heads are encouraged to
attend).
• January 25th— Wednesday —Steering Committee Meeting at Frederick H. Tuttle Middle School
Library. Meeting to start at 6:00 p.m.
• February 6th— Monday— Regular City Council Meeting.
• February 21st—Tuesday— Regular City Council Meeting at Rick Marcotte Central School.
Other dates of note regarding Budgets, Warnings and Town Meeting.
• February 2nd—Thursday— Budget book proofed to printers.
• February 3rd— Friday— Effective last date to post Warning and Public Hearing for Town Meeting.
• February 8th—Wednesday— Budget books to be delivered to Public Work conference room.
• February 9th—Thursday— Budget books mailed to voters.
• March 5 — Monday-Pre-Town Meeting/Public Hearing on the budgets at Frederick H. Tuttle
Middle School. Meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.
• March 6th—Tuesday—Annual Meeting—Vote on budgets and any other articles.
Respectfully submitted,
Sanford Miller
City Manager
iv
Proposed City of South Burlington Budgets for Fiscal Year 2013
City Manager's Budget Message
December 30, 2011
[Revised to Include City Council Changes January 18, 20121
Introduction and Background: The essential message contained in the following pages is that this
budget, if adopted in this or substantially similar form,resolves virtually all of the key financial problems
—in total exceeding$17 million—that have been documented during the past eighteen months and results
in fiscal stability for the City of South Burlington. This proposed budget, with recommendations for the
establishment of several strategic reserve funds, also makes strides to achieve our financial vision for the
future.
Form and Substance of the Proposed Budget: The FY 2013 proposed City Manager budget is very
similar in format to that of the current FY 2012 budget. It continues and expands on the effort begun with
the FY 2012 budget to maximize disclosure and transparency by more clearly and accurately showing all
expenses and revenues. As appropriate, a number of items previously found in departmental budgets
have been moved into Administrative Services. It is essential that we continue to provide the level of
information needed to continue to build trust between all stakeholders, including residents,taxpayers,
Council and Staff, and empower voters to make informed decisions.
The most important continuation for FY 2013 is that expenditures and revenues for all funds are proposed
based on a realistic and fact-based methodology, something we were striving toward last year at this time,
but were not yet completely sure of. Depai tinent and division heads have been fully involved in the
budget preparation process. As much as possible, individual budget line items are based on multi-year
trends, full accounting for actual expenses to be incurred, and the funds actually needed to provide
services. Again,while this seems sensible and obvious, compared to the way budgets were prepared for
FY 2011 and earlier,the methods we use here represent a radical departure.
Many of the largest financial problems facing South Burlington have been addressed(for more details on
these issues you may wish to consult the FY 2012 Budget Message on the City's website at
www.sburl.com). Key discussion points follow:
Pension Issues Addressed: Our auditors and pension actuaries have reported in open session to City
Council that the pension loan, selected movement of staff toward VMERS and more accurate reporting
have put the City in an excellent position. Our actuaries now report that we are in exactly the position we
want to be. As a result, our pension expenses for the current year(FY 2012) and FY 2013 are expected to
be hundreds of thousands of dollars less than budgeted for FY 2012. In addition, to avoid returning to an
underfunded pension plan as had been the case prior to this year, we propose contributing about an
additional$100,000 more to the South Burlington Retirement Income Plan than the actuaries'
recommended minimum for FY 2012 and FY 2013.
1
Ending the Deficit Trend: We believe the proposed FY 2013 budgets (along with the FY 2012 budgets in
place) will end the budget deficit trend. While the General Fund experienced a deficit of approximately
$200,000 last year(FY 2011), we project, for the current year(FY 2012) a surplus at least as large as that,
depending upon how funds are expended toward the end of this fiscal year. Our Water, Stormwater and
Water Pollution Control funds are also expected to be in surplus and,with no or very low rate increases,
will begin to develop surpluses to address the large capital costs needed to maintain these systems in the
years to come.
Creation of Separate Bank Accounts and Reserve Funds: To appropriately segregate funds, separate bank
accounts have been set up for Impact Fees, each of the utility funds and donations.
Addressing the"200", "300" and"600" Special Funds: As required by the City Charter, we include 200,
300 and 600 funds in the overall budget proposal. When there is no compelling reason to keep one of
these funds separate,we will incorporate them into the General Fund department budgets and enterprise
fund budgets as appropriate. For FY 2013 we show activity in only twenty-four(24) special funds
compared to about 150 such funds in prior years.
Possible Charter Changes—Voting on the Budget and Reappraisal: Based on the December 6, 2011 vote
approving both Charter changes, I am making assumptions based on the expectation that the Legislature
will approve the changes and the Governor will sign them. First,the assumption is made that we will not
need to fund a re-appraisal in FY 2013. This avoids a cost which could easily exceed$400,000. Second,
in order for the new budget voting scheme to be in effect for Town Meeting, it will likely need to be
approved by the Legislature, signed by the Governor, and made effective upon enactment--all no later
than the time Town Meeting is warned. Should this not be the case, it is likely that a July 1, 2012,
effective date for this item would be written into the legislation.
Billing for Uncollected Invoices: There are two major sources of unbilled funds which are being
addressed in FY 2012 and which have significant potential implications for FY 2013.
Our Deputy Finance Officer has determined there are almost$1 million in services which have been
paid for by the City, dating back as far as 2005 and which were,presumably,paid for by the General
Fund,which can be billed to the State for the Airport Parkway Water Pollution Control Facility Upgrade.
Although we do not understand why these bills had not previously been submitted, we expect the State to
reimburse us for these expenditures. These bills will be submitted shortly.
After ending the litigation related to Kennedy Drive, we determined there were several hundred
thousand dollars due to the City from the State for expenses not submitted for reimbursement for this
project in FY 2010 and early FY 2011. We have collected these funds.
Additionally,we initiated a process to obtain payment for every unbilled service for which we believe
there is a possibility of collection.
Replenishing Impact Fees,Donations and Other Funds: Cash reserves remaining on hand, combined with
the billing for uncollected invoices referred to immediately above, should allow the complete
replenishment of all Impact Fee accounts, donation funds and other accounts depleted in the years prior to
FY 2011 and which we are legally and morally required to accounted for.
2
Writing-off "Due To and Due From"Entries and Elimination of the Cumulative Deficit: After making a
number of adjustments in FY 2011 and FY 2012, we have considerably reduced the "Due To and Due
From"cumulative deficit through up-to-date billing and replenishment of impact fees and other funds.
We are further proposing to write off the remaining Due To and Due From items, which will effectively
eliminate the remaining portion of the $6 million cumulative deficit identified in the FY 2010 audit.
Notable is approximately$1.8 million which could be"Due To"the Stormwater Fund. However,
previous recordkeeping systems do not allow for easy verification of these amounts and we believe there
is a significant possibility that this amount is not accurate. An alternative would be to hire a forensic
accountant to examine this situation and the entire range of issues related to it. We believe the amount of
time,money and staff resources necessary to accomplish this provide a poor rate of return on the
investment required and,hence, we recommend the write-off scenario. This is not dissimilar to the write-
off of the $450,000 loan Due To the Water Fund which was never paid and written off this past year.
Another example is the new police station where the total cost exceeded the voter authorized amount
by$164,872. We are proposing to recover$120,000 from the Police Department Bequest Fund and the
Asset Forfeiture Fund. $44,872 would be written off.
There are several benefits to the approach I have outlined here. First,we will avoid spending
resources on this effort that would keep us from other pursuits. Second,the City's several funds are
entering a"stable"period where they each are anticipated to break even or produce surpluses, so there is
not an urgent or fiscally essential reason for the forensic approach. Third,it is conceivable the result of a
forensic investigation would result in monies moving back and forth across the several funds with only
marginal benefit to any individual fund. Finally, the approach outlined here has the enormous benefit of
allowing us to "reset"our funds, meaning that the cumulative deficit problem, including the Due To and
Due From problems are eliminated. The downside to this approach is that we will never be able to
identify exactly where each penny should have been and, therefore, one or more funds may be
"shortchanged".
This plan has been reviewed with the independent auditor and we have sought his feedback. He has
informally agreed to this general approach. To finalize this accomplishment City Council approval is
needed to write off the remaining Due To and Due From items to allow the "reset" of the budgets.
Also noteworthy is that the process of developing a plan to address the cumulative deficit through a
combination of collecting unpaid bills, producing surpluses and write-offs can be accomplished in FY
2013. This process is something the auditor had projected could take a longer period of time and Staff
recommends City Council consult with the auditor to determine the wisdom of compressing this time
frame as we have proposed.
The General Fund:
General Fund Revenues,Expenses and Tax Levy: A summary of the General Fund budget, including a
summary breakdown by department for both revenues and expenses, is provided on the following page.
Please note all property tax discussions are for municipal property taxes only and do not include the
education property tax.
• General Fund revenues and expenses are proposed at$18,970,660, an increase of$1,300,108, or
7.36%over the FY 2012 budget.
3
• The City increase in the tax levy is anticipated to go from$10,501,268 in FY 2012 to$11,210,483 for
FY 2013, an increase of$709,215, or 6.75%.
• Non-Property tax revenues are projected to increase by$840,893 or 12.15% in FY 2013. The largest
increases are due to increased revenues from the Sales and Use Local Option Tax and revenues to be
generated by a new service offering.
• For purposes of estimating a tax rate based on the proposed budget, the City Assessor is estimating a
1.2%increase in the Grand List.
• This yields an estimated tax rate of$0.4036, an increase of$0.021 (2.1 cents), or 5.49%, over the FY
2012 rate of$0.3826.
• The impact of this proposed increase on taxpayers is as follows:
o For every$100,000 in assessed value, there would be$21 in annual municipal taxes added to
the $382.60 paid in FY 2012, for a FY 2013 total of$403.60.
o For a typical condominium owner, with an assessed value of$224,000, there would be an
annual municipal tax increase of$47.04. When added to the FY 2012 municipal tax bill of
$857.02,the FY 2013 total is $904.06.
o For a single family property assessed at$322,000,the annual municipal property tax for FY
2013 would increase$67.62 to $1,299.59 from the FY 2012 bill of$1,231.97.
Internal Controls and Financial Management: We continue to strive to improve our internal controls and
procedures. As our auditor reported in November,there have been significant improvements in policies
and procedures. The following work still remains to be done and is,partly, dependent upon
modernization of our computer systems:
• Development of a comprehensive Purchase Order system.
• Establish the use of encumbrances,to guard against line item over-expenditures.
FY 2013 Budget Development: Changes in staffing, services,program initiatives,reserve and
contingency funds are discussed in this section.
City Manager's Department: Based on a shortage of resources to perform special project related tasks,
City Council authorized the creation of a Project Director, and that position has been added to the FY
2013 budget. Additionally, the vacant position of Policy and Planning Analyst will be filled, either as
titled or as a Finance Analyst position. We are currently reviewing applicants for the position.
We have re-titled the City Manager's budget as a"Department" since last year there was
considerable misunderstanding about the salary increase received by the City Manager. The departmental
budget increased by about 35% due to the addition of a new staff position in FY 2012. Some individuals
misinterpreted that 35%increase as being for the City Manager's salary, which it was not. For FY 2012,
the City Manager's salary increased by 2.3%, which was contractually agreed upon at the time of hire.
The City Manager's salary has not been set for FY 2013, so there is no increase in the City Manager's
salary shown for FY 2013. Any adjustment to the City manager's salary will occur following an
evaluation process the City Council has not, as yet,begun.
General Administration, Finance and Planning: Additional demands on City Staff in planning, general
administration and finance have created a need for some additional staff. Based on vacancies and how
4
they might be filled, I am proposing that$30,000 be set aside for some additional staff capacity. This
may be two part-time employees, an intern or some other combination of staff. This could also have the
additional benefit of allowing the administration to be more flexible and assign staff, as needed, where
and when they are needed.
South Burlington Community Library Hours, Staff and Services: Last year the Library budget was cut,
resulting in staff and Library hour reductions. During budget discussions, City Council placed a high
priority on working to reverse some or all of the cuts and,hopefully, in the process, enhance services.
Additionally, the Library conducted a community survey to identify strengths and weaknesses and areas
where the community saw opportunities for improvement.We believe the FY 2013 budget achieves these
objectives discussed last year and is supportive of the results of the community survey. Here are some
highlights which are expected to result from the FY 2013 budget as proposed.
• The proposed budget converts two part-time positions to full-time, giving the Library four full-time
staff persons.
• Weekly Library hours will increase from 49 to 58 per week.
• Evening hours would be extended to four evenings per week(up from two presently).
• Weekend hours will be increased.
• The Children's Librarian's hours will be increased. Programming for elementary school aged
children and young adults will be increased and other youth and family related programs will be
enhanced. This will also enable the Library to offer community outreach services to local day care
centers,pre-schools and other community organizations.
• A Reference Librarian will be available to assist the community with an established and consistent
schedule of times when this service will be available.
Fire Department and Ambulance Services:
• The Fire Chief initiated a proposal for the City to take over fire and condominium inspection services
from the State. In addition to improving services for South Burlington residents,we expect program
revenues will exceed expenses by at least$75,000 in the first year of the program. Therefore, we are
recommending the addition of this new inspection services program.
• A new staff person would be added and a vehicle purchased for use by this individual.
• Additional funds have been added to the budget to provide for additional EMS patient care equipment
needs as identified by the depaitiiient. This expense is expected to be partially offset by grants.
Police Department:
• We are anticipating leasing out part of the 2nd floor of the SBPD space at 19 Gregory with a net
increase in revenue to the City.
• An additional dispatcher has been hired in FY 2012 to address scheduling difficulties and provide an
adequate level of service for our public safety functions. This position is proposed to continue in FY
2013.
• A number of changes to our grant funded Community Justice Center(CJC)have taken place or are
being considered and additional services have been added. All costs (beyond overhead), are covered
by grant funding from the State.
o The Coordinator of the Community Justice Center has had hours increased to 30 per week
with consideration being given to extending hours to 32 per week.
5
o Part-time office help at ten hours per week may be added.
o A fourth reparative board is being added in South Burlington,which increases responsibilities
for the Coordinator.
o The CJC Coordinator has also provided mediation services to the City at no cost. It was first
used, successfully, to resolve a dispute between the National Gardening Association and a
community gardener.
Public Works—Highway Staffing,Paving and Project Funding:
• Paving: A large increase in the paving budget is proposed for FY 2013 and much of this increase
over the FY 2012 expenditure level will be offset by grants. Therefore, there will be a small increase
in the General Fund contribution to the highway paving budget in FY 2013. Public Works has
developed a six year paving plan(FY 2012 to FY 2017). It is attached as a supplemental schedule in
the budget book.
• Route 2 Widening: Funds are budgeted for the City's share of the Route 2 widening project.
• A Truck Driver position has been added to the Public Works Highway division.
• Some reorganization is anticipated in the second half of FY 2012 in Public Work, which will carry
over to FY 2013.
"True Up"Payments and Services between the City and School District: In discussing the FY 2012
budget,it was agreed City and School District Staff would work collaboratively to "true up"payments
and services between the two entities. The Staff recommendation to both boards includes the following,
which must be agreed to by both bodies.
• The City would pay the School District about$56,700 annually for the Library, instead of the$72,000
we have been paying annually.
• Due to adding a mechanic to School staff, the School District would pay the City about$17,700 for
bus maintenance, instead of$70,000 to be paid to the City for Fiscal Year 2012.
• The City would pay$1,000 for school bus drivers related to Recreation program use and$1,000 for
custodial overtime as a result of City programs.
• No other General Funds would change hands and utilities charges were not addressed in this
agreement for this year.
o The"community use" subsidy payment by the City of$26,938 would be eliminated. The $16,981
for"school use"by Recreation Programs would be eliminated. Payment by the City for"school
grounds maintenance"would be eliminated.
o School athletic teams' use of City athletic fields for practice and games would continue at no cost
to the Schools and City use of School fields would continue at no charge.
o The City would not charge the School District for the cost of School Resource Officers(SROs).
• The agreement and all terms would be reviewed annually.
Employee Wages, Benefits and Compensation:
• A new compensation schedule is being employed to more accurately determine the total
compensation package of employees.
• Step Increases: All full-time staff will receive step increases. These are 1.5% for Water Pollution
Control, City Hall,Public Works and Management/Non-represented employees; 2.5% for Police
employees; and,variable step increases for Fire Depaitinent employees.
• Management and Non-represented Staff:
6
o In addition to step increases, the increase will generally be 2%. Some employees may
receive more based on performance goals or title/job responsibility changes.
o Because Management staff no longer receive the City's 5.5%ICMA-RC deferred
compensation match,the FY 2012 and FY 2013 salary increases will, together,place them
only slightly ahead of their FY 2011 compensation package.
o Beginning with the City Manager, several other management employees have voluntarily set
their maximum sick leave accrual at 600 hours—generally those who have much less than
600 hours presently—and these employees will receive Long Term Disability benefits from
the City. The City will be seeking an equitable method of addressing accruals of employees
who have more than 600 hours accrued.
o A number of management positions have had compensatory time eliminated or reduced when
compared to their predecessors (e.g. the City Manager,Deputy City Manager,Deputy
Finance Director and new Project Director). The Administration will continue to examine
ways to further reduce compensatory time for this category of employees.
• Part-time Employees are proposed to receive 2% increases.
• Bargaining Unit Employees:
o For bargaining units that have not already negotiated regarding unlimited sick leave accrual
no wage increases (beyond steps), are proposed based on the June 30, 2012 expiration of all
four collective bargaining agreements. The City will be seeking to bargain on the issue of
unlimited sick leave accrual and use as retirement health insurance. The cost of the sick leave
accrual is expected to be in the millions of dollars over time. This budget contains funds to
perform an actuarial analysis to help determine the future cost of this benefit.
o Water Pollution Control employees' sick leave accrual has already been capped at 600 hours
through collective bargaining and they received Long Term Disability in exchange.
o The City will also be seeking to bargain on the 5.5% ICMA-RC deferred compensation match
being provided to City Hall and Public Works employees. The Water Pollution Control
employees have already had their deferred compensation match reduced, in half, to 2.75%.
• Health insurance: Per employee health insurance costs for calendar 2012 (the first half of FY 2013)
will be 3%less than for 2011. However,we will be including four additional staff in the General
Fund in our FY2013 budget and we are projecting a very conservative 10% increase in costs for
calendar 2013 (which includes the second half of FY 2013).
Capital Budget, Debt and Capital Planning:
• A Capital Improvement Plan reserve fund is established with$190,000 to fund capital projects.
• No additional debt is included in the budget for FY 2013. Note,however, that a special bond vote
might be scheduled for water meter replacement in the Water Fund. For details, see below.
• Vehicle Purchases: A six-year capital plan is being used to fund vehicles to allow the City to avoid
borrowing for this category of expenditure.
• Recreation Improvements are also being scheduled using a six-year capital plan to strive toward level
funding over this period.
• The above evidence the fact that we have also made strides toward developing a Capital Improvement
Program(CIP). However, the CIP is not yet complete across all funds and departments.
7
Computerization, Technology and Upgrading our Systems:
• With the exception of the Police Department, City departments have had long standing problems with
antiquated technology,particularly in terms of servers, old desktops and laptops and outdated or gaps
in software.
• To address this problem we have centralized, in Administrative Services, many of the data functions
of City departments and centralized responsibility in one office.
• In addition,we had added approximately$34,000 to this line item.
• We are proposing to add computer tablets for Councilors and some departments.
• The administration is continuing to work to establish a"technology working group"to provide advice
to senior Staff on the available technologies and applications to promote better communications with
our citizenry.
Sick Leave Bank Reserve Fund: This benefit, which we believe is unique to South Burlington, has been,
for the most part, unfunded. In several recent budgets some funds have been budgeted for employees
who have retired or were known to be retiring. However, the future cost of this benefit has not been
funded and often employees retire who were not anticipated to retire. Based on this we are proposing to
set aside an initial contribution of$100,000 for FY 2013 into a Sick Leave Bank Reserve Fund. As
mentioned above, we are proposing an actuarial determination of the cost of this benefit.
Contingency Funds: City Council has proposed to increase the FY 2013 Contingency budget by$178,875
to $278,875 for unanticipated capital expenditures, grant matching funds and other costs. This represents
less than 1.47% of the General Fund budget as proposed.
Elimination of the $250,000 Staff Challenge: For this year's,FY 2012, budget Council challenged the
administration to find an additional $250,000 in savings or enhanced revenues. Staff more than achieved
this objective. This challenge is being eliminated in the FY 2013 budget.
Undesignated Reserve Fund: Our auditors have recommended the establishment of an Undesignated
Reserve Fund and we are proposing to initial funding of$50,000 in an undesignated reserve fund. This
represents 0.3% of our General Fund expenditures. Typically, Vermont municipalities may have
anywhere from 0%to 10% or more in such funds,which are used for tax stabilization purposes or as so-
called"rainy day" funds.
Special Funds—200,300 and 600 Accounts: The budget for the remaining special funds consists of
$790,284 in expenses, a decrease of$169,594, or 17.67%. Revenues are projected at$1,008,294.
Noteworthy is that the FY 2013 budget shows twenty-four(24) special funds remaining out of the
approximately 150 such funds that were in prior years' budgets. Many of the former special funds were
consolidated into departmental budgets and others are now incorporated in the budgets of enterprise
funds. The Special Funds' budget pages now contain a brief description of each of the active funds.
8
Enterprise Funds including Administrative Fees for the General Fund: A chart showing rates and
costs to typical households follows below.
Water Fund: Most costs associated with budget are based on costs provided by the Champlain Water
District(CWD)for the City of South Burlington. CWD provides maintenance support for our water
system as well as billing services for all three enterprise funds.
• The Water Fund Budget for FY 2013 is $2,370,308, an increase of$32,873, or 1.4%, over the FY
2012 budget of$2,337,435.
• The Water Fund rate is proposed to increase by 2.8% for FY 2013 (compared with the 16.64%
increase this year). A typical household paying$229.47 in FY 2012 would see a total annual
increase of$6.43 in FY 2013.
• A number of years ago the City made a decision to begin replacing water meters. Although the
meters had extremely high error rates,the company went bankrupt, and the technology was bought by
a new company, the decision was made to continue to buy the meters as produced by the new
company. The meters have continually experienced very high error rates. CWD and the City will be
exploring options for replacing these meters. In addition,many meters are not readable by radio, so
there is still reading done by going door-to-door. One possibility is bonding for the replacement of all
the City's meters so readings can be done remotely and efficiently.
• The Administrative Fee to the General Fund for FY 2013 is proposed at $42,640.
• A portion of the City's general insurance costs have been allocated to the Water Fund. This year,that
allocation is$31,500. After reviewing these costs, we can only justify an allocation of$5,000 in
insurance costs. The FY 2013 budget is adjusted accordingly.
Stormwater Utility: Rates were increased 31.92%in FY 2012 for the first time since the utility was
formed. For FY 2013 we are proposing no increase in rates. The typical household will continue to pay
$71.28 annually.
• The Stormwater budget is proposed at$3,621,856 an increase of$1,884,238 which is offset by
$1,786,114 in additional revenues from grants,homeowners' associations' matching funds and
unexpended funds from FY 2012),related to capital projects.
• We have included$40,000 in the proposed Stormwater budget to perform a rate and equity analysis.
This study is in response to concerns that rates are virtually identical irrespective of housing type.
• We are in the process of implementing an agreement with the Vermont Agency of Transportation to
perform certain services in exchange for a$50,000 annual fee.
• We are in the process of adjusting the utility bill to Burlington International Airport to reflect the rack
rate for utility services, as opposed to the$160,000 annual flat fee,which has been charged since the
creation of the Stormwater Utility. The new bill is expected to be considerably higher.
• The Administrative Fee to the General Fund for FY 2013 is proposed at$122,720.
• A five-year plan has been adopted for capital programming for Stormwater to work toward level
funding for this category of expenditures.
Water Pollution Control: The FY 2012 rate increase of 28%was implemented to address significant
cumulative deficits in the Water Pollution Control fund. Last year we indicated the rate model would
require annual increases of 3%to address the increasingly complicated operations of the Airport
9
Parkway Wastewater Treatment Facility, service debt for the expansion, and establish reserves to allow
for upgrades and repairs that will be needed at the Bartlett Bay Treatment Facility in eight to ten years.
• The FY 2013 budget is proposed at$2,668,971. This is a decrease of$38,439 or 1.42%, from the
current budget.
• To meet the Fund's long term goals a user rate increase of 1.5% is proposed,half the 3%increase
projected at this time last year. More precise budgeting allows us to lower the projected future annual
rate increases from 3%to 2.25%.
• A typical household paying $357.40 for sewer service in FY 2012 would see an annual increase of
$5.36 for FY 2013.
• A 3%increase in connection fees is proposed with future increases also slated at 3% annually.
• With the opening of the expanded and significantly more complicated Airport Parkway Wastewater
Treatment Facility, a Laboratory Analyst position will be filled either in late FY 2012 or for FY 2013.
• The Administrative Fee to the General Fund for FY 2013 is proposed at$137,280.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PROPOSED FY 2013 MUNICIPAL UTILITY RATES
Fiscal Year 2012
Existing Fiscal Annual Fee for a Proposed Fiscal Annual Increase
Utility Year 2012 Rate Typical Home Year 2013 Rate %Increase for a Typical
Home
$5.94 per month $5.94 per month
Stormwater for residential $71.28 for residential 0% $0.00
units units
$34.88 per 1000 $35.40 per 1000
Sewer cubic feet $357.40 1.5% $5.36
cubic feet
Water $24.174 per 1000 $229.47 $24.856 per 1000 °
cubic feet cubic feet 2.8/° $6.43
Recreation Fund"240": Because this fund crosses budget years consistently, in consultation with our
auditors we have decided to treat this fund as an enterprise fund for FY 2013, and possibly beyond.
Consistent with our practice of charging an administrative fee to other enterprise funds this fund will also
be charged an administrative fee for FY 2013 of$30,000. To sustain the fund, we propose an increase in
youth program fees of$3.00 per week.
Goals,Objectives and Other Considerations for FY 2013:
TIF and City Center Projects: With the addition of the Project Director to the City Staff we will be in a
position to advance the required TIF application, which is essential to the funding of future City Center
infrastructure. We expect to move much closer to obtaining final permits for the construction of Market
Street in FY 2013.
10
Interim Zoning(IZ): At this writing, Interim Zoning is being considered by City Council, an Interim By-
law is about to be published, and a public hearing warned for January 17, 2012. If IZ is implemented,
there will be a considerable potential impact on the FY 2013 budget. Given the timing of the introduction
of IZ, Staff has not been able to project a potential budgetary impact for FY 2013.
When a different version of IZ was considered in the summer of 2011,the projected cost was
estimated at between$235,000 and$695,000 for two years. One option would be for City Council to add
the projected cost(whatever additional analysis suggests it will be), into the tax levy for FY 2013. Each
penny of tax rate impact would raise approximately$277,000.
Alternatively, it might be reasonable, for initial discussion's sake, to assume at least a one penny
impact on the FY 2013 tax rate. That is, I recommend City Council consider adding a penny to the tax
rate if IZ is implemented and, at the same time, changing the budget accordingly by placing these funds
into an IZ reserve fund. Please note this cost is not included in this proposed budget.
Continue Implementation of Changes to Financial Management Systems: While much work toward"re-
setting"the City's finances has been done, there are still tasks to be accomplished, such as a city-wide
purchase order and encumbrance system and incorporating remote buildings into our financial
management system. Currently our computer systems are not capable of incorporating the software
needed to accomplish this task. We will also pursue developing our internal controls and checks and
balances, including staff redundancy so more than one individual can perform critical financial
management tasks.
Workers' Compensation and Workplace Safety Committee: Last year I called for the rejuvenation of a
Workplace Safety Committee due to the very high"modification"rates from our Workers' Compensation
insurer—which resulted from high levels of workplace lost-time incidents. While there has been
considerable improvement in loss time incidents the Committee still makes sense and will be pursued,
time permitting.
• For 2011, our experience modification rate was 1.15. For 2012 it is 0.95.
• The 1.15 experience modification rate in 2011 added$66,214 to our Workers Compensation bill. In
2012 the more favorable modification rate will reduce our Workers Compensation bill by$22,843.
Considering this factor alone, this is an approximate net difference, to the positive, of$89,000.
• A good deal of credit is due to our employees who are having fewer loss-time incidents. Additional
training is another factor in this positive trend. Management and employees will continue to work to
lower loss-time accidents and, as a result, costs to the City.
City Hall Safety—Moving Offices,HVAC and Related Issues: Last year at this time we reported we
were considering moving some administrative offices from their current location to the second floor of
what used to be the Police Department(SBPD) offices. We have, in fact, already moved some records
and Recreation Depax tiiient storage into the first floor of the former SBPD offices.
However, concerns have arisen about the possibility of ongoing mold problems which may not have
been completely addressed during the mold remediation costing about$330,000 several years ago. We
have put our plans to relocate offices on hold pending the outcome of an investigation into the existing
building conditions.
If we are to relocate offices, the City Manager's Department and Deputy Finance Office would likely
move to the second floor of the former SBPD. The additional space created by this movement in the
11
south side of the second floor of City Hall would be used to better advantage by the Planning and Zoning
and Recreation Departments.
City Hall entryway improvements (partly grant funded) and HVAC improvements totaling
approximately$200,000 are on hold until the building conditions are verified.
Resolve Assessment,Taxes and Stormwater Charges to Burlington International Airport: The three-part
agreement inherited by this administration and the current City Council will need to change for FY 2013.
Heretofore,the method for collecting property taxes from the City of Burlington for Burlington
International Airport properties has been based on an old agreement intended to avoid a dispute over the
valuation of airport properties. Although South Burlington has no direct relationship with Heritage
Aviation(as they are a tenant of Burlington International Airport), Heritage is challenging the valuation
South Burlington has placed on their property based on a clause in their lease with Burlington.
Another part of the agreement had Burlington International Airport receiving significantly discounted
Stormwater Utility charges from South Burlington for a number of years.
The third part of the agreement was for a "fee for service"to be paid to South Burlington.
Burlington International Airport has been getting a considerable Stormwater discount during this period
and has failed to pay South Burlington the "fee for service"for FY 2010, FY 2011 and FY 2012.
Due to all of these issues, and others, on December 16,2011, I wrote Mayor Kiss indicating the prior
agreements (which his administration also inherited), are effectively ended.
We have asked our legislators for their assistance in moving forward to help resolve these matters.
This particular item remains one of the biggest unknowns for FY 2013 and beyond.
Conclusion and Recommendation: The Staff team is pleased with the progress we have made toward
restoring the City's finances to a stable state. We look forward to receiving input and establishing a
dialogue with the South Burlington community and City Council about the proposed FY 2013 budget. I
am very proud to lead the fine staff team that has brought South Burlington to the point where we can say
South Burlington has achieved nothing short of financial recovery and is well on the way to future fiscal
stability.
There are many proposals contained herein, such as,but not limited to, the creation of reserve
funds and writing off of Due To's and Due From's to reset the several budgets and funds. Therefore, I
recommend City Council, after due consideration and any modifications they wish to make,adopt the
budget and budget message as a financial implementation blueprint.
12
WARNING
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
ANNUAL CITY MEETING
MARCH 6, 2012
The legal voters of the City of South Burlington are hereby notified and warned to meet at
their respective polling places at the Chamberlin School on White Street,the Frederick H. Tuttle
Middle School on Dorset Street and the Orchard School on Baldwin Avenue on Tuesday,March 6,
2012, at 7 o'clock in the forenoon, at which time the polls will open until 7 o'clock in the evening,
at which time the polls will close,to vote by Australian Ballot on the following Articles:
ARTICLE I ELECTION OF OFFICERS
To elect all City Officers required by law.
ARTICLE II APPROVAL OF CITY BUDGET
Shall the City adopt the City Council's proposed budget for FY 2013 totaling twenty-eight
million, four hundred twenty-two thousand,seventy-nine dollars($28,422,079)of which it
is estimated eleven million,two hundred ten thousand,four hundred eighty-three dollars
($11,210,483)dollars will be raised by local property taxes?
POLLING PLACES ARE THE CHAMBERLIN SCHOOL ON WHITE STREET,THE
FREDERICK H. TUTTLE MIDDLE SCHOOL ON DORSET STREET AND THE ORCHARD
SCHOOL ON BALDWIN AVENUE. VOTERS ARE TO GO TO THE POLLING PLACE IN
THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICT.
Dated at South Burlington,Vermont,this 25 day of January, 2012.
Sandra Dooley, Chair
Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair
Rosanne Greco, Clerk
James Knapp
Paul Engels
Received and Recorded this day of January, 2012.
Donna Kinville, City Clerk
JLadd
From: Sandy Miller
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 8:42 AM
To: Bob Rusten; JLadd
Subject: RE: draft warning
Add as agenda items for the 1/25 meeting after the Steering Committee:
- Discuss Charter Change Requested by City Clerk.
- Discuss Petition Ballot Request by citizens.
We'll have to discuss, later, how we'll deal with the word processing of the warning if that changes - possibly retype back
at the office and have them sign on the 26th.
Sanford "Sandy" Miller
Original Message
From: Bob Rusten
Sent: Mon 1/23/2012 8:05 AM
To: Sandy Miller; ]Ladd
Subject: FW: draft warning
FYI
How do you wish to handle both the possible petition and charter change issues Donna describes?
Bob
From: donna
1
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:37 PM
To: Bob Rusten; Sandy Miller
Subject: RE: draft warning
There may be the possibility of the charter change and a petition to go on the warning if the council approves. But the
draft looks okay to me for now.
Donna
Donna Kinville
City of South Burlington
City Clerk and Treasurer
(802)846-4119
From: Bob Rusten
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 11:46 AM
To: donna; Sandy Miller
Subject: draft warning
HI Donna and Sandy.
Attached is a draft Annual Meeting Warning for March 6, 2012.
2
Please review and let me know if you have any suggestions/corrections.
Thanks.
Bob
3