Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/18/2012CITY COUNCIL 18 JANUARY 2012 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 18 January 2012, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Coucilors Present: S. Dooley, Chair; M. Emery, J. Knapp, P. Engels, R. Greco 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; J. Rabidoux, Director of Public Works; T. Hubbard, Recreation Director; L. Murphy, Community Library; M. Young 1. Review of proposed FY12 budget: Ms. Dooley indicated that she wanted to address two topics at this meeting: looking at writing off the “due to” forms and looking at funding for interim zoning. Ms. Emery said it was her understanding that there would be a small deficit in the FY 11 budget and that the projection is for a small surplus in FY12. Mr. Miller said that while they are presently anticipating a $200,000 surplus, there is no guarantee this will remain the case. The Auditor has indicated a possible $200,000 deficit in the General Fund for FY11. Mr. Rusten added that for FY 11, there is a small surplus in the storm water fund and a deficit in the sewer fund. The water fund is unknown at this time. He stressed that all of these are estimates and that there are some issues with accounts receivable and how things are posted. Mr. Miller cautioned members not to spend the possible surplus money. Mr. Miller noted that City Council approval is needed to write off the remaining pre-FY11 deficit. He felt it is hopeless to do any more about this but added there is no time limit for writing it off. Mr. Rusten said he has sheets to show all the funds involved. He felt this should be formally warned as there are residents who may want to hear that discussion. Mr. Miller said he would like the Council to act on the telephone system maintenance fund. This would reduce the amount budgeted for telephone in the City Manager’s budget from about $9000 to $2,704 and would reduce the overall general fund expenditures by $2,958. Mr. Miller said they can’t find any reason for why things were allocated in the old way. Mr. Knapp then moved to adopt draft changes to the general fund as presented on spread sheets dated 18 January 2012 to reallocate telephone expenses among various departments and to amend line 58 to strike the $2.00 to zero and reduce the general fund revenue by $2.00. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Dooley questioned the vehicle for the Fire Inspector (p. 5) and asked how much revenue is expected in future years. Mr. Miller estimated about $75,000 revenue over expenses in FY13 and about $100,000 a year over the next few years. The intent is to allow replacement of vehicles (including fire trucks) to be paid for in cash instead of by borrowing. Ms. Dooley said she doesn’t understand what happens to if the city doesn’t pay the $26,000 to the schools. Mr. Miller said there is no reason to “take money out of our right pocket and put it in our left pocket.” He said that what the schools do with those agencies is up to them. Mr. Rusten added that this money was not covering all the costs from not charging the agencies who use the school. Mr. Miller added that there is a question as to whether it is even legal for the city to give the school money for this purpose. He said the schools are not sure whom they get money from and whom not. Ms. Dooley said her concern is that the agencies will attribute getting charged to the city not paying the $26,000. Mr. Miller said the city should not be blamed. The school has not been charging when they should be charging. It was also the schools’ proposal that the city not pay them that money. Mr. Rusten said this appears to have been an Act 60 “dodge” and actually hurts those in the city who are subject to income sensitivity. Ms. Dooley noted that Mr. Knapp had asked that an extra cent be added and put into the contingency fund. Mr. Miller said the auditor recommends putting money into an “undesignated reserve” fund. In this type of fund money can stay year after year until the City Council takes it out for some use. Mr. Rusten said that typically that money is for an emergency beyond contemplation. Mr. Miller said some communities use it as a “rainy day fund” to offset taxes. Ms. Dooley noted that money is not included in FY11 from the Airport. Mr. Miller said there was money for the tax agreement but not for the “fee for services.” Money has not been in the FY10, FY11, FY12 or FY13 budgets for the latter. Ms. Dooley asked if the FY13 budget anticipates additional revenue from storm water from the Airport. Mr. Rusten said it does, but the amount is not known. Mr. Miller added that the public was promised that this would be examined very carefully, and there is money in the budget to do that. A bill has not yet been sent, and the city isn’t sure what credits the Airport will apply for and what they will get. Mr. Rusten said they are now paying a flat $160,000 fee. Mr. Miller said that is the amount they will be billed. Mr. Engels asked for an “unvarnished” opinion from each Department Head as to what they think of their budgets. Chief Brent: Very good. Can project some things. Also getting better tracking and a better idea of actual costs. Chief Whipple: Have more faith in the budget. In the past there were “adjustments” made. Now the budget is put together with “many eyes on the paper.” Expenses had to be justified. He is more comfortable this year; in the past, they always felt they had to spend money fast or there could be freeze. The current process is more comfortable and more transparent. Mr. Hubbard: Really enjoyed the process this year. To have the ability to plan out capital projects is tremendous for the Recreation Department. Mr. Rabidoux: A very responsible financial plan and a big step forward from last year. Next year they can work on some tougher things to solve problems. Ms. Murphy: Echo what others have said. Felt people really cared about her and her budget. Thrilled with the process and the results. Ms. Kinville: Used to have to buy things for the May election in December or she might not get them. It is very easy to go to Bob (Rusten) with her budget, very comfortable. Mr. Conner: A big difference from last year to this year. Used to be told the “starting point.” Now, it’s “what do you need for the community?” Mr. Miller noted that a few department heads have said the information they get from City Hall is different, so they’re not spending time tracking their own expenditures. There is back and forth feedback. This has freed up some time in one department so there is thought of some reorganization. Mr. Engels commented that the longer he is on the Council, the more he appreciates the work done by city departments and department heads. Regarding his request for an additional half cent contingency, Mr. Knapp said it is important to have enough money for an unexpected expense. If it isn’t spend, it can be rolled over to the next year’s budget. Mr. Miller said this would amount to about $138,500. Mr. Rusten said that $135,000 would make a total of $275,000. Mr. Miller said that would be a 2.09 increase. Ms. Greco asked if that money could be used for the cost of sick leave accrual (p. 7). Mr. Miller said if they go beyond what has been budgeted, it can. Mr. Rusten explained that employees have two options re: sick leave accrual - they can have the city pay for health and dental coverages or they can get a straight payout, which would be much less than what is in the sick leave bank. Mr. Miller said he felt $275,000 was the right number, but he also didn’t want to give tax payers “sticker shock.” Ms. Greco asked if people are paying more taxes than in the past. Mr. Miller said they will be spending less in FY2012 than the budgeted and unbudgeted amounts in the past. Mr. Rusten said there are 2 important questions to ask: Is what you are getting sustainable? What are you getting for your taxes? He stressed that the city is staffing to put in better services for its citizens. Mr. Miller said that in terms of marketing the budget, what they tried to do is “re­setting” to a certain service level so this is sustainable in a relatively flat curve. He felt people are getting a lot for what they are paying and taxes are not out of whack with the rest of the county or state. He cited such advantages as a bigger police force, paid fire department, etc. He said this is a “management plan” more than a budget. Mr. Engels asked what happens if the budget is turned down the first time. Mr. Miller said it depends on which rules they are playing under. The proposed Charter amendment passed the House. The Senate will take it up tomorrow, and the feeling is it will have smooth sailing there and will pass quickly. If it passes, and if the budget fails, citizens will keep voting until there is a budget passed. Mr. Miller stressed there is no contingency plan if the budget fails. He said the budget may fail because people want the city to spend more on something. If the budget fails, another budget would be prepared, and there would have to be a vote within 30 days. Ms. Greco asked what a vote costs the city. Ms. Kinville said between $4,000-5,000 for a special election. Votes can be hand counted, which would bring the cost down. Mr. Knapp moved to add half a cent to the budget with the proceeds to be deposited in the contingency fund. Mr. Engels seconded. Mr. Miler said that would go from a 4.2% increase to 5.4%. For the average homeowner, this would be $21.00 per hundred thousand dollars of appraised home value. Ms. Dooley felt 5.4% sounds like a lot more than 4.2%. Mr. Knapp said they still don’t know where they will be next year. This way, they won’t have to lay anyone off. If the money isn’t spent, it can be rolled over until next year. Ms Emery said she is willing to pay it. Mr. Young felt the increase is too much as he didn’t see us “racing out of the recession.” Ms. Greco noted that even in hard times, people put money into savings. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 3-2 with Ms. Dooley and Ms. Emery voting against. Regarding funding for proposed interim zoning, Ms. Dooley said that she and Ms. Greco met with Mr. Miller last week, and he laid out four ways to potentially pay for interim zoning: 1. From a reserve fund in the budget 2. A separate reserve fund on the ballot 3. Relying on a possible surplus 4. Cuts in the FY13 budget Mr. Miller said he does not recommend using the possible surplus or making cuts in the FY13 budget. Mr. Engels said he would take anything that involves staff cuts off the table as well. Other members agreed. Mr. Engels then asked what the financial impact would be. Mr. Miller outlined the following: 1. Impact fees (doesn’t affect the general operations budget) 2. Loss of revenues (from development fees, highway permits, etc.) 3. Legal costs that are not covered by insurance 4. Costs of required studies 5. Staff time (Planning and City Manager) Mr. Rusten said there is also the potential for less tax revenue if property owners appeal their assessments based on loss of development potential. In addition, loss of impact fees could impact the general fund (e.g., fire impact fees paying for the fire engine note). Sewer hook-up fees could also be reduced. Ms. Dooley said she felt she was in a bind. She had no idea Mr. Miller was going to say that using the surplus was not OK. She felt uncomfortable building the costs into the budget. Mr. Miller said the problem is the Council is doing this “on the fly” with no chance for staff to study it. He stressed that what he discussed with Ms. Dooley and Ms. Greco last week was “off the cuff”. Ms. Dooley said she felt misled because had she known this, she would have done more research. Mr. Rusten said it would be irresponsible to build a budget for next year based on a potential surplus. That surplus could very well disappear by the end of the fiscal year Ms. Dooley asked if staff could itemize costs before the Council votes next week. Mr. Miller said “no” because staff had no idea what the Council will be voting on. Mr. Miller said that what Ms. Dooley and Ms. Greco presented him with last week was a very difficult situation when staff was in the middle of budget preparation. He has given his best recommendation and did not appreciate the criticism. Mr. Knapp asked if there were to be a separate vote, with 1 cent for interim zoning, at what point would the City Clerk have to be told to get this on the ballot. Mr. Rusten said the budget book is to go to the printer on 2 February. Ms. Kinville said she would need the information by 5 February. Ms. Dooley said she is not in favor of a separate budget item. She felt this is what the Council is elected for. Mr. Knapp said the Council has put separate road paving items on the ballot in the past. Ms. Emery asked about the cost if there were interim zoning only for the City Center. Mr. Miller said the cost would be modest as there is already a study being done. Mr. Rusten said there is still the possibility of legal costs. Mr. Knapp added that if Market St. doesn’t get paved, there will be no City Center. He noted that it was the Council that put that project on hold. Mr. Conner said there could be some development with Market St. on the Williston Road and Dorset St. parcels. Mr. Engels asked how to get Market Street paved. Mr. Knapp said you have to find the money for it. Mr. Knapp said that if Ms. Dooley doesn’t want a separate ballot item, then interim zoning costs have to be in this budget. You can’t do anything this significant and not put it in the budget. Ms. Emery said she wasn’t willing to put in the budget when she will not be on the Council to oversee it. Mr. Miller noted that according to the Charter, the public hearing on the budget is held at the Steering Committee next week (25 January). Ms. Dooley said the budget has to be approved tonight in order for it to be presented next week. Ms. Emery said her priority is City Center. She didn’t think the Industrial­Open Space District is in much danger for 2 years. Ms. Emery also said she wouldn’t go to the voters re: interim zoning. Mr. Engels asked if she would put it in the budget. Ms. Emery said only a strict minimum or zero. Members agreed they should vote on a budget at this meeting. Mr. Engels then moved to approve the FY13 general fund and all other budget funds as currently formulated. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Miller asked the Council if staff can warn the “write­offs” for the February meeting. Members agreed. Other Business: Mr. Miller noted that they have discovered that the second requested Charter amendment (re: property reappraisal) was actually taken care of at the same time as the voting issue. It goes to the Senate tomorrow. Executive Session: Mr. Knapp moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations, and possible litigation and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Ms. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 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.