Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/26/2012CITY COUNCIL 26 MARCH 2012 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 26 March 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; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; I. Blanchard, S. Dopp, B. Stuono 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Miller: Bill #H783 regarding railroad crossings was introduced as a place holder. It relates to individuals who can't get clear title to the access to their properties. The Agency of Transportation would like the railroad to give permanent easements so these people will not have problems selling their homes. There will be a pilot program this year in the area of financial responsibility with 10 to 12 municipalities participating. It will be a good way to improve oversight, etc. Mr. Engels: Met with Debbie Ingram of Vermont Interfaith Action. One thing they concern themselves with is affordable housing. No one had yet talked to her about South Burlington's issues, and she expressed interest in being involved in the city's discussions. Ms. Greco: Attended the Regional Planning Commission meeting in Ms. Dooley's place. The annual transportation prioritization was approved. South Burlington has 4 projects near the top of the list: Staples lane, Market St., U.S. 2 paving, and U.S. 7 from Charlotte to South Burlington. 4. Consent Agenda: There were no items on the Consent Agenda. 5. Discussion of Interim Zoning Studies, Staffing, etc. A. Review of Revised Memo from Paul Conner about Study Groups' Outline B. Studies and Steering Committee Discussion: i. Update on studies, RFP, etc. ii. Review Economic Development, SusAg and Affordable Housing Steering Committees-Consider adopting or giving additional direction to staff and committee leaders C. Staffing considerations - discuss timelines, estimated costs and how Council might address funding Mr. Conner said the only change made from his memo is the addition of a #7 "organizational structure." Regarding the possible steering committee, Mr. Conner said this had been envisioned around the economic development pieces. There could also be a similar group for affordable housing or sustainable agriculture. Mr. Miller cited the need for input from the City Council as to what these committees will be, including studies and staff interaction. Mr. Engels said he would like to keep this as simple and cheap as possible. He also would like not to have too many "layers of bureaucracy" in terms of committees and steering committees, etc. He said that for him, interim zoning is to get the Comprehensive Plan and new Land Development Regulations done as quickly and simply as possible. Ms. Mackenzie said she sees the economic analysis as separate from the others because this is the impact on the community. While this is being done, she felt there will have to be people supporting those doing the economic analysis in order for them to get the information they need. Ms. Riehle said assumed the city will be hiring people well versed in the things that are needed. Ms. Mackenzie said people will need to know where the information is in city documents, what developments are currently pending, and what development was like when the economy was better than it is now. Ms. Dooley said she was not sure that the economic analysis is part of the purpose of interim zoning. Mr. Miller reminded the Council that it is part of the interim zoning by-law that they passed. Mr. Miller said that from the information they have received, the studies will be fairly expensive, without much staff support and less expensive with reliance on a lot of staff support, which, he noted, is not currently available. There will also have to be staff support for the various committees. Mr. Miller estimated the need for 7 or 8 studies, and noted that the city does not control those costs. He stressed that there is nothing cheap about the economic analysis that has been requested. There will also have to be support for the City Council in their review of development applications that come up. With regard to current staffing, Mr. Miller noted that one member of the Planning staff will be going on maternity leave. The department will need at least one other full time person. He reminded the Council that this is why staff had recommended adding one cent to the tax rate, which the Council rejected. Mr. Miller estimated close to $300,000 will be needed for studies and staffing (this includes consultant costs, loss of revenue, legal costs, etc.). Mr. Miller stressed that there is no money in the FY12 or FY13 budgets to cover these costs. He asked the Council if they want to reduce city staff in other areas to pay for this or to look at deficits. He noted that during budget discussions, members said the did not want to cut staff or services. Ms. Dooley said she is particularly interested in what there is about the Land Development Regulations that could be more supportive of affordable housing if the regulations were different. She suggested they might want to look at what is being done out of state as well as in other places in Vermont. She noted that the funding package for affordable housing is very complex. Mr. Miller stressed that the existing planning staff is hardly able to keep up with things now. The Council supported adding a staff person to the Planning Department. They reiterated their intention that there be no cuts in city staff or services. Ms. Dooley said she would be willing to look at the budget to see if there are any possible cuts and also look at possible grants. She suggested use of contingency money or the undesignated reserve. Mr. Rusten said the contingency funds are for unexpected expenses. If the Council had previously discussed an expense, it is not a valid use of contingency money. Mr. Miller thought it might be legitimate if it is for something not in the budget. Ms. Greco said she didn't think it will take a lot of money to do the sustainable agriculture portion as they are talking of using UVM interns and there are many people in the community who are qualified. Mr. Conner asked if the sustainable agriculture group anticipate regulatory as well as non-regulatory things. Ms. Greco said there would be a number of components. One might work on the LDR language; one might work on gardens, education, etc. Mr. Conner said that on the regulatory side, they will need legal input. He also noted that by state statute any regulatory changes must also go to the Planning Commission before the City Council. Mr. Miller said he will put together a job description for the new planning position. He felt they will need someone with a fairly broad skill set. With no staff or budget cuts, there is still no means to pay for this position. Mr. Miller also noted that other departments have already been advised to start the process for hiring staff that has been approved for the FY13 budget so these people can begin in July. Members felt this process should go ahead. Regarding steering committees, Ms. Mackenzie asked to join the existing group looking at Land Development Regulations. She also felt the group should include members of the Planning Commission and Development Review Board. Mr. Miller reminded members that these meetings are subject to the open meeting law and must be held in public with minutes being taken. Ms. Dooley said she would be willing to serve as a liaison to the Affordable Housing group that Jim Knapp is heading. 6. Discuss Rules for Procedure for Council Acting as a Deliberative body for Interim Zoning: Mr. Miller noted he had given members the VLCT model and the Development Review Board's Rules of Procedure. He asked how the Council wants to handle public input. Mr. Conner noted there is a difference between the VLCT and DRB procedures. Those who have a right to testify are considered "interested" parties. Under the VLCT, interested parties have prioritization to testify, and there is limited time for others. Under the DRB interested parties and others are treated equally. Members agreed to use the DRB procedures. Mr. Conner then explained what happens in a de novo hearing when a decision is appealed to the Environmental Board. This process would be the same for a DRB or a City Council decision. Mr. Miller said it would be simpler for staff and applicants if the same procedures are used for the DRB and City Council hearings. Ms. Dooley then moved that for the purposes of Interim Zoning, the City Council adopt the Development Review Board Rules of Procedure and Conflict of Interest Policy dated 20 December 2005. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. With regard to staff and legal support, Mr. Miller asked to what extent the Council wants planning staff to be involved (e.g. writing decisions, etc.). He noted that the City Attorney is under a retainer to provide legal advice. Mr. Conner recommended having staff notes prepared in advance. He felt there shouldn't be a draft decision until there is some consensus as to where the Council is heading. Mr. Rusten questioned whether an attorney should be present at Council deliberations. Mr. Miller said he heard that the Council wants the same level of support as the DRB gets. 7. Discuss Rules of Procedure for Council acting as a legislative body (regular Council meetings): Members agreed to postpone this discussion until an April meeting. 8. Schedule Special meeting to set Council priorities (mini-retreat): Mr. Miller noted that Abby Freeman of the VLCT is willing to facilitate this discussion. Members agreed to hold the meeting on 11 April, 4 p.m. with 23 April as a second choice. 9. Discuss possibility for digitizing City Council agenda packets and related materials to reduce paperwork and delivery costs: Mr. Miller explained that this is being done in Montpelier City and to an extent in the Legislature. There is money in the technology budget for this. The cost for year one would be about $12,000. Yearly replacement would cost less than $5,000. People could use their existing laptops, if they are compatible. People could also buy their own machines and have the city put in the appropriate package. Mr. Stuono suggested the DRB might also be interested in doing this. He noted that some members now bring their own technology. Mr. Miller said there is nothing in the budget to support that, but after FY13 it could be looked at. Members were OK with this. Mr. Miller will put a package together in the next few weeks and deal with budget implications. 10. Discuss Use of Social Media to Improve Communications: Ms. Blanchard noted that social media connects with different networks of people. The city now communicates via websites, e-newsletters, Twitter and Front Porch Forum for things such as city news and ways to keep the public in touch. Each department decides what goes on its particular site. Ms. Blanchard showed a sample from several departments. She said the goal is to be sure the people you want to reach are getting the message. Ms. Blanchard also cited the importance of integrating various modes of communication and of measuring success. Current gaps in the system now include: no maintenance schedule, inconsistent style, minimal search engine organization, no ADA accessibility (for the blind), inconsistent integration between communication modes. Mr. Miller said there are no uniform policies or procedures, and there is a lot of outdated, inaccurate content. This is a concern as an increasingly large part of the public is relying on this type of communication. He cited particular importance in instances of disasters such as Tropical Storm Irene. He felt the city needs to do more in this area. Ms. Blanchard will be forming a Tech User Group which will meet in early April to identify internal resources. 10. Other Business: No issues were raised. 11. Executive Session: Ms. Riehle moved that the Council meeting in executive session to discuss personnel, litigation, and real property acquisition and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Regular Session: Council returned to regular session. As there was no further business Ms. Riehle 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.