HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/10/2022SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 10 JANUARY 2022
The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday,10 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; 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; T. DiPietro, Acting Director of Public Works; M. Machar, Finance Director; E.
Krasnow, B. Britt, Wayne, Q. Born, D. Bugbee, L. Bailey, D. Seff, L. Norris, C. Frank, R. Hubbard, S.
Srinivasan, D. Leban, T. Duff, A. Chalnick, H. Gagne, G. Silverstein, J. Bellevance, R. McDonald, M.
O’Brien, J. Dinklage, kA. Gill, K. Ryder, S. Dooley, C. Trombly, J. Louisos, M. Ostby, D. Peters. L.
Kingsbury, M. Mittag, A. MacIlwanie, A. & D. Long, J. Carroll, E. Langfeldt, D. Philibert, S. Lynn
1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology
options:
Ms. Baker provided instructions on exiting the building in an emergency and reviewed
technology options for those attending the meeting remotely.
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:
Mr. Lynn, Director of the Medical Cannabis Dispensary, addressed the Council regarding options
for adult cannabis sales in the city. He noted that he had also spoken with the Economic
Development Committee, but the Committee is holding off on a recommendation until there
are State rules. The Cannabis Control Board is working on rules for cannabis sales, and the State
Legislature will be finalizing the rules during this session. The location the Dispensary is looking
at is on Farrell Street. Ms. Baker explained that this would have to be a ballot item. The Council
would have to approve the item at its next meeting (18 January) in order for the item to be on
the March ballot. Ms. Baker also noted there will be at least 2 more public votes this year.
4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report:
Sen. Chittenden said that with 3 children in school, working at UVM, and the receipt of “close
contact” notices, he will be doing meetings remotely. Ms. Emery said vaccines and boosters
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
10 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 2
don’t seem to be enough for those who are most vulnerable, and she felt the Council should
review the mask mandate. Ms. Riehle suggested also discussing remote meetings for the
Council and other committees. Ms. Baker noted that by State law, there would have to be
someone attending “in person,” and she would be willing to fill that role. This will be on the
next agenda.
Ms. Baker: Provided a COVID update through 5 January. South Burlington has seen 261 new
cases. She encouraged remote participation in meetings.
The final ARPA rules were released last week. They appear to allow more
flexibility, which will be a benefit to South Burlington.
A request has been received from Summit to co-apply for a block grant. This will
be on the next agenda. There is currently $100,000 in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. It
would not be needed for this request. Summit is just asking the city to apply on their behalf,
similar to Allard Square and other such projects.
The auditors will not be at the next meeting, but pension people will be.
The next I-89 visioning session will be on 25 January, 6 p.m. There will be a
presentation on limiting miles in order to address climate change.
Staff is monitoring pending legislation including a plan to “redistribute” local
option tax funds across the state. Mr. Cota said there is a claim that the city would be “made
whole.” The Legislature is also discussion a rental registry and virtual meetings.
.
5. Opportunity for Councilors and the public to share information and resources on
climate change:
Ms. Riehle noted that she has read half of the State Climate Action Plan and suggested Council
members read it as well.
Mr. Greco recommended the book “Saving Us.” She noted that the Council is doing what the
book recommends, which is to talk about it.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
10 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 3
6. Public Hearing on the FY23 All Funds Budget and Capital Improvement Plan:
Mr. Barritt moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
Ms. Baker explained where on the web people can access the budget presentation.
Mr. Bolduc noted two minor updates since the Council last saw the budget: a $24,000 addition
for regional commitments and the new water rate.
Public comment was then received as follows:
Mr. Britt (Vice Chair of the Bike/Ped Committee): Asked the Council to approve 2-4% of the
paving budget for repairs as soon as possible to the Rec Path system. He cited the health and
climate mitigation values of the system and said the city would not want to lose this amenity.
He cited tree root damage that is a safety issue. The Committee is asking for a $30,000
allocation. Mr. Britt also noted there has never been a line item for maintenance of the system
and felt this should be a part of the annual budget.
Mr. Barritt agreed that there are a number of places with “ripples” in the path system. He also
agreed with the need for a line item for maintenance.
Mr. Britt also asked about a “special project” line item of $600,000. Mr. Bolduc said that is for
adaptive signals for Dorset Street. There is a grant for those funds.
Mr. Britt then asked the Council to re-prioritize the Spear Street widening project in the C.I.P.
He noted that it keeps getting pushed back and is not slated for 2029. Mr. Britt said the area is
dangerous and that people have to walk on lawns in some places. With the new soccer field
and convenience store going in, the road will be even busier. It is also the #1 bike commuting
route. Mr. Dinklage agreed that Spear Street is a premier cycling area. He asked that it be
addressed before there is a serious accident. Ms. Baker said that if the city were ever to
consider paid parking, those funds could be allocated to fund such projects.
Mr. Hubbard: Supported Mr. Britt and Mr. Dinklage and noted that Spear Street was once the
highest priority of the Rec Path Committee. He said it was disappointing that the city is ignoring
the highest recommendation from a committee for 25 years and asked how the city values
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
10 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 4
what it is getting from committees. He also noted that Shelburne has widened Spear Street
from the town line within Shelburne.
Mr. Duff: Felt the bike path is a very important resource so South Burlington doesn’t get
the big bill that Burlington just got. He said Spear Street has become an arterial in a multi-
modal way. He cited impact fees from development in that area which he said should be spent
where it is needed.
Ms. Bugbee: Wanted to know more about the cannabis dispensary and what would be
informing the Council’s decision as to whether to include it on the March ballot. She also asked
about the $800,000 for “community programs.” Ms. Baker said that money is what is spend on
“regional partners” (i.e., Green Mountain Transit, Regional Planning Commission, Winooski
Valley Park District, etc.).
Ms. Norris: Added support for the Spear Street project. She said auto traffic has increased
dramatically, and it is a scary, dangerous street to be on. It’s made even worse with snow.
Ms. Leban: Supported Mr. Britt’s requests and felt they relate to the Climate Action Plan to
allow people to bicycle more. She said road shoulders need to be made safe. She noted many
people are riding e-bikes and bike lanes will have to be increased to make them safer.
Ms. Greco: Agreed that Spear Street is very dangerous.
As there was no further public comment, Mr. Barritt moved to close the public hearing. Ms.
Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
7. FY23 Budget discussion and possible approval of the FY23 General Fund, Capital
Improvement Plan and Enterprise Funds Budgets with direction to send all to the
Steering Committee:
Mr. Bolduc reviewed the Council’s budget priorities including restoring some pre-pandemic
levels of funding and meeting the service needs of 180 Market Street (i.e., expanded Library
hours and additional insurance costs).
Mr. Bolduc noted that so far local option tax receipts are ahead of projections. He also noted
that the budget includes use of ARPA funds including 80% of unfunded positions $272,000 for
dispatch consoles, cyber security, and deferred fire equipment.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
10 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 5
Additions to the budget previously seen by the Council include $15,960 for CCTV coverage of
the Planning Commission and $50,000 for the Climate Action Plan. These additions represent
an additional $19.00 a year in taxes for the average home and $13,000 for the average condo.
Ms. Emery asked what it would take to move Spear Street up in the CIP. Ms. Baker said they
would need to update the scoping. It would have no impact for FY23. Mr. Bolduc noted there is
no funding for that project at this time. Ms. Emery said the Council was told it is a manpower
issue. Mr. Bolduc said the new Public Works director will be able to determine that.
Ms. Riehle said they need to be honest with themselves about maintaining city facilities, parks,
paths, etc., and need to bite the bullet.
Sen. Chittenden said he supports the extra money for CCTV. He asked about the additional
$75,000 in Planning Development Review Special Projects and $55,000 for a consultant. Mr.
Bolduc said the $75,000 is the new platform for Planning & Zoning, $40,000 of which is through
ARPA. Ms. Machar added that the consulting money is what is normally spent for outside
consultants. Mr. Conner said that was added 5 or 6 years ago to fund projects with a 20% match
from CCRPC.
Other Councilors supported the additional funding for CCTV. Mr. Barritt said he supports
moving Spear Street up in the CIP. He added that there are steps that Public Works can take to
address some of the “hot spots” mentioned by Mr. Britt, similar to repairing potholes. Ms.
Baker said that was staff’s intention in increasing the paving budget. The Council could say that
$30,000 is for maintenance.
Ms. Emery moved to reserve $30,000 of the paving budget for maintenance of existing paths.
Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Baker noted that in response to Sen. Chittenden’s request, $100,000 can be added for
Fire/EMS support. Members agreed.
Mr. Barritt asked how the $50,000 for the Climate Action Plan reserve would be spent. Ms.
Baker said that is not known. Mr. Cota noted there is ARPA money on the state level for
municipalities to access in the future. Ms. Riehle said the $50,000 might indicate the city’s
seriousness. Mr. Cota said the state might then give the ARPA money to someone else.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
10 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 6
Sen. Chittenden said he thought there was a fund from the solar display to reinvest in climate
change mitigation. Ms. Riehle said she thought that money was used to pay for the solar panels
for the Library. Mr. Bolduc said that fund is currently in the red but will be back in the black
within a year. Mr. Barritt suggested cutting the amount to $25,000. Ms. Riehle was OK with
that. She just wanted to see a line item. Other members agreed to that cut.
Mr. Cota noted there is a forecast of an $1,000,000 more from non-property tax revenue. Mr.
Bolduc said about $900,000 of that is from ARPA.
Mr. Barritt then raised a question regarding Pennies for Paths and Pennies for Paths and asked
whether they should reduce the amount for them because of the additional $100,000 they are
getting from the growth in the Grand List due to the reappraisal. He suggested a ballot item
limiting the amount to $310,000. Mr. Bolduc said he would like to check with the City Attorney
on that. The voters approved a penny for each on the tax rate, but it was never considered
there would be such a huge increase in the Grand List in one year.
Mr. Britt said there are $3,000,000 in projects that don’t have funding. He understood the big
jump but felt the money is needed to meet the goals.
Mr. Barritt was concerned that there be no ambiguity as to what taxpayers are paying.
Ms. Baker said staff agreed with Mr. Barritt which is why they are recommending pulling
Pennies for Paths/Pennies for Parks out of the general fund operating budget. Sen. Chittenden
said he also agreed with Mr. Barritt that it doesn’t feel right to charge that money in an
appraisal year. He felt they need to be fully transparent and let people know how much they
are actually paying.
Mr. Barritt stressed that the Council said the reappraisal would be revenue neutral, and it is not
revenue neutral for these uses. He wished they could come to an agreement on how to reduce
the 31%.
Ms. Norris agreed with Mr. Barritt and felt the voters should have a say about it.
Ms. Riehle asked staff to provide some potential ballot language. Mr. Bolduc said they can do
that and also provide some recommendations. He suggested the possibility of a second ballot
item that would pull the “Pennies” items out of the general budget.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
10 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 7
Members agreed to consider that language at the next meeting.
8. Continued discussion of the Land Development Regulations received from the
Planning Commission:
Ms. Riehle noted that quite a few people at the public hearing said they never got to share their
concerns and that the Council should take more time. She then enumerated the 70 meetings of
the Planning Commission, 38 of them between August 2020 and September 2021, and said
things had not been rushed along. She also said that if at the end of the day nobody is happy,
it’s probably good.
Mr. Cota said he has a list of 22 proposed amendments. Ms. Emery said she had passed along
questions she received to Paul Conner. She added that she believed the Planning Commission
came up with a very fine proposal and that it matches the Comprehensive Plan remarkably well.
She was willing to approve it.
Send Chittenden said there is a lot of great work, and he supports a lot of the environmental
protection standards. He also said that the number of Planning Commission meetings does not
diminish the Council’s role. He then outlined two “tweaks” that he would like to see in the
regulations: He is concerned with the habitat blocks and would like to see them assessed when
there is a plan. He noted that Tom Bailey has habitat assessment language. He also wanted to
give land owners a choice between a Conservation PUD and a Traditional Neighborhood PUD.
He felt this would be more equitable and would help with affordable housing. Sen. Chittenden
noted that he was told by an expert that a confusing land development regulation is not
defensible.
Mr. Cota said he wants to protect habitat, but it has to be mapped. He was also concerned that
all the PUD types have not been named because the Commission couldn’t get to them. He
noted complaints about a development that has gone onto Shelburne Road because there was
no PUD language for that area. He stressed the need to have LDRs the city can defend.
Mr. Barritt said when he hears that no one is happy, he feels there is already a high degree of
compromise. He said the draft satisfies why the city went to Interim Zoning. He did
acknowledge that there may be instances where the Council has to ask the Planning
Commission to clarify items.
Ms. Riehle said there is a commitment from the Planning Commission to complete the PUD.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
10 JANUARY 2022
PAG3E 8
She also said there will never be a perfect set of rules, so there will always be challenges and
misunderstandings. She was very leery about Mr. Cota’s proposed 22 amendments in the
Council’s timeframe.
Ms. Emery said the proposed LDRs are sensitive to the green infrastructure and also allow for
workforce housing close to roads.
Mr. Conner said the Planning Commission recognized that there are additional pieces to the
puzzle including Infill PUDs and tools for Shelburne and Williston Roads. He also said they could
have a general discussion on any of the 22 proposed amendments.
Mr. Cota asked why they can’t revert to the previous PUDs for areas where there now are no
PUDs and where the city wants development to happen. Mr. Conner said that could be done.
Mr. Cota also asked why not have an amendment that would allow footprint lots which are
needed for financing, and without them there can be no financing and no affordable housing.
Mr. Conner explained an alternative with the land around housing being maintained by an
association. He did acknowledge that some housing types fit best with footprint lots.
Mr. Cota said there is an affordable housing crisis. The city has essential workers, and they will
live where then can afford to live and drive to South Burlington.
Ms. Riehle noted that she had met with O’Brien Brothers. One of their concerns is that they are
already 50-70% through buildout, and they would need a monumental amending of their
Master Plan. She asked how big a deal that is. Mr. Conner said broadly speaking, a change to a
footprint or layout of a building would be a site plan issue. A change to a PUD would be
“trickier” with the new LDRs. There are provisions for minor changes, but it would have to be a
judgment call as to whether a change was minor or major. They could be subject to t full Master
Plan review. Mr. Conner then added that there is also an issue of what has been vested under
previous rules. This would have to be on a case-by-case basis.
Ms. Emery asked would it be more expensive to do affordable housing and would it have
anything to do with a Master Plan. Mr. Conner said for some smaller ones there could be extra
cost because they are being asked to do something they didn’t have to do before.
Ms. Emery asked about the requirement to come back every 10 years if you “underbuild.” Mr.
Conner said you could let the approval expire. If you continue to build, you would be vested in
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
10 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 9
the current regulations for 10 years. There is no such guarantee today. Mr. Cota said there are
also subdivision costs for which you would have to hire a civil engineer at $20,000-$30,000.
Ms. Emery said she though the new regulations wouldn’t have as many legal challenges because
of “predictability.” Mr. Cota said he has the opposite point of view.
Mr. Mittag said that unfortunately the 22 proposed amendments come at the last moment. He
felt there are a lot of interesting and useful suggestions in them, but he didn’t think they could
be addressed quickly. He felt the Council should approve what has been proposed and then
have the Planning Commission review Mr. Cota’s recommendations for its next round of
amendments.
Mr. Langfeldt noted there is now a “no man’s land” with no PUD type available, and the old PUD
types are being eliminated. He said that if the Council moves forward with the LDRs, they will
be throwing some projects into chaos. He asked why they just can’t say the existing PUD types
remain until there are new ones. Mr. Conner said there could be a tool to create “a bridge” and
it may be something other than a PUD.
Ms. Dooley was concerned that the new regulations reinforce “large houses on large lots.” She
noted one area where there was a duplex built, and the people were thrilled that it cost less
than $500,000. That duplex could not be built under the proposed LDRs, and such
consequences were not discussed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Dooley noted that some of
the items on Mr. Cota’s list are not new. They came to the Planning Commission from the
Affordable Housing Committee.
Ms. Emery said she felt the new LDRs were “ready for a test drive.”
Mr. Cota said the Council has until April 9th, and they should fix the technical changes now.
Mr. Cota then moved to forward the 22 proposed amendments to the Planning Commission to
determine whether they can be incorporated into the LDRs. Sen. Chittenden seconded.
Ms. Louisos said the Commission can look at the list. She felt there were some that could be
changed but some that would take a few months of discussion and some that would be policy
changes.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
10 JANUARY 2022
PAGE 10
Mr. Barrit said he thought this was a “stall tactic” and that issues can be dealt with as plans
come in.
Ms. Greco asked what the Council is going to do about what it heard from the public. Ms.
Emery asked how the new regulations take into account grasslands and ag soils. Mr. Conner
said “grasslands” are a managed piece of land which makes them tricky. If left alone, they will
turn to forests. He noted that the 70% of what is conserved in a Conservation PUD could be
grasslands and ag soils. He also noted that the State has an ag soil mitigation program. Ms.
Louisos added that it is also difficult to draw a line around them on a property. Mr. Mittag said
there were substantial discussions on grasslands, etc., which were protected in the old
regulations and are not in the new regulations. He said there were very strong opinions on both
sides.
9.Councilors’ Reports from Committee Assignments:
Mr. Cota: There are problems at Green Mountain Transit as we recover from COVID. There
is a question about continuing free fares in perpetuity which results in lost revenues of over
$2,000,000 in urban environments.
Ms. Emery noted that in France, ridership did not increase when they took away fares. Sen.
Chittenden said he would like to hear more about Montpelier’s “on demand” program. Ms.
Emery also noted they have very small buses in France.
10.Other Business:
Mr. Barritt suggested an agenda item for discussion of requiring electrical inspections in single-
family homes. He noted it would be an extra cost for a builder.
As there was no further business to come before the Council Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn.
Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at p.m.