Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/05/2007CITY COUNCIL 5 NOVEMBER 2007 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 5 November 2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: C. Smith, Chair; M. Boucher, S. Dooley, S. Magowan, D. O'Rourke Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; J. B. Hinds, Director of Planning & Zoning; G. Dow, Water Pollution Control; T. DiPietro, Stormwater Superintendent; B. Hoar, Public Works; Rep. H. Head; B. Searles, R. McEwing, M. Flaherty, Burlington International Airport; M. Beaudin, L. Ravin, J. Jewett, L. Bresee, D. Wilbur, M. A. Murray, D. Bedard, S. Berkett, G. Forbes, M. Schram 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Ms. Dooley: Students working on the history of South Burlington are now working on a website. Mr. Hafter suggested they do a presentation to the City Council. Mr. Hafter: There will be a reception to honor Jim Condos for his service to the City on 3 December, 4:30-6:00 p.m. Legislative breakfasts will be held in the Community Library on 4 February, 3 March, and possibly 3 January, 7:30 a.m. A suggestion has been made that the Council meet in different locations in the city to be more accessible to the public. Mr. Hafter will set that up. The Pension Review Committee will meet on 7 November, 9 a.m. Mr. Hafter said last year was a very good year. There has been discussion about the Police Dept. having a police dog. Shaw's has given the city a $5000 grant toward this. A presentation will be held at Shaw's at 11 a.m. on 7 November. Mr. Hafter will attend the National Council of Cities during the week of November 12. A Community Visioning Meeting will be held on Thursday, 29 November, 7-9 p.m. in the Tuttle Middle School Cafeteria. Topics will include: school facilities, recreation paths, sewage treatment, Police facility, senior facilities, etc. 3. Request for Approval of Police Facility Sub-Committee Recommendation for City to enter into Contract with Arnold and Scangas Architects for Police Facility conceptual design and cost estimation: Mr. Hafter noted that the Council had approved a maximum of $30,000 to study the Calkins site for a future Police Station. The study would include cost of infrastructure to support the facility. The sub-committee developed and sent out an RFP for bids. 4 firms were interviewed and the recommendation is to go with Arnold and Scangas. Mr. Magowan moved to accept the recommendation of Arnold and Scangas. Mr. Boucher seconded. Ms. Dooley said she totally supports the need for a new Police facility and supported the $30,000 appropriation. She said she had been under the impression that the current site was unacceptable for a Police facility, and now has heard this was erroneous. She does not support the Calkin site location and also feels there is a need for a city strategic plan for city needs before going ahead with a particular project. She said she prefers the Police station to be on the current site and City Hall to be located in the City Center. Mr. Boucher noted that what Ms. Dooley recommends was presented to voters in 2006 and was resoundingly defeated. He noted that people said the city has to be more cost effective. One problem is relocating City Hall for a period of time while building a new City Hall somewhere else. With the Calkin's site, which is owned by the City, a Police facility can be built while the current facility and City Hall are still in use on the current site. Mr. Magowan said he is still not convinced of the Park site is the proper site, as it was purchased as "natural space" and money has been spent to enhance that use. Mr. Smith noted that 2 committees have thoroughly reviewed all aspects of the situation and have both come back with the same recommendation. A member of the Police Facility Committee said he was extremely disappointed to hear this discussion. Many members of the community have participated in the process and done a tremendous amount of work. Members of the committee originally shared the concerns raised tonight, but eventually came to the conclusion that the current proposal is the most cost-effective way to deal with the situation. He also said there is not a less problematic site in the city. He challenged the Council to come up with a better solution. Mr. Hafter then briefly reviewed two cost options: Option A:renovate City Hall $ 4,000,000 Build Police Station at Park $11,000,000 Total $15,000,000 Option B:repair City Hall $1,500,000 Build Police Station at Park $11,000,000 New City Hall in City Center $ 6,000,000 (not including land Costs) Total:$18-19,000,000 Mr. Hafter said that no site is less problematic or less expensive than the Calkin's site. Mr. Wilbur said the option of building a Police facility on the current site is a "no go," and there was no feeling on the part of the committee to build anything on this site. He stressed that the committee reviewed many sites in the city, and there was not a better site than the Calkin's site. Mr. Bresee challenged the Council to give them 2 better sites to study and they'll do it. Ms. Murray asked how the city would deal with the fact that the Calkin's property is zoned for Parks & Recreation. Mr. Hafter said it would require a public vote since the land was purchased for park use. If the public voted in favor of the change, there would be a rezoning process. Mr. Smith said that given the circumstances, it would not make sense to go to the public with a 3-2 Council vote. Mr. Magowan said it may be more valuable to keep the Calkin's land as open space. He felt it was hypocritical to hold developers to a standard and then not have the City hold to the standard. Mr. Smith said if this is defeated, it will be very hard to get a committee to work on this again. He felt there has to be a proposal that everyone can agree on. Mr. Magowan said he favors allowing the study to go forward and then presenting the option to the voters. He said he also favors having the Police station on another site that may cost more but does not impact park space. Ms. Hinds agreed that the study should go forward so they know what the site entails. She didn't feel this was a waste of money as the City will get a schematic of a building which can be used wherever the Police station winds up going. The city will also get information on stormwater in that location and on the intersection. Ms. Hinds stressed the need to honor a group of citizens who have put forth a valid option. Mr. Beaudin said the committee spent a great deal of time on the size of a Police facility based on national standards. The unknown now is what it will cost to make the site usable or how much it would cost to buy another site from a private developer. He said The committee could not find any more suitable land. Another committee members said the existing site was not rejected without a great deal of consideration. There were many issues that could not be resolved including lot coverage, adequate parking, relocation of City Hall, etc. He said that many committee members came to the table with various preconceived notions, but all wound up with the same conclusion. Mr. Beaudin added that there was also the issue of where the Police Department could operate while a new Police facility was being built on the existing site. He felt that didn't make any sense. Mr. Smith said the Council has to find a way to unite behind something. He felt there might not be a "perfect" solution. In the vote that followed, the motion to enter into a contract with Arnold and Scangas was approved unanimously. 4. Consideration of City Policy on Stormwater System Takeover by Utility: Mr. Hafter reviewed the history of this issue. He noted that no stormwater permits have been issued by the state, but there is an exemption until January, 2010. He felt that to wait until then to address concerns would not be proactive as the city is trying to be a good steward of its environment. Under the proposed agreement, the condo associations would be required to upgrade their systems to the 2002 standard. The City would then institute a maintenance agreement with the associations while everyone is waiting for watershed general permits to be issued. The city would take over ownership of the systems when watershed general permits are issued, if the 2002 standard is still in effect. The City could also offer a "revolving loan fund for a 2002 standard best fix upgrade." This would be at 2% interest. The city would help choose a qualified contractor to do the work properly. Mr. Hafter asked the Council to approve this agreement in concept. Mr. Berkett said there was general agreement among condo associations, but they would like to see the actual document before making a final commitment. He felt "repair and replacement" needs to be more clearly defined. Mr. Boucher felt the City is going way too far. He felt the city should work with those associations that have already begun to do the work; otherwise nothing more should be done. If people haven't spent any money, the City should not encourage them to do so. Mr. Berkett noted that if people don't do anything now, construction costs are going up 6-8% a year, and it will cost more to fix things in the future. There is also the issue of cleaning up the Lake. Ms. Ravin said she understands Mr. Boucher's point, but the Lake has to be cleaned up or problems will increase. She was also concerned that an association might not continue with the work if the don't "have to." Mr. Magowan noted that the city was trying to be responsive when it created the Stormwater Utility since South Burlington is a major contributor to Lake problems. He agreed that the City should do its part in cleaning up the Lake. Mr. Magowan also noted that the City encouraged associations to deal with their problems, since they hold the permits, not the individual condo owners. Ms. Hinds said she didn't feel Mr. Boucher's idea was off base. Dealing with the associations is part of a whole range of things the City can do (e.g., deal with illicit discharges, do repairs, etc.). Things are getting cleaned up. Ms. Hinds cited the huge improvements brought about by projects like the one on Farrell St. She also felt the Douglas administration intends to do nothing about the issue, but she felt it was not responsible to wait when the city can help those who have already made an investment. Mr. Magowan suggested leaving open the option for those who haven't yet spent money. Mr. Berkett felt this would create divisiveness among groups. Some groups may have saved up the money with the thought of spending it when they learned more. He did not want to see this create bad will. Mr. O'Rourke said the City has no idea what the State will do. He suggested those associations that collected money hold it until there is more information. Ms. Hinds suggested a possible 6-9 month "hold" on those who haven't started work yet. Ms. Ravin said her gut feeling is not to create "different classes of people." She felt this was not a good social climate. Mr. Smith suggested having the City Attorney look at some ways to structure this. Ms. Hinds also suggested a commitment to re-open this discussion with the Legislators. Members agreed to this. 5. Update on Burlington International Airport Operations and capital Plans: Mr. Flaherty noted that the City of Burlington owns the Airport, but the Airport impacts are on South Burlington. He also noted that the tax stabilization agreement is just about ready to be signed. This would give South Burlington over $1,000,000. Mr. Flaherty also noted that the Airport is negotiating a fee arrangement for car rental people who are not located on the Airport. This will probably be split with South Burlington. Mr. Searles said business at the Airport is good but could be better. They have just had 6 straight months of a record number of passengers. Both revenues and costs are going up. The Airport is drawing passengers from the "outer reaches," particularly from Canada, in record numbers. This is due to easy access, affordable parking, and the favorable exchange rate. Canadian traffic is now about 1/3 of the Airport's business. Mr. Searles cited the need for more air service to provide more options. On 10 January, they will begin non-stop service to Orlando. There will also be larger planes going to JFK. They are also trying to get flights which avoid the New York market. Fuel costs will play a major role in all of these issues. One major issue is access to the Airport. There is an effort to move Airport traffic out of the residential areas. Both the Airport Drive project and an interchange at Hinesburg Rd. will help address this issue. There are also cargo companies that want to expand, and this would provide good, high-paying jobs. Mr. McEwing then reviewed the Airport layout plan, including future plans for a potential parallel runway to allow for repairs to the major runway. He also showed the Airport Drive extension plan and development at the south end of the Airport. A former wetland is being filled for general aviation use and a new cargo area. Mr. McEwing showed a new aviation support facility for Heritage, which has doubled its operation. There is discussion of having them expand to the old National Guard facility. In the terminal area, Mr. McEwing cited parking problems. The parking facility is at capacity at many times, and sometimes the overflow fields are also full. The Airport has occasionally parked cars on the field. They are now looking at the possibility of 2 more levels on the parking garage and at land the Airport has acquired over the years for overflow parking. There are some zoning issues that would have to worked out. Mr. McEwing noted there will be public workshop regarding "noise compatibility." The Airport can acquire properties at a certain level of noise. Mr. Hafter expressed concern with the loss of affordable housing when that occurs. Mr. O'Rourke asked if the Council can get a count of the number of homes that may be impacted by that noise range. Ms. Hinds noted that the Planning Commission has asked that prior to consideration of any rezoning, they would like to discuss the whole issue, especially the change in character of the neighborhood and the possibility of affordable housing options. Mr. Searles said the Airport would not move forward without the complete agreement of the City of South Burlington. He also noted that with the new part of Airport Drive, the Airport could move some things off the Airport site. Mr. O'Rourke asked if there would be a 24-hour cargo operation. Mr. Searles said there would not, but there would be larger aircraft. Mr. McEwing felt this aircraft would be quieter as well. 6. Presentation of Wastewater Rate Study: Mr. Forbes cited the reasons for upgrading the Airport Parkway Sewage Treatment Plant including: a. accommodation of future city projects (e.g., City Center) b. improved efficiency c. environmental compliance. The Facility has a 2.3 million gallon per day capacity at present (for both South Burlington and Colchester). This means a .059 remaining capacity for South Burlington. It is estimated that in the future the need will be for 3.3 million gallons per day capacity. Mr. Forbes also showed pictures of equipment that is in need of upgrade due to degradation, rust, safety issues, etc. The new facility would generate less sludge and will be able to do on-site dewatering (a cost savings). It would also reduce energy consumption. Mr. Forbes showed the breakdown of the $24,000,000 project cost. He suggested a March, 2008 bond vote with construction to begin in June, 2008. The project would then be online in 2010. The subject of "co-generation" was then introduced. This process uses bio gas to generate electricity and heat at a reduced cost for power. The cost to go this route would be $405,000, not including engineering costs. Savings would be $38,000 in the initial year and would go up from there. Potential grants and initiatives would increase the savings. Grants could be available from Clean Energy Fund, NEIL Fund, and Efficiency Vermont Incentive Funds. Reasons to integrate a "co-generation" system include: a. renewable resource b. emission standards may get stricter in the future c. social responsibility Ms. Hinds noted that Essex Junction has been using co-generation and their experience has been better then expected. She encouraged the Council to look carefully at this. Mr. Schram then reviewed the funding for the upgrade from user fees, hook-up fees, South Burlington reserve funds, City of Colchester, and potential grants. These would total $11.5 million, leaving $13.5 million to borrow. This would be paid back by user and hookup fees. Other costs include ongoing operation and management, incremental management costs, and Bartlett Bay debt recovery. The current cost for a single family home in about $213.64 per year, which is at the lower end of Chittenden County costs. If user fees were increased 2.75% annually and hookup fees were increased to 9.20 per gpd in 2008-09 and to $12.75 per gpd in 2011-12, South Burlington would still fall in the middle of County towns. Decisions for the City to make include: a. the co-generation recommendation b. authorization of a bond vote c. adoption of adequate user fees 7. First Reading of Amendment to Impact Fee Ordinance; set Public Hearing for Same: Mr. Hafter said the amendment now includes the 2 changes made by the Council Mr. Magowan moved to waive the first reading, approve the first reading and set a public hearing for 3 December 2007. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Review Agenda for Development Review Board meeting of 6 November 2007: No issues were raised. 9. Review and approve Minutes of City Council meeting of 15 October 2007: Mr. Boucher noted that it was he who had raised the question of reliance on roundabouts. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the Minutes of 15 October as amended above. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Smith abstaining. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned At 10:20 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.