Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/27/2012CITY COUNCIL 27 AUGUST 2012 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 27 August 2012, at 5:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: R. Greco, Chair; S. Dooley, P. Engels, P. Mackenzie, H. Riehle Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Deputy City Manager; D. Kinville, City Clerk; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; M. Lyons, Assessor's Office; S. Stitzel, City Attorney; S. Dopp, M. Young, B. Stuono, G. Johnston, N. Simson, L. Vera, M. Picard, F. Johnston, G. Maille 1. Executive Session: Ms. Dooley moved the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations and litigation, Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Following the Executive Session, Mr. Engels moved that the Council exit Executive Session. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: 1. Agenda Review: Mr. Miller asked to add one additional warrant to the Consent Agenda. Members agreed. 2. Consent Agenda: A. Sign Disbursements Ms. Riehle moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the added warrant. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Hearing Regarding City Center Tax Increment Financing District and Possible Approval of Resolution Authorizing Submission of the Plan to the Vermont Economic Progress Council: Ms. Blanchard explained that the Tax Increment Financing District (TIF) is an economic tool to allow for infrastructure in the City Center. Ms. Dooley moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Young asked what the application fee is. Mr. Miller said the fee is $5000 plus $15,000 to hire a consultant to review the application. This is non-refundable. There was no further public comment. Ms. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Miller then read the Resolution. Mr. Engels moved to approve the Resolution and Authorization to Certify as present. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. First Public Hearing on City Council's Proposed City Charter Amendment regarding the South Burlington Community Library: Ms. Mackenzie moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Dooley read the amendment. Mr. Johnston said he has read the City Charter, and it speaks of Library Trustees and nothing else. Mr. Miller said that in discussing governance issues, they came upon the Hartford decision. Under statute, Library Trustees were responsible for hiring and day-to- day affairs of the Library. In discussing this with Library staff, everyone agreed that having the Library as a department of the city would be in everyone's best interest. The Library staff would have sole control over the content of the Library collections. Mr. Johnston said Charter changes are significant and should not be done precipitously. He felt this is not the only approach to the situation, and he wanted to be sure due diligence had been done. Ms. Greco said legal advise was that this is the way to go. Mr. Johnston said he is concerned that there is a potential loss of something he values very much. He noted that in several places the word "may" is used, which suggested the city might not have to consult with Library staff on important matters. Ms. Simson, Chair of the current Library Board, said the Board felt it had signed on as volunteers to act as advisors to the Library. The Hartford decision put them in a spot that would not benefit the Library (doing the day-to-day administrative work). The Library had been functioning well when it was believed it was a department of the city. They tried to achieve the same thing with the Charter change. The Library Board's job is to make sure the freedoms of the Library are maintained. She felt this Charter change does that. Mr. Miller said they had discussed the use of the word "shall" instead of "may" in the places indicated by Mr. Johnston. It was felt that this might preclude actions in an emergency situation (e.g., flooding). There is a Memorandum of Understanding that indicates every effort will be made to make joint decisions. There was no further public comment. Ms. Mackenzie moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. It was noted that the second public hearing on this proposed Charter change will be on 4 September, 6 p.m. 5. First Public Hearing on City Council's Proposed City Charter Amendment regarding the City Clerk position: Mr. Engels moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Vera said she has been a city resident since the late 1980's and currently serves on the Board of Civil Authority. She knows the City Clerk well and has been following this closely. She believes the City Clerk should be maintained as an elected position. She felt the city needs to heal, and cited the "flurry" of Charter changes which, she felt, undermines trust in City Hall. Ms. Vera said this is a very damaging discussion. She cited a trust factor in the checks and balances of having the City Clerk as an elected position. She also felt some of the arguments have been misleading. Another audience member strongly opposed the proposed amendment. He wanted specifics of any problems with the current arrangement. He felt the separation of powers was extremely important. He also felt that the problems in other towns which the Council has cited were the result of not having good audits. Ms. Picard, a resident of the city since 1953 and the former City Clerk for 25 years, said she was recently in the Clerk's office and saw the Council's written rationale for this Charter change posted in many places. She then cited her reasons for opposing the Charter change as follows: 1) In the other communities cited by the Council where the City Clerk is appointed, this becomes a political position. She felt politics should be kept out of South Burlington. 2) With regard to collection of tax money, the bulk of that money goes to the Tax Collector by mail. Less than 1% comes into the Clerk's office. 3. Nowhere in state statutes does it say "elected" or "appointed" city clerk. The city clerk follows state law, no matter what. 4) An appointed clerk is no less likely to embezzle than an elected clerk. 5) The City Clerk is connected to the community. If the voters don't think the Clerk is worthy of the job, they won't vote for him/her. 6) Regarding the hiring of relatives, there are a number of "relatives" who work for the city and are excellent workers. 7) Regarding the issue of keys, Ms. Picard asked if Council members would want everyone having a key to their offices. 8) City Council opinions should not be allowed in an official polling place, and City Hall is an official polling place. Ms. Kinville said she felt Ms. Picard did a good job responding to the Council's "paper." She said an elected Clerk is a public servant. An elected Clerk knows the citizens and puts them first. An elected Clerk is always available...when shopping, walking the dog, etc. An appointed City Clerk might not even be a resident of the city. She said the appointing of City Clerks in other communities has not stopped issues from happening. Ms. Kinville said all she had asked for was the ability to manage her staff. She never asked to go outside the union. Ms. Kinville thanked the Council for making this conversation come about. She said she gets stopped many times a day by people thanking her and supporting her. She has met people she would otherwise not have known and has a better connection with the people. She also noted there will be a mediation session on Friday. Mr. Engels said he was stopped by a citizen who felt Ms. Kinville's petition "flies in the face of open government." He noted that the Council originally proposed the Clerk position be appointed in 2000. He said it was Ms. Kinville's petition that prompted the Council's actions. Ms. Kinville noted there have been times in the past when, without the City Manager's approval, she could not discipline her own employees. She also lost a valuable employee with a City Manager overreacted and there was "excessive discipline." Mr. Miller said he strongly objected to that characterization. Ms. Kinville said it took 8 moths to get rid of an employee who was a detriment to the office because a City Manager wouldn't approve dismissing that employee. Ms. Picard said every day when you pick up the newspaper there is something else wrong in South Burlington. It is embarrassing. She also felt people are losing their rights as citizens. She also felt appointed people would be afraid to come to a city manager with a problem for fear of losing their jobs. Ms. Lyons, a city employee and resident for 22 years said she doesn't feel threatened going to a supervisor. She said it is her understanding that Ms. Kinville wants her assistant clerks to be "at will" employees. She said this is confusing because what Ms. Kinville has written says her assistant clerks would be in the union. Ms. Greco said legal opinion is that the assistant clerks would be "at will" employees. Ms. Dooley then reviewed the history of how this issue arose. When Ms. Kinville brought her proposal to the City Manager, he brought it to the Council which asked the City Charter Committee to look at this issues. She said the Council was troubled by "practices that don't fit the 21st. Century. There is concern with removing collective bargaining rights from people who have had those rights for many years. Under the Council's proposal, the Council would hire the City Clerk, not the City Manager. The vault would be under the City Clerk but not the municipal office. Ms. Riehle said the previous Council had issues to resolve and went to the voters with hard information and hard solutions. They thought they were making steps to more open dialogue. This results in some people not liking what is said. Ms. Riehle said she believes changing the way the Clerk's office functions in South Burlington is "embracing the 21st Century." She did not feel that oversight and needed professionalism are guaranteed with elected officials. She appreciated that there are people who don't agree with this. Ms. Mackenzie said she views this through the same lens as managing large companies. You hire the best person and have yearly performance evaluations. She stressed that this is not a referendum on whether Ms. Kinville is a good person. It is not a referendum on whether the previous City Clerk was incompetent. This is moving forward. Ms. Greco said she sees the City Council as the elected body. The Clerk is an administrative requirement, the same as other departments. The City Council is responsible to the people. If people go to the Clerk with an issue, the Clerk has no power to fix it. The City Council has that power. She didn't understand why people are so concerned with having the position elected. She said the Council is not "copying" other communities, it is looking at best practices. Ms. Kinville cited a previous situation when there was discussion about the "openness" of people's financial status in relation to property tax prebates and rebates. She noted that she came down on the side of confidentiality. This was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. She also cited a situation when the City Manager wanted a floor vote regarding a storm water funding situation. Mr. Stitzel acknowledged that when asked for an opinion regarding the confidentiality of citizen's income information, they had said it was public information but you didn't have to aggregate it in certain ways. The Attorney General's office agreed. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled it was confidential information. Mr. Stitzel said the situation they faced was that if certain information was "improperly held," the city could be sued. Ms. Dooley said the storm water situation involved a time constraint to get federal funds. There was later a regular elected to confirm the floor vote. Ms. Kinville responded that the warning time for the floor vote and the warning time to hold a special election would were the same so there was no need for the floor vote. Ms. Johnston, a 40-year resident, felt this is a very emotional issue, and to change a City Charter because of an emotional issue is not appropriate. She felt this is a power play by both sides. Mr. Young asked if the City Council on an annual basis hires all department heads or would this be specific to this position. Ms. Greco said that it would be only for this position. Ms. Dopp said it would help her to understand how things work in other departments in the disciplinary process. Mr. Miller said it is all pretty similar. A department head can issue verbal warnings and may issue written warnings without consulting him. When things get complicated (e.g., suspensions), department heads come to him. There may also be consultation with legal counsel. General guidelines have been discussed with all department heads. Mr. Maille said that when citizens vote for an elected official, there is an assessment of that person's performance. He asked how you would assess an appointed clerk, how you would get back to the City Council who would be making the appointment. Mr. Miller said there is a slight difference is it is a City Council appointment. He added that reappointing is slightly different for dismissal. He felt they would discuss issues, and that would be part of the record. He added that there is an appeal process to the City Council of a city manager's decision. Regarding the issue of keys, Ms. Greco asked how many keys there are to the Clerk's office. Mr. Miller said he has one, Mr. Rusten has one, the night "cleaner" has one, and there is one in a lock box. He added that there were a lot of keys at one time, and a year and a half ago the entire building was re-keyed. They current keys can't be duplicated. The City Clerk and her employees also have keys. This is a total of 7. Mr. Miller said only 3 people can get into the lock box. Ms. Kinville cited an instance when a person entered her office with a key, and she had not been notified. Mr. Miller said a member of her staff had been notified but did not pass the information on to Ms. Kinville. Ms. Greco then asked about the amount of money that goes through the Clerk's office. Mr. Rusten estimated that collected fees amount to about $300,000 a year. The actual amount of tax money can be confirmed. Ms. Picard asked if the City Clerk were appointed would he/she be a department head. Ms. Greco said yes. Ms. Riehle then moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. It was noted that the second public hearing on this Charter change and the first public hearing on Ms. Kinville's proposed Charter change will be on 4 September, 6 p.m. The second public hearing on Ms. Kinville's proposed Charter change will be on 6 September, 9 a.m. 6. Report on meeting with Congressional Delegation Staff Regarding Draft Environment Impact Statement for F-35A: Ms. Greco reviewed the history and noted that the meeting took place in Senator Leahy's office and lasted about an hour an a half. The purpose was to share ideas. She said the city covered some of their position points. She noted that Senator Leahy had said the F16s had gotten "quieter." This is not the case. The Air Guard has acknowledged the F16s have actually gotten louder. They then discussed maps and whether the line shrank or expanded and how many people would be affected. Mr. Miller said there seemed to be disagreement with the conclusions the City Council had come to from the data. He added that all 3 Congressional members support the F35s being bedded in Burlington. Ms. Greco said there was a question of how many houses have been taken down. It was said that there could be some money for insulation and noise mitigation for remaining homes. Ms. Greco said she also raised the issue of Chamberlin School, and they said there might be a problem with using this money for a school. Ms. Greco said they also talked about scoring errors and encroachment. Secretary Ferguson has acknowledged there was a mistake in scoring. The scoring sheet says there is no encroachment, which means there are no homes in the area. Her letter says there are homes in the area even though the scoring sheet says there are none. Ms. Dooley asked if this error would change the city's status as "preferred." Ms. Greco said she asked that Burlington be taken out of the first round of basing until the scoring the highest score. This would give the plane time to fly and be safer. They didn't like that at all and said no. Ms. Greco asked if it would make a difference if Senator Leahy came out against the F35s in Burlington and was told it would not. Mr. Miller said what he inferred was that staff would like to speak to their bosses about other types of noise mitigation. Ms. Dooley noted continuing issues of communication with the Airport and cited by a reference to priority for buying homes on the basis of "how close to the Airport" they are, rather than "first come first served," which is what the city had been told. There is also a question of use of a grant the Airport just received for "community improvement." Mr. Miller suggested the city might invite Airport officials in to discuss how the program began and how it is implemented. Members agreed they would like this on a future agenda. 7. Comments & Questions from the Public not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 8. Other Business There was no other business. 9. Executive Session: Ms. Riehle moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel and litigation. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Regular Session: As there was no further business to come before the Council, Ms. Dooley moved to adjourn. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.