Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/03/2022CITY COUNCIL 3 JANUARY 2022 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 3 January 2022, at 6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; T. Barritt, Sen. T. Chittenden, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; A. Bolduc, Deputy City Manager; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; I. Blanchard, Community Development Director; A. Parker, City Project Manager; L. Bresee, Energy Project Manager; M. Machar, D. Bugbee, C. Alexander, B. Sirvis, R. Greco, N. Hyman, D. Seff, J. Louisos, M. Ostby, D. Philibert, M. Reid, T. Duff, C. Frank, “L”, B. Britt, Beth, D. Leban, K. Ryder, F. VonTurkevich, S. Dooley, A. Gill, G. Henderson-King, R. Dahlstron, N. Helen, J. Duncan, A. MacIlwain, L. Kupferman, J. Davis, L. Poteau, J. Carroll, H. Head, LaLa, A. Long, A. Strong, A. & A. Chalnick, D. Long, T. Perrapato, S. Dopp, N. Mancuso, C. Jensen, S. Srinvasan, L. Yankowski, E. Langfeldt, P. Engels, L. smith, J. Bellevance, C. Trombly, L. Marriott, B. Bertsch, J. Bossange, V. Bolduc, J. Nadeau, J. Nick, D. Albrecht, Penne T., J. Burton, J. Duncan, L. Bailey, R. Cate, A. Senecal, M. O’Rourke 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency: Ms. Baker provided instruction on emergency exit from the building and reviewed public participation via technology. 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. Alexander asked the Council to take action against climate change to set an example for the rest of the country. 4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Mr. Chittenden expressed his gratitude to the Public Works Department and to First Responders who served the city over the holidays. CITY COUNCIL 3 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 2 Ms. Baker: Provided a COVID update: between 16 and 29 December, there were 270 new cases in South Burlington, a significant increase. This will result in changes in city programming. Library “story time” and book discussions will virtual for the time being. The city will comply with State regulations regarding in person meetings but will encourage people to attend remotely. The Fire Chief has expressed concern with some people not being able to access 911 because of some technological changeovers. The Library will be a permanent location for donations to the South Burlington Food Shelf. 5. Consent Agenda: a. Approve and Sign Disbursements b. Approve Minutes from 6 December 2021 and 20 December 2021 meetings c. Approve and authorize City Manager to execute SB Champlain Water District MOU on water infrastructure ownership & responsibilities d. Approve declaration of official intent to reimburse the City for expenditures from voter approved bond proceeds Ms. Riehle asked to add a sentence to the last paragraph of the Minutes of 6 December: Ms. Riehle stated that she believed that full mask coverage in all public buildings was preferable, but she would accept the compromise. Mr. Cota then moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the amendment to the Minutes of 6 December. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 6. FY23 Budget: Special Funds, Penny for Paths/Open Space, Energy: Ms. Parker reported that the fund balance in the Open Space Fund is $786,943.58. In the past year, $67,064.21 was spent. The accumulated loan interest is $59,394.34. Ms. Parker then reviewed the highlights of 2021 including wetland delineation at Red Rocks Park, new wayfinding signage at Wheeler Nature Park, hiring a design firm for work at Hubbard Park, and the ability to have a full season of the Community Hike Series. CITY COUNCIL 3 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 3 Projects removed from the priority list include the accessible path to picnic tables at Wheeler Nature Park and WVPD projects at Wheeler and Red Rocks Park. Expectations for 2022 include: improvements at Red Rocks Park, habitat management and more signage at Wheeler Nature Park, design work at Hubbard Park, and continuation of hiking series. Ms. Parker then reviewed Bike/Ped improvements. She showed a list of all projects for this year and beyond. The Bike/Ped Fund balance is $400,624.84. In 2021, $135,910.22 was spent. Highlights from 2021 include: the sidewalk at the “jughandle,” completion of the Allen Road shared path, the public forum for the Dorset Street shared path, funding for crosswalks on Williston Road and Hinesburg Rod, and receipt of a grant for the shared use path on Swift Street. Ms. Riehle noted that Mr. Britt had expressed concern that the Spear St. bike path was pushed ahead a few years. There was something said about an alternative route. Ms. Parker said there are 2 different projects involved. She thought Mr. Britt might be referring to the phase of the path to the town line which includes a road widening project. Mr. Britt said he was concerned with the road widening to add bike/ped lanes on either side of Spear Street when the committee is working on an off-road path. Ms. Parker then reviewed bike/ped projects removed from the list including Allen Road (completed), Kimball Avenue (which will be completed in 2022), Queen City Park shared use path, Vale Dr. to Spear Street path, Spear Street/UVM infrastructure, and Spear Street bike/ped improvements. Projects added to the FY23 CIP include: crosswalks at Dorset Street/Songbird Road, Patchen Road/Jaycee Park, and Kennedy Drive/Twin Oaks Drive, construction of a shared use path on Kimball Avenue, preliminary plans and public forums for the Spear Street shared use path, and construction of a permanent barrier on Dorset Street. Mr. Bresee then presented the Energy CIP overview. Projects include: facilities review and stewardship ($10,000/year). Mr. Bresee noted the tower at the Airport Parkway Wastewater Plant does not use as much energy as the 3 tanks beside it, so that plan was dropped. CITY COUNCIL 3 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 4 Key future projects include weatherization at Fire Station #2 ($160,000 for roof and windows replacement, programmed for 2029), and solar at the Airport Parkway Wastewater Treatment Plant which will be a simpler project based on what is being learned from Market Street. This will be coordinated with the water turbine project. Ms. Riehle said she thought there was concern with the amount of energy a municipality can generate for its own use. Mr. Bresee said the City is now twice the allowable limit. Mr. Cota noted that what can be sold back has been diminished. Mr. Bresee said the City will not be selling anything to Green Mountain Power. Mr. Bresee noted that all projects are funded through the revolving fund and are integrated with the CIP. He stressed that energy efficiency is best achieved in the design process. 7. Councilors’ Reports from Committee Assignments: Ms. Riehle: Airport Commission members received an email from Mayor Weinberger that the City of Burlington now wants to pay Commission members a small stipend. 8. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Ms. Riehle reviewed the history and also noted that a second public hearing has been scheduled for 7 February. She noted that at the public hearing, the Council will not respond to public comment nor will members have a dialog among themselves. The Council will discuss comments at next week’s meeting. Ms. Riehle then thanked members of the Planning Commission and other committees for their countless hours of work on the LDRs and also members of the public who provided comments in writing. Mr. Barritt moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Simoneau: Identified himself as a “housing advocate.” He then noted the history of the JM Golf land swap settlement which included the conserving of Wheeler Nature Park. He also noted the irony that if Wheeler had already been conserved, that settlement could not have happened. Mr. Simoneau felt the Council should spend more time vetting the unintended consequences of the proposed LDRs as things are changing very rapidly in the world. He said it makes sense to pause before making significant changes. CITY COUNCIL 3 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 5 Mr. Davis (representing the Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce): He saw profound issues regarding housing in the new LDRs. He said the Chamber is working on state and local levels regarding housing. He stressed that South Burlington is a short distance from major employers. He cited the habitat blocks and other impediments that prevent density which would prevent sprawl. He also cited potential litigation and the probability that elements of the new LDRs will make smart growth and global warning actions hard to attain. “South Burlington should build more, not less.” Ms. Yankowski: Agreed with increased density of development but supported increased buffers to protect wildlife and waterways. Mr. Smith: Noted the resistance to change but acknowledged that the city needs housing/density as well as protection of natural resources. Ms. Bellevance: Felt the city has to address current realities and be good stewards of resources. She favored protecting all wildlife habitat and surrounding areas as well as ag soils and grasslands. She felt abandoned buildings should be redeveloped instead of open spaces and that the city should enact strong regulations. Mr. Langfeldt: Was concerned he has been unable to review the new regulations with staff due to their unavailability. He felt there were “implementation issues” and was also concerned with the elimination of footprint lots which could affect finance availability. Said he will submit questions directly to the City Council by the end of the week. Mr. Bossange: Asked the Council to consider 6 questions before voting on the new LDRs: Do you believe in the science of climate change and that we must act now? Do you believe and understand smart growth development? Do you believe we need to develop in the “core” of the city? Do you believe affordable housing needs to be built in the core of the city? Do you believe that growing the grand list never covers the cost of services to support it? Do you believe in the Interim By Laws? Chris Jensen (representing property owners impacted by the new LDRs). Reminded the Council that the Arrowwood Report was not to be used as a consideration for zoning because it was not done “on the ground.” She believes the regulations are based on parcel size, not on actual resources, and that telling owners of large parcels of land that they can’t develop is a “taking.” CITY COUNCIL 3 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 6 Mr. Nick (one of the owners of the Hill Farm): Is dismayed at a number of things particularly the ignoring of the ECOS Plan which looks at the Hill Farm as a place where growth should happen because of the availability of water and sewer and making people closer to where their jobs are located. He also felt the City’s Comprehensive Plan has been ignored as have the planning principles of the State which say that regulations should follow community and regional plans. He questioned whether the Arrowwood Report should be held in high esteem as those folks never set foot on the land. He said they had personally hired a respected environmental group which has actually been on the land and found no significant habitat because of the Interstate. He added that walking trails are also driving animals away. He believes the Hill Farm should be an area for employment or for senior/congregate housing similar to Wake Robin, and those options are excluded from the new LDRs. He expressed willingness to work with the city on a better plan. Mr. Chalnick: Felt there were some increased protections in the new LDRs but that some protections were removed. He was concerned with “minimum density” requirement which he felt doesn’t make sense. He agreed with the need for housing but not on grasslands. Ms. Bailey: Said the community is divided. She was concerned with how the new regulations will be vetted. She said humans need green space to be healthy but noted there is a lot of conserved green space already. She noted that South Burlington is in the heart of the most densely populated area for job opportunity and noted she moved to the city to be closer to her job instead of having to commute. She was also concerned that the new rules even say what a front porch should look like, and that was too restrictive. She said conserved areas should not be conserved in perpetuity but should be reviewed every decade or so. Ms. Greco: She cited the health benefits of open space that housing cannot provide. She also cited the connection between open land and the climate crisis and the economic benefit of preserving open spaces. Mr. Albrecht: Said “you can have your cake and eat it too.” He cited on item in the LDRs that he felt was “counterproductive and punitive”: Level 1 resources and hazards must be excluded from computation of density. He said if you identify where not to build, why not put more housing where you can build. He also cited companies that are expanding and need work-force housing. Without that housing, they will be commuting from “God knows where.” He didn’t want South Burlington to be a community that zones people out. CITY COUNCIL 3 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 7 Mr. Trombly: Thanked people for a civil discussion. He largely supports much of Article 12. But he also noted that the Vermont Climate Action Plan needs to be read and considered (he quoted from page 30 of that plan). He asked the Council to consider the amendments recommended by the Affordable Housing Committee. He also said the Council needs to acknowledge who is impacted by declaring a large portion of the community “off limits.” Ms. Dooley (Vice Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee): She noted the proposal to reduce the maximum density in the certain areas to 1.8 units per acre. There are 186 acres that fall into this, mostly small parcels. The proposal would remove 400 housing units which the city needs. It also makes all of these areas exempt from Inclusionary Zoning because you can never get 12 units on any of the parcels, and that is the minimum requirement for Inclusionary Zoning. She felt that would outweigh any positive results of the changes. She also noted that under the proposed rules for a TND (traditional neighborhood development), there are 12 defining characteristics, but nowhere does it say how they should be used. She said this will be a problem for the DRB. She then expressed concern with requiring conservation easements for Conservation PUDs and asked who would pay for those easements. Mr. Dahlstrom: Has a 44 acre parcel and feels the LDRs unfairly impact him. The NRP is currently 40% of his parcel, but under the new regulations it would be over 90%. He said he has plans to use 10 of his 44 acres which would leave 34 acres conserved, but he did not want the city telling him what to do with his property. He did not feel there was imminent danger of losing the benefit of trees. Mr. Hyman: Favors conservation but would like to know if there is anything that can be done to protect landowners. He said he no plans for his land but did not know what his children or grandchildren might want in the future. He said the Council should “err on the side of caution.” Mr. Strong (Chair of the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee): noted there are currently 1200 housing units with some sort of approval. Said affordable housing should be close to transit. Mr. Cate (Vice President of Finance at the University of Vermont): He does not believe the environmental protection standards in the proposed LDRs represent State standards. He also noted that schools have another level of protection as to what they can do with their property. He stressed UVM’s right to protect its interests. He also noted the University has been preserving land for many years and noted there would have been a lot of development on those lands had UVM not owned them. Asked that habitat blocks be removed from UVM land. CITY COUNCIL 3 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 8 Mr. Senecal: Owns a couple of undeveloped properties in South Burlington and feels “something is being pushed very quickly.” He questioned why the wetland buffers have been increased from 50 to 100 feet only in some areas. He also noted wetlands are already regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers whose specialists say 50 feet is sufficient. He was not sure if land he owns on Hinesburg Road is affected by this change. He asked if it is required that a property owner be notified if a change to the zoning of that property is being considered. Ms. Baker said there is no such requirement. Mr. Senecal said that if you are cutting the value of someone’s land in half, they should be notified. Ms. Dopp: Said she has a “stewardship view” of the land she owns. Would like to see a “green belt” preserved. She also favored affordable housing in the core of the city. As there was no further public comment, Sen. Chittenden moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. FY23 Budget: Public Works, Sewer, Stormwater and Water Enterprise Funds: Ms. Baker acknowledged Justin Rabidoux at his last meeting as Public Works Director and said staff has always known they could call on him for guidance and support. Ms. Baker noted that when she told people she was coming to South Burlington, she was told “you have the best public works person in the state.” Mr. Barritt cited Mr. Rabidoux’s knowledge on all issues that have come up and appreciated his dedication to the city. Ms. Riehle said she has always been impressed with how Mr. Rabidoux gets back to community members who have questions or concerns. Mr. Cota said that whenever he had a question, Mr. Rabidoux responded, and not always during office hours. He also noted that he has seen Mr. Rabidoux testify in Montpelier and wondered “why isn’t he running the state?” Sen. Chittenden hoped that the city can continue to engage Mr. Rabidoux. Mr. Rabidoux and Mr. DiPietro, Interim Public Works Director, then presented the budget information. They noted that the Public Works Department has 38 total employees, 9 in Highway, 4 in Parks, 8 in Wastewater, 7 in Stormwater, 6 in Water, and 4 in Administration. They also stressed that in winter it’s a matter of “all hands on deck.” The total Public Works budget is $16,300,000, 30% of the city’s overall budget. They are gradually returning to pre-pandemic levels, but they are still $1,000,000 short for paving and CITY COUNCIL 3 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 9 the fleet is underfunded in terms of actual need. Enterprise funds continue to be fiscally healthy and deliver excellent service at very low rates. A graph indicated that South Burlington has the lowest water rates in the county with some communities as much as 50% higher. The proposed rates for sewer, water and stormwater anticipate future needs including “de- impairing” waterways. Mr. Rabidoux said the people who really care about water in Vermont are those who work in water quality. He called them the “real environmentalists.” Emerging issues in the department include current and upcoming state regulations which could impact stormwater permits for residential and commercial properties. Mr. Di Pietro cited the success over the years of the stormwater utility in removing phosphorus from discharge points. He noted that South Burlington is the only community discharging only 10% of its allowable phosphorus capacity. Another emerging issue involves Class A biosolids which becomes a land application issue in Montpelier from time to time. There is not approved method of removing PFAs from wastewater. Mr. Rabidoux said it is important for people in Montpelier to have all the facts. Recruitment continues to be a major issue. The city now has 90 miles of roads, 20 more than it had in 2006 with the same number of highway employees. The level of service should be a discussion for the city. Mr. Cota asked how many of the 90 miles are gravel. Mr. Rabidoux said the only city gravel roads are behind the Airport and about 100 feet at Bartlett Bay. Mr. Cota then asked if there is a limit to accepting more wastewater. Mr. Rabidoux said depending on the metric, there are 25-50 years of capacity. He did not see that as a limiting factor. And CWD can provide capacity for whatever growth the city has. There will need to be an upgrade of the Bartlett Bay Plant in 2025-6. 10. FY23: Community Development: Ms. Blanchard updated the Council on City Center projects, mostly transportation oriented, including Garden Street and the bike connection to the Park. The City Council will have to decide whether to bring forward next year in order to incur debt within the timeline. Expenditures include engineering and design of projects and then construction. Revenues for these projects include grants and impact fees. The hope is to bring Garden Street to construction as well as the Williston Road streetscape, east-west crossings and the City Center Park connection. Ms. Baker said these could all be bundled into one vote. CITY COUNCIL 3 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 10 Ms. Blanchard said the FY23 budget includes transfer to the general fund of $860,000 as well as bonded debt of $990,000 and $471,315 from TIF increment and $344,000 TIF bonded debt service. Ms. Baker said the TIF district is very healthy. General Fund expenditures include design or new site exploration for the Recreation Center (the Council will need to establish a $75,000 reserve fund similar to Market Street), and $5000 for city-wide public art (including the City Hall Gallery). The allocation of ARPA funds is an emerging issue. Potential projects include economic development data/resources, public art resources, and small business support of public art. Ms. Blanchard said the city should be on the lookout for changes in TIF legislation. Ms. Blanchard then spotlighted 2021 accomplishments including the opening of the City Hall- Library-Senior Center Building (which received an AIA 2021 Merit Award), the receipt of a $9,700,000 RAISE Federal grand, and receipt of a $30,000 ACCD Marketing/Tourism grant which will be used for infrastructure (e.g. lights), rental of tents, marketing and support for the planned holiday Market Street Fest in late 2022. Ms. Baker said the Council has now heard from all staff regarding the budget. She asked members to email her any adjustments they would like to consider. Sen. Chittenden asked what an additional Firefighter position would cost. Ms. Riehle asked about possible funding for climate change activities. 11. Receive Town Meeting TV Annual Report: Ms. O’Roure referred members to the FY21 written report and proposed FY23 budget. She noted they were asked for an estimate to add coverage for Planning Commission meetings. This would come to $15,900. Sen. Chittenden said he fully supports this. Ms. O’Rourke noted they are working with the Legislature for funding from Vermont Access Network ($900,000) to support Town Meeting TV’s work. Sen. Chittenden said he fully supports what they do but questioned why Burlington seems to be “under contributing.” Ms. O’Rourke said Burlington actually pays more and receives 2 additional bills for various coverages. She also noted that the division of cable subscriber money is based on subscriber count, not population. CITY COUNCIL 3 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 11 Ms. O’Rourke also said they would love to pair the city up with someone from Vermont Access Network to answer questions regarding fees on streaming services. Town Meeting TV is not going to hitch its star to that at this point. 13. Other Business: Mr. Barritt said the traffic light at the Middle/High School seems to be on a timer, not on sensors, which triggers red for no reason. He asked if this can be fixed. Ms. Riehle said the Council will be discussing the LDRs next Monday and encouraged members to submit questions, concerns, etc. before that meeting. Mr. Barritt asked that there be a compendium of all the questions raised. Ms. Baker said all comments have gone to the Planning Commission, and there is work in progress to respond to everything. Mr. Cota said there could be some technical amendments that everyone would agree on. Ms. Baker said the expectation is not for the Council to craft the language for any changes. If there is agreement on something, staff will do that work. She asked that members’ comments be submitted by Thursday. Next Monday’s special meeting is at 6:30 p.m. As there was no further business to come before the Council Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.