Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/16/2010CITY COUNCIL 16 FEBRUARY 2010 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 February 2010, at 7:00 p.m., at Central School, Williston Road. Members Present: M. Boucher, Chair; S. Dooley, M. Emery, J. Knapp, F. Murray Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Potter, L-G. Davitian, L. Leavens, M. Young, S. Leonard, S. Dopp, J. Jaeger, T. McKenzie, P. Plumeau, B. Stuono 1. Other Business & Announcements: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager’s Report: Ms. Dooley: She and Ms. Emery were on Channel 17. Mr. Boucher: He and Mr. Hafter presented the City budget on Channel 17 as well. Mr. Hafter: There will be School Board celebration for outgoing member Ted Manazir who has served for 28 years, 17 February, 7 p.m. in the Middle School Library. Gave members the City’s annual audit. Mr. Hafter said it is the cleanest audit he has ever seen. There are no “going concerns.” He thanked Mr. Gravelin and his staff for this. Local Government Day at the State Legislature will be on 24 February. Mr. Hafter, Ms. Dooley and Mr. Conner will meet with the UVM planning group on 25 February, 10:30. The March 1 City Council meeting will be a “Town Meeting” which will begin with a pot luck supper at 6 p.m. with the meeting to follow at 7 p.m. in the Middle School Cafeteria. The Council re-organization meeting will be on 15 March prior to the regular meeting. 3. Presentation of South Burlington All-Hazards Mitigation Plan: Ms. Potter said that in creating the plan the Regional Planning Commission worked with the help of South Burlington Police, Fire, Highway, etc., to determine what hazards South Burlington faces and how to mitigate against them. To get “pre­disaster” money to address issues, there must a mitigation plan in effect. The plan identifies natural, technical, societal hazards and looks at existing services, provisions of the municipal plan, etc. Ms. Potter noted there are 12 action items for South Burlington which include such things as severe winter storms, economic recession, power loss potential, multi- structure fire potential, etc. These have been reviewed with city staff. CCRPC is looking for the city’s OK to submit the plan to FEMA for review. FEMA may then recommend changes which will come back to the city to develop a plan. Ms. Emery asked about potential emergency shelters in the city. Ms. Leonard said several school have generators. Ms. Emery asked if there are regional emergency shelters. Ms. Leonard said every municipality has a designated area, and the Red Cross would go in if there were an emergency and open up a site. Mr. Hafter noted there is a South Burlington Emergency Response Plan. Mr. Conner noted that “mitigation” tries to solve problems before they happen. He said that the Stormwater Utility has made an impact in this area in the past 5 years by reducing the affect of a big storm. A member of the audience asked about planning for gas in the event of an earthquake. Ms. Leonard said the Gas Co. has a plan as well. Mr. Hafter noted that Green Mountain Power has a plan for Essex Dam in the event of a problem there. Ms. Dopp asked if the Airport poses problems for South Burlington. Ms. Leonard said it does and this falls under “major transportation hazards.” Mr. Young asked about plans for “economic recession.” Ms. Potter said South Burlington has a very diversified economic base and doesn’t have one major employer who could go out of business and devastate the whole community. Mr. Murray moved that the Council approve the submission of the All Hazards Mitigation Plan to FEMA for their review. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Review and Update of Activities related to City Center Development: Mr. Conner said City Center discussion is a “3­pronged” discussion: 1) Stormwater 2) Roads 3) Development Stormwater: Mr. Conner said the major thrust is to address storm water that comes onto the site from adjacent areas. Water collects in the area behind Price Chopper Plaza and continues behind Healthy Living, etc. This creates a problem of too much water after a rainstorm. The city received a grant to resolve some of these issues and has been working with the Army Corps of Engineers and landowners to look at a new basin that would go behind Price Chopper Plaza. Improvements would go on private land, so this will involve a partnership. The City also met with Act 250 and they have agreed that the storm water project will have its own permit. Roads (Market Street): The City Council has agreed on the location of Market Street exactly where it is now. The City also has 2 federal grants, one for $1,000,000 and the other for $5,000,000 to do the construction of Market St. and is working on the federal environmental assessment, which is required before construction can begin. It is hoped that all issues will be resolved by the end of February. Mr. Conner said this will be a big step for City Center. Mr. Murray asked how much public money is being spent on this. Mr. Conner said about $600,000 of the first ($1,000,000) grant has been spent. This requires no local match. Mr. Hafter said he estimates that by the time work is ready to be done, the $1,000,000 will be spent. A member of the audience asked how much this will cost taxpayers. Mr. Conner said the $500,000 for storm water work is from storm water fees paid by residents. The 20% match for the $5,000,000 grant can come from “in kind” (labor, etc.) contributions, impact fees, or other options. There would be a separate decision for any kind of public buildings in City Center. Mr. Hafter explained the concept of “tax incremental financing” (TIF) which would be an option to pay for infrastructure. He stressed that the city’s goal is for there to be very little impact on the individual taxpayer. Mr. Murray expressed concern that if the area got into trouble there could be a burden on the taxpayers. Mr. Boucher said before the Council agreed to anything there would have to be a business plan presented to the Council and to the public. There would also have to be a public vote before one penny is spent. Ms. Emery said this is a real opportunity for the city and thanked Mr. Conner and the Planning staff for their expertise. Mr. Conner noted that South Burlington recently got a designation for a “new town center” which will allow the city to apply for a TIF. Mr. Conner also noted that the City Center concept includes the possibility of closing Central School. The School Board recently looked at all the options they have and determined that for the short and medium term, they want to keep Central School open in this location. Plans are being worked on for how City Center and Central School can co-exist. Mr. Conner noted that City Center can provide some educational opportunities for the school. A member of the audience expressed concern that there has been no action on a petition regarding the Hinesburg Road entrance to City Center. Mr. Conner noted the plan is to have all infrastructure within the public right-of-way. Mr. Hafter stressed that the land in question is privately owned and the city cannot take that land without providing compensation to the owner. Ms. Dooley said the question is how the city would pay for that land. Ms. Emery asked about “green building.” Mr. Conner said this discussion is taking place, but he noted that what would make this important to the developer would be some sort of benefit, e.g. increased density. Mr. Murray asked about minor roads. Mr. Conner said these could be either public or private. He added that from the city’s point of view, it would be better to have them be developed as the responsibility of the private sector. Ms. Dopp asked how aware developers are of the thinking of the city and the public. Mr. Conner said they are very aware. Mr. Hafter noted that landowners have turned down potential offers in the past because they were not in keeping with the city’s plans for the area. A member of the audience asked when the road will go in. Mr Conner said it won’t be this year. He explained the conflict between Act 250’s goals (to move traffic through an area as fast as reasonably possible) and the city’s goals (to make this a pedestrian­centered area with no “fast” traffic movement). A member of the audience asked what will prevent City Center from becoming just another big mall. Mr. Conner said the regulations will prevent that. Another audience member felt that having a school there is perfect for keeping a “neighborhood feeling.” Mr. Murray asked if there is enough money to address impacted intersections. Mr. Conner said there is money for the intersections at Market and Hinesburg Road and Market and Dorset St. and possibly some others. Mr. McKenzie of South Burlington Realty, a principal land owner in City Center, showed the approximately 33 acres owned by S. B. Realty. He said they had hired a company to look at the phasing potential of the area. He said that the results of a Phase I with no structured parking were not what they wanted as it would create a “sea of parking.” Even the creation of 2 parking decks (similar to that at Barnes & Noble) didn’t provide the urban center feel they are looking for. They then looked at reducing the parking burden by increasing the residential use to about 65% and the commercial use to 35%. For the residential use, parking could be put under the buildings. With this scenario, it would look more like what is envisioned for City Center. Mr. McKenzie stressed that it will take years to develop and that development will have to adjust to market conditions. Mr. Murray asked what parking would look like with the current thinking. Mr. McKenzie said 3 separate parking decks. Mr. Conner added that anything beyond that can’t be borne entirely by the private sector. Mr. Conner noted they are also looking at a “shared parking” concept. He said the important thing to remember is not to have so little parking that people won’t come there. 5. Discussion of Communications with U.S. Air Force regarding potential deployment of F-35 fighters to Burlington International Airport: Ms. Emery noted that March 1 is the deadline to submit the city’s comments. She expressed frustration with the lack of information that the city has received regarding noise levels. She said on the one hand they are being told they will be “somewhat higher” and on the other hand they are hearing they will be 2 to 4 times higher. She noted that in the Chamberlin neighborhood they have been losing homes because of high noise levels. Mr. Boucher noted that Air Guard noise does not figure into the noise levels that determine the loss of homes. Ms. Emery noted that most of the other Air Guard facilities being considered for the new F­35’s are in areas surrounded by hills and open fields, not in residential neighborhoods like this one with a City Center just a mile away. She added that without the F­35’s there will still be the F­16’s and the area won’t lose the jobs these provide. Mr. Hafter noted that the only information the city got came from websites. He said the city is being asked to comment on an environmental impact statement. Some of the things to be considered in those comments are: 1. Lack of information 2. History of noise issues 3. Location in a residential community 4. Need for a complete study of mitigation 5. Question of additional vehicle trip ends 6. A request by the city for a Steering Committee to include citizen input A member of the Air Guard said he understood the City’s concerns. He stressed this is not an Air National Guard initiative. He also noted that at present there is only one F-35 built, so there is no noise information available. He felt the information that it is twice as loud as the F­16’s is not true. He added that the city’s concerns are reasonable. Mr. Murray asked about the impact on the Guard here. The answer was that the F­16’s will have used up their lifespan by 2017, which means if there are no new aircraft, the Air Guard will not be here after that. This means 400 full-time jobs and total of 1100 full and part time jobs. Mr. Plumeau, the city’s representative to the Airport Commission, said he would do what he can to get information. He noted that the head of the F-35 program has recently been fired because they are so far behind, so it may be 6-10 years before that aircraft will be in regular production. Mr. Plumeau noted that the Air Guard presence provides more than jobs for the area. It provides such things as all-weather radar for general Airport use, which it might otherwise not have or have to pay for. Mr. Leavens noted there are problems with people being heard at Chamberlin School because of the noise of aircraft. He also noted there are lawsuits in the Netherlands, Norway and Florida because of these aircraft. Mr. Leavens read from a report that said the F-35 is 27 decibels louder than the F-16 at 500 feet and 500 mph. At 5000 feet it is still 19 decibels louder. No information is provided on decibel levels at takeoff and landing. He also noted that South Burlington is the only proposed site in the entire northeast section of the country. A member of the audience said that when a city in Florida requested more information from the Air Force, they were told it would cost them $1,500,000 to get it. That city has now sued the Air Force. A member of the audience asked how much say the city can actually have. Ms. Emery said the information she has seen says they are “not looking to ostracize the community.” She also felt that the public might have more of a say than an official city body. An audience member said it doesn’t make sense to have this military hardware in the middle of a residential community. Mr. Murray moved that the City Manager forward the list of concerns to the Air Force and to the State’s Congressional leaders. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Update on Channel 17 Activities: Ms. Davitian said this is the annual “check­in” with the City to see if Channel 17 can do anything to serve the city better. She noted they are going into negotiations with Comcast this spring and summer for a new contract, and it is important to reflect the community’s interests. She then reviewed the current services provided to the city and the potential for expanded services including the possible live broadcast of meetings. Mr. Boucher said he would like an index system to be able to research other information about a specific agenda item. Mr. Hafter suggested possible corporate or foundation sponsorship for the clickable agenda in order to save the city the $5000 annual fee. Ms. Davitian said they are willing to look into that. Mr. Knapp suggested the live telecast of the city’s Town Meeting where the budget is presented. Mr. Boucher suggested a possible merger of Channel 17 and RETN. Ms. Davitian said they are always looking at that. 7. Consideration of Request for Joint Meeting with Burlington City Council to Address Burlington International Airport Issues: Ms. Emery said her concern grew out of the Airport home purchase program and the question of whether the city has any power in all of this. She said the answer seems to be “probably not,” and that isn’t acceptable to her. She cited the proximity of the Airport to residential neighborhoods and to the developing City Center. She also noted that she was sensitive to the assets the Airport brings to the community but noted that Vermont law allows the city to put ordinances into place to control such things as noise and hours of operation as well as zoning. Ms. Emery said her concerns include giving South Burlington more of a voice in the Airport chain of command and addressing the loss of affordable, work-force housing in the city. One possible suggestion might be to have the Airport donate a percentage of parking fees to affordable housing. She was also concerned with how much open space will result from the loss of the homes being taken down or whether the Airport will want to fill that space with hotels, etc. Ms. Emery also raised the issue of the proposed Greyhound Bus Terminal at the Airport. She felt this would bring in more vehicles than would be absorbed from Canadians using the bus instead of driving to the Airport from Canada. There has been no answer proposed to the shuttle service issue for people from Burlington who use the bus. She suggested possible alternative locations at the new AMTRAK station or the recently vacated General Dynamics location. Mr. Hafter said he was willing to talk with Burlington people to see if they are willing to have such a meeting. Mr. Plumeau said he felt it would take a policy level discussion. He felt Brian Searles would be very interested in facilitating that, and he himself would be willing to help in the effort. Mr. Plumeau said there is very little history of hands on management of the Airport by the Burlington City Council. Ms. Emery said that makes sense because they don’t have to deal with the resulting issues: loss of housing, noise, etc. Mr. Boucher felt the discussion has to be “delicate” and with no threats. Mr. Murray suggested developing a “memorandum of issues” for the Airport Commission and Airport staff as a courtesy. It should include what the city feels is a reasonable response to the issues. But he questioned what the city would/could do if it doesn’t get what it wants. 8. Review and Consideration of Code of Ethics for Elected and Appointed Officials and Conflict of Interest Policies: Members agreed to postpone this discussion due to the late hour. Ms. Dooley moved to continue this item to the first meeting in April. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Consideration of Award of Construction of San Remo Drive Streetscape Improvements to Lower Bidder, Engineers Construction, Inc., (ECI); STP 05(11): Mr. Hafter noted financing is from a state grant with a local match which will be from “in kind” services. Ms. Dooley moved to award the construction of San Remo Drive Streetscape contract to Engineers Construction, Inc. as presented. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Review of Development Review Board Agenda for 16 February 2010: No issues were raised. 11. Review and Approve Minutes of 1 February 2010: It was noted that on p. 1 under item #1, “that neighborhood” should better read “the Chamberlin neighborhood.” Ms. Emery said that on p. 8, at the bottom of the page, she did not favor a Charter change process but favored a public vote. Mr. Murray moved to approve the Minutes of 1 February as amended. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 13. Executive Session: Ms. Emery moved the Council convene in Executive Session to discuss personnel issues and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Regular Session: Council returned to regular session. Mr. Murray moved adjournment. Ms. Emery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:15pm. _________________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.