Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/02/2009CITY COUNCIL 2 FEBRUARY 2009 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 2 February 2009, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: C. Smith, Chair; S. Magowan, S. Dooley, M. Emery Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; Rep. A. Audette, Chief T. Whipple, Police Department; T. Hubbard, Recreation Department; M. Poirier, J. Hines, J. Jamieson, M. Simeneau, A. Wright, B. Stuono, C. Brodsky, M. Dugan, L. Ventriss 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements/City Manager's Report: Ms. Emery: Met with Channel 17 Board of Trustees. They would like to set up meetings with the Library and possibly the Senior Center regarding how they use Channel 17. Asked for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss zoning and to provide some input. She has received questions on how zoning rules happen. Mr. Hafter suggested doing this after the election and involving both the Planning Commission and the Development Review Board. Attended the Airport meeting and found it very positive. Engineers and architects presented preliminary sketches including a second parking garage with a low level hotel between the 2 garages. There would also be accommodations for a bike/pedestrian path and a turn-around road with the Airport. Far into the future, there could be a direct connection to I-89 through the landfill. This could include 6-8 acres for a dog park and a platform for people to watch planes take off and land. Mr. Hafter noted that where the dog park is shown is nowhere near the potential road. Mr. Magowan: Suggested the March 3rd meeting start at 6 p.m. and then include having the candidates speak as well as presenting the budget and answering questions. Mr. Hafter: The City is seeking to fill the vacancy on the Airport Commission. Three people have indicated an interest. The position will be advertised. On 12 February, there will be a budget presentation and presentations by candidates on Channel 17 beginning at 5:25 p.m. Mr. Hafter and Ms. Dooley will meet with UVM on 17 February, 8 a.m. to discuss transportation issues. 18 February is Local Government Day at the State Legislature. City Council members are invited to attend. Mr. Audette noted that a road can't be built through the landfill as the area is too unstable. 3. Meeting with Mike Simeneau, Commercial Broker, Hickok & Boardman, to review status of request for proposals for Police Station site: Mr. Simoneau said the original list of proposed sites has been somewhat reduced. An RFP was sent out on 15 January to several of the candidates for a permanent facility and fewer to those offering a temporary facility. These are due back on 11 February. Once the responses are in, he will get together with Mr. Hafter and Chief Whipple. Mr. Simoneau estimated that within the next 2 or 3 weeks, there would be a report and possibly a recommendation of a potential site or sites. The RFP asked for an outline of the sites and provided responders with a copy of the site plan previously proposed, including requirements for parking, etc. The City is willing to look at acquiring land or an existing building or a lease option. They would also be open to a donation. Mr. Simoneau anticipated that any plan that is received will raise some questions, but he felt there would be enough information to develop an opinion about a site or sites. Mr. Hafter recommended that the Council hold its organization meeting on March 9, 2009 and then go into executive session with the new Council members to review the proposals. Mr. Hafter also noted that it would cost $72,000 more to build on the current site. Information regarding the stormwater management within State Right of Ways has been sent to the Secretary of Transportation. They responded that they have to "develop a policy" and should be able to respond in a month. Mr. Stuono asked if financial institutions have been contacted to see if any properties in "distress" or under foreclosure are available. Mr. Hafter said they have. Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Boucher wanted to be sure that co-operations with other communities are considered. 4. Presentation from Dog Park Committee on the Suitability Analysis Study of the Landfill: Ms. Ventriss reviewed the history and noted that the committee had voted on the landfill site as the best location and agreed to use impact fees to develop a plan. Sanborn-Head & Associates was engaged to do the planning work. They did a presentation at National Night Out and have kept in touch with a list of volunteers and contractors. Ms. Ventriss noted that over 230 dog owners have responded to a survey and most are very favorable toward a dog park. The Committee has been working on policies and practices, recruiting volunteers, fundraising, and forming a "Friends of the Dog Park" group. They also met with Chuck Brodsky who is with the Starr Farm Dog Park in Burlington who has been very helpful. Ms. Ventriss said it is the Committee's hope that when the Sanborn-Head presentation is finished, the Council will support the landfill site and will also support the continued use of impact fees for the next stage of site analysis. Mr. Poirier of Sanborn-Head then reviewed his company's qualifications as "landfill people." He showed an overhead of the site and noted that they originally had two concerns: leachate and landfill gas. Site visits did not find any leachate breakouts, but they did find landfill gas, which is a product of decaying matter in the landfill. It is comprised of methane and carbon dioxide (about 50-50). Methane can be explosive. A surface scan revealed 5 locations where gas levels tested at more than acceptable thresholds. There are other locations below that threshold. A standard must be developed as to what is safe for the public. Mr. Hafter noted that for many years the landfill was uncapped. A law then required it to be capped. The state required that a gas system be put in. The state allowed the city to put in a number of gas vents, due to the low volume of gas. Mr. Poirier showed some site photos including those vents. He showed how they work as a network and indicated that they need to be preserved. Mr. Poirier said the center of the site would be fine for a dog park. They will have to address an area where gas vents would have to be eliminated. He suggested capping the vents and installing passive gas flares ($1000 each). The first step would be to develop a work plan which would have to be approved by the Agency of Natural Resources. They would then collect flow data from the gas vents to decide which ones to cap and which to put flares on. Vents would then be capped, surface scans done, and flares designed and installed. The work would have to be approved and a quantitative risk assessment done. The total cost for this work would be $20,000. Rep. Audette said to be sure ANR sees the plan as what was put in was done with their approval. A member of the audience asked about dogs digging up some of the installations. Mr. Poirier said they would be 3 feet deep. Ms. Ventriss said there would be volunteers to monitor that dogs don't dig. Mr. Magowan asked what funding would be required after the $20,000. Mr. Hubbard said they would look for fencing, site development, a storage shed, benches, and some sort of shading, probably about $10,000-15,000. Ms. Emery asked about the UVM plans for the property across the road. Mr. Magowan said UVM does not want a dog park there. Mr. Smith asked about issues for a second site choice. Mr. Ventriss said they didn't do an assessment for other sites and would probably have to go back to "square one." A community member asked if trees could be planted on the landfill site. Mr. Poirier said they would have to get permission to do that as roots can cause damage. An audience member asked about a possible dog park where the Airport is taking down homes. It was noted that residents don't want dog parks near their homes/neighborhoods. Mr. Smith asked where the money will come from. Mr. Hafter said the $20,000 will come from impact fees. He suggested doing the first $3,000 of work and then coming back to the Council with an update. Mr. Magowan then moved to have the City Manager allocate $3000 from recreation impact fees to develop a work plan to be submitted to the Agency of Natural Resources. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consider Participation in VCDP Grant Application for a Proposed Expansion of Grand Way Commons (Grand Way II) for Senior Housing: Ms. Wright asked the Council to consider a community block grant for expansion of Grand Way Commons. She reviewed the history of previous development and noted they still have 600 people on a waiting list for housing. Ms. Dugan then explained the Vermont Community Development Program and noted that only a municipality can apply. There is now an on-line application process. Applications are due on 25 March. Ms. Wright said they propose to build 24 apartments. Mr. Hafter noted that it is very expensive for the City to service these apartment (Fire, Police, etc.), but they also pay $26,000 a year in taxes which should cover that expense. Ms. Wright noted they are investigating whether the buildings can be connected, but there are some issues with that. Mr. Hafter asked whether they anticipated any more units on that site. Ms. Wright said they have had to scale back on projects because of all the groups they have to work with. They felt a 24-unit building was fundable. They may build it so it could potentially be expanded. Mr. Hafter asked if it is possible to get stimulus money from Washington. Ms. Dugan said possibly, but that money is usually focused on where there are high foreclosure rates. Ms. Wright said they are looking for any funding they can find. They want to get into the ground this summer, so they felt scaling back was a good idea. Mr. Hafter asked if the building would all residential. Ms. Wright said they anticipate about 2,000-3,000 sq. ft. of office space. Mr. Stuono asked if units can be allocated to South Burlington residents. Ms. Wright said they always give preference to residents of the community in which they build. There would be a required public hearing no earlier than 27 February. Members were OK with going ahead with this proposal. 6. Report of the CCMPO Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Financing: Mr. Gravelin reviewed the background and history of the Commission and referred members to the written report. Recommendations of the Commission include: a. Promoting enabling legislation for Regional Transportation Districts. b. Establishing a Chittenden County Regional Transportation District. c. Promoting enabling legislation to allow the development of additional funding for regional transportation need. d. Promoting a streamlining of the permit process. e. Promoting streamlining of the Right-of-Way process. f. Recommending ideas to improve design and construction efficiency. g. Recommending multi-year project budgeting in the Transportation Bill. Alternative recommendations include: a. A "middle of the road" option. b. Creating a special VTrans team to work exclusively with the MPO on Chittenden County programs (Mr. Hafter noted this was in response to the feeling that VTrans would not give up its authority to a local body). The Commission felt there should be enabling legislation to create a sustainable funding stream, explore regional impact fee mechanism, and infrastructure development. Mr. Gravelin noted that Commission will meet again on 18 February. Mr. Hafter said it is clear that the State can't fund all needed projects. The question is how to finance these projects "outside the box." Mr. Magowan noted there is a great deal of concern with rolling CCTA into this. The MPO and RPC are essentially weak, and this plan would create a potential for a bureaucracy that citizens can't control. Mr. Hafter said there is a feeling this should be comprised of elected officials. Mr. Magowan said he felt there is a need for a County government and that Chittenden County is now big enough for that. 1. Consideration of Acceptance of Streets: Tilley Drive (phase 2); portion of cul-de-sac on Dorset Heights: Mr. Hafter said the streets meet city standards. Mr. Magowan moved to accept Tilley Drive (phase 2) and the portion of the cul-de-sac on Dorset Heights as presented. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Development Review Board Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Minutes of 20 January 2009: The following corrections were noted: p.2, next to last line "Mr." should read "Ms."; p. 7 the spelling of Mr. Palombo's name; p. 5, line 1, "is" instead of "it." Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Minutes of 20 January as amended. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 5. Other items: Ms. Emery raised the question of a policy on Councilors communications, specifically regarding her letter to the DRB. She noted that the DRB responded to Mr. Smith but not to her. She didn't like the idea of "muzzling" Council members. Mr. Smith said the DRB directed a potential issue to him, which is what they should have done. Ms. Dooley said she wasn't satisfied with the opinion from the City Attorney and wanted to hear from VLCT. Mr. Magowan said he believes that when you are a City Councilor you forfeit the right to participate as a citizen. He noted this is not honored in all communities. He was concerned with communication with the DRB since the Council has the right to appeal a DRB decision. Mr. Smith said there is a distinction between asking questions and putting forth an answer. He had no issues with a Council member asking questions. Mr. Magowan said a Council member can work with neighbors who have a concern, but he felt the Council member should not speak out. Both Mr. Smith and Mr. Magowan cited instances where there were developments in their neighborhoods that directly affected them as residents, but both felt they should not, and did not, speak out. Mr. Smith said it is often hard to draw a line as to when there is an abuse of power. Mr. Stuono suggested a policy be set forth on the issue. He also noted that coming from Burlington, he was impressed with how business is conducted in South Burlington and was sorry to see Mr. Smith and Mr. Magowan leaving. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.