Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/16/2006CITY COUNCIL 16 OCTOBER 2006 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 16 October 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: J. Condos, Chair; C. Smith, M. Boucher, S. Magowan, D. O'Rourke Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; D. Kinville, City Clerk; S. Stitzel, City Attorney; Rep. A. Audette; D. Young, J. Canning, Co-School Superintendents; P. Richards, School District; C. Caldwell-Edmonds, R. Cassidy, K. Boucher, School Board; D. Kleppinger, B. Cimonetti, City Charter Committee; A. Parent, The Other Paper; S. Mekler, D. Bugbee, A. & H. Yawney, R. & P. Nowak, A. Blair, A. Johnston, R. Paquet, H. & M. Rivers, D. Wetzel, B. Smyle, C. & R. Sheil, R. & D. Bushey, M. Brigham, S. Hill, B. Byler, L. Levite, F. Geier, L. Duell, R. Picard, G. Cannon, P. Landerl, A. & L. Blarove, K. Ryder, L. Brochu, A. Clift, N. Pollack, P. Jones, M. Murray, J. Britt, C. Symans, B. Danis, K. Watkins, E. Diner, G. Bailey, P. Ozuwich, E. Cauchon, K. Murphy, J. Bruce, P. & B. MacPherson, M. Holt, D. Wilber, G. Edmonds, L. Leavens, J. & S. Shapiro, R. Furlong, D. Nowatsky, K. Magnant, G. & S. Lemieux, C. & S. Ventrone, S. Weber, M. Reale, J. Diamond, D. Archlin, B. Bouvier, B. Eckhardt, F. Mazur, R. Wise, H. Fischer, M. Dickinson, J. Darling, S. Katz, L. Bresee 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to Agenda items: Mr. Sheil expressed concern with speeding that is occurring on Richard Terrace. He said there is a need for speed tables. Mr. Hafter said this has been brought to his attention, and they are going to look at a design for traffic control. A member of the audience addressed the installation of lights on the High School playing field and asked who would be paying for the cost of electricity. Mr. Condos said that question should be directed to the School Board. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Hafter: There will be a meeting regarding the East Avenue "loop" on 26 October, 8:15 a.m., at Holiday Inn. This is in regard to a new Velco project to bring increased service to Burlington. Mr. Hafter said he will attend the meeting as the project involves Williston Road. 3. Public Hearing on proposed City Charter Amendment to authorize City Council to adopt an Ordinance implementing Local Taxation of Sales, Rooms/Meals and Alcoholic Beverages; Consideration of approval of warning for November 7, 2006 ballot: Mr. Condos declared the public hearing open. Mr. Hafter explained that the amendment would allow the city in the future to impose a local sales and rooms/meals/alcohol tax. The theory behind this is that people from out of town place a tremendous burden on city services and city infrastructure. The City would collect a sales tax, the sole purpose of which would be to reduce property taxes for city residents. Based on 2005 figures, it is estimated that a 1% tax would have collected just over $3,000,000. Even if the State took 30% of this, the City tax rate could have been reduced by 8.4 cents. A 1% rooms/meals/alcohol tax would have yielded about $909,000, resulting in a 2.5 cent city tax reduction (after the 30% taken by the State). The income from this tax could be used in several ways: a reserve fund for capital expenditures (vote approval would be needed to spend this money), pay existing bonded indebtedness, and/or reduce property taxes. Mr. Hafter explained that the savings would have to come off the City's tax rate because of Act 68. Mr. Hafter noted that language in the amendment would be changed so that money is budgeted to be spent in the fiscal year following the year in which it is collected. Mr. Stitzel suggested simply deleting sub-item #2 and renumbering subsequent items. Mr. Smith said his main issue with the amendment is that it puts a "bandaid" on the bigger problem which is the state funding mechanism for education. Mr. Blair said he favored the amendment but didn't like the fact that the City could raise the tax in the future without going to the voters. Mr. Leavins said it seems to him that Section D would allow the City Council to spend the money collected at will Mr. Hafter said it could not. Voter approval would be needed. Ms. Murphy said she agrees this is a "bandaid," but it is a good bandaid. She said she can choose to go out to dinner, but she can't choose not to pay her property taxes. Mr. Skiff said he didn't see what took so long for the Council to do this. Williston and Burlington have done it. Mr. Condos said that South Burlington has not been allowed to do this by the State. The Council finally decided to do it via a Charter amendment. Mr. O'Rourke then moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Smith seconded. Mr. Boucher said he felt the money from the rooms/meals/alcohol tax should be used only to reduce current property taxes or bonded debt. Mr. Magowan then moved to approve the second reading and approve the proposed amendment as amended to strike Section D-2. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing on proposed City Charter Amendment to require voter approval of City and School Budgets. Consideration of approval of warning for November 7, 2006 ballot: Mr. Condos opened the public hearing. Ms. Mekler expressed concern about the proposed changes and how they would affect education for the city's kids. She felt many programs would have to be cut, and the schools would suffer immeasurably. She also felt it would affect real estate values. She said the Charter has kept a cap on spending. Ms. Mekler was also concerned that the issue would put the community at odds. Ms. Bugbee presented a petition with 327 signatures of people opposing the amendment. She felt that with more time, she could have gathered more signatures. Mr. Bouvier said he is proud of the school system but strongly supports the amendment. He feels voting on the budget is the right and responsible thing to do. He also felt it would make people more informed about the budget since the City Council and School Board will have to be clearer and more concise about their budgets. Mr. Bouvier also applauded both Council and School Board members for their devotion to the city and for the work they put in. Mr. Wetzel said he opposed the amendment and felt more time was needed to understand all of its impacts. Ms. Johnston, a former teacher, recalled the disruption in the city prior to the Charter. She felt the Charter provided stability, and that the real problem is Act 60/68. Ms. Paquet said no other cities have a similar Charter provision, and it isn't an idea that's caught on. She wanted to exercise her right to vote. Ms. Shiel said that because of Act 60/68 school spending is out of control and this is driving fixed income families out of the community. She said their property taxes are now 2-3 times their original mortgage. Their taxes have gone up 100% since 1995. Mr. Shiel supported the amendment. He felt the funding of education in the state is unfair, but he is not anti-education. Mr. Smyle felt that a democracy requires people to participate. He also felt the Charter was created at a quieter time. He stressed that if people have the right to vote they should also take part in the process and become informed. Mr. Brigham felt it should be put on the ballot so people can have their say. Mr. Hill felt time was needed to sort the issues out. He said he had signed the original petition but has now changed his mind and will vote against the Charter change. He noted it won't fix property taxes or Act 60. Mr. Mazur said property taxes are unaffordable and spending is the problem. He said Vermont spends 30% more than the national average. He also noted that income is growing at 3% a year and taxes are growing at 10%. Ms. Levite said she wanted to believe that the spirit of the petition is positive, but she felt the "two strikes and out" provision could decimate the school system. She said this is a very complex issue and time should be taken to study it. She opposed putting it on the ballot. Mr. Geier felt it should be put off until the rest of the community can be educated. Ms. Clift saw a lot of ambiguity. Ms. Boucher, Chair of the School Board, urged the exclusion of the "two and out" provision as she saw it as a serious threat to the quality of education. She noted that if that provision had been in effect this year, $1,300,000 would have had to be cut from the budget, and that would have been devastating. Mr. Wise, Co-President of the Education Association, noted that even with the Charter provisions, it doesn't mean an automatic increase in the budget. He also noted that people do have the opportunity now to attend budget hearings. He felt the proposed changes are counter-productive, and that the issue has become more about politics and less about kids. He noted that 90% of tax increases are due to the state/Act 68. He asked the Council to take time to study the full impact of the Charter change, free of emotion. Mr. Jones was concerned with the Charter change. He volunteers in the schools and sees what is demanded of teachers. He felt that cuts in budgets will create real problems for kids in the schools. He asked the Council to make a good choice, even if it means delaying a vote. He felt there is a lot of misinformation going around. Ms. Nowak didn't believe there is anything to be afraid of. People just want the chance to vote. She felt that if people have the chance to vote, they will become more informed. Mr. Nowak believed all citizens are interested in the schools and what is happening in the city. He didn't feel that if people have the right to vote the quality of education is low. Mr. Fisher said that since Act 60, his taxes are up $200 a month, and he is on the verge of being forced out of South Burlington. He felt there are good people on both sides of the issue, and he hoped they can work together to find ways to fund things. Ms. Murphy felt the amendment is being rushed. She cited the numbers presented at the last meeting and said she hasn't seen anything to disprove those numbers. She felt the vote should be put off, but if it is on the ballot, the "two and out" should be eliminated. She said she has taught in other communities where teachers teach a year or 2 and then leave to come to South Burlington where things are more stable. Mr. Richardson said South Burlington has been lucky with Charter constraints. He cited the increasing student population because people come to South Burlington because of the schools. He felt the city can't afford the degradation that going back to the previous year's budget would cause. Mr. Darling felt the city has done a good job in past years, but he supported putting the amendment on the ballot. Ms. Caldwell-Edmonds, a School Board member, said he daughter asked her to "please keep our programs." She felt the idea of voting on a budget is a good idea. She also said that the Charter limitations have kept spending down. She said she would love to sit down and discuss how people can keep their homes and still provide for students in the community. She opposed the "two and out" provision. Ms. MacPherson said she is concerned with how radical the proposal is and with the time factor. She felt that for the process to be respectful, people need more education. Mr. Wilbur asked "what's the rush?" He felt there are so many other important things on this ballot, and that the local issue should be on the May ballot. He noted that he had helped from groups to oppose spending in excess of Charter limits, and felt that if the Charter limits are gone, there can be even more spending. Mr. Diamond said the main reason they moved to South Burlington was for the schools. He felt the amendment could hurt the schools and that the kids deserve better than "two strikes and you're out." Mr. Leavens felt both proposed amendments represent a loss of control for voters. He noted that of the $13,000,000 budget, $9,000,000 comes from taxes and the rest from fees. Ms. Bailey was concerned with the amendment, especially the "two and out" and the timing. She said people are upset with taxes because of Act 60 and 68, but she said this amendment will not solve that problem. She also noted that there are a lot of negative feelings in the community that don't have to do with the Charter (e.g., the Superintendent issue and reappraisal). Mr. Katz said he didn't know how he will vote on this. He felt the system proposed is simpler than the Charter. He felt the proposed system might also increase taxes. He felt that the process was important. He also said that the real problem was Act 60 and 68, and the Legislature hasn't done anything about that. Ms. Buley said the "two and out" provision puts time lines out of whack, especially with regard to contractual obligations that occur in March. She felt this makes South Burlington not as desirable place to work. Ms. Weber said she was angry when she got her reappraisal and was going to sign the petition. Then she calmed down and decided to find out who changed the formula with respect to residential and commercial property. She felt the vote should be put off for a year and let people come together and help prepare a budget. Ms. Ventrone noted how hard it is to get people to come to meetings. She said she opposes the "two and out" provision. She noted the things that were cut from this year's budget such as 4th grade band, strings, some custodians, etc. She want the schools to be able to maintain what they have. Mr. Ventrone noted there were cuts last year and there are a lot of damages. He said he sees a decline in the condition of the buildings. He did not know if the proposed amendment is sustainable. He felt the "two strikes and out" was undemocratic. Mr. Bresee said that what caused his taxes to go up has very little to do with the school budget. He urged people to look at root causes and address those. Mr. Furlong said he wants to put it on the ballot and get it over with. Mr. Kleppinger said the City Charter Committee recommends postponing a vote until May for further study. He cited the changes in the state since Act 60/68. The Committee feels a hurried decision is not the wisest course. Mr. Cassidy, a School Board member, urged the Council to delete the "two and out" provision. He cited things in the budget over which there is no control, such as negotiated contracts, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, utility costs, etc. He felt the "two and out" will create an unworkable situation. He supported a public vote, but asked that the vote be for a workable proposal. Following public input, Mr. O'Rourke moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter noted some confusion about what the "Grand List" is. He explained that it is the figure that represents growth in the city and has nothing to do with the voter check list. Mr. Magowan then moved to put the amendment on the ballot in accordance with the petition as drawn by the City Attorney. Mr. Bouchner seconded. Mr. Magowan said he has struggled with this a great deal. He felt the item has to be put on the ballot, but he will vote against it. He felt the Charter needs to be amended as a whole, not just relating to budget issues. He said that regardless of the outcome of the ballot item, people need to come together to see how the city will govern itself. Mr. Smith applauded the fact that this is finally being talked about. He wasn't sure amending the Charter is the way to fix things. He said no matter how taxes are collected, the system will still be broken. He indicated he supports the budget vote, but he will vote against the amendment because of the "two and out" provision. He felt more study is needed to get the right answer. Mr. Boucher said the "two and out" provision causes him concern as well, but agreed the item should be on the ballot. He will vote against it, because he isn't sure it is right for the city. Mr. O'Rourke said he has reached the same conclusion. He said the real issue is spending, but it is also a system that is not sustainable. He noted that a former Superintendent lobbied the Legislature to use the South Burlington City Charter as a method to keep education spending down state-wide. He urged people to talk to their legislators. Mr. Condos said he absolutely supports people voting on budgets but opposes the "two and out" provision and will vote against the amendment. He noted that South Burlington now actually has a "one and out" system in voting for spending above the Charter limits. He stressed that the current system is not an automatic 10% increase. He noted this is the first time an item will go on the ballot with 100% non-support of the Council. Mr. Condos stressed that the amendment, if it passes, will not solve the problem. He said Act 60 and 68 have made the City's Charter unworkable. The Charter helped limit spending and growth in spending while still providing services. The motion then passed unanimously. 4. Public Hearing on Ordinance to Amend Security Alarm Ordinance; second reading of same and consideration of resolution of fees: Mr. Condos opened the public hearing. Capt. Shepard said there are now fees provided which are in line with model policies they had looked at. He noted the Department responds to about 1000 alarms a year, 60-80 a month. Mr. Smith moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. O'Rourke moved to approve the Ordinance as presented, effective 1 March 2007. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter said there is a 20-day appeal period. 5. Review Agenda for Development Review Board Meeting of 17 October 2006: No issues were raised. 6. Review and approve Minutes of 2 October 2006: Mr. Smith moved to approve the Minutes of 2 October 2006 as written. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Magowan abstaining. 7. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.