Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/03/2008CITY COUNCIL 3 MARCH 2008 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 3 March 2008, 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. Brent, Fire Chief; firefighters; K. DiPietro-Ward; S. Dopp, C. Baker- Edmonds, School Board 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda Items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Magowan: Dog Park Committee will meet a week from Thursday. The Committee will be looking at potential sites this weekend. Mr. Hafter: Will meet with Airport people to discuss expanding parking on the old landfill. Meeting 11 March at MPO to kickoff project for third lane in front of Staples Meeting 12 March, 10 a.m., regarding relocation of Poor Farm Road near the Air Guard. Meeting 13 March, 8 a.m., with Green Mountain Power & Velco regarding construction of a new substation and extension of lines. The Council meeting of 17 March will include an update on the reappraisal of commercial property in the city. The Steering Committee will meet on 20 March, 7 p.m. for a presentation of the City and School District budgets. A proposed Library governance agreement will also be presented. 3. Public Information Meeting on Ballot Items: a. Expansion of Airport Parkway Treatment Plant: Ms. DiPietro-Ward reviewed the history of the plant including previous upgrades. She noted that the plant serves 75% of South Burlington residents. Colchester is a co-applicant for the project. They utilize 28% of the permitted capacity of the plant. The reasons for the upgrade are: a. Equipment that is old, unreliable, and unsafe: slides showed the corrosion which has occurred over the years and other unsafe conditions. b. Improved efficiency: the upgraded plant will provide for on-site dewatering (currently being done off-site at a cost to the city) and a co- generation system. c. Environmental Quality: the upgraded plant will rely less on chemical use. The lab will also be updated to meet future needs. d. Accommodation of future needs: the existing plant is almost at capacity (less than 4% of capacity remaining). The upgraded facility will provide up to 3,300,000 gpd. Ms. DiPietro-Ward then showed a proposed site plan of the upgraded facility, including location of new structures. She then explained the co-generation system which will reuse gases generated during the digestion process. These gases can be used to reheat the digestion process and also to heat the building. The total project cost is $25,000,000. Reserve funds from both South Burlington and Colchester will reduce this amount to $21,000,000. It is anticipated that this amount will be further reduced by grants. The South Burlington share of the remaining cost will be funded by a small increase in user fees (about $6.00 per year for the average home) and an increase in hook-up fees from $4.60 to 9.20 for 2008-09 and to $12.75 in 2011-12. South Burlington's cost to homeowners will still be about average for Chittenden County communities. Permitting for the project is complete, and the design will be completed following the bond vote. The City will advertise for bids in June, with construction to begin in the fall. It is anticipated that the plant will be on-line in 2010. b. Use of Conservation Fund Mr. Hafter reviewed the history of the Conservation Fund which was started following an attempt by the city to purchase property. Because there had been no reserve fund, the City was outbid for that property. Voters then approved a 1 cent "open space tax." Mr. Hafter noted that the City Attorney has said that "open space" could be used for recreation purposes as long as no permanent buildings are put on the land. The City Council felt doing this might not be in the "spirit" of the public "open space" vote and felt they should go back to the voters to approve this. Mr. Hafter stressed that the City will still purchase "open space" land in addition to "recreation" land. Ms. Dopp asked if there is a particular piece of property that has brought about this vote or whether it is just a philosophical question. Mr. Hafter replied that there is no particular property, but the Recreation Department has identified areas of the City where. Recreation space is needed. Mr. Smith added that South Burlington has less recreation space that what is recommended for a city of its size. A member of the audience noted that "recreation" also means hiking, bird-watching, etc., in open spaces; it doesn't just mean playing fields. Another audience member noted that recreation fields also include parking areas, toilets, dugouts, drainage, irrigation, etc. Ms. Dopp asked where the City would be looking for money for recreation space if this fund were not available. Mr. Smith said the Rooms & Meals local option tax could be used. Ms. Dopp asked if there had been discussion of the percentage of the conservation fund that might be used for recreation fields. She said she wouldn't want to see 100% go to recreation. Mr. Magowan said the Council hasn't had that discussion. If the public approves the ballot item, that discussion will take place. Ms. Dopp noted that knowing the percentage could affect the way people would vote. An audience member noted that "conservation" has a particular connotation of "preserving" land. Mr. Boucher said that a legal opinion has said that land doesn't just have to be "preserved." Mr. O'Rourke added that Dorset Park is "open space" to him. Another audience member asked whether the fund money could be used for construction of recreation fields. Mr. Hafter said it could be used only for purchase, no improvements. Ms. Dooley said that if the voters approve this, she would encourage people to take the "long view" on how the money is used. She didn't think a formula would work. 4. Continued Discussion of SAFER (Firefighter) Grant; finalization of 2008-9 FY budget: Mr. Hafter gave members a corrected version of a proposed 10-year funding plan. He reviewed the history of the discussion which took place at the budget meeting. Mr. Magowan noted that the Council's concern is with year 3 of the grant, where funding could take money away from other City departments. Mr. Hafter reviewed the two previous first proposals: under the first proposal the city share of the 6 firefighters provided by the grant ($75,000.) would be in the regular budget and would increase the tax rate from 34.2 cents to 34.5 cents. This would still represent a decrease from last year. Under the second proposal, there would be a special. Appropriation outside of the general fund, similar to a bond issue. The concern with these plans has been the ability to manage budgets in future years and in year 6 when the grant ends. Under the new 10-year plan, year 1 would be funded from the local option sales tax revenue. In year 2, both sales tax and general tax revenue would begin to fund the city's share. By year 10, all of the funding would come from the operating budget (1.3 cents on the city tax rate). Mr. Hafter noted this would be similar to the process used several years ago to fund road maintenance/construction. Discussion then focused on whether to have the Council adopt the plan or to place it on the ballot for public approval. Mr. Smith said his concern was that the sales tax money was supposed to be used to "reduce" taxes. This use would be to cover increasing costs. He suggested using the same 10-year plan with funding from the Rooms & Meals tax. Firefighters stressed that what they are looking at is an essential city service. They were concerned with what might happen if the public votes against the proposal. Mr. Smith said the Council would provide public education, whichever plan they choose to follow. He stressed that it is the City Council's responsibility to provide for the safety of the city. He felt the dollars involved are small compared to what 6 additional firefighters will do for the city. Mr. Boucher said he felt a 30% increase in staffing of the Fire Department should go to the voters. Ms. Baker-Edmonds said she didn't feel it would be risky to put it on the ballot, and most people she knows would support it. Mr. Magowan said he felt it was within the City Council's discretion to pass approval for the plan. He didn't think the Council should risk a public vote. He felt the proposal is exactly what the SAFER grant is intended to do and that the Council should not let recent controversy prevent them from doing what is right. He felt if the Council does not make this commitment, it has abandoned its job. Firefighters noted that if the ballot item fails, it will cost the city an enormous amount of money to get this essential service. Ms. Dooley said she didn't see the item being defeated. She added that anyone who thinks the cost of running a city will stay frozen over time is being unrealistic. Mr. Hafter stressed that at no time does the current proposal use more than 5% of the sales tax revenue. Mr. Magowan said he felt it is a bad precedent to put this on the ballot. He noted that the public didn't vote on South Village, the largest development ever to occur in the city, which is greatly increasing the job of firefighters. He added that the Council has consistently approved zoning changes, which have increased the burden on the Fire Department, without a public vote. He also noted the public has never been asked to vote on other grant money. Mr. Smith asked whether the Council is convinced that the City will add 6 firefighters regardless of the SAFER grant. Mr. Boucher asked if that's the issue, why aren't the 6 firefighters in the budget. Chief Brent noted that under the rules for the grant, you can't put the firefighters in the budget and then fund them from the SAFER money. An audience member felt the Council was worrying too much and that the citizens would support firefighters. Firefighters noted that a SAFER vote failed in Williston. Mr. Hafter said that was due in part to a volunteer department which was opposed to professionalizing. Mr. Boucher said he would prefer a special assessment that didn't use sales tax revenues. Mr. O'Rourke asked how future Councils could be bound to this. Mr. Hafter said if it is done as a ballot question, then the City is bound to use of sales tax revenues. Ms. Dooley moved to adopt the 10-year plan with a revenue source from the sales tax, to be described in a ballot item comparable to the previous highway plan. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. In the vote which followed, the motion passed 3-2 with Messrs. Magowan and Smith voting against. Mr. Hafter said he would present proposed ballot language at the next meeting. Messrs. Magowan and Smith agreed to work with the Fire Department on a public education campaign. 5. Discussion of Public Nuisance Ordinance: The ordinance is being proposed to address "quality of life" issues that have arisen within the past year (panhandling, noise, graffiti, etc.). The proposed ordinance addressed many of these issues including: noise (barking dogs, machinery, Airport issues, parties, etc.), defacing of buildings and signs, use of private dumpsters by the public, etc. It was noted that there has been significant progress with "restorative justice" panels. A first reading will be scheduled for the next meeting. 6. Consideration of appointment of Councilor Magowan as Representative to CCTA: Mr. O'Rourke moved to appoint Mr. Magowan as CCTA representative effective 1 May 2008. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Annual Appointment of Town Service Officer per 33 V.S.A. Section 2102: Ms. Dooley moved to appoint Mr. Hafter as Town Service Officer effective 15 April 2008. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Appointment of Town Health Officer for 3-Year Term: Mr. Magowan moved to appoint Mr. Hafter as Town Health Officer for a 3-year term. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Consideration of Capital Equipment Refunding Note: Highway Dump Truck: Mr. Hafter noted this is the 3rd year of a 5-year note. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the Capital Equipment Refunding Note and accompanying resolution. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Review and Approve Minutes from Regular City Council Meeting held on 19 February 2008: It was noted that on p. 1, Mr. "Fowler" should be changed to Mr. "Forbes" and that Mr. Boucher should not be list as present at that meeting. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the Minutes of 19 February as amended. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Mr. Boucher and Ms. Dooley abstaining. 11. Review and Approve Minutes from Special City Council Meeting held on 21 February 2008: Mr. Magowan moved to approve the Minutes of 21 February as written. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Ms. Dooley abstaining. 12. Review Agenda for Development Review Board Meeting to be Held on 4 March 2008: No issues were raised. 13. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 14. Executive Session: Mr. Magowan moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel issues and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 15. Regular Session The City Council returned to regular session. Mr. Boucher moved adjournment. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.