Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/06/2021CITY COUNCIL 6 DECEMBER 2021 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday,6 December 2021, at 6:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, Sen. T. Chittenden, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; A. Bolduc, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Lyons, Assessor; J. Murray, Librarian; H. Rees, Recreation & Parks; C. Holm; D. Long, R. Greco, S. Decker, R. Garnett, E. Krasnow, L. Kupferman, M. Richards, S. Arrants, C. & A. Long, M. Ostby, C. Jensen, M. Mittag, L. Hammond, S. Dooley, H. Gagne, B. Melizia, L. Ravin, L. Norris. B. & B. Britt, J. Sappo, S. Buckler, O. Alexander, S. Dopp, S. J. Palmer, Wayne, O. Pierson, M. Behr, D. Bugbee, Julie, J. S. Kenner-Cisse, Mike R., J. Cousino, T. Francis, M. Bezio, Madison, Gemma, C. R. Henberg, V. Bolduc, Joe C., D. Seff, Brian, F. MacDonald, M. Jay, A. & A. Chalnick, G. Barnaby, Rachel G., J. Bellevance, C. Trombly, D. Demar, E. Jenings, J. Louisos, T. Linski 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency: Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and technology options. 2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda: Ms. Hammond and 2 people with her spoke to climate change issues as the biggest health threat and asked that South Burlington do more than what is expected. 4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended. Ms. Baker: The Kimball Avenue bridge is now open. There will be a final paving in the spring. The city received a $17,700 Municipal Planning Grant for Climate Action Plan goals. There is a small local match. The city also received $9,700,000 from the Feds for the bridge over I-89. The hope is for construction in the fall of 2023. TIF voter authorization will be required. CITY COUNCIL 6 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 2 Building Homes Together is re-opening with high goals for the next 5 years. The city will have to decide whether to sign on. November tax installments are complete, and delinquency notices have been sent out. People are encouraged to contact the city if they need help with payments. The holiday lights are now on at the park from 5-8 p.m. nightly, and registration for the “community light contest” is now open. 5. Consent Agenda: a. Approve and Sign Disbursements b. Approve minutes of 1 November, 8 November, and 15 November 2021 City Council meetings c. Approve an application to the Vermont Bond Bank for voter authorized debt related to 180 Market Street d. Approve 2021 Errors and Omissions to the Grand List e. Accept the Ridgewood and Indian Creek Stormwater Permit under the city’s MS4 permit and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement f. Accept the Stonehedge Stormwater Permit under the city’s MS4 permit and authorize the city Manager to execute the agreement Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Interview candidates and consider appointments to the Recreation & Parks Committee: The Council interviewed the follow applicants for appointment to the Recreation & Parks Committee: a. Linda Norris b. Ravi Venkataraman c. Oliver Pierson Ms. Riehle explained the appointment process. CITY COUNCIL 6 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 3 7. Discuss and possibly take action on a Municipal Mask Mandate: Ms. Riehle said the Council has 3 options: a. Do nothing and just encourage the wearing of masks b. Limit the mask mandate to City buildings c. Require masks in all public areas (where the public is allowed in) with exemptions for medical conditions and children under age 2 Sen. Chittenden said whatever they choose should not go past April. Mr. Barritt noted that Burlington has a mandate for all indoor places. He added that the Council could make masks optional for fully vaccinated people. Ms. Riehle said she put a question on Front Porch Forum and got 188 responses. 151 were emphatic for a mandate everywhere (this included medical providers), 26 said definitely “no,” 9 said to be cautious and make it simple, and 2 said don’t do anything. Ms. Emery said she believes masks make a difference, but it would be hard for her to impose a mandate without data. She felt the virus was fairly under control in South Burlington where there is high vaccination rate. She would consider a mask mandate for City buildings. Sen. Chittenden agreed. Mr. Cota said that masks work, but enforcement is very complicated. He didn’t feel that burden should be put on businesses, etc. Ms. Baker said that very few people are coming into City Hall without masks. She felt that those coming in without a mask could be asked to use one. Sen. Chittenden said the important thing is to stop the spread and to promote the best public health policy. He added that vaccines don’t fully protect, but they do reduce the risk. He supported mandatory masking in City buildings and giving retail owners a choice. Ms. Riehle felt that people have gotten lax with all the steps to prevent the spread (e.g., hand washing and social distancing). Public opinion was then heard as follows: CITY COUNCIL 6 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 4 Mr. Mittag: Favored a mandate in all public buildings. He noted that in Canada you can’t go anywhere without a vaccination certificate and ID. Dr. Summers: There is a 70% vaccination rate in South Burlington, and 90% of people in grocery stores are wearing masks. He thought that was enough. Mr. Roland: As a restaurant owner, he did not support a mandate as it would reduce business and tax revenue. He said they sanitize and have exhaust systems and signage asking people with symptoms not to come in. Ms. Skinner-Cissey: Did not favor a mandate but felt there is valid science on both sides. She also thought COVID is “here to stay,” but that people needed to choose. Mr. L esser-Goldsmith: Thanked the Council for an open and honest dialogue. As a business owner he found it hard for his employees to enforce a mandate, but he noted that now just about everyone is wearing a mask and there is a general level of respect. Dr. Harris: Thanked the Council for a respectful dialogue and said Burlington’s was “a hot mess.” She said the one size does not fit all, and the focus needs to be on prevention. She opposed a mandate and said there is no science to prove that vaccinated people don’t spread the disease. Mr. Simoneau: If a person comes into his business, employees put on masks out of respect. He opposed a mandate and said he was not as fearful as he was a year ago. Mr. Ruggerio: Supported protecting people’s freedom. Ms. Barnaby: A Colchester resident who shops in South Burlington businesses and feels welcome even though she has a medical exemption. She noted that 22 states have mandates, but 28 do not. Following public input, Sen. Chittenden moved to require mouth and nose covering in City buildings that are open to the public for 45 days, exempting those under age 2, those with specific medical conditions, and while eating and drinking. Ms. Emery seconded. The motion was then amended at Mr. Barritt's suggestion to add direction to the City Manager to widely distribute information and encourage South Burlington businesses to post signs that masks are strongly encouraged. Councilor Riehle stated that she believed full coverage in all buildings open to the public was the best course of action but would support the amendment as a partial solution. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. CITY COUNCIL 6 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 5 8. Receive overview of the Land Development Regulations from the Planning Commission: Ms. Louisos reviewed the Planning Commission process, including public input and public hearings. She said the proposed regulations would put South Burlington at the forefront of the State in many areas. Ms. Emery asked what “walkable” means. Ms. Louisos said a design should be such that neighbors know each other and can walk to a nearby park and nearby services and businesses. Ms. Louisos then reviewed the components of the draft regulations as follows: Environmental Protection Standards: Chapter 12 has been restructured and now lists resources and regulates the 500-year flood plain, steep slopes, and habitat blocks for the first time. There are larger buffers for Class 1 and 2 wetlands and maps of current and proposed standards. Ms. Louisos noted that an additional 938 acres outside of areas that are in an existing form of conservation are now protected by Articles 10 and 12. City-wide 1035 more acres are protected and 209 more in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). Ms. Louisos then showed a map of habitat blocks and connectors which would now be regulated as overlay zoning districts. The total acreage of habitat blocks is 1954, which include 98% of what the Arrowwood study recommended. Sen. Chittenden said he was concerned that there is not a legal precedent for those habitat blocks and asked if this is “blazing a trail.” Mr. Conner said they are not unique, but he acknowledged that identifying the resource as a “habitat block” is different. Sen. Chittenden asked where the 70% figure came from. Mr. Conner said it came from the Commission’s consultant and from research done by a planner show has done a lot of research. He added that it works well in terms of traditional zoning. Sen. Chittenden said he does not support the habitat blocks, and felt this would be “picking a fight” with UVM. He said all of UVM’s concerns need to be resolved or there will be years and years of litigation that the city will ultimately lose. He did note that one UVM issue has been resolved. CITY COUNCIL 6 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 6 Mr. Cota said he has similar issues which he will put in writing. He asked whether riparian areas and corridors are defined in the new LDRs. Ms. Louisos said that map has been removed, and there are now river corridors which are State defined. Mr. Cota asked if that is the same with habitat connectors. Ms. Louisos said it is not. They can be shifted according to certain provisions and are not a “hard line” on a map. Mr. Cota noted that density is reduced because some areas are not used in the density calculation. Zoning District Changes: Ms. Louisos showed an interactive map and pointed out the following zoning changes: a. Near Shelburne Road, 2 areas were adjusted to follow the property line b. In the Hinesburg Road/I-89 area, the Industrial-Open Space area on the west side has been rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial/R-7 c. Three areas in the SEQ have been added to the NRP area Mr. Barritt asked what prompted the Hinesburg Rd. change. Ms. Louisos said that in 2016, the existing zoning wasn’t matching the needs of the city or the landowners, and there was large, spread out development. Sen. Chittenden asked how much housing stock would be increased there. Mr. Conner said there is a lot of density, and depending on the owner, there could be 300 to 500 homes. Ms. Louisos said the habitat block would not be built on. Master Plans, Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments (PUDs): Mr. Conner said these changes were largely presented to the Council pre-pandemic. With regard to Master Plans, Mr. Conner noted their purpose has been expanded and updated. Subdivisions of 4 or more acres will require a master plan that looks at connections (e.g., paths, sidewalks, natural resources), parking, etc. Though this often happens today, the bar will now be set for everyone. The DRB can vest all or part of an approval for 6 years and then renew it for an additional 4 years. This allows for a collaboration with the developer to insure a good design. Mr. Cota said that projects with master plans are always better projects. He felt vesting made sense. He asked whether the DRB would have the ability to vest under the old regulations and carry that over. Mr. Conner said most master plans have done work to carry CITY COUNCIL 6 DECEMBER 2O21 PAGE 7 over and most won’t need an adjustment. A small lot line adjustment would not trigger a new master plan, but changing a whole vision would. Mr. Cota asked if there is an existing master plan now, is the developer vested under that plan even if there has not yet been a sketch plan review. Mr. Conner said he believed all master plans in the city have at least a preliminary plat in process, but he will check. Subdivisions: Mr. Conner said the new regulations would clean up existing standards and lay out the process and standards for subdivisions. Hazards and Level 1 resources would be on their own “resource lots.” There is also a minimum 10% of developable land to be for “civic spaces.” A minimum variety of housing types is also required for residential subdivisions. Planned Unit Developments (PUDs): The Traditional Neighborhood PUD type would feature compact, pedestrian oriented development with a discernible center such as a “green.” Density would be based on building type rather than a number. Neighborhood layout would be determined by block size/street layout, allowed housing building types, and a mix of housing types. There would be a heavy focus on transitions, what is happening on the next property (e.g., a “civic space” could be attached against a natural resource or a multiplex could be built next to a highly developed lot.) Twelve or more housing units would require an affordability inclusion. Conservation PUDs: Mr. Conner said that in a Conservation PUD, a minimum 70% of the parcel must be conserved. The acreage of the entire parcel minus hazards would be calculated for the density on the developable 30% of the land. The maximum density would be 6 per acre in the SEQ within the developable area. TDRs could be used in receiving areas. Sen. Chittenden said that the Conservation PUD had originally been an option, and he understood it is now a mandate. He then read from the Climate Council plan to which the City Council is committed and said he is concerned that what is proposed is working against that plan. He asked what would happen to lands forced into the Conservation PUD if the rules were to change. He said that because of those concerns, he would not be supporting these regulations. CITY COUNCIL 6 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 8 Ms. Louisos said that in the areas being developed, there would be 4 units per acre, and what would have happened in the conserved areas is being transferred to the developable 30% piece. The developers would have to show that they could develop at 4/acre, even if they only want to develop less. Ms. Louisos added that the Conservation PUD is required only in the most rural part of the SEQ. Mr. Conner then explained the options for a property owner who wants to do less. These include a “carve out (2 acres taken from a 10-acre or more piece of property), conserving more than 70%, and building in phases and not building the future phases. Mr. Conner then showed a PUD Type Applicability map which would apply to parcels of 4 acres or more. Review of calculations: Mr. Conner noted there are 22 parcels of 4 or more acres which equal about 463 acres. There are also 100 parcels of 1-4 acres for a total of 186 acres. Under the current regulations there could be 1180 homes (plus affordable bonuses); under the proposed regulations, that number would be decreased to 834 homes. Ms. Emery asked if there are 1400 homes currently in the pipeline. Mr. Conner said it is more like 1200. About 400 of these are in the SEQ, but 131 of them are in one building. Mr. Conner then reviewed several stand-alone amendments relating to solar-ready roofs, extended inclusionary zoning, extended basic residential design standards, and building envelopes within the SEQ-NRP district. Mr. Conner also noted that some items/issues were left to the next round of amendments. These include: a. TDR program update b. Additional PUD types (e.g., Neighborhood Commercial) c. Tools to incentivize development/redevelopment in built areas d. Some related specific topics e. Changing the name of the LDRs to Land Use Regulations. Mr. Conner then noted that when Planning Commissioners were asked to identify areas where they had issues with the new regulations, the following concerns were raised: CITY COUNCIL 6 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 9 a. Protection of ag soil/grasslands (other members felt they were well protected b. Conservation PUDs – some members felt they should be applicable elsewhere c. The 70% number d. Habitat blocks e. The change to the Industrial-Open Space zoning f. Expanding more buffers g. Elimination of very small class 3 wetlands Members did feel there were “balances” and were proud they could come together with so many varied opinions. Ms. Riehle commended the work of the Commission and staff and appreciated the differences of opinion. She hoped the City Council can work in the same manner. 9. Receive the Proposed FY23 Budget and set a Public Hearing on the FY23 Budget and Capital Investment Plan for 10 January 2023: Ms. Baker praised the work of Martha Machar and thanked Department Heads for their work in preparing the proposed budget. She noted that on 20 September, the Council had set goals to maintain the current level of services, to keep the budget increase under 3%, to maintain the fund balance and capital projects (e.g., road striping and paving). Ms. Baker said that in preparing the budget, there was an assumption of a 1.4% increase in the Grand List. Other assumptions included a “rebound” of local option taxes, a COLA of 3.5%, 8% health insurance increase, a 15.5% increase in other insurances and a .05% Vemers increase. Ms. Baker then enumerated the major elements of the proposed budget as follows: a. Maximizing service delivery of 180 Market Street with 2 new Library part time employees, 1 full time employee, 1 handyperson b. Focus on IT infrastructure with 1 FTE employee c. Focus on capital planning with 1 FTE person for capital projects d. Maximizing ARPA funding for one-time costs including ambulance, Planning & Zoning software, and firefighting clothing (there would still be $4,500,000 remaining ARPA funds) CITY COUNCIL 6 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 10 The proposed total FY23 budget is $28,473,095.88 of which $10,448,666 would come from non- property tax sources leaving $18,024,000 to be raised from taxes. This would result in a tax rate of .4438 which represents a 2.02% increase. Ms. Baker noted that only 63.3% of the budget is paid from the General Fund with 36.7% from non-property tax revenues. She also noted that the amount received from local option taxes in November was $111,000 over the pre-COVID figure. Ms. Baker then showed a pie chart of where the funding goes. She also noted that due to the reappraisal, there would be an additional $93,000 for Pennies for Parks. The CIP includes fund for Recreation Center planning, City Center reserve, increased paving, There will also be very small increases for stormwater and sewer. The current fund balance is $40,652.69. Ms. Baker then outlined some “emerging issues” as follows: a. Tracing inflation and unpredictable cost of goods b. Union contracts up for renewal c. Regional dispatch d. Climate Action Plan (future needs) e. Still “catching up” from previous years f. Budgeting $247,346 for the 3 Health Center partners and hoping for a 4th partner which would reduce that figure. Ms. Baker then asked the Council to set the public hearing date. Ms. Emery moved to set a public hearing on the proposed FY23 budget for 10 January 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Barritt seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Baker reminded members that there would be weekly budget meetings in January and the Steering Committee meeting on the 24th. CITY COUNCIL 6 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 11 10. FY23 Proposed Budget: Administration Presentation: Ms. Baker showed a chart of administration staffing including IT, legal, finance, City Clerk, etc. The budget for administration shows projected increases in revenue from local option taxes and from the City Clerk’s office. With regard to expenditures, Ms. Baker said an entire physical plant budget has been created. One item in that budget will be the hiring of a full-time Facilities Manager. There is also a recommendation for implementation of Office 365 to ensure resiliency and the implementation of permitting and development software. The expenditures for the City Clerk’s office reflect the increased cost for at least 3 elections in 2022 as well as all records being put on-line. A part time person will be added in the Welcome Center. In the Assessor’s Office, Ms. Lyons will be working on inequities in the Grand List and also a link- up to the new State software. Ms. Baker then outlined emerging issues including: data driven decision support which may come to the Council as a special request in the future, the Climate Action Plan, bringing in a 4th partner to the Health Center, and recruiting challenges. 11. FY23 Proposed Budget: Library Presentation: Ms. Murray said the Library will be moving to be open 55 hours by increasing open hours from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. This will involve the adding of staff. Ms. Murray cited the serving of community members who are not coming into the Library as an emerging issue as well as the growth of services to new Americans. She noted that books are being delivered to homes, when possible. Ms. Murray invited Council members and others to look through the pages of the guest book in the Library to see how happy everyone is with the new Library. CITY COUNCIL 6 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 12 12. Fy23 Proposed Budget: Recreation and Parks Presentation: Ms. Rees introduced her staff including new member Rebecca Isham, Senior/Adult Specialist. There is still one vacant position on the staff, and Ms. Rees praised the efforts of Travis and Brett for picking up the slack. She also noted that one impact of COVID has been for people to take more advantage of parks and outdoor spaces. There has been a decrease in revenue from youth programming, some of which is still occurring in school facilities. There was a basketball program this year, and driver’s ed will be offered again. The big piece for Recreation and Parks involves CIP projects. There will have to be a plan for deferred maintenance on the city’s fields which is on the CIP for FY24. Things are moving along toward the soccer field at South Village. The Pickleball Court at Szymanski Park will need resurfacing as well as improvements at Veterans Memorial Park and roof replacements at Red Rocks and JC Park. There is a need for second utility vehicle as the current one is often being used by other departments. Ms. Rees emphasized the need for a Parks Master Plan as a priority. She felt this could be done in conjunction with the Planning Commission. Sen. Chittenden said something has to be done about the Dog Park and suggested putting back in the $60,000 that was deferred. Ms. Rees did not know if there was a pricing list but said the Department has $20,000 for FY22, though there is nothing in the FY23 budget. Ms. Riehle suggested that when there is a Master Plan, there could be a bond issue to get everything done. Ms. Rees then enumerated the highlights of the Recreation/Parks program including “nimbleness” during challenging times, “Spark in the Park,” the “Community Glow Walk” (the Halloween event which was moved outdoors), and the opening of the Senior Center which is thriving. Ms. Rees noted that people are renting the Senior Center for parties, etc. Ms. Rees also noted there is $75,000 in the proposed budget for continued work toward a Recreation Center. CITY COUNCIL 6 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 13 13. Councilors’ Reports from Committee Assignments: Ms. Riehle: The Airport Commission has been working on a job description for an Airport Manager. The Airport has been fortunate to receive FAA funding for numerous projects including improvements to runways and noise abatement. Mr. Barritt: The Queen City Park Bike Path Scoping Committee has looked at some plans. The first meeting to discuss a potential impact fee for the schools went well. 14. Other Business: No other business was presented. 15. Consider entering executive session for the purposes of considering Recreation and Parks Committee appointments and receiving confidential attorney guidance on the proposed LDRs: Mr. Barritt moved that the Council meet in executive session for the purpose of considering Recreation and Parks Committee appointments and inviting into the session Ms. Baker and Mr. Bolduc. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Barritt moved that the Council make a specific finding that premature public knowledge of confidential attorney guidance on the proposed LDRs would clearly place the city at a disadvantage. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Barritt then moved that having so found, the Council meet in executive session to receive confidential attorney guidance on the proposed LDRs and invite into the session Ms. Baker, Mr. Bolduc, Mr. McNeil, Mr. Conner and Ms. Lafferty. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.