Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/21/2006CITY COUNCIL 21 AUGUST 2006 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 21 August 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Condos, Chair; M. Boucher, S. Magowan, D. O'Rourke Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; D. Kinville, City Clerk; J.B. Hinds, Director of Planning & Zoning; Rep. A. Pugh, Rep. M. Kupferman; S. Stitzel, W. Baker, City Attorney; D. Brent, Fire Chief; R. Cassidy, School Board; P. Taylor, City Charter Committee; L. Murphy, B. Gardner, Community Library; A. Parent, The Other Paper; L. Dore, M. Pond, L. Levins, M. Brigham, Mr. & Mrs. Eckhart, P. Reed, T. Barritt, A. Blair, B. Boucher, B. Walsh, B. O'Brien, J. Zaetz, D. Bedard, D. McDowell, C. Rider, A. Clift, E. Knudsen, W. deGroot, R. Gaulin, C. Bishop 1. Comments & Questions from the Public not related to agenda items: Mr. Levins asked how the Airport and Golf Course tax rates are being determined. Mr. Hafter said the Golf Course is in the last year of a 10-year tax stabilization agreement. With regard to the Airport, the City of South Burlington has set an appraisal value ($53,000,000) and is now negotiating with the City of Burlington. Mr. Hafter said this will probably end up in the courts. 2. Announcements/City Manager's Report: Mr. Hafter said that a Steering Committee meeting has been tentatively set for 21 September, 7 p.m. The CCTA Board will meet on 29 September, 5 p.m. The Governor will hold a Shelburne Road ribbon-cutting on 13 September, 2:30 p.m. Mr. Condos will represent the City at this event. The next City Council meeting will be on Tuesday, 5 September (due to the Labor Day holiday). The agenda will include a review of a new Alarm Ordinance and a request to amend the Sign Ordinance. 3. Consideration of Warning for Two City Charter Amendments: a. Amendment to Charter to require a public vote on all budgets and setting forth the number of permitted votes. b. Amendment to Charter to implement local option sales and rooms, meals, alcohol tax. Mr. Hafter reviewed the history of the proposed budget vote amendment. He noted that when the petition was submitted, there was no specific language included that could be placed on the ballot. For this reason, the Secretary of State determined this was not a legal petition and did not have to put this on the ballot. Mr. Hafter noted that despite this ruling, the City Council feels there should be discussion on this issue. Mr. Condos said the Council respects the concerns of the voters and will act to something on the ballot. Mr. Boucher asked about a time frame. Mr. Hafter said this will be tight. There has to be a 30-day notice to hold the first public hearing once language for a ballot item is drawn up. This has to be 30-40 days before the election. There then has to be a second public hearing 20 days before the election. This means that 6 September would be the last date to post notice of the first public hearing. Mr. Stitzel stressed that this notice must include the exact wording of the ballot item. Mr. Condos said the Council understands that reappraisal played a major role in the public's concern. He stressed that the City received no more money from taxes as a result of the reappraisal than it would have before the reappraisal. He explained that the tax increases homeowners are seeing are the result of the new way that commercial property is now valued as result of recent legislation. While residential property is valued at fair market value, commercial property valued on an income basis. This has resulted in the increase in commercial property value being only half as much as the increase in residential property values. Mr. Condos noted that this surprised many towns, and he hoped there was some way to convince the State Legislature to do something to change this. Mr. Condos felt the City Charter has served the City of South Burlington well and that the problems in the last few years have been caused by the statewide property tax. Mr. Eckhart asked who would write the language for a ballot item. Mr. Condos said the City Attorney would do that. Mr. Cassidy noted that when he served on the Board of Civil Authority, he felt commercial values were not fair. He asked whether anyone has indicated that the "income" basis does not give a fair market value. He felt that if homeowners pay on the basis of their fair market value, commercial property owners should do the same. Mr. Hafter said that if the City gets data that indicates it can look at commercial property as a "class," the City will reappraise commercial property next year. He then explained how the common level of appraisal (CLA) works and noted that the State report breaks down the CLA into various components (residential, commercial, etc.). If something is "out of whack," the city can reappraise. Mr. Condos said the goal is to be equitable. He said everyone was shocked by what they saw this year. Mr. Condos also noted that if the proposed amendment does pass, the City will probably have to change its local election from May to March. Mr. Levins expressed concern that city governments get around the intent of tax changes by instituting "fees." He also felt the City Charter served South Burlington well for many years, but with Act 60 and 68, it is "out of reality." Mr. O'Rourke said Act 60 and 68 are "out of reality." He felt both acts are unsustainable and that system will cave in on itself. Mr. Blair noted that in the past South Burlington used to vote for budgets in March. He felt they should go back to that like all other communities. Mr. Condos noted the change from March to May had to do with school budgets and the fact that communities didn't know in March what the State would approve for education. Mr. Condos also noted that the public perception on an "automatic 10% increase" is not correct. In order to get such an increase, there would have to be a 5% increase in the Grand List, and that hasn't happened in over 30 years. Mr. Condos also stressed that both the City and School District hold public budget meetings and a joint Steering Committee meeting at which budgets are considered and discussed. Any amount that is requested that goes above the Charter limitations has to go to the voters. Mr. Condos also noted that very few citizens ever attend these meetings. Mr. Walsh noted that any amendment voted on the by the public will take time to get through the Legislature. Mr. O'Brien felt the rise of unionism has affected budgets. Mr. Zaetz said it was healthy to walk around the city. He found a lot of support. He stressed they were not out to cut jobs or programs. People just want a say. He urged the Council to make this vote happen in Novembers. Ms. Kinville noted the language of the petition and suggested that the ballot language say "four weeks" instead of 30 days, so that any votes can occur on a Tuesday, which is the traditional voting day. Mr. O'Rourke said he appreciated people coming out to this meeting. He noted usually there is only one, maybe 2 members of the public at Council meetings. He stressed that Communication is a two-way thing. He urged the public to attend budget meetings. Mr. Magowan said it is important to send a clear message to the Legislature as to what the City wants. He noted that Act 60 and 68 have "set us up against other communities." He felt there should be a petition to repeal Act 60 and Act 68. He also noted that people of modest means can't afford to live in South Burlington any more. He added that although he supports the proposed amendment, it will not solve the problems that South Burlington is facing. Mr. Cassidy cited data on "cost per student" figures for South Burlington and other communities for the year 2004: Colchester $11,707 Burlington $11,289 Essex $10,597 South Burlington $10,526 He stressed that this is a hard problem, and city officials don't know the answer. Mr. Magowan then moved to direct the City Attorney to draft language consistent with the intent of the preamble to the voters' petition to be considered at the City Council meeting on 5 September 2006. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter said he would share the language of the ballot item with petitioners. Ms. McDowell stressed that everyone's intent is to keep a good community. Mr. Condos said he didn't want people to think that this action will keep taxes down. It won't. He felt that people have a right to be up in arms. South Burlington's Legislators have been telling the Legislature that Act 68 won't work, and it isn't working. Mr. Magowan said he favors the amendment, but he does not feel it will solve the problem. He also felt that there should be different points of view presented so they can be a good choice in November. Members then considered the second proposed amendment. Mr. Condos noted that both Williston and Burlington have local option sales taxes. He explained the provision under Act 60 for such taxes and noted that South Burlington did not qualify. Because of this, the City Charter Committee was asked to look into a Charter change. Mr. Hafter explained that several options were considered for the proceeds from a local option sales tax. These included: a. unrestricted use of proceeds b. proceeds from sales tax used to reduce property tax; proceeds from alcoholic beverages and rooms tax deposited in reserve fund for infrastructure c. all proceeds used to reduce property tax Mr. Hafter noted that many people come to South Burlington to stay at motels/hotels and to shop. The city gets no revenue from this at all. He also noted that the proposed taxes grow with inflation, and that 70-85% of the money raised would come from people not resident in the City. Under the proposed plan, the City would tax only what the State taxes (e.g., not clothing). Mr. Eckhart asked if the tax would apply to airline tickets. Mr. Hafter said it would not. Ms. McDowell asked if other communities have experienced a change in business volumes after instituting a local option sales tax. Mr. Hafter said they have not. Mr. Barritt asked if the tax is limited to 1%. Mr. Condos said it is. Other states do not have this limit. Ms. Clift asked if there would be a sunset date for the local option tax. Mr. Hafter said no. Mr. Walsh suggested a bill in the Legislature to eliminate the 30% share the state gets from local option taxes. Mr. Taylor said the City Charter Committee favored Option 2 or 3. Mr. Hafter said the estimate is that a 1% sales tax would yield $3,000,301, and the 1% rooms, meals, alcohol tax would yield $949,855 annually. This would reduce the City tax rate (not the school's) by 10.9 cents or 28%. Mr. Magowan then moved to approve the presentation of an amendment to the City Charter using option #2, changing the word "shall" to "may." Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed 3-1 with Mr. Boucher opposing. Mr. Boucher said his opposition was due his preference for option #3. 4. Interviews for Appointment to Boards & Commissions: The Council interviewed Randy Gaulin and Eric Knudsen for appointment to the Development Review Board. Mr. Gaulin said he was born and raised in South Burlington and wants to be part of the Continued design of the City. He understood the time commitment. He expressed concern with what is being planned for the Cheese Factory Road area and felt that the beautiful land shouldn't have "houses stacked" on it. Mr. Boucher asked he Mr. Gaulin would handle a situation in what he felt one way and the law was the other way. Mr. Gaulin said he would work with the rules and try to make changes that need to be made. Mr. Knudsen has lived in the City since 2000 and plans to make it his family's home for the future. He is a professional real estate attorney. He felt this was an exciting time for the City and felt that the staff has done a great job with Zoning By-Laws and other planning. Mr. Knudsen said if faced with a situation where his personal views differed from the law, the law would control his actions. Neither applicant expressed interest in appointment to any other board or commission. The Council then interviewed Pat Reed Chris Bishop and Willem deGroot for appointment to the Police Facility Committee. Mr. Reed cited the inadequacy of the existing facility and felt the public vote against a new facility was based on fear of other costs such as a new City Hall. Mr. Bishop agreed with Mr. Reed. He felt $10,000,000 was out of synch with what is appropriate for that size facility. Mr. DeGroot said he is shocked by the existing facility, especially the "atrocious" security. He said he hoped to contribute to a new facility. Mr. Hafter said the first meeting of the Committee will be 14 September, 7 p.m. Peter Cole will be the facilitator. 5. Public Hearing on Application to Vermont Community Development Program Grant for Champlain Valley Rehab Loan Fund: Ms. Pond reviewed the history of the application. She noted the program has been serving Franklin & Grand Isle Counties and would be expanding into Chittenden County. The grant would result in the availability of $250,000 to be loaned to homeowners for rehab work on their homes. Construction supervision would also be provided. Mr. Condos asked for public comment. None was forthcoming. Mr. Magowan moved to close the public hearing and to approve the application as presented. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Presentation of Feasibility Study Phase II for the South Burlington Community Library: Ms. Murphy introduced Lee Dore, architect, who was the consultant for the study. Mr. Dore noted they had been retained for Phase I of the study (more of a statistical analysis). Their conclusion at that time was that the Library was short on space. The Phase II study defined space needs and came up with cost estimates. Two options were considered to address space needs: renovating/expanding the existing facility and a new stand-alone facility. Meetings were held with school and community Library staff and with the Library planning consultant. Six community focus groups were also held. As a result of this, conceptual designs were created and cost estimates for them were prepared. The Library now has 12,000 sq. ft., which is shared between the School and the Community. The study determined that 28,000 sq. ft. would be needed to continue the shared arrangement. This would provide the following increased spaces: a. book processing area b. meeting spaces c. children's space d. collections space e. seating f. performance space g. storage For a stand-alone Community library, 24,000 sq. ft. would be needed. Mr. Boucher asked how technology/the internet affects libraries. Mr. Dore said it has actually increased the need for space, and Libraries are getting more use than ever before. Mr. Hafter noted that when he dropped in on the Library at 2:00 one afternoon, every computer terminal was in use and people were waiting for a turn. Mr. Dore noted that school libraries and public libraries have different missions. The school now controls the existing Library space. There is a public perception that there are a lot of kids in the space during the day. This can be a good thing, but there is friction between the two programs. Mr. Dore then showed conceptual drawings for both a joint Library and a new stand-alone Library: Option #1 would add 16,000 sq. ft. to the current facility via 2 additions. The school function could then be centralized on one said and the public on the other. There would be shared resources in the middle. The cost would be $6,500,000-$7,200,000. Option #2 would be a stand-alone 1-story building, possibly in the City Center, with 24,000 sq. ft. It would have a series of pavilions with the center of the building housing the main collections. There would be a larger children's library, multi-purpose space for meetings and performances, and small meeting areas. Option #3 would be a stand-alone 2-story building with the second floor mezzanine used for administrative space, seating, and meeting rooms. Both option #2 and #3 would cost between $7,600,000 and $8,400,000. Mr. Dore noted that the cost estimates do not include land acquisition or site preparation. Mr. Dore also noted that the problem that exists now is that there is no written document on governance with the 2 current uses. Mr. O'Rourke asked about parking for an expanded facility. Mr. Dore said the site is very constricted. He added that at certain times of day, school buses block the Library parking. Mr. Hafter noted that the City was not aware until last week that a 2000 seat stadium is being proposed at the school. Mr. Hafter asked if the study considered the increased cost to the school if the city moved its portion of the Library to another location. Mr. Dore said he did not. Ms. Gardner said the Library would like to come back to the Council with some added information. The Library Board strongly feels the City deserves a Library separate from the school. They are, however, very aware of cost issues. Mr. O'Rourke cited the recent struggle to update the Police facility and noted this will continue to be a City Council priority. Mr. Boucher urged the Library Board to create a good dialogue with the school. Ms. Murphy agreed that a better plan for governance is needed. She felt that would help with future decision. Mr. Magowan said he would like to see some private fund-raising with any plan for the Library. Ms. Hinds noted there will be a lot of interesting options in the City Center. 7. Discussion and Action on Two Storm Water Issues: a. Consideration of approval of resolution establishing City policy for acceptance of regulated residential storm water systems b. Review of letter addressing issues of City policy on acceptance of privately owned commercial and industrial subdivisions and formation of private storm water associations: Ms. Hinds stressed that Tom DiPietro, the Storm Water Superintendent, is in charge and that his reports are "the last word." Mr. Magowan reminded the Council that one thing they had been concerned with was being sure people didn't spend money and then have the state do a "bail out." Ms. Hinds said the City determined it was in the public's best interest to take over residential storm water systems. She didn't feel doing that was inconsistent with the Council's intent. She also felt that with the exception of Butler Farms, this has been a good process and work that was done needed to be done. Mr. Magowan asked if everyone got equal treatment. Ms. Hinds said the only city money spent for any neighborhood was for Butler Farms, and that is a unique situation. Mr. Stitzel added that the City has not required people to pay, but said if they fixed their systems, the City would take them over. Ms. Hinds said there is a firm belief that if systems have been brought to a "best fix" condition, there is nothing more you can do to them. Mr. O'Rourke asked if the State will look at a utility differently from individual homes. Ms. Hinds said the law authorized that utilities be treated more generously. She added that the City can appeal anything attempt to get more money from people. Mr. Hafter added that the homeowners were told that if they brought their systems up to the 2002 standard, they would transfer their risk to the Utility. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the resolution establishing City policy for acceptance of regulated residential storm water systems. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed 3-1 with Mr. Boucher opposing. Mr. Stitzel then referred to the sample letter to commercial associations. He stressed that the City is willing to take over residential systems, not commercial systems. The City will help commercial groups to get organized so they can maintain their systems. However, because the City has taken over streets in commercial developments (e.g., the Belter subdivision), the City become a co-permittee. Mr. Condos asked what happens if a lot owner says "I'm not paying." Mr. Stitzel said the City can set up a special assessment district, and that lot owner becomes an "involuntary contributor." 8. Consideration of Approval of Letter of Intent with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Project Cooperative Agreement for Restoration of Storm Water Management in Tributary 3 of Potash Brook: Mr. Magowan asked about a possible conflict of interest he might have as he represents some landowners in the area. Mr. Stitzel said he did not see a conflict in this particular phase. Mr. Hafter noted that this will be funded from the Storm Water Utility money. Mr. O'Rourke suggested a read-through of a new Court ruling that a "wetland" must have a "nexus to a navigable water." Mr. Magowan moved to authorize the City Manager to sign the Letter of Intent as presented. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Consideration of Approval of South Burlington Rapid Response Plan: Chief Brent said the only change to the Plan is the format. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the South Burlington Rapid Response Plan as presented. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Consideration of Approval of Capital Equipment Refunding Note Resolution for Photocopier: Mr. Hafter said this is the second year of the note. Interest is at 4.5%. Funds are included in the budget. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the capital equipment refunding not and resolution as presented. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Review Minutes of 17 July 2006: Mr. O'Rourke moved to approve the Minutes of 17 July as written. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Mr. Boucher abstaining. 12. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 13. Executive Session: Mr. Magowan moved the Council convene in executive session to discuss appointments to boards and commissions and pending litigation and to resume regular session only to make appointments and/or adjourn. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: City Council returned to regular session. Steve Magowan moved the appointments of Eric Krudson to a four-year term on the DRB ending in 2010 and Peter Plumeau to a three-year term ending in 2009. Dan O'Rourke seconded. The motion passed 3-1 with Jim Condos voting "no." Dan O'Rourke moved the following appointments to the Police Facility Committee: Chris Bishop William de Groot Pat Reed Randy Kay (Planning Commission) Marcel Beaudin (Planning Commission) Mark Boucher seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mark Boucher moved adjournment. Steve Magowan seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:00pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.