Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/17/2010CITY COUNCIL 17 August 2010 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 August 2010, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, South Burlington Police Station, 19 Gregory Drive. Members Present: M. Boucher, Chair; S. Dooley, M. Emery, J. Knapp, F.Murray Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; S. Stitzel, City Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; R. Kay, C. Shaw, M. Beaudin, L. Fife, J. Clark, Planning Commission; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; L. Llewellyn, S. Dopp, E. Farrell, B. Smyle, R. Greco, M. Young, P. Nowak, A. Clift, C. Smith, L. Bresee, J. Floyd, S. Fox, S. Russell, D. Fleming, J. Pasakow, J. Kochman, T. Reihle, E. Robitaille, E. Robenstein, D. O’Rourke, J. Stuart, J. Jewett, D. Seff, M. .Scrotkin, other community members 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to Agenda items: Mr. Young asked if the city is conducting a full audit of the books. Mr. Boucher said there is a full audit every year, and the Council will be speaking to the auditor to be sure there is a high level of diligence. Mr. Young said he understood things are in motion to address the shortfall. He asked if the community will have a chance to vote on what is decided. Mr. Boucher said the Council would like to get a lot of ideas and possibly put an advisory question on the November ballot. There could then be a definite plan on the March ballot. Mr. Miller added that things that involve collective bargaining are not likely to be put to the voters. He added that to the extent that the budget identifies a tax rate, the voters will have a vote. Mr. Boucher added that there will also be a lot of discussion in open meetings. Mr. Stuart moved that as of June 30, 2007, the unfunded liability was $4.1MM, and it is now $9 MM. He asked whether benefits have changed over that time. Council members said they have. Mr. Miller said the city plans to invite experts in to meet with the Council. He noted that some of the problems in 2008-9 were because of market conditions and some because of changes in benefits. Mr. Miller also noted there has been a rebound since 2009 of about $2MM. He said they do not yet know how much of that unfunded amount is erased by the $2MM. That will be known in October. Mr. Miller advised that all future audits will be on the website. A member of the audience said she was appreciative that the Council has jumped right on this. She was also thankful to those with public safety jobs and felt they should be well compensated. She questioned how the city got to the level of benefits they are now at. She noted that when employees get to Social Security time, they will be getting more in benefits than they were earning. She asked about the process the city uses to deal with changes in the pension plan to be sure they are both adequate and affordable. Mr. Miller said these things are usually collectively bargained. He added that a number of years ago both parties agreed on a number of changes. Mr. Miller said he felt that prior to changes in benefits, the city should know the cost of those benefits, and it was clear to him that this was not the case when the changes occurred. He also stressed that market fluctuations can also affect things; however, when things got below 80%, the City Council should have been notified for possible action. The plan now is to find out the rest of the information. Mr. Miller noted that actuaries are very interested in meeting with the city, and an attempt is being made to find a date that works. Mr. Smith said that yesterday’s Free Press said that government employees in general earn twice as much as other employees. This is not just South Burlington’s problem; it is nationwide. He added that this is a wildly difficult area to plan for. He suggested that when the city looks into this, they consider options other than pension plans in order to avoid this situation in the future. Mr. Miller said the question of sustainability is on everyone’s mind. There are some states that fully fund pension plans and have to keep putting in their money to fund the plans. In the South Burlington instance, the City Council didn’t know about the shortfall, so it couldn’t put in the money to fund it. Mr. Miller added there is also a question of feasibility. The city has to collectively bargain, and the unions give up the right to strike in exchange for mandatory arbitration. The regulations require that the city’s benefits have to be compared with benefits of other entities. Mr. Miller said that to go from “defined benefit” to “defined contribution” is not likely to happen. Mr. Miller said they have already been talking with the unions regarding health benefits. They have agreed to look at other defined benefits plans which could potentially save the city money. Currently, only one plan for health insurance is offered city-wide, and two are allowed. The city has called in people to outline an alternate plan. Mr. Smith said the issue he sees is that all taxpayers are funding the cost of benefits and salaries, and it seems insane not to put something on the table to talk about. Mr. Boucher noted that statewide the teachers’ pension is much underfunded. In the next years, as “boomers” retire, this will become a major issue for the Legislature. Ms. Nowak thanked Mr. Miller for his insights and for his openness. 1a. Resolution of Honor for the Community Service of Albert “Sonny” Audette: Mr. Boucher read the resolution which honored Mr. Audette for the best qualities of leadership and for helping to make South Burlington a better place. Mr. Murray moved to approve the Resolution as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Announcements & City Manager’s Report: Mr. Miller: He, Ms. Dooley, Mr. Conner, and Mr. Rabidoux attended a meeting on UVM’s new housing plan. This includes 400 units near the athletic complex. It will go through the Burlington planning process. There was discussion on the handling of traffic. Ms. Dooley noted there is a meeting tonight with the Burlington Neighborhood Assembly and tomorrow with residents of the East Terrace neighborhood (7 p.m. in the Bostwick Room). UVM’s plan is for occupancy in August 2012. He, Mr. Boucher, and Mr. Murray will be going to Montpelier to meet with Jeb Spaulding regarding pension issues. The RFP for audit proposals has been amended. It is on the website. 3. Approve Procedures for appointment to boards, committees, and commissions: Mr. Miller noted that the Council asked him to redraft procedures to allow for background checks in certain situations. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the procedures as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Interview Applicants for Appointment to Boards, Committees and Commissions: The Council interviewed Sally Fox for appointment to the Correctional Facility Liaison Committee: Ms. Fox said she is relatively new to the city. She previously work for the Offenders Re-entry Program in Burlington and spent a lot of time at the Correctional Center. She has been through their volunteer training and had a lot of interface with state corrections people, Burlington police, etc. Ms. Dooley noted that Chief Whipple has said that the committee has met only about 3 times in the 4 years he has been in South Burlington. Ms. Fox felt there will be more offenders in the community because of economic conditions. She suggested the possibility of a “transition unit” where offenders work in the community and return to the “unit” to live. She felt it was worthwhile to re­examine the committee’s mission. The Council then interviewed John Floyd for appointment to the Development Review Board: Mr. Floyd is a 28-year resident of South Burlington. He owns a company based in Essex. He said he wants to see South Burlington be successful as a place for business and living. Mr. Boucher asked how Mr. Floyd would balance what he personally feels with what the regulations require. Mr. Floyd said he has been on the Sign Code Committee and has dealt with that issue. He said the “code always wins.” Ms. Dooley cited the tension between things that are “waivable” and what residents feel should happen and what the developer wants to have happen. She asked what Mr. Floyd’s approach would be. Mr. Floyd said he would look for what is best for the city as a whole. The Council interviewed Michael Scrotkin for appointment to the DRB, Planning Commission, or Red Rocks Park Committee: Mr. Scrotkin said he is new to the city (2004). He has enjoyed Red Rocks Park. The DRB is his true interest. He is an attorney, getting near retirement. He has previously served on the Essex Planning Commission and Zoning Board. He liked the individual applications part of the job best. In answer to Ms. Dooley’s question to the previous candidate, Mr. Scrotkin said the first thing you do is what the regulations call for. He added that both sides have rights, and you can do a disservice to the city is something goes to court and a Board’s decision gets reversed. The Council interviewed Jay Pasakow for appointment to the Library Board of Trustees: Mr. Pasakow is a SBHS graduate. He is now a real estate agent. He believes a strong library is an integral part of the community. He uses the city’s library and would love to see a stand-alone community library separate from the school library. He feels the joint system has been “outgrown.” Ms. Dooley asked if Mr. Pasakow has any interest in fundraising for a separate library. Mr. Pasakow said he does and has done that in the past through the Rotary for the bandstand and for the Bookmobile. The Council then interviewed Susan Russell for the Library Board of Trustees or Red Rocks Park Committee: Ms. Russell said now that she has a different schedule, she would like to do something for the city. She uses the Library and would like to be sure that there are current reading materials for everyone. The Council interviewed Dan Fleming for the Planning Commission: Mr. Fleming is a 24-year resident of the city and has been an executive manager of both large and small companies. He is now a consultant. He felt the Planning Commission is the place where he can use his skills and help the city get to a sound economic basis for the future. His experience is in long-term planning. Ms. Dooley asked if Mr. Fleming has a vision for the city. Mr. Fleming said he thinks South Burlington is a great place to be, and his goal would be to keep it that way. He also felt that with things changing in places around the city and state, the city would be affected. He felt there has to be a predictable process that doesn’t change and that process should be simplified. Mr. Fleming noted that he is away from the city 10-12 weeks a year at unpredictable times. The Council interviewed Roseann Greco for the Planning Commission, DRB, or Design Review Committee: Ms. Greco said she is retired from the military where she was in strategic intelligence. She chose to live in South Burlington because of the way of life, particularly how the natural environment is taken care of. She wants to conserve that way of life. She sees the Comprehensive Plan as a way to refine things. She said she would lean toward the conservation “side” rather than the development “side.” She wouldn’t want “overdevelopment” to happen in South Burlington. Ms. Dooley asked how Mr. Greco would approach decision in the DRB. Ms. Greco said the regulations are there for a reason and she would lean toward that. When all things are equal, she would go with the residents. She felt that smart planning provides greenery, and you can’t just concrete everything. The Council interviewed Ted Reihle for the Planning Commission: Mr. Reihle said he moved to the city 49 years ago and then lived in Burlington until 21 years ago. He has previously served in the State Legislature and Burlington City Council. He was involved in the planning process for the Burlington waterfront. Mr. Reihle said he has a real estate interest in the City Center and felt the area can become a mixed use area. The Council interviewed Jennifer Kochman for the Leisure Arts Committee: Ms. Kochman is currently on the Committee and wants to continue to serve. She has lived in the city for 23 years. She is interested in seeing that appropriate programs are provided for people of all ages. She noted that the South Burlington Recreation Department has the admiration of the whole state. Ms Kochman noted that the Committee visited Milton to see how they use various spaces in their programs in order to address the under serving of pre-schoolers and seniors. She hoped to see South Burlington develop a space that reflects what the city is all about and something that reflects the pride people have in the city. The Council interviewed Elizabeth Robitaille for appointment to the Leisure Arts Committee: Ms. Robitaille said she is very involved in children’s activities and would like a place in the community where everyone could be served. The Council interviewed Edie Robenstein for appointment to the Leisure Arts Committee: Ms. Robenstein has been a resident for 48 years and is retired from Fletcher Allen. She has previously run programs in the city. She felt the Recreation Department is “phenomenal” and that the schedule is jam­packed with things for everyone. The Council interviewed Lou Bresee for reappointment to the Rec Path Committee: Mr. Bresee has been on the Committee for “15 years or so” He reviewed the history of the bridge over the wetland and noted they will come out $30,000­25,000 under budget. Mr. Boucher noted that Mr. Bresee did a great job shepherding that project. There will be additional interviews at a September meeting before appointments are made. 5. Consider Rescinding Engagement Letter to Angolano & Company: Mr. Miller felt this is a good opportunity to look at a possible different direction. He added that the School Department has been made aware that this is on the agenda. It will be on their agenda tomorrow night. Ms. Clift said the School Board really wants to cooperate with the city. Mr. Miller said the city would involve the School Board in the development of an RFP. Mr. Stuart asked why the city is changing auditors. Mr. Boucher said the auditor’s job is to bring issues to the governing body’s attention, and this did not happen. The situation was not mentioned in the Management Letter. Mr. Boucher said he feels the “checks and balances system” failed. Ms. Emery asked if this would result in any cost to the city. Mr. Miller said it would not. Mr. .Murray moved to rescind the engagement letter to Angolano & Company. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. 6. Consider Blanket Authorization for the City Manager to sign Stormwater Permits and ratify signatures following August 4th meeting: Mr. Miller noted there are routine agreements the city has to enter into. Without those agreements, there would be higher fees. Mr. Stitzel explained the nature of the agreements and what the city will maintain. He also explained that the city received short notice and without action, the fees would go up. Mr. Stitzel said the agreements require the city to maintain only what is in the city’s right­of­way, nothing on private property. Mr. Murray moved to approve the blanket authorization for the City Manager to sign Stormwater Permits and to ratify signatures following the August 4 meeting. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Discuss Planning Commission recommendation for the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) and Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs): Mr. Boucher stressed that any issues concerning Spear Meadows are not within the City Council’s purview, and for the Council to become involved in that discussion would be a violation of the law. Mr. Stitzel noted that the City Council acts in a legislative capacity and the DRB acts in an adjudicatory capacity. He said that in Vermont, a municipality has authority to do only what the State has given them authority to do. The City Council has been conferred certain regulatory tools. By Laws have to be adopted in a certain prescribed way (a process that goes from the Planning Commission to the City Council). If the City Council adopts something it has no authority to adopt, or adopts something in a manner that is not authorized, that action is invalid. This applies to zoning bylaws, site plan bylaws, subdivision bylaws, etc. Mr. Stitzel continued by explaining the process for amending or appealing a by-law, which is the same as the process for enacting a by law. There is no authority in state law to impose a moratorium on a by-law or to suspend the operation of a by-law. There is an abbreviated process for Interim By-laws, which requires 15 days notice. This process can be used only in certain prescribed instances: to protect public health, safety, welfare, and to provide for orderly physical and economic growth. This can be used only as an “emergency” measure. The process further required that the municipality is currently conducting or has undertaken action to conduct studies or is currently holding a hearing for the purpose of considering a by-law, a comprehensive plan, or an amendment, extension, or addition to a by-law or plan. Mr. Stitzel noted that an interim by­law doesn’t amend or appeal a by­law. It establishes restrictions that are in addition to those contained in any other ordinance, by-law or regulations. Mr. Stitzel reviewed when interim by-laws were previous used in the city (1988, 1989, 1990 and 2005). Mr. Kay then reviewed the draft of the Planning Commission’s letter drafted at the last Commission meeting. He explained that the Commission feels the city is in a good place now. Mr. Seff said he feels the TDR regulations is unconstitutional because there are no criteria for how much additional density the DRB can approve from 1.2 to 4 per acre. He felt the current by-law should be repealed and a new by-law be enacted that could withstand a constitutional challenge. Mr. Stitzel noted that repeal of a by-law cannot original with the City Council; it must originate with the Planning Commission. The City Council does not have the authority to direct the Planning Commission to do this. Mr. Connor said there are standards for the TDR process. He said that part of the reason the Planning Commission supports the regulation is that they have reviewed the standards and these standards are among the strongest in the city. Mr. Conner added that the regulations are consistent with regulations throughout the state. Mr. Seff said he felt those standards are pre­existing standards for ½ per acre. In 2006, a new paragraph was added, saying that if you meet certain standards, you can go from 1.2 to 4 per acre. There are no standards given for that. Mr. Conner said the entire SEQ regulations were rewritten in 2006, specifically with the TDR process in mind. Mr. Stitzel said as he understands the regulations, you can use TDRs only in a PUD, so all standards that apply to a PUD are applicable. The TDR process is not an independent process. Ms. Dooley asked if the TDR process has been looked at in light of the JAM Golf decision. Mr. Stitzel said that has been done, and he saw no problem in light of the JAM decision. Ms. Dooley asked for numbers for various sub-districts in the SEQ. Mr. Conner showed the different areas of the SEQ on the map. He said the “sending area” of the SEQ is about ½ of the SEQ. The NR sub-district is 4/acre; VR is up to 8/acre (apx. 180 acres), VC is 8/acre (apx. 21 acres), and NR Transition about 4/acre (82 acres). Mr. Conner said the basic underlying number for the SEQ is 1.2/acre, which would result in 3753 housing units, including what is already built (1721 built or approved as of last year). This leaves 2032 left to be built (plus a small additional number for affordable housing). Mr. Conner said the Planning Commission has looked at a balance between the number of units that can be sent and the receiving areas to be sure that there is a proper market for people to be able to do something with their land. Mr. Kay added that this was agreed upon by the community at public meetings. Mr. Conner said there is a little more land in receiving areas than there are units to be sent because of constraints (e.g., wetlands) or in the event an applicant doesn’t want to build the maximum units allowed (e.g., they build only 9 so they don’t have to go through Act 250). Ms. Dooley questioned whether the city might want to have different parts of the SEQ to have different density levels. Mr. Conner noted that the most difficult thing the Planning Commission faced in this process was where to put the density. Mr. Beaudin said the idea was to preserve land for conservation, and this plan is the best the Commission has been able to do to date. He added that “things change because conditions change.” Mr. Shaw said the primary consideration was the natural resources, which the Commission took very seriously, also the economics. A homeowner should be able to get the value from the land. Ms. Dooley said she thought there could be areas for 2 or 3 per acre. Mr. Knapp said they you are telling someone who could have 4 units today, that tomorrow they can have only 2. Ms. Emery felt there could be merit to transitional areas. Mr. Conner said it gets back to the balance between sending and receiving areas. If this is manipulated to an exact 50-50 balance, there will not be enough receiving areas and some people will lose the economic value of their property. Mr. Murray said this discussion is taking place because there are existing neighborhoods being impacted by receiving areas and people are concerned that standards don’t protect their existing neighborhoods. Mr. Farrell said this discussion began because of a project he proposes. He said the people who are bringing the pressure haven’t proven there is a problem, and there has been no evidence presented to the Council that there is a negative impact. The land is zoned at 4/acre, and it is being developed at 2.7/acre. There are numerous regulations to insure the quality of development. He didn’t want the city to spend its money to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. He stressed that what the city needs is housing that people can afford, and the only way to get that is by density. Ms. Dopp noted the Planning Commission is now re-doing the Comprehensive Plan and will tackle the zoning regulations after that. She felt there is an opportunity to bring good ideas to those discussions. Mr. Boucher said that unless there is a specific urgent need, the Council can’t enact interim zoning. He suggested that people work with the Planning Commission to make “tweaks” to improve the TDR process. Ms. Dooley said she would like to feel that way but she felt there is resistance on the part of the Planning Commission to look at this. Mr. Kay said if the Council wants the Commission to put this at the top of their list, tell them not to work on affordable housing, not to work on the Airport area, not to work on Cars to People, etc. He stressed that the Commission put years into the SEQ. Ms. Clark said no one on the Commission is resisting considering changing anything. They have received no specific suggestions; all they have heard is “throw it out the window.” Mr. Knapp said he appreciates that the Planning Commission are all volunteers. He felt it is important at the highest level they focus on what they can do to best serve the city. They are now rewriting the Comprehensive Plan, which is very important. He felt the Commission should assign its time the best way they can. Mr. Kay said the Commission will continue to work on the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that transitions have always been an issue, and if there are ways to make things more predictable, the Commission is willing to look at them. 8. Consideration of Approval for Submittal of HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant: Mr. Connor said the Regional Planning Commission and MPO, City of Burlington, and Northwest Planning Commission have gotten together to look at sustainability and housing and energy uses. There is a pot of funds available to local communities under this grant for implementation. Regional Planning is asking for 90 hours of staff time over 3 years. Mr. Miller said the motion would authorize him to sign a letter of intent for the 90 hours. Mr. Murray moved to authorize the City Manager to sign a letter of intent for the 90 hours of staff time under the HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Update on Sustainable Communities Grant Application: Mr. Conner noted that at the Planning Commission meeting he asked how to insert such a large project in the Commission’s already full plate. He said they continue to support the grant request with the understanding that some things get adjusted or put back. Mr. Kay said the Commission is concerned with staff burn-out, and they decided to look at things that could be pushed further out in time, especially things that aren’t likely to get funded. 10. Consideration of Amendment of Declaration for 19 Gregory Drive, A Condominium: Mr. Murray moved to approve the amendment as presented. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Consideration of Appointment of Designated Official to Represent the City as a Voting Delegate at the annual VLCT Annual Business Meeting: Mr. Murray moved to appoint Ms. Dooley as voting delegate. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Review Development Review Board Agenda for 17 August 2010: No issues were raised. 13. Review and Approve Minutes of City Council meetings of 19 July, 27 July, and 4 August: Mr. Murray moved to approve the Minutes of 19 July, 27 July and 4 August 2010 as written. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 15. Executive Session: Ms. Dooley moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss Personnel, appointments, and contract negotiations and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 16. Regular Session: Council returned to regular session at 12:15am to reconvene, Wed. Aug 18 at 12:15pm. As there was no further business Mr. Knapp moved for Council adjournment. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Council adjourned at 12:16am. 17. Returned to Open Session: Council returned to open session at 12:15pm, Wed. Aug. 18. 18. Executive Session: Ms. Dooley moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss Personnel, appointments, and contract negotiations and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 16. 19. Regular Session: Council returned to regular session at 2pm. As there was no further business Mr. Knapp moved for Council adjournment. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Council adjourned at 2:02pm. ________________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.