Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/04/2007CITY COUNCIL 4 SEPTEMBER 2007 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 September 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; D. Kinville, City Clerk; J. B. Hinds, Director of Planning & Zoning; T. Hubbard, Director of Recreation Department; B. Hoar, Director of Public Works Department; T. DiPietro, Stormwater Utility; T. LeBlanc, City Assessor; S. Stitzel, City Attorney; Rep. A. Audette, Rep. A. Pugh, Rep. H. Head; M. Esposito, I. Smith, G. Edmonds, K. Talbert, A. M. Donoghue, M. A. Murray, J. Segale, D. Scheuer, D. Crawford, S. Clark, C. Tabor, E. Shapiro, M. Mittag, S. Deacon, S. Berkett, M. St. Germain, B. Walters, B. Romanoff, D. Bedard, L. Bresee 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Boucher: City Charter Committee will meet Thursday, 6:30 p.m. to begin setting priorities. Mr. Hafter: Fire Dept. Open House, Sunday, 9 September 10 a.m.-3 p.m. The City is trying to move forward with the third lane in front of Staples Plaza. A meeting will be held on 7 September at the MPO. The Steering Committee will meet 27 September, 7 p.m. Mr. Hafter gave members copies of the Agenda. At the next City Council meeting, 17 September, 7 p.m., there will be a presentation regarding a proposed UVM development on Patchen on the site of the "dog park." Mr. Hafter advised that he will be gone from 17-20 September to attend the EPA local government advisory meeting. 3. Interview with Applicant for Red Rocks Park Committee: The Council interviewed Michael Sirotkin. Mr. Sirotkin said he was fairly new to the City, living on Bartlett Bay Road. He felt that since there is a vacancy on that Committee, it would be a good place for him to start. He felt the park was a real "jewel" for the city. Mr. Smith explained the process for selection and thanked Mr. Sirotkin for his interest in serving the City. 4. Discussion of City's Position and Activities to Protect the Privacy of Financial Information re: State of Vermont Prebates: Ms. Kinville reviewed the history of the item. She noted that there have been conversations as to whether the State payment is a "public document." Ms. Kinville felt her job is to look after the best interest of the citizens of South Burlington. She has, therefore, taken the position that "there is no tax data in the City Clerk's office." Ms. Kinville noted that the Tax Department has taken the position that a tax bill is a public document. The Office of the Secretary of State, however, says it is not a public document. The City Attorney has said it is a public document. Ms. Kinville stressed that there is no list of people who receive prebates. Ms. Kinville gave Council members a flow chart of how data come into the City Clerk's office. Ms. Kinville noted that the Legislature did not choose to address this issue in its last session. She also noted that the ACLU is looking for a town to take the issue to the Courts. Mr. O'Rourke noted that the reality is that this creates another step for someone searching land records for information. Ms. Kinville said there has been very little in the way of complaints from people searching records in her office. Mr. O'Rourke said it has been havoc for people dealing with closings. Mr. Boucher asked if there has been any feedback on how South Burlington is disbursing payments. Ms. Kinville said the only negative thing she has heard is that it makes the payments at the end of the year higher. Rep. Audette said he had a feeling the Legislature will change the system this year. He added the reason that they went to the current system is so people would understand that the prebate and property taxes go together. Mr. Hafter said the City has gotten calls only from 2 "data mining" companies. 5. Discussion with Condo Association Representatives re: Stormwater Issues: Mr. Hafter references a letter sent by condo associations of a number of South Burlington condo developments regarding issues related to stormwater utility take-over policy and utility fees and credits. Mr. DiPietro then reviewed pertinent stormwater topics, including the Stormwater Permit Take-over Policy, stormwater utility credits, and allocation of grant funding. With regard to Permit Take-Over Policy, Mr. DiPietro said the city's policy that for a period of 20 years from the date the City accepts a system, it will not impose an assessment to cover the cost of repairs or upgrades to the system. This policy arises from the city's authority to own, maintain & replace infrastructure and is similar to the policy for sewers. Mr. DiPietro said the city put in the 20-year clause to protect homeowners from additional costs that could arise in that period. There is no such protection for sewer systems. Mr. DiPietro noted that the Stormwater Utility Web Page and FAQ has not be updated to indicate the 20-year protection policy following the Council resolution in the fall of 2006. Mr. DiPietro also noted that the State has extended the deferral of permit provisions from September, 2007 to January 2010 and has delayed the issuance of general watershed permits. The Homeowner's Associations are asking that the system acquisition agreement reflect what is in the FAQ, which does not include the 20-year period. They feel the stormwater utility fee should cover the cost of any future work. Mr. DiPietro said some of the Associations feel they would not have done the engineering and design work at such an expense if the 20-year provision had been included in the FAQ. Mr. DiPietro then reviewed the Stormwater Utility Credit System. Credits are issued to those who place less demand on the system and thus decrease the cost of running the system. Credit is given for stormwater detention on the property and retention of ownership of the system (instead of turning it over to the City). Mr. DiPietro noted that homeowners are asking that the fee structure be reviewed. They feel they are making major capital expenditures for which they are getting no credit. They feel they should be able to turn over maintenance of their facility and still receive credits to reduce their fees. Mr. DiPietro noted that staff has obtain some grants to help pay for stormwater improvements. Question has arisen as to how those funds should be split between the utility and homeowner costs. Options include: applying funds to the total project cost to reduce cost to both the City and property owners, applying grants only to the municipal Share of a project, or applying funds only to the private share of a project. Representatives from several condo associations then voiced their concerns. They indicated they had been assured that once they brought their systems up to the 2002 standard, and the City accepted the system, the City would then take care of all future improvements, etc. That statement was on the website for a long time. The homeowners feel they are being saddled with a huge expense while others in the city pay only a "measly" $4.50 a month. Some people at Ridgewood Condominiums are having to take out second mortgages to pay for the stormwater improvement projects there. Condo representatives felt they were being "targeted" because they have an association. Mr. Hafter stressed that the City is not telling anyone to fix anything. He then asked Ms. Hinds for an update on Stormwater issues. Ms. Hinds reiterated that no one has to fix anything. There is no City or State compulsion to do anything, and the permits will cover until 2010. Ms. Hinds said she does not recall ever telling people that the City could come back with a special assessment after it had taken over a system. She said it was her impression that the City would be responsible for the cost of future capital upgrades, and that the stated policy is that future upgrades would be the City's responsibility. She also felt that the issue began when the City Attorneys began to look at the "what ifs." Mr. Hoar said he agreed with Ms. Hinds, and that is what was told to homeowners. Mr. Hafter said that in 2006, the City Attorney said the City had a right to go back to homeowners for additional upgrades, that was when the 20-year statement came about. Mr. Stitzel said that what he was looking at was a document that had the City abandoning its statutory authority with regard to infrastructure. A member of the Winding Brook Board ask what are the consequences of "doing nothing." Ms. Hinds said that in 2004 there was a clear statement for renewing permits. Then the momentum was lost, and the Agency has yet to issue a permit for any impaired watersheds. There is also no Commissioner. Ms. Hinds said she didn't know if anything will be in place at the 2010 deadline, but until then, there are no consequences. She did not know what pressure will be put on the State to move forward. Ms. Hinds added that the City is making a difference with capital programs such as that being finished on Farrell Street. These are doing a lot to improve water quality. She said that maybe the City needs to do something else until there is a definite answer from the State. Mr. O'Rourke said he had the same recollection as Ms. Hinds about what was being set up in the way of the City taking over the responsibility for future upgrades of systems that were turned over to the City. Representatives asked that the Stormwater Acquisition Agreement be revised to reflect what is in the FAQ and that future repairs/upgrades be paid for from the stormwater fees. Ms. Dooley asked who pays for repairs to a sewer line. Mr. Stitzel said the city has a choice of having the cost borne by the whole city, sharing the cost between the affected users and the rest of the city, or having only those affected by the problem pay for the repairs. Ms. Dooley asked if the City has ever asked homeowners to share the cost of sewer repairs. Mr. Stitzel said the City has made that judgment in cases where people on a private septic system asked to put on the City sewer system. Ms. Dooley said that is not the same situation. Mr. Stitzel said that is true, but the city could ask people to pay for repairs, even though it has never done so. He felt the 20-year clause creates a protection for the condo owners during that 20-year period. A condo representative said it is not just the 20-year period per se that concerns them; it is the "except" clause that said that if the State creates new, more stringent, regulations, the City can come to the residents for the money. Mr. Mittag said he was also troubled by the words "similar system." He asked how similar a system would have to be. Mr. Birket said that much later than the 2005 date, the whole Winding Brook Board went to the City and were told "Once it's fixed, you're done." They were told "don't worry" about the Baker memo. They therefore did the work in good faith, and now the city is proposing a different agreement. Mr. Birket asked if an association can transfer an expired permit to the city. Mr. DiPietro said he has a call in to try to get an answer to that question. Mr. Birket said he was told emphatically that you can't. Mr. O'Rourke said that makes sense. If it's expired, it doesn't exist. Mr. Birket asked, "if that's the case, when does the transfer take place?" Mr. Hafter said the City is not getting consistent answers from the State. Different people say different things. Mr. O'Rourke said the State has a permitting system. The city has a utility. People have a perception that they go hand-in-hand. They don't. He said the idea of the utility was. That there were things that needed to be done, and rather than go to the property tax, they would go to a user fee to fund stormwater upgrade. This was done because there is so much property in the city that does not pay property taxes. However, if you are an impaired waterway with an expired permit, you can't get a permit. Mr. Mittage said that sewer, water, roads and stormwater systems benefit everyone in the city, and costs should be borne by everyone. He felt the City has taken a very courageous position on stormwater. It's the implementation that's the issue. Mr. Boucher noted that there is an immense number of homes that haven't begun to deal with these issues yet, and this is a problem that will come up again and again. He also noted that some of the older neighborhoods that have the most problem with stormwater issues have no permits and therefore can't be addressed at all. He felt this did not make sense. Mr. O'Rourke said that when the City set up its system, it appeared the State would follow through. Now there is a question as to whether this will happen. He had a feel that the utility may be getting too far out in front. Ms. Hinds said the City is looking to spend money to do things to get the overall watershed addressed. She felt that regardless of what the State does, the City can do that. Mr. Mittag said suppose someone wants to do something to bring a system to standard. Will the City agree that once it is part of the public utility, the City will maintain it? Question then arose as to the distribution and application of grant money. Mr. Magowan felt it should go only to the municipal cost because that goes to reduce costs to the whole city. Mr. Boucher felt that if individuals don't benefit from grant money, what should the do the work? Mr. O'Rourke asked at what stage the various condo stormwater systems upgrades are. Answers were as follows: 1. finishing planning, no money to construct 2. done with design, on hold 3. are exempt from renewal at this point because of permit issued prior to 1/78 4. planning stage 5. gathering bids, hope to construct before winter. Mr. Smith expressed the frustration that there are no logical answers to problems. He also noted that the Council was hearing information for the first time tonight. He felt there had to be some solutions before people go to construction. Mr. Smith added that there are so many unintended consequences to anything that is done. He felt the Council should take several weeks to come up with a proposal that makes sense. He also wanted input from elected officials in Montpelier. Members agreed to have a response by November 1 at the latest, or a special meeting if that works best. Mr. Mittag thanked staff for trying to help them given the ANR condition. He felt homeowners had been treated with respect and understanding. Mr. Smith said the hope is to make everyone as happy as possible. 6. Presentation from South Village on proposal for a Public/Private Partnership for Recreation Facilities: Mr. Scheuer presented a brief overview of the South Village development. He then noted the city's need for recreation facilities including a multi-purpose field for soccer, lacrosse and football; a Little League baseball field, and a multi-purpose indoor facility (with a dedicated senior space, gym and meeting rooms, and preschool and teen space). Mr. Scheuer then reviewed what a South Village location for those facilities would offer: a. convenient location b. land, at no cost to the city c. utility services, at no cost to the city d. development expertise e. financial capacity to leverage f. experience in public/private partnerships There is space at South Village for a multi-purpose field as early as 2008 and for a Little League field as early as 2009. There is also a site for an indoor multi-purpose recreation and community facility. Mr. Scheuer showed these locations on the South Village plan. He also noted there are connections to rec. paths. The indoor facility would be approximately 20,000 sq. ft. It would be operated by the City and would be available to all residents. The estimated cost to construct would be $4,000,000. Annual operating expenses would be about $800,000, of which $650,000 could be recouped from user fees. Mr. Scheuer then outlined a possible public/private partnership. South Burlington's role would be: a. dedicate recreation impact fees from South Village ($380,000) b. Annual lease of $440,000 (based on building cost; no cost for land) c. option to purchase at any time d. participation in design and programming e. operation of the facilities f. making facilities available to all So. Burlington residents The role of South Village would be: a. building the multi-purpose and Little League fields b. provide land and infrastructure at no cost (reserve building site for 5 years) c. contribute up to $500,000 toward indoor facility d. manage design and construction Members felt there was much in the proposal that had merit for consideration. They asked Mr. Scheuer to provide more specifics for them to consider. 7. Discussion of City Review of Commercial Property Value: Mr. LeBlanc presented material regarding recent sales of commercial property in the City. He noted that a lot of recent sale prices are pretty close to the assessments. Mr. Hafter noted that the average CLA for all property in South Burlington is approximately 106%. However, residential property is appraised at a CLA of about 114% while commercial property is appraised at a CLA of about 97%. This difference means that the City should reassess commercial properties in order to achieve equity. This decision is confirmed by the Coefficient of Dispersion, which is at 13.7%. The city prefers that it be no higher than 10%. Members reviewed a letter from Mr. LeBlanc that will be sent to commercial property owners. Any changes in value to commercial properties would be effective in April 2008. Mr. Boucher moved to approve the reassessment of commercial properties in the City as presented. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consideration of Approval of Errors & Omissions as related to the Grand List: Mr. LeBlanc presented the Council with a group of Errors and/or Omissions to the current Grand List. He noted that property owners brought these items to his attention. Mr. LeBlanc also noted that homestead values change when there is a business use to the property. Homeowners have to be notices about this change, and they will have the right to appeal. Mr. Magowan moved to authorize the Chair to sign the Errors and/or Omissions requests as presented. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Appointment of City Commissioner and Alternate to Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission: Mr. Magowan moved to appoint Marcel Beaudin as City Commissioner to the Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The agreement is that City staff will cover committee work associated with the appointment. Members of the Planning Commission will be consulted to see if anyone wishes to be the alternate. 10. Appointment of Voting Delegate to VLCT Annual Business Meeting at Town Fair: Mr. O'Rourke moved to appoint Chuck Hafter as voting delegate to VLCT Annual Business Meeting/Town Fair. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Consideration of Approval of Capital Equipment Refunding Note and Resolution for Photocopier: Mr. O'Rourke moved to approve the Capital Equipment Refunding Note and accompanying documents for the Photocopier. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Review Agenda for Development Review Board Meeting on 4 September 2007: No issues were raised. 13. Review & Approve Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting Held 20 August 2007: Ms. Dooley asked that the Minutes be amended to indicate who had voted for and against items with a split vote. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the Minutes of 20 August as amended. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. Executive Session: Mr. Magowan moved the Board meet in executive Session to consider litigation and appointments and to resume regular session only for the purpose of making appointments and/or adjournment. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 15. Regular Session: The Council returned to from Executive Session. Mr. Magowan moved the appointment of Michael Sirotkin to the Red Rocks Committee for a three-year term (2010). Mr. Boucher seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Magowan moved adjournment. Ms. Dooley seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:15pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.