Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/21/2012CITY COUNCIL 21 FEBRUARY 2012 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 February 2012, at 7:30 p.m., at the Rick Marcotte Central School. Councilors Present: S. Dooley, Chair; M. Emery, J. Knapp, P. Engels, R. Greco Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Deputy City Manager; A. Lafferty, City Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; R. Smith, Auditor; M. Lyons, S. Dopp, M. Young, M. Smith, L. Bresee, R. Hubbard, L. Ravin, J. Dinklage, other members of the public 1. Executive Session: Ms. Greco moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations, and litigation. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: Following the executive session, Ms. Emery moved the Council exit executive session. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 1. Agenda Review: Ms. Dooley noted the addition of an Airport request to demolish houses which will be considered under Other Business. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Ms. Emery: Noted that her term will end of 5 March. She will attend the next Channel 17 meeting as its Acting Chair. Ms. Greco: Attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Dooley: With Ms. Greco and members of the School District, Planning and Recreation Departments, attended a meeting at the Health Department. Mr. Miller: VLCT Local Government Day was held in Montpelier. A number of department heads attended and testified. One of the more controversial items being considered by the Legislature is a proposal for the state to take over the collection of the education property tax. There have been two resignations from city committees: Duncan Adamson from the Rec Path Committee and Karen Alence from the Energy Committee. Mr. Knapp moved to accept the resignations of Duncan Adamson from the Rec Path Committee and Karen Alence from the Energy Committee. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Presentation of FY2011 Audit: Mr. Smith noted that as of June, 2011 all General Fund cash has been pooled and totals $2,900,000. With $8,300,000 due to other funds and $1,700,000 in Accounts Payable, there is not enough cash to meet obligations. Mr. Smith said the good news is that number didn't increase in the past year. A large portion of that number is attributable to the Airport Parkway project. Sometime over the next month or so, management will bring to the Council a proposal to write off about $4,000,000 (including money owed to WPC, Stormwater utility, etc.). The reality is the city will never see this money. Mr. Smith said the only alternative would be to raise taxes to cover this, and he does not recommend this. He felt it is in the best interests of the city to acknowledge the issue and to move on. He also added that they believe there will be no surplus at the end of the year. This course of action will enable the city to start out at zero as of June 30th. The best benchmark the city will have will be from 2012 to 2013. Mr. Smith then reviewed specific department issues: Recreation: Fees are sufficient to fund the Department's program. This has been the case in the past and is a non-issue. Water Department: Mr. Smith cited the unique situation with CWD. The good news is there is $1,100,000 cash which is solid because this money was kept at CWD. This means the Water Department has equity. And fees are enough to pay for operation. There have been conversations regarding future protocol. Water Pollution Control: This is a different story. $1,100,000 is due to other funds, and the proposal is to write that off. Mr. Smith said they feel there were a lot of mis-postings, and rates may not have been sufficient to cover the Department's expenses. He saw no benefit in trying to find out the specifics of the deficit. A decision will have to be made regarding fees. Mr. Miller noted there was a large fee increase for FY 12, and there will be a 1/5% increase for FY 13. Ambulance Service: The city has been subsidizing ambulance service for a long time, and the recommendation is to write off about $500,000 from the past. The good news is that in FY2011, the Ambulance Service generated a profit, but it was not enough to cover the $500,000 deficit. Stormwater: $900,000 that should be in this fund was spent elsewhere even though there was an obligation to set that money aside. Mr. Smith felt there was nothing to be gained by going back, and he was confident with going forward. If the $900,000 is written off, that will leave $400,000 in this fund, which is not sufficient for a city of South Burlington's size. Although fees are adequate to pay for operations, the problem is past money that should have been obligated and wasn't. Pension: This is no longer underfunded, and Mr. Smith was confident with the adjustments the city has made. Mr. Engels asked about the concerns Mr. Smith had voices about one person holding both the positions of City Clerk and City Treasurer. Mr. Smith said is concern is that one position is elected and the other is appointed, and there should be two governing job descriptions. He also felt there are conflicting responsibilities and that the two positions should be separate. Mr. Engels asked why Mr. Smith is recommending the write-offs. Mr. Smith responded that in the past the city "wasn't operating in the realm of reality." Mr. Knapp added that the city could probably spend enough to figure out where most of the money went, but in the end they still wouldn't recoup that money. Mr. Smith said he didn't think they could even figure out where most of the money went. He added that one good step the city took was to set up separate accounts to build confidence. Mr. Rusten said that because of what happened over a number of years, money from stormwater went somewhere else...and money from "somewhere else" went to stormwater. Ms. Greco asked Mr. Smith to confirm that no money is missing. Mr. Smith said they found no indication that money was missing. A member of the audience asked if there is a management letter. Mr. Miller said it is on the website and in the budget book. Mr. Smith added that by law this letter must be in the city's annual report. 5. Discussion of Williston Road Complete Streets Final Draft: Mr. Rabidoux explained that the Complete Streets study dealt with the area between Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive. He noted they had received a lot of public comment, and the city will be faced with a "political decision." Mr. Rabidoux observed that a lot of trips on Williston Rd. begin and/or end outside of South Burlington. It was the conclusion that a complete streets project on the study section of Williston Rd. Would induce more congestion and would divert traffic to other roads. There are 11 side streets involved with access to hundreds of homes. The committee had discussed a trial period which could coincide with the repaving of Williston Rd. This would last about 4 months and could be monitored. There would be a substantial cost for doing that. For the Colchester Ave. project, the trial period monitoring cost more than $50,000. Mr. Mark Smith noted that the study looked at the entire corridor from Dorset St. to Kennedy Drive and also at a subsection from Hinesburg Rd. to Kennedy Drive. The project would reduce the travel lanes from the existing 4 to 3 and would add bike lanes. Mr. Smith showed an overhead of the study area. He noted that Hinesburg Road is the critical intersection with much higher traffic volumes to the west of that road. Turning volumes at Hinesburg Rd. are critical as there are no turning lanes. Mr. Smith then showed a cross-section of the existing road and a cross-section of the proposed "complete streets" road with one lane of traffic in each direction and a center turn lane. In the study, Williston Rd./Hinesburg Road intersection showed the worst potential congestion. Williston Road/Kennedy Drive intersection went from a current level of service "C" to a level of service "F." An "F" level of service indicates failure with extreme delays. Mr. Smith noted that only by reducing traffic by 39% would you get to a bare minimum of an acceptable level of service. For only the section of Williston Rd. to the east of Hinesburg Road, significant delays were added at Hinesburg Road and at the Williston Rd./Kennedy Drive intersection. Ingress and egress to the system were not possible. The conclusion of the study is that a "complete streets" design would significantly increase congestion. A 39% reduction in traffic would be needed to make "complete streets" work. Williston Rd./Hinesburg Rd. intersection is the limiting factor, being right in the center of the system. People would start to take other routes, which would have a negative impact on the regional network. It was felt that other improvements could increase safety. Recommendations of the study include: 1. Paving Market Street 2. Providing other means for going around the corridor (e.g., frontage roads, prohibiting eastbound left turns onto Patchen Road, etc.). 3. Possible lane change at Dorset Street intersection (this needs additional study) 4. An access management plan for the western segment with participation of business and property owners Ms. Greco asked if the study pursued ideas to reduce traffic. Mr. Smith said there are some possible projects including better connections off-street and implementation of the City Center. Mr. Rabidoux said there is nothing in the short to midterm that would result in the needed traffic reduction. Ms. Emery noted the unfortunate "alternate" choice would be to go through the Chamberlin school area. She also noted that as a bus rider, crossing Williston Road is already dangerous. She said that as much as she would like this to be a more pedestrian friendly road, she realizes there would have to be a lot more things in place to make it so. Mr. Knapp raised the issue of people misusing the center turn lane to avoid delays. Mr. Smith said there are pros and cons to it. The chance of misuse of the center lane is there, and there is a lot of opportunity for that in this stretch of road. Mr. Knapp also asked if increased delays would increase the accident potential resulting from "road rage." Mr. Smith said there is a strong correlation between congestion and safety. Mr. Rabidoux added that Williston Rd. has a proliferation of accident points. Ms. Dooley asked if there is a time limit for the city to make a decision. Mr. Rabidoux said the state is finalizing its paving project. It will be a 2-year project with the eastern part being done in 2012 and the western part in 2013 (because of alignment with the Route 2 widening project). Bids are not yet out, but a decision would have to be made sooner rather than later. Mr. Smith added that any changes to the Hinesburg Road intersection that further restricts it would be bad. He cited problems of bottlenecks at merge points where the number of lanes would be reduced. Audience comment was then solicited. Mr. Bresee said he liked the idea proposed for the Dorset St. Intersection. At Hinesburg Road, it becomes single lane traffic as soon as someone is making a left turn. He noted a number of groups who want this project to happen believing that one lane is safer (no lane switching) and results in lower speeds. Pedestrians on the sidewalk are further from traffic because of the added bike lane. Storm drains are also not beaten up as much from car traffic if the bike lanes are there. He said this has worked on Colchester Avenue and Route 15. He felt this is an opportunity to try something; if it doesn't work, it can be corrected at a very low cost. Mr. Rabidoux noted the cost of $50,000-75,000 + staff time for Colchester Avenue which has far fewer side streets. Ms. Dopp asked about adding more signals in the eastern section. Mr. Rabidoux said that wasn't looked at. Mr. Dinklage noted that to turn onto Williston Road from Mayfair Park, you have to look at 4 lanes of traffic, and you can think you're pulling into a clear lane when suddenly a car goes into that lane without signaling. He noted there was no reduction in traffic on Colchester Avenue and it worked. Mr. Smith said that even with three lanes you would have to wait for someone to let you in because of the congestion. It may be safer, but... He also noted that turning movements on Colchester Avenue are very different. Traffic at the PM peak hour at Hinesburg Road is 40% higher than on Colchester Avenue. Mr. Ravin said if you give pedestrians and bikers a safer and more pleasant experience, thy will take it. She also cited the use of TDM to manage traffic on Colchester Ave. Mr. Smith said transportation management results in only an 8% reduction in traffic. Mr. Hubbard noted there is a significant drop in traffic from the "jug handle" to Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive. He asked for a trial period. Mr. Knapp asked what happens with buses. If more buses are being encouraged, there will be more stops and starts, and a problem with the buses turning back into traffic. He also noted that if you do the eastern part of the project area, bicyclists get a safer route to Hinesburg Road and then they are taking their lives in their hands from there on. Ms. Emery stressed there is no other potential "cut through" other than the residential area north of Williston Road, and those people want their neighborhood to be safe for their children. Ms. Greco moved to implement "complete streets." There was no second. Ms. Emery moved that for this current project not to go forward with "complete streets." The motion failed 2-3 with Ms. Greco, Mr. Knapp and Ms. Dooley voting against. Mr. Rabidoux noted if the Council does decide to implement any part of "complete streets" later on, there will be a cost to the city to alter the state plans. 6. Discussion of Proposed Interim Bylaws with possible action: Ms. Greco said they have reviewed all comments and have incorporated some of them. They have added review criteria and a process for submitting applications. The interim zoning studies will include land for agriculture, middle class housing and City Center. Ms. Greco then moved to approve the Interim Zoning Bylaw dated 17 February 2012. Ms. Dooley seconded. Mr. Miller questioned whether this is an addition to the existing bylaw. Mr. Greco said it is a modification. Ms. Lafferty said it is an amendment to the version warned in December. It lessens some of the prohibitions in Article 2 (adds exempt districts) and provides exemptions to Section 4. Ms. Dooley said the 2 zoning districts that are exempt are Mixed Industrial-Commercial and Industrial-Open Space. A variety of applications that are currently approved by the Administrative Officer would not be. Amendments to a site plan for a commercial or industrial building would be allowed if the building were expanded by less than 6% or 10,000 sq. ft. Applications received before 31 December 2011 are not covered under interim zoning. Mr. Knapp asked if the Council would be voting on the amendment or the bylaw as amended. Mr. Miller said Roberts Rules requires voting on the amendment and then on the bylaw as amended. Ms. Greco and Ms. Dooley then withdrew their motion. Ms. Greco moved to approve the bylaw of 31 December 2011. Ms. Dooley seconded. Ms. Greco moved to amend the bylaw of 31 December 2011 to include the changes as outlined in the document "Based on discussion with Dooley & Greco" dated 17 February 2012. Ms. Dooley seconded. The motion to amend passed 3-1 with Ms. Emery voting against and Mr. Knapp voting present. Mr. Engels then moved the following amendment to the Interim Zoning Bylaw: No later than the first Council meeting in October, 2012, Council shall evaluate the IZ Bylaw. At a minimum the evaluation will be based on the following criteria: Council's decisions on development proposals that came before Council. Economic analysis of interim zoning, both the financial impact on the city budget as well as the financial impact on citizens, residents and businesses of South Burlington. An economic analysis on: the types of development that cost the city more in services than revenue generated by that development; the types of development that cost the city no more in services than revenue generated by that development; and the types of development that generate more revenue to the city than cost in services generated by that development. This analysis to be called, "financial roadmap for future development within South Burlington. An economic analysis on the costs of all services and infrastructure, including maintenance, upgrades, replacement, and expansion, based on the total development build-out as allowed under the current Land Development regulations. An economic analysis of the associated costs of pollution control mitigation and cleanup of the environment and natural resources, including, air, water and land resulting from the total build-out as allowed under our current Land Development regulations. Report of the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Agriculture Committees. At the March 19, 2012 staff will present a proposal to Council for discussion, possible modification and possible approval on: The goal of an analysis on the financial impact to city budget of the current IZ bylaw and the goal of a "financial roadmap" for future development within South Burlington" Possible companies that can provide any or all studies Estimate cost for studies A proposed steering committee to oversee the studies . Membership . Authority . Roles At the March 19, 2012 former Councilor Knapp and Councilor Greco will each present a proposal to Council for discussion, possible modification and possible approval on their two subcommittees (Affordable Housing and Sustainable Agriculture). Each proposal will include: . Goal of subcommittee . Membership . Authority . Assistance expected from staff and or consultants Ms. Greco seconded. Mr. Knapp explained his voting concerning interim zoning. He said he believes the Interim Zoning Ordinance is neither legal nor constitutional and as such will not vote on it. Mr. Young asked how the City Council plans to pay for the cost of the studies related to interim zoning. Mr. Engels said cost estimates will be presented on 17 March. Mr. Young asked how they will be paid for. Mr. Miller said that will depend on the costs. Mr. Young said the budget will be voted on March 6 with no provision for interim zoning. He asked under what line items interim zoning would fall. Mr. Miller said "same answer." Mr. Knapp asked what will happen if he can't make the 19 March meeting or chooses not to make a presentation. Mr. Engels said he hadn't considered that. In the vote that followed, the amendment passed 3-2 with Ms. Emery and Mr. Knapp voting against. Members then voted on the amended motion. It passed 3-2 with Ms. Emery and Mr. Knapp voting against. Ms. Emery commented that the Council must have money growing on trees that she didn't know about. 7. First reading of Draft Amendment to the Land Development Regulations - possible scheduling of Public Hearing for 19 March: Mr. Conner noted that a table of uses had been left off in the last round of LDR amendments. The amendments include: 1. Integrating congregate care, medical offices, social services and general offices into the Transit Overlay District 2. Removing the land use entitled "clinic, medical, dental, or optical" (will be covered under "medical office") 3. Reclassifying places of worship as permitted uses (state law) Ms. Greco moved to approve the first reading of the draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations as presented and to schedule a public hearing for 19 March 2012. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consider appointment of a third member to the Stormwater Appeal Board per Stormwater Ordinance: Mr. Miller noted that a customer may be appealing a stormwater bill. The Appeal Board should have a third member to join the City Manager and Public Works Director. This could be a City Councilor or Deputy City Manager. Ms. Greco moved to appoint Bob Rusten to the Stormwater Appeal Board. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Consideration of approval of Waiver of Conflict of Interest for Brian Monaghan Attorney: Mr. Miller noted a potential conflict of interest because Mr. Monaghan represents the Town of Colchester. Ms. Greco moved to approve the waiver of conflict of interest and to authorize Council Chair to sign the letter. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Consideration of Approval of Entertainment Permit: Wedding Reception at 1350 Spear Street, Jule 22, 2012: Mr. Greco moved to approve the entertainment permit for a wedding reception at 1350 Spear St. as presented. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Sign Disbursements: Disbursements were signed. 12. Other Business: It was noted that the Airport has requested a permit to demolish houses around the Airport. It is not clear that the city has a baseline of noise before and after houses are removed. Ms. Dooley moved to ask the City Manager to send a letter to the Mayor of Burlington and to the Chair of the Burlington City Council and to Bob McEwing, acting Airport Manager, making them aware of the situation and requesting that measurements have been taken and are accurate. Ms. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Approval of Minutes for special meetings of 30 January and 2 February 2012 and regular meeting of 6 February 2012: It was noted in the minutes of 2 February, p. 4, paragraph 4 that it was Ms. Greco who noted the comment that South Burlington was to be sacrificed to save the rest of the state. Mr. Greco then moved to approve the Minutes of 30 January, 2 February and 6 February with spelling of names corrected and as amended above. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Executive Session: Ms. Dooley asked for a motion to meet in executive session. Mr. Knapp so moved. Mr. Engels 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. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Council adjourned. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.