Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/20/2011CITY COUNCIL 20 JANUARY 2011 Draft The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Thursday, 20 January 2011, at 6:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Councilors Present: M. Boucher, Chair; S. Dooley, M. Emery, J. Knapp, F. Murray Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Assistant City Manager; D. Kinville, City Clerk; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; Chief T. Whipple, Police Department; Chief D. Brent, Fire Department; K. Murphy, City Manager’s Staff; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Superintendent; L. Murphy, Community Library; T. Hubbard, Recreation Department; D. Fleming, R. Greco, K. Donahue, B. Gilbert, F. Geier, B. Bull, Mr. & Mrs. Moore 1. Review Agenda: Mr. Boucher reviewed the meeting agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to agenda items: No issues were raised. 3.Budget Workshop to Review FY2012 Budget: A. Capital Budget: Mr. Miller explained the City Clerk’s “200 Budget” which includes funding for “Help America Vote,” the digitizing of land records, and the preservation of land records. Mr. Rusten said there has been an effort to reduce the number of special funds. The plan had been to eliminate all of them; however, the Auditor suggested not doing that this year. The relationship of these funds to the General Fund is not yet known, and there is a question as to whether these funds owe money to the General Fund or vice versa. Mr. Rusten noted that nothing was budgeted for these funds, but over $1,000,000 was spend and about $1,000,000 has been received. It is also possible that in FY2010 these funds may have brought in more money than was spent. The City Manager’s Fund is money from a community development grant for planning work. It appears that some of this money may have been used to offset the tax rate. Mr. Hubbard said a number of uses never came through the Recreation Department, but a majority of that money was used to offset the bonded debt at Dorset Park. Mr. Rusten noted that the only special fund that is in a separate account is the Blanchette Fund, which was a bequest to the Community Library. Mr. Miller said there is something over $300,000 in that account, and the money being spent from it is not as much as investments are returning. Mr. Boucher asked if there is enough information on the largest of these accounts. Mr. Rusten said there is not, but they will be working on this over the next months. The accounts are in the budget, but are not completely integrated into the General Fund. Mr. Knapp asked about the FEMA grant. Chief Brent said that is the grant for paramedic training. Mr. Miller said that is a reimbursement grant, so the money can’t have been co-mingled. Ms. Emery asked if there are “holes that can’t be filled.” Mr. Miller said the reimbursement funds are not an issue. The spending for 2012 is supported by the revenue that will be coming in. For FY2011, Mr. Miller said they are “winging it.” For FY2010, they can show what was budgeted and what came in. Mr. Rusten said they have “erred on the side of caution.” He added they did not want to eliminate a fund if there might be a legal obligation for it. Ms. Emery asked how it was determined which funds should go into the General Fund. Mr. Rusten said they met with Department Managers and if a Manager said this was an “in and out” account every year, it went into the General Fund. He added that the Auditor will have to decide what to do to make all of the funds, including the General Fund, whole. Mr. Rusten stressed that these funds have never been budgeted before. Ms. Moore asked if there is a functional difference between the 200 and 600 accounts. Mr. Miller said it appears they ran out of 200 numbers. Mr. Rusten said it also appears that 600 funds were used more for donations and 200 funds for grants. Mr. Miller said most of these funds were created to avoid bringing them to the voters. Ms. Dooley asked what the Cemetery Fund is. Mr. Rabidoux said Public Works takes in some money to do special upgrades. Mr. Miller said this might involve repairing a monument. He noted that the city has 2 cemeteries and that by law, if a private cemetery is abandoned; the municipality has to take it over in perpetuity. Mr. Rusten thanked Department Heads who have spent many hours trying to figure this entire out. b. Capital Budget: Mr. Rusten reviewed items where a decision has been made to delay them for a year or so (e.g., ambulance, fire engine, etc.). He noted that all of the costs in the capital budget for FY2012 result in 9 cents of the total tax rate. Mr. Miller explained that the 5­year capital plan makes sure the impact on the taxpayer isn’t wildly different from one year to the next. Mr. Fleming said he was encouraged to see this kind of planning. He asked whether there is anything on the horizon development-wise that could affect these numbers. Mr. Connor said housing is steady, but there was nothing anticipated commercial-wise in FYl2012. Mr. Miller said the anticipation is that there will be a ½% growth for the grand list in 2012. Ms. Greco questioned whether growth brings in more tax money. Mr. Miller said it depends on the type of growth, whether it is high or low density, etc. He stressed that it is not a simple thing. 4. Consideration to Adopt FY12 General Fund, Special Funds, Water, Stormwater, and Water Pollution Control Budgets: Mr. Miller drew attention to the added interest costs that have been provided. These result in a tax rate of 2.61. He encouraged the Council to increase the staff challenge to $250,000. This would bring down the tax rate to 2.25. For a $100,000 home in South Burlington, this would mean a $22.50 tax increase for FY2012. For the average home in the city ($316,000), it would mean a $71.10 increase. For the average condominium ($208,000), it would mean an increase of $46.80. Mr. Miller noted that the school tax rate is being reduced by 1 cent. So the total increase for municipal and school will be 1.25 cents. Mr. Miller stressed that the city’s unions worked with the city to address financial problems. This has resulted in savings in medical insurance and other expenses. He said the hope is to continue to do this. A member of the audience asked where the city would be authorized to make cuts if the $250,000 challenge isn’t met. Mr. Gilbert asked where the state looks for cuts and noted it is usually with highway aid, which puts the burden for this back on the property tax. He said what concerns him most is that there is less paving done and this has an impact on the city’s roads. He was also concerned that the state is now keeping some fees for itself that used to be shared with towns. Mr. Miller said the city tries to advocate for taxpayers at Montpelier and with the federal government and has been successful in getting many grants. Mr. Donahue asked if impact fees have been eliminated. Mr. Connor explained that there are still impact fees for recreation, roads, and fire service/equipment. The impact fee for schools were eliminated because the schools had done everything they could legally do with that money. The school population is also decreasing, so there is no argument that development is impacting the schools. Mr. Donahue said he had no problem with raising his taxes to get roads properly maintained. He said it costs more to keep his car repaired from damages caused by poorly maintained roads. Mr. Murray then moved to approve the FY2012 budget as amended to include an additional $100,000 challenge. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Knapp then moved to approve the Special Fund budget based on the 20 January 2011 printed sheet of information. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Water Department budget as shown on pages 3-4 of the FY2012 budget for a total of $2,337,437 in expenses. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Water Pollution Control budget as shown on pages 1-3 of the FY2012 budget for a total of $2,707,410 in expenses. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. A member of the audience asked about the Airport Parkway Treatment Plant situation. Mr. Miller explained that the cost to secure one grant was significantly more than anticipated, so there is a shortage of funds. Also, there is a question as to whether cash will be available to make the final payments to the contractor. To address this, the city is looking at interim borrowing. These costs are built into the FY2012 budget and tax rates. There will be a ballot item to ask the voters for authority to borrow money to address the needs. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Stormwater budget as shown on pages 4-5 of the FY2012 budget for a total of $1,737,618 in expenses. Ms Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Donahue said he would like the city to take over storm water ponds regardless of their condition. Mr. Rabidoux explained that the Ordinance requires that only a fully licensed pond can be taken over. He added that the Stormwater Utility is in negotiation with many neighborhoods to take over these ponds, and there are a number of projects being done to upgrade the ponds. The fee increase is due to the dissolution of funds. There was money ‘on paper,’ but not in reality. The additional money is to replenish these funds so the Utility can meet all of its current and projected obligations. Mr. Boucher said that he has asked that when the city does take over the ponds, there is an understanding of what this will mean in the long term. Mr. Miller said there is money in the budget to do the improvements with those associations that the city has already worked with. 4. Consider requesting the Planning Commission to add specific focus areas/projects to their FY2012 Workplan: Ms. Dooley noted that the Planning Commission is looking at “projects on the horizon” and has prioritized 34 such projects. She said that she and Councilor Emery have a list of things they want the Commission to look at. Mr. Boucher noted the Council and staff only got these materials today, and it is difficult for them to consider a response. Mr. Connor said he would glad to bring these to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Ms. Dooley said first on the list for consideration is affordable housing. She noted that housing is usually at the high end of what is affordable, and this is too high for a majority of those who meet “affordability” criteria. She said she would favor a change that would provide a range of affordability. Mr. Connor said affordability is on the Commission’s list, but the solution will be challenging. He noted that South Burlington’s density bonus for affordability is the only one that developers have ever taken advantage of. Ms. Dooley said the second concern is the application of TDRs in the Southeast Quadrant. She noted that the regulations allow density to go from 1.2 per acre to 4 per acre with a TDR with nothing to align the development to adjacent densities. The suggestion is for the possibility of R-2, R-3 and R-4, depending on location. Mr. Connor said he can present this to the Planning Commission. He noted that the premise is a balance between sending and receiving areas. In order to provide that range of densities, there would have to be a reduction in the areas to be conserved or the identification of additional areas to receive increased densitities. Third on the list would be a buffer between residential and commercial districts. Ms. Emery noted that the Airport is exempt from the city’s Noise Ordinance. Mr. Connor noted that the Airport is already on the Commission’s list of priorities. Next on the list is the possibility of a minimum lot size for a PUD. Ms. Emery said that neighborhoods have characters, and a PUD on a smaller lot can change the character of a neighborhood. It can also provide a challenge to emergency services. The list continues with a request to look at how density is calculated with regard to undevelopable land and to exclude wetlands, steep slopes and other non-buildable areas (or a percentage of them) from density calculations. The next item would require road frontage in all residential districts except the SEQ and Queen City Park. Mr. Connor noted that the SEQ has the strongest requirement for road frontage and for houses to face the street. The final item on the list would require cell phone towers to be located in non-residential zones, and for those in industrial and/or commercial zones to include a buffer from residential boundaries. Mr. Connor noted that the VLCT has proposed model ordinances which can be part of the city’s zoning or a stand­alone ordinance. He also noted that under federal law, a community cannot consider the health effects of cell towers when they are being requested. Mr. Donahue said the city also has to do away with waivers. He felt developers have “run over us” for 15 years. Ms. Greco said they city has to consider the environmental cost of overdevelopment. Mr. Knapp noted that the proposed solutions for items #4 and #6 will effectively eliminate the possibility of affordable housing in the city. He cited the immense cost of development and the scope of regulations. He was concerned with sending conflicting instructions to the Planning Commission. He said he would be comfortable sending the first paragraphs of the concerns without the proposed changes. Mr. Murray then moved to send the list of concerns as presented to the Planning Commission. Ms. Dooley seconded. The motion passed 4-1, with Mr. Knapp voting against. 5. Executive Session: Ms. Emery moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations, and legal matters and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. 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.