Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/07/2011CITY COUNCIL 7 FEBRUARY 2011 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 7 February 2011, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: M. Boucher, Chair; S. Dooley, M. Emery, J. Knapp, F. Murray Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rustenn, Assistant City Manager; J. Rabidoux, Director of Public Works; K. Murphy, City Manager’s Staff; G. Maille, S. Magowan R. Greco, S. Dopp, B. Stuono, C. Cole, G. Quimby, T. Duff, M. Boomhower, B. Penniman, M. Landry, F. Geier, D. Fleming 1. Other Business & Announcements: Mr. Maille questions where things stand with regard to getting sound data from the Airport. Mr. Miller said he had requested the data in December. He met with Airport officials in January and requested it again. He hasn’t heard back since then. Mr. Maille asked if the Council had received the notes he had sent regarding his positions on the living wall. Councilors said they had. Mr. Maille noted that he had seen the Airport’s presentation on their 20­year plan and that it included nothing on noise mitigation. He felt the city should respond to this. 2. Announcements & City Manager’s Report: Ms. Dooley: The School Superintendent Search Committee has 5 finalists, all but one from Vermont. There will be a meeting on Thursday to determine whom the School Board should interview. At the MPO meeting in January, the main focus was on the merger process. Ms. Dooley noted that she has been elected to the Board of Champlain Housing Trust. Ms. Emery: Asked if there has been any response from Bob McEwing regarding the Airport presenting its 20-year plan to the City Council. Mr. Miller said Mr. McEwing has expressed willingness to do this in March or April. Ms. Emery asked if that means the City can make comments beyond the 28 February deadline. Mr. Miller said he asked about the deadline and has had no response. Mr. Miller asked if the Council would like to ask the Airport to come in for the 22 February meeting. Councilors said they would. Mr. Boucher added that if the Airport can’t come in for that meeting that Councilors Emery and Dooley prepare comments since they attended the Airport’s presentation. He felt it was a “hard and fast” data. Ms. Dooley and Mr. Rabidoux said they felt it wasn’t a firm date. Mr. Rabidoux said the whole process seemed informal. Mr. Maille noted that the Airport’s checklist asks whether they provided time for public comment and whether they presented the plan to the local governing body. Ms. Greco said there was a comment made that the Airport had coordinated the plan with the city. When she asked whether this was Burlington or South Burlington, the response was “both.” Mr. Knapp felt the presentation on the 22nd shouldn’t take up too much time as there are other serious items on that agenda. Mr. Boucher said if there are 20 people coming in with comments, it may take 2 hours. Ms. Emery also suggested having both the City Council and School Board candidates introduce themselves at the Town Meeting prior to the 1 March vote. Mr. Miller: Attended the GBIC legislative breakfast which focused on encouraging business development. Mr. Miller suggested that the next scheduled city legislative breakfast is very close to the first one. Mr. Knapp suggested a date closer to the crossover date. Mr. Miller will work on another date. Met with the Legislature last week and will be testifying on TIFs this week. Will be chairing the VLCT Board meeting this week and is also co-chairing the Sustainable Initiatives Committee. 3. Presentation of the I-89 Split Ramp/Intercept-Intermodal Facility: Ms. Boomhower noted that the parties involved in this potential project include: City of Burlington, City of South Burlington, Vermont Agency of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Senator Leahy’s office, and the MPO. Mr. Penniman explained that an “intermodal/intercept” facility is not the same as a transit center which generally doesn’t include a parking component. The FTA defines and intermodal/intercept facility as one which requires all modes including regional transit, shuttles, motor vehicle, walking and biking enabling mode transfers. An acceptable facility design includes both surface and structured parking. It also may include “shell” space to allow for income producing office/retail tenants. Mr. Penniman then reviewed the history of the present concept which was first conceived when the CATMA Board Strategic Plan called for CATMA to share in planning, development and investment in 3 strategically located parking facilities to the south, east (Exit 14) and north. In subsequent years, conceptual designs were completed for an Exit 14 facility. Sen. Leahy secured $3,00,000. For the Route 2 “third lane” and $4,000,000. For the I­89 split ramp. In 2005, the feasibility study for this ramp was completed. The 2011 CCMPO Regional Park and Ride Plan update has the Sheraton/Exit 14 plan as its #1 priority. A scoping study is to be completed this year. It would include a possible extension of the College St. shuttle (possibly to U-Mall and or the Airport). Mr. Penniman showed slides of two intermodal/intercept facilities, one in Lawrence, Mass., and the other in Ames, Iowa. The latter is similar to what would be located in South Burlington and includes one level of office space which provides income. Mr. Murray asked if the size of the facility has been determined. Mr. Penniman said the scoping study will do that. The Exit 14 Split Ramp option would provide access to the Sheraton and to the Catamount Drive areas. It can be developed within the existing right-of-way. Mr. Boucher asked if the split ramp would be only for the southbound exit. Mr. Penniman said it would. He noted that UVM owns the parking lot behind the Sheraton and leases it to the Sheraton to address their parking shortfall. The current thinking is that the proposed facility would ultimately have 1200 parking space. A shuttle bus service is also envisioned. The top level of the facility would be at the same height as the top level of the Sheraton and there would be a bridge connection to the Conference Center. Mr. Boucher asked about a site for a UVM athletic facility which has been discussed. Mr. Penniman said the intermodal/intercept facility is not crucial to any arena facility, but it is complementary. The funding mechanism requires a 20% match which Mr. Penniman said CATMA would provide. He did not see any financial obligations for the City of South Burlington. Ms. Boomhower said the scoping study will help understand the conditions of the site (traffic volumes, etc.) and will define the purpose and need for the facility. It will identify a “user profile” and size requirements. It will also identify local and regional concerns and suggest alternatives. Finally, it will develop capital, operating/maintenance costs and tenant participation. She said the study will probably take 12 months, after which the next steps will be identified. Mr. Pennimas said the estimate to build the facility is $12,000,000-14,000,000. Mr. Murray asked if the expectation is that user fees would pay for the maintenance of the facility. Mr. Penniman said it is. Mr. Boucher asked if there has been any interest from the Airport. Mr. Penniman said there has for employee parking and Canadian customer parking, etc. He added that it could also be a resource for the South Burlington City Center and Fletcher Allen, which is now leasing space from UVM. Ms. Dooley asked how traffic would exit from the facility. Mr. Penniman said the exit would be onto Williston Road. That is why the 3rd lane is crucial. Ms. Dooley asked about governance. Mr. Penniman said that will be decided. Mr. Murray asked how South Burlington can participate. Mr. Penniman said the city will be “at the table.” He noted that Mr. Conner and Mr. Rabidoux are already involved. Mr. Magowan, Vice Chair of the CCTA Board, said CCTA has no objection to the scoping study. Their concern is that it should not be made easier for people to drive into Burlington and South Burlington when it is possible to use mass transit. He noted that CCTA is merging with ex-urban systems to provide transportation to the downtown transit hub. Ms. Greco asked about the cost of the scoping study. Mr. Penniman said that is paid for by the state with a 20% match from CATMA. Councilors fully supported the city’s participation in the discussion process. 4. Some frequently asked questions and answers about the FY12 Budget: Questions: Why not more dramatic changes to the pension plan? Answer: The plan can’t be changed unilaterally; changes must be negotiated with bargaining units, and to get a change, the city will also have to give up something. The city has asked that future employees go into the new VMERS plan. Mr. Rusten explained the long-term implication. The city does not want to spend the money to train police officers and then have them go to work in another community or out of state because of better benefits. Question: Why not just declare bankruptcy and have employee benefits/contracts modified? Answer: An attempt to declare bankruptcy would most likely be unsuccessful in court and would incur legal costs. There would also be an impact on the Grand List and the value of people’s property. Question: Why not vote down the borrowing of money for the Airport Parkway Treatment Plan to lower the sewer rate increase: Answer: The voters approved borrowing money to upgrade the plant. Some of the anticipated grant money was not received, and the cost of obtaining some grants was very expensive. The city pledged $2,000,000 to the project, which is no longer available. The contractors must be paid when the project is completed. If the city doesn’t fulfill its obligation, it faces breach of contract charges. Mr. Miller noted the city is looking at reducing extraneous costs, but it has no choice but to continue the project. If the voters approve the ballot item, the city hopes to get a 2% borrowing from the State. The State has indicated there is a good chance this will happen. The city is also looking at interim borrowing if the State money is not available in time to pay the contractors. If the voters turn down the ballot item, the sewer rates would have to be increased even more. Ms. Dooley asked what would happen if the budget passes and the bond vote fails. Mr. Miller said they could revote the bond issue, but the budget would be “problematical” if it fails. He suggested possibly waiting until after the election for the proposed rate increase in case the bond vote fails. Rates can be raised only once a year, and if the bond fails, rates will have to be increased even more. Ms. Dopp cited the need to inform voters of this. Mr. Miller noted that he and Mr. Rusten will be appearing on Channel 17 to discuss this. He stressed that addressing this situation any other way would cost more. Question: Why not vote down the budget twice and then have the same tax rate and utility fees as now? Answer: If the budget is voted down twice, the resulting budget would be even higher than what is proposed for FY12 by as much as $700,000. This is because FY11 did not include expenditures from special funds which are included in the FT 12. Mr. Miller said he believes that what is being proposed is the cheapest way to go forward. Ms. Quimby noted that there were sidewalks near Hinesburg Rd., Barrett St., and Kennedy Drive that had not been plowed this morning. Children were walking in the road and waiting for school buses in the road. She said this is unacceptable, and that the budget should be cut elsewhere. Mr. Miller said he had been told that all sidewalks had been plowed. He stressed that there has been no reduction in plowing to reduce the budget. Mr. Rusten said he has had other people tell him that the city should save money by not plowing sidewalks at all. He stressed that he does not suggest this. Ms. Quimby said if people are being told to use buses instead of cars, they shouldn’t have to wait for the bus in the road. 5. Discussion about Funding Social Service Organizations: Mr. Miller said the questions surrounding this item include: A. Should the FY2011 budgeted amount be spent? B. Should the city do this again in FY2012? C. Should the policy be codified? Councilors felt that since a commitment had been made for FY2011, it should be honored. There will be further discussion about the future of this funding. 6. Consider Approval of Certificate of No Appeal or Suit Pending with the City: Mr. Miller said he had never seen this type of action before, but the city needs to say there is no appeal or suit pending regarding its grand list. Ms. Emery moved to approve the Certificate of No Appeal or Suite Pending as presented. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Consideration of Approval of Amended Engagement Agreement with Auditing Firm of RHR Smith & Co: The Auditors will be doing 4 audits (including special funds audits for 2 years). The additional cost is $16,000. This is still lower than the next lowest cost in the bidding process. Mr. Miller stressed that is essential to conclude an audit for FY2010. The billing by RHR Smith & Co. will straddle two years. There was additional budgeting in anticipation of this expense. Mr. Murray moved to approve the extra cost as presented and to authorize the City Manager to sign on behalf of the city. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consider Approval of Boards, Commissions, and Committee Attendance Policy: Ms. Dooley noted she has been on other committees where this approach did not seem to be effective. Mr. Miller noted that as far as can be determined, there has been only one committee member withbelow70% attendance, and that board has never had a quorum problem. Mr. Boucher questioned whether this is a “solution looking for a problem.” He was concerned that this could exclude people who have unpredictable schedules from volunteering for the city, and he would have a problem with this. Mr. Murray felt that requiring 80% attendance is high. He was concerned it would affect people’s encouragement to participate. He didn’t feel it was worth the risk. Ms. Dooley felt the expectation of what is expected is appropriate. Mr. Boucher suggested something more informal. Mr. Murray suggested the following language: “It is an expectation that people will make a majority of meetings.” Ms. Dopp suggested an “expectation” rather than a formal policy. Mr. Miller suggested possibly changing the application form to indicate an expectation of regular attendance. Committee chairs could also be asked to report on attendance. Mr. Knapp felt it was important to encourage everyone to participate, especially younger people with family and work commitments who have a perspective on what the city will look like in 20 years. He didn’t think it was good to have only retired people on boards and committees. Mr. Geier felt it was the responsibility of a committee chair to find a meeting time when all members can be present. He didn’t want to see anything more formal than that. Mr. Stuono felt attendance should be addressed by the board in questions. He asked what had become of the alternate policy. Mr. Miller said there is a policy, but no one has expressed an interest in being an alternate. Mr. Geier also noted that it is possible to participate in a committee’s work without attending all meetings. 9. Consider Approval of Surplus Property Disposal Policy: Mr. Miller said this is for property that is no longer of use to the city. Disposal of property valued at between $100 and $10,000 would be at the discretion of the City Manager. It could be traded in or sold at auction, etc. About $10,000 would be at the discretion of the City Council. Under $100 would be a decision by a department head. There would be no exemptions. This policy does not cover the sale of real property. Mr. Murray moved to approve the Surplus Property Disposal Policy as presented. Mr. Knapp seconded. After some discussion it was agreed to send the policy back to be redrafted to clarify the values element. 10. Consider Approval of funding Policy for South Burlington Retirement Income Plan: Mr. Miller noted there is no active funding policy. The proposed policy would require: A. Annual review of the employee census and available plan data by actuaries to calculate future costs B. Recommendations provided by the actuaries to the City Manager and Assistant City Manager, who will make the recommendations public C. The City Council will make every reasonable effort to assume the city’s contributions to the pension fund to meet both normal contribution levels and any contributions needed to amortize any unfunded pension obligations based on a 20-year amortization schedule D. Investigation by the administrator of favorable financing opportunities for unfunded pension obligations. Mr. Boucher asked how the city would deal with a true amortization. Mr. Miller said it would turned into a fixed debt. The city could also talk about “smoothing” to smooth out the “up and down” fluctuation. Ms. Dooley noted some grammatical changes. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Funding Policy for the South Burlington Retirement Income Plan as amended above. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Consider Approval of Policy for Issuing Payments in Normal and Special Circumstances: Mr. Miller noted he has been asking the Council to approve bills before checks are cut. There may be circumstances when writing a check quickly can save significant money. The City Manager or Assistant City Manager would be the only ones to authorize a special payment, and there would be simultaneous communication to the City Council members. Mr. Murray moved to approve the Policy for Issuing Payments in Normal and Special Circumstances as presented. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Review & Approve Minutes of 10, 12, 13, and 18 January 2011: Mr. Murray moved to approve the Minutes of 10 January 2011 as written. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Murray moved to approve the Minutes of 12 January 2011 as written. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Murray moved to approve the Minutes of 13 January 2011 as written. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Murray moved to approve the Minutes of 18 January 2011 as written. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. 14. Executive session: Mr. Murray moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel and other matters the premature disclosure of which would result in a disadvantage to the city, and to take no further action except for adjournment. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 15. Regular Session: Council returned to regular session. As there was no further business Mr. Knapp moved for Council adjournment. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Council adjourned. _____________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.