Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/05/2007CITY COUNCIL 5 FEBRUARY 2007 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 5 February 2007, 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; T. LeBlanc, City Assessor; P. Taylor, Board of Civil Authority; J. Fay, M. Barsotti, CWD; D. Brent, Fire Chief; A. Parent, The Other Paper; Channel 17; A. Rushford, J. Jarvis, B. Hibbits, S. Steck, K. Wallace, R. Femoy, T. Kessel, V. Richford, M. Torin, J. Simone, T. Bright, M. Keenan, M. Thomas, T. Bissonette, G. LaRow, R. Reno, M. Woolf, E. Greenfield 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: Ms. Rushford, President of Twin Oaks Condominiums, expressed concern with the property assessment process. She said the city hired someone to do the assessments and then threw out what they did and reassessed all the condominiums. She's been told that the total difference between what she paid and the taxes based on the new assessment will be due on March 15, and she doesn't have that much money. Mr. Hafter said that he has the option to work out a payment schedule with anyone who contacts him before the payment is due. He said she could pay what she thought she would be paying, and then have time to pay the balance. Mr. Condos said the aim is to have equity across the city. There were residents who called and said they felt the condo assessments were wrong, so the City Assessor reappraised all the condos in the city. Some went up, some went down. All the changes had to be done by the end of the year. Ms. Rushford said her assessment went up $40,000; her friend in a nearby condo had her assessment go down $10,000. She thought the first appraisal was reasonable. Mr. Leblanc said the biggest complaint he has gotten was over equity: why are 2 similar units getting different appraisals. He explained how he found a fair market value by looking for a similar property as close in value to the property he was assessing that had sold. He looked only at sales within a given condo complex. Mr. Leblanc added that since the appraisal, there have been 13 sales of condos, all of them over the appraisals. Mr. Wallace said he has talked with real estate people who say property is not selling as well as in the past. There are 2 properties in his condo development that have been on the market for 4-6 months at less than the assessed value and they aren't selling. He felt condo owners should not have to pay the same rate as people on regular streets since condo owners don't get city services. Mr. Condos said "market value" takes that into consideration. Ms. Rushford asked if they could appeal to the BCA. Mr. Condos said they could appeal for the next tax year. Mr. Leblanc explained the grievance process. Mr. Hafter said he doesn't know a lot of the details of what happened with this reappraisal, and he didn't know what choices the City/City Council has in this instance. Ms. Steck said the issue is bigger than high taxes. People have lost faith in the process. She felt condo owners were being singled out. Couldn't there have been mistakes made citywide? Mr. Hafter said the city has data on that. Single family homes are assessed at 102% of fair market value and condos at 90%. Ms. Hibbits, who lives in Stonehedge North, cited the great variety of units in their complex. She also noted that units in Stonehedge north, which are identical to units in Stonehedge South, had much higher appraisal values. Ms. Jarvis, who is also a realtor, said she found it hard to believe there weren't errors made in single family homes. She also felt there are still inequities at Foxcroft. Mr. Leblanc said those are being fixed. The question arose as to whether the city can legally reassess after the tax rate is set. A member of the audience said they had an appraisal done on May 16th, which was close to their original appraisal from the City. Then their appraisal rose from $151,000 to $190,000 on December 29th. A similar unit to his just 2 doors down is appraised at $22,000 less (Cardinal Woods). Mr. Leblanc said that is on his list to be fixed for 2007. Mr. Bright said he bought his condo on August 4, 2006 for $288,000. It was appraised at $312,000. Mr. Leblanc said to see him for next year. Ms. Keenan, who lives at Twin Oaks, said she was out of town for the holidays when the new appraisal arrived. Her unit almost tripled in value, and it is a 27-year old building that has endured added noise and loss of trees due to the road construction for Kennedy Drive. She also questioned how commercial property could have decreased in value so much. Ms. Thomas felt that in the rush to get things out by the end of the year, Mr. Leblanc made error that they now have to pay for. Mr. Bissonette said he is struggling to understand how this change could have happened at the end of December. He felt this suggests that the city could reappraise any time it wants to get more tax money from people. Mr. Hafter said there could only be an appraisal for "errors and omissions." Ms. Kessel said she is a single mother living in a condo, and she is shaken by all of this. She had been secure that she could live in a condo. She didn't feel there was proper notification. She also sent in a grievance and never heard anything. Mr. Taylor, Chair of the Board of Authority, said the Board feel that all changes since the original appraisal should be posted on the website. Ms. Torin said a change at the end of the year feels capricious. Mr. Simone noted that what he is paying extra for 2006 will be paid in 2007, and he won't be able to count that toward next year's tax rebate. He didn't feel that was fair. An audience member asked that a full list of properties be published and that those what have had changes be highlighted so people can see how many mistakes were made. Mr. Magowan said he is concerned that people had a very narrow window in which to grieve. He said that feels completely wrong to him. He also felt there is something wrong with the way the city communicates with the public. Mr. Smith added that the only answer the city gets is "it's state law." He felt there is a bad situation that the City/City Council can't make any better. Mr. O'Rourke felt the new appraisal would have been better done as part of the assessment for next year. An audience member noted that between December 29th and January 3rd, you can't get hold of anyone to talk about problems. Members felt they needed input from the City Attorney and agreed to hold a special meeting on 12 February, 6:30 p.m. They also agreed to delay Item #6 on the agenda until that time. 2. Announcements/City Manager's Report: Mr. Hafter reported on the following: 1. The first meeting regarding the Queen City Park bridge will be held on 7 February, 10 a.m. 2. The Library will hold a Valentine event to honor its volunteers. 3. The Williston Land Fill group will attend the 20 February City Council meeting. 4. Mr. Hafter distributed the budget book. The first budget presentation will be on 15 February and the second of 22 February. The budget has a 5.9% Increase which translates to a 1.2 cent tax increase. That results in a $12 increase for every $100,000 of appraised home value. 3. Presentation from People Concerned About Chloramine (PCAC): Mr. Fay said CWD has been providing safe drinking water since 1973. He said they are required to do disinfecting of by-products, which has a carcinogen impact. In January 2006, the Stage 2 Disinfecting Rule was passed. Monochloromines are the recommended way to meet this rule. Mr. Fay noted that the EPA establishes a recommended maximum disinfectant level. It can't exceed 4 parts per million. CWD adds about 2 parts per million. Mr. Barsolli then reviewed the 4 things that protect water: a. protect the source water b. filter the water (CWD received an award in 1999 and every year since for this) c. disinfect primary and secondary d. have a well-maintained storage and distribution system. He then explained the properties of the various chemicals used in the disinfecting process and said they "enhance the quality of the water." Mr. Fay noted CWD is the first water system in Vermont to use these chemicals. Ms. Reno said he has met with Mr. Fay at CWD and was impressed with his professionalism. But she felt that when CWD switched to chloramines use, there was an unintended result. There are more than 100 people with symptoms that go away when they leave the area and use another water source. Ms. Reno said problems range from skin conditions to eye irritations, etc. She said she was affected with the first shower she took after the switch to chloramines happened. She has reported this to the Dept. of Health, which said to "contact the EPA." Mr. Woolf said the goal of People Concerned About Chloramine is to insure that tap water in CWD is safe for all consumers and also to pursue scientific studies about chloramines. Mr. Woolf said that a mix of ammonia and chlorine forms chloramines. At high levels, this is very toxic. There have been no studies of toxicity at the 2 per million level. Mr. Woolf added that chloramines are a less effective disinfectant than chlorine. Mr. Woolf said there have been no health studies performed as to the dermal and respiratory effects of chloramines, which is used as a water disinfectant. EPA studies are not significant as to whether chloramines are carcinogenic to humans. But people are not complaining about cancer; they are complaining about eyes, skin, respiratory, etc. Mr. Woolf said people are exposed to chloramines in 4 ways: drinking, bathing, breathing vapors, ingesting/gastric. Mr. Fay said they Dept. of Health says that one in 100,000 people may have some sort of "chemical sensitivity." Mr. Woolf noted that the filters that remove chlorine from water are not as effective in removing chloramines. Mr. Woolf suggested that there are alternatives to chloramines including prefiltration, which reduces the organic materials. He added that CWD can now meet standards just be prefiltration without chloramines. He said he would recommend stopping the use of chloramines until studies can prove it is safe. He also noted that there are similar issues being raised in San Francisco and Hawaii where chloramines has been used. Ms. Greenfield said she is having to spend hundreds of dollars a month to buy water and take trips to her son's house in Milton to shower. It will cost $2500 to put a filtration system into her house. She said she has been suffering symptoms since last summer, and now that she is not using city water, the symptoms are gone. Ms. Reno said chloramines also has an environmental impact. It kills fish, and can have a harmful impact on the lake. She noted there are already warnings out for people with fishtanks. Mr. Fay said they have information that this is improving the health of customers, and they are still waiting for a diagnosis that says chloramines is that cause of sickness. Mr. Woolf said he just wanted the City to be aware of the problem. 4. Public Hearing on VCDP Application for Planning Funds for Economic Evaluation of South Burlington for Comprehensive Plan Update: Mr. Condos opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none. Mr. Magowan moved to close the public hearing. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consideration of Adoption of New Fee Schedule for 1) Water Connector Fees and 2) Ambulance Service: Mr. O'Rourke asked Chief Brent if all ambulance runs are in South Burlington. The Chief said there is some mutual aid, but they cover other towns on a regular basis. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the new fee schedules as proposed. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Boucher opposing. Mr. Boucher said he felt this should have been part of the budget session. 6. Further Discussion on Resolution Calling for the Study and Development of a New Plan for the Delivery of Education in the State of Vermont: Mr. Condos said that as the resolution is written, he would not support it. Mr. O'Rourke felt it is important to go on record with a statement. Mr. Condos said he could support it without the "sunset clause." He did not feel that was responsible. Mr. O'Rourke said the last 7 years haven't been responsible. Mr. Magowan said if this situation isn't addressed, there will be a full-blown revolt. Mr. Condos said he was concerned because the only talk has been about "slowing the rate of growth," not reducing taxes. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the Resolution as written. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Messrs. Condos and Smith abstaining. 7. Consideration of Acceptance of $6315 Local Community Implementation Fund (Stormwater) Grant: Mr. Smith moved to accept the grant as presented. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consideration of Acceptance of Cobblestone Circle as a public street: Mr. Hafter said the street is up to public standards. Mr. Smith moved to accept Cobblestone Circle as a public street. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Review Development Review Board Agenda for meeting of 6 February 2007: No issues were raised. 10. Review City Council Minutes of 18 December, 8 January, and 16 January: Mr. O'Rourke moved to approve the Minutes of 18 December 2006 as written. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Messrs. Condos and Magowan abstaining. Mr. O'Rourke moved to approve the Minutes of 8 January 2007 as written. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Messrs Magowan and Smith abstaining. Mr. Smith moved to approve the Minutes of 16 January 2007 as written. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. O'Rourke abstaining. 11. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.