Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/05/2011 (2)CITY COUNCIL 5 DECEMBER 2011 The South Burlington City Council held a pre Town Meeting on Monday, 5 December 2011, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: S. Dooley, Chair; M. Emery, J. Knapp, P. Engels, R. Greco Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Assistant City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; Rep. A. Pugh; B. Stuono, R. Cassidy, M. Young, S. Dopp, B. Bull, T. Barritt, M. Provost, R. McKay, D. Boehm 1. Pre Town Meeting for Special Election of 6 December 2011: Mr. Cassidy explained that the School Board was very interested in Article I which related to budget voting. He then reviewed this history of budget adoption in South Burlington. Prior to citizens voting on the city and school budgets, there used to be no vote needed if the budget was below a certain threshold. Then, the citizens voted to amend the City Charter to allow voting on all budgets. There was a provision that if a budget failed twice, the budget for the next year would be the same as the previous year with an adjustment for the CPI increase. The current proposed amendment would require that a budget be voted on until it is approved. There is an additional feature that allows the city or schools to spend based on the previous year’s budget until a budget is adopted. Mr. Cassidy noted that in the previous few years, the school budget increase was actually less than the CPI increase, so if a budget failed, the budget that went into effect could be higher than the rejected budget. Mr. Cassidy added that this was not good for the School Board because they didn’t know why people might not be voting for a budget. Mr. Young asked about the time line for the proposed Charter change to take effect. Ms. Dooley said it has to be approved by the State Legislature if it passes in the city. The hope is this can happen so that the change is in effect for the upcoming March election. Mr. Conner asked if South Burlington ever turned down a budget. Mr. Cassidy said not in his memory. Rep. Pugh asked by what date there would have to be legislative approval to affect the March vote. Mr. Cassidy said some lead time would be needed to properly warn the vote. Mr. Miller added that the city could provide a draft of the amendment, if it passes, by the day after the vote. Mr. Cassidy felt that having an approval by the March vote is an admirable thought but challenging. (Ms. Emery left the meeting temporarily at this point.) Ms. Dooley then reviewed Article II on the ballot. She noted that the Charter currently requires a city-wide reappraisal every three years. The proposed amendment would eliminate this requirement and have the city fall under State reappraisal requirements. Ms. Dooley noted that the last reappraisal in 2006 cost taxpayers $400,000., and would probably be more expensive now. She stressed that the proposed amendment in no way affects a property owner’s right to appeal an appraisal at any time. Mr. Miller noted that there are no criteria in the Charter as to why an appraisal should be needed every 3 years. State laws do provide such criteria (coefficient of dispersal and common level of appraisal). The city is nowhere near to meeting those criteria. Ms. Dooley added that the city gets money every year from the State toward a future reappraisal, and the city is building up a fund for when that will be needed. Mr. Young asked if the city would have to do a reappraisal if the amendment fails. Mr. Miller said they would have no choice but to start the process and try to figure out how to pay for it. Mr. Conner then explained Article III which involves a land exchange between the city and Highlands Development. In this exchange, the city would give Highlands 7.25 acres of the southwest corner of the Wheeler Natural Park in exchange for 20+ acres and $10,000 to revegetate the land and provide pedestrian trails. Mr. Conner added that the city is committed to placing the 20+ acres under a perpetual conservation easement and then turning the property over to a third party such as a Land Trust. Mr. Conner then reviewed the history of litigation regarding this piece of land. If the Article passes, the litigation would be settled, and Highlands would have the right to develop the land they would be receiving. Mr. Conner noted that the litigation that failed in the Supreme Court cost the city $80,000, and to date the litigation regarding the Master Plan has cost just under $100,000. Future costs are unknown but would probably be significant. Ms. Dooley asked if there has ever been another settlement that voters have been a part of. Mr. Conner said not that he is aware of. Ms. Dooley noted the public’s attachment to the Wheeler property and to the wildlife corridor. Because the settlement does allow for some development of the property, it was felt the voters should be consulted. Mr. Provost said that his driveway is the entrance to the Taft development, and he knew nothing of this Article until last week. He asked about the process. Ms. Dooley said it was discussed at the 17 October City Council meeting and was explained in The Other Paper. Mr. Provost asked why abutters weren’t consulted as they are a party to the litigation. Mr. Miller said the city hadn’t heard from the attorneys that were other parties to the litigation. Mr. Conner added that all the city was required to do was to keep the Court informed. Mr. Provost asked why the ballot item doesn’t say this is the settlement of litigation. Mr. Knapp explained that ballot items must be written in a specific way with no commentary. The ballot item had to follow this formula. Mr. Provost expressed frustration because the homeowners in the area felt confident the city was fighting the development. They felt they were “blindsided” when they heard of the land swap. Ms. Dooley said it was very speculative that the city could have won the court case, and there was risk involved in going forward in court. She stressed that the City Council has to take into account what is best for the whole city, and this was felt to be a reasonable proposal. Another area resident felt the land in question is worth more than $2,000,000., which is much more than the cost of litigation would be. Ms. Dooley said that to the best of her knowledge the land has not been appraised. The development plan that would have gone into effect would have allowed for 9 units in each of 4 buildings. The resident felt the city was “giving someone $2,000,000. Mr. Engels said if the city doesn’t, the court will, and it could be much worse than that. A representative of National Gardening asked about covenants in place for the 7.25 acre parcel. She noted the purchase had been by a bond vote of the public. Ms. Dooley said there are no permanent restrictions on that property. Mr. Miller added that the City Council could enter into this agreement without a public vote. The National Gardening representative said they are generally in favor of the Article but would like a buffer between them and the development of the 32 homes that would be allowed if the Article passes. Mr. Miller said that any proposal for development would have to go through the regular DRB process, and National Gardening’s request could be made to the DRB at that time. Mr. Conner added that since there is no present zoning for that area, screening could be required in the regulations. Another area resident said many voters know nothing about this proposed legal settlement and he was concerned that there could still be problems. Ms. Dooley stressed that many efforts were made to provide information to the voters in a variety of forums. Mr. Boehm questioned how the zoning will be changed. He said he was startled to hear that a zoning change was part of the deal. Mr. Conner explained that as part of the settlement the “City Council would work in good faith” to change the zoning. This would go through the regular public process with hearings at both the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Boehm said there is a lot of confusion in the neighborhoods about what this means. He felt it should have been brought to the condo association. Mr. Conner noted that staff did extend an offer to members of some of the Highlands buildings to meet with them. The offer was not accepted. Mr. Young asked if the city would have to pay for a conservation easement. Mr. Knapp said sometimes organizations ask for a donation. He didn’t know of any municipality that has ever done that. Ms. Greco said she would personally cover any such donation. Mr. Provost asked if there are a minimum number of voters that has to show up. Mr. Miller said there is not. Ms. Dopp noted that when the South Burlington Land Trust heard of this, their first reaction was negative, but as they dealt into the facts, they saw it as the best possible solution to a bad situation. It is costing the city money to be in court, and it is costing wildlife. She stressed that the Land Trust would gain nothing from this. There were no further comments, and the Pre-Town Meeting ended at 7:40 p.m. _______________________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.