Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/21/1984CITY COUNCIL MARY 21, 1984 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, May 21, 1984, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Leona Lansing, William Peters, George Mona Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Jane Bechtel, City Planner; Sidney Poger, Planning Commission; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; James Cheng, Burlington Free Press; Tom Chastenay, Ed Chastenay, Vincent Maietta, Paul and Patricia Boudreau, Charles Bosley, Blanche and Rollin Sutton, William & June Southall, A. Frank Weaver, Doris Torrey, Carol Deforge, Carla Vallee, Mariette Moreau, Jim Ryan, Leo Cote, Lowell Krassner Comments & questions from the public (not related to the Agenda) There was no discussion. Discussion on joining with area communities in the Federal Rental Housing Rehabilitation Program Ms. Bechtel explained that South Burlington has been asked to join with Winooski, Essex, Colchester and Burlington to apply to the state for a grant of $220,000. The money would be offered as loans to landlords to rehabilitate rental housing. The loan would pay up to 50% of rehabilitation costs. Landlords must agree to rent to tenants meeting certain qualifications. There will be no monetary cost to the participating cities. An administrator will be appointed who will determine qualifications. Only the "first tenant" need meet the income requirements. Mr. Mona did not feel this was a good idea. Ms. Bechtel explained there would be a one year lease in force. In addition, the rehabilitated units could not be turned into condos for a certain number of years. Mr. Flaherty asked if the city would be in any way liable if a landlord defaulted on a loan. Ms. Bechtel said she didn't know but thought it was the programs responsibility. Mr. Poger asked how much South Burlington housing was involved. Ms. Bechtel there would be a low percentage, but there were units in the city that would qualify. There was then a Resolution presented and read (attached). Ms. Lansing moved that the City Council sign the Resolution as presented by the City Planner. Mr. Flaherty seconded and the motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Mona voting against. Mr. Mona explained he did not feel that in the long term the program achieved its objectives. Discussion on new reappraisal of property Mr. Farrar explained the state has required communities to appraise at 100% of fair market value, and two years ago threatened to reduce school aid to communities which did not comply. The City charter also requires that every 5 years it be certified that property is appraised fairly. The last appraisal was 1971, and twice since then the Council has attested that this was a fair appraisal, but also recognized that a new appraisal was probably in order. The budget which the city set in March required that 4.7% mere be raised in taxes than was raised last year for government operation, and 8.9% more for schools. It was the understanding at that time that there had been slightly more than 5% real growth in the city. The council was also told at that time that new appraisals would be at least twice the old values, so this information was used to derive an estimated tax rate, knowing that if the figures were off by more than 3% the City Charter would require a new rate to be set based on the new figures. Since the new rates were published, the Council has been trying to understand what happened. The following situations are clear: 1. The average value of real estate (houses) has increased approximately 2.36 times; 2. The total value of housing units in the community has increased times; 3. The value of vacation (beachfront) property has increased 2 times; 4. The farm land value increased 2 times; 5. Commercial property has increased about 2.1 times; 6. Industrial property has increased 1.9 times; 7. Public utilities had been listed at 100% value before reappraisal; 8. Undeveloped land increased 2.2 times; 9. The total value of machinery and equipment increased 10%. Thus, it appears that two facotrs were primarily responsible for the dramatic increase in the residential tax rate: 1. Approximately 10% was because 3 classes of property (personal property, inventory, and utilities) had been previously listed at 100% of value and were still being listed as such; 2. Growth of residential property was more than that of other property. Mr. Farrar said they also looked at the last 50 sales of residential property and compared the sale prices with the appraisal value and found that the appraisal was on the average 93% of the sale price. The same was true of commercial property. Mr. Farrar said it was his opinion that there is a potential problem in the assessed value of non-residential property and he has asked that this be checked. A printout has been run, and any piece of property where the difference in the two appraisals is less than two times will be looked at very carefully. Mr. Cote asked what the tax rate is going to be. Mr. Farrar said the total grand list comes within 1% of the estimated value, but he felt it was too low and there may be an error in the value of commercial property. Mr. Maietta, said his previous increases averaged $24 a year, but it went up to $46 the past three years and $200 this year. He said he was against the law which allowed an automatic 10% increase in budget. Mr. Cot said can the budget be cut if the numbers turn out to be right. The Council indicated the budget had been set. Mr. Krassner said he understood the problem but felt they had been sold on the idea that if there was a great deal of commercial development, that property would be paying a large share of running the city. That does not now appear to be true, and he felt it was in order to find a way to shift the burden back to the commercial sector. He felt that since the inventory tax was being phased out, other forms of taxation should be considered. He felt the homeowners had to endure the congestion on the streets caused by commercial development, they should not have to pay more in taxes than commercial properties pay. Mr. Farrar said that first they want to be sure there are no errors in the appraisals. Mr. Farrar also explained that 3/4 of the dollars from taxes go to run the schools and that in the past several years the state has reduced its school subsidy to the city by about $700,000, and local taxes have had to make up for that. He also noted that there were about $200,000 in items which the Council felt were worthy of being funded in this budget but for which there were no funds. Several homeowners felt the new rate should not have been set before the new appraisals were in. Mr. Farrar explained that the Charter requires the rate to be set at the time the budget is set. Mr. Flaherty also stressed that the budget has been growing at about half the inflation rate. Another citizen asked where all the revenues from all the new condos has been going. Mr. Farrar explained in the last two years, for example, health insurance, for City employees want up 36% and 49%, which is the equivalent of $1,000 and $2,000 per employee. Mr. Farrar noted that last year residences in the city paid 45% of the total tax dollars; this year that figure would be about 53%, and he felt this indicated a problem. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the City Council defer acceptance of the new appraisal until one year from April. During this period the appraisals will be studied, and a new proposal presented. Mr. Peters seconded. Mr. Chastenay said the problem will still be there next year because of the automatic 10% increase. Mr. Krassner said if the old appraisal is used, the City may be open to suits from those whose taxes would have gone down under the new appraisal. He emphasized the need for new sources of revenue. A citizen asked whether the Airport pays its share of taxes. Mr. Farrar explained that in the past there was a 10-year agreement with Burlington as to what the tax rate would be. That has expired and has not been renewed. All land at the airport is being taxed at 100% value. State law, however, says that certain buildings cannot be taxed. Mr. Farrar suggested possibly keeping the motion on the floor and setting a meeting with the City Attorney to discuss it. Mr. Flaherty then amended his motion to defer implementation of the new appraisal because of an apparent manifest error in the new appraisal. Mr. Peters seconded this. Mr. Ryan asked what is being done about the Mitel building. Mr. Farrar said it is being taxed and Mitel is paying the taxes. The only commercial property he knew that was not paying taxes is the Wicks building because they are in Chapter 11, In the vote which followed, the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Farrar then requested that the meeting with the City Attorney be set for this week and the Council agreed on Tuesday, May 22, at 5:15 pm. Accept resignation of Norman Campbell from the Zoning Board Mr. Flaherty moved that the City Council accept the resignation of Norman Campbell from the Zoning Board and direct the City. Manager to send a letter of appreciation for Mr. Campbell's service. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Accept resignation of George Mona from the Planning Commission Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council accept the resignation of George Mona from the Planning Commission and direct the City Manager to send a letter of appreciation. Ms. Lansing seconded and the motion passed 4-0, Mr. Mona abstaining. Review and accept list of Tax Penalty Waivers Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council accept the notice of tax penalty waivers dated May 21, 1984. Mr. Mona seconded with unanimous approval. Review Planning Agenda Mr. Mona noted that the Hydrology Report on Bartlett Bay was on the agenda and said he felt it was a skimpy report for the amount paid. He asked the Planning Commission Chairman to see if the City got its money's worth. Mr. Poger also noted that the Carters people are coming back with a new proposal. Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 7, 1984 Minutes of Organizational Meeting of May 16, 1984 Mr. Flaherty moved the minutes of May 7 and May 16 be accepted as written. Ms. Lansing seconded with the Council approving 4-0, Mr. Mona abstaining. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were signed. Old Business Mr. Peters asked when the results from the Charter Committee will be in. Mr. Farrar said the Committee was planning at least two more meetings, one to study information from Keene, New Hampshire which uses a random sampling procedure. Mr. Farrar also noted the Charter Committee will be asked to look into tax incremental financing. He added that he had referred a copy of the bill that was in the Legislature to the City Attorney and had asked if the language could be adapted to the City Charter. Appointment to Zoning Board It was decided to delay this appointment to bring in candidates for interviews. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council adjourn and reconvene as the Liquor Control Board. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Szymanski presented a request from Benes Inn for a permit to cater a wedding at 916 Shelburne Rd on June 2, from 2-6 pm. As there was a question of traffic control at the location, it was decided to have the police and fire chiefs check the situation and to reintroduce the request at the May 22 meeting. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by motion of Mr. Mona seconded by Mr. Peters at 9:40 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. RESOLUTION ----------- WHEREAS, it is recognized that there is a need to provide aftordable, standard housing for low and rroderate inca families and to increase the availability of such housing units within the greater Burlington area, and WHEREAS, there is a need to support the rehabilitation of privately owned rental property to ensure continued affordability for low and derate inccfne tenants, and WHEREAS, it is recognized that it is often beyond the capacity of one municipality to deal effectively with the housing needs of a region, Now, THEREmRE, be it RESOLVED as follows: 1. That this municipality join with the 'lbwns of Colchester and Essex and the Cities of Winooski and Burlington in applying tm the State of Vermnt for a grant of funds under the Rental Rehabilitation Grant Program, and 2. That #is municipality, in so applying, consents to the 'lbwn of acting in the capacity of Lead Applicant. 3. fiat Jane S. ~~dt-1 is hereby authorized to execute and provide, on behalf of this municipality, all documents and inform tion necessary for the completion of said application. Passed this 21st day of May , 1984. C- ~u-w3~3-7q I . William Ii: Peters yr c\ Li? '4&'F9-+* 1 , ,' j , d'ldf~ George J Y ~d CITY CLERK'S OFFICE So, Burlington, Vt. rece;;ic< icr rq.-.-r,4 L.- d, - 3