Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - City Council - 08/18/2014 (2)
CITY COUNCIL 18 AUGUST 2014 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 18 August 2014, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: P. Nowak, Acting Chair; C. Shaw, M. Emery ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Barlow, City Attorney; T. Barritt, B. Miller, M. Behr, Development Review Board; J. Louisos, Planning Commission; P. Taylor, Board of Civil Authority; T. Goodwin, Recreation Department; J. Murray, Library Director; C. Sargent, S. Merick, B. Bull, B. Nowak, R. Greco, S. Dooley, S. Loyer 1. Agenda Review: Members agreed to postpone item #8 so that it can be discussed when all members are present as it relates to development of the budget. Ms. Emery moved to delay discussion of Agenda #8 until all Council members are present. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to agenda items: Ms. Greco asked what had happened to the "path to sustainability"that used to be on the city's website. Mr. Dorn said he would look into that. 3. Announcements and City Manager's Report: Mr. Dorn: last Thursday, South Burlington hosted a statewide conference on property tax reform. He thanked Superintendent of Schools David Young for the use of school facilities. Mr. Dorn said 180 municipal leaders from across the state attended. The idea is for them to go back to their communities with ideas for those communities. Attended the Airport Commission meeting to talk about the planning project for the Chamberlin neighborhood. The City is very close to a Memorandum of Understanding with Commons Energy for a plan for energy saving in public buildings. Represented the City of South Burlington at a reception for the President of Senegal. Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended. 4. Consent Agenda: a. Sign Disbursements b. Minutes of 21 July and 4 August 2014 Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Introduction of New Community Library Director Jennifer Murray: Ms. Murray said she has come from North Carolina, from a Library twice the size of South Burlington's. She chose South Burlington because of the ifenergy" she felt in the Library. 6. PACT Presentation: Ms. Merick and Mr. Loyer reviewed the mission of PACT, to listen to voices of teens, children and adults and to respond with respect. PACT will hold 9 events this year including their annual Retreat on 14 September and a Community Welcome Dinner on 25 September. There will also be monthly meetings/meals and a celebration on Martin Luther King Day. Mr. Loyer stressed that they are trying to create an environment where meaningful dialog can be led by the city's teens. Ms. Merick said that this year, Jason Kushner was invited to partner on neighborhood learning opportunities. Data was collected and passed on to Patrick Burke. Ms. Merick said that about 25 teens participate in the Retreat and 50-100 may participate at any dialog night when there is a topic of interest. Monthly dinners usually draw 20-50, more if there is a theme. Dinners are held at the High School. Mr. Loyer drew attention to their balance sheet. 7. Open Meeting Law Training: City Attorney Barlow presented a training session on old and new aspects of the state's Open Meeting Law. He directed attention to iffrequently asked questions" put out by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. Mr. Barlow stressed that any member of a public body is the government. There is no ifsmall town exception" to the Constitution. The Vermont Open Meeting Law applies to all public bodies, and compliance is an indiviaual responsibility. Boards, cities, or municipalities don't get penalized for violations. Individuals do. City staff has procedures for compliance in the areas of agendas, meetings, minutes, etc. There are 21 public bodies (boards, council, commissions or committees of a board, councilor commission) in South Burlington which are subject to the Open Meeting Law. Mr. Barlow reminded people that if a committee is thinking of forming a sub-committee, they should talk to their staff person about compliance. Mr. Barlow then defined a "meeting" as a gathering of a quorum of a public body to discuss the business of that body or to take action. Members need to be in the same location at the same time. You can attend a meeting by telephone, conference or skype if you identify yourself and can be heard. In the case of members attending a meeting in that way, there must be roll call vote. A quorum can participate remotely if there has been a public announcement of a place for public participation, with 24-hour public notice. At least one member of the public body or a staff member must be present. Mr. Barlow issued a caution about the use of e-mail. If a quorum of a body is discussing an issue bye-mail, they are probably violating the Open Meeting Law. Information can, however, be sent out via e-mail. Fewer members than a quorum is OK. The exceptions to this are the use of e-mail to create an agenda or to schedule a meeting. You can also use e-mail when discussing or voting on a quasi-judicial proceeding. That e-mail is, however, a public record. With regard to meeting notice requirements, Mr. Barlow defined 3 types of meetings: regular, special and emergency. Notice of regular meetings requires only the designation of a time and place for regular meetings. For a special meeting, the time, place and purpose must be announced 24 hours before and posted in places designated by the City Council for all meeting notices. An emergency meeting may be held without public announcement, provided some announcement is made as soon as possible, for an unforeseen occurrence that requires immediate attention. Prior to 1 July 2014, there was no requirement for an agenda. Now, an agenda must be posted 48 hours in advance of a regular meeting and 24 hours before a special meeting. Additions and deletions from the Agenda must be the first item on the agenda. To add an item to an agenda requires consideration of the public's right to know about it. Minutes must be taken at all meetings and must provide a true reflection of the business transacted. Minutes must include the names of all members present and all other participants and the business transacted. All actions must be recorded along with the result of all votes. Minutes must be available 5 days after the meeting. A member of the audience asked if the public can require a roll call vote. Mr. Barlow said they cannot. Mr. Barlow then outlined some exceptions to the Open Meeting law as follows: a. When the public body is conducting a site inspection b. When the public body is performing routine day-to-day administrative matters c. When the public body is conducting deliberations in connection with a quasi-judicial proceeding (e.g., ORB, BCA, employment termination hearing, etc., or deliberating after taking evidence) d. When there is an executive session: Executive sessions can be used for the following: 1. Negotiations regarding a real estate purchase or option 2. Consideration of appointment or employment of an employee (the final decision must be made in a public session) 3. Consideration of disciplinary action against an officer or employee (although the officer or employee can request an open session hearing) 4. When there is clear and immanent peril to the community 5. For consideration of records or documents that are exempt 6. For municipal or school security issues. An executive session must be approved by a majority of members present at the meeting. 7. Contract discussions 8. labor relations discussion 9. Arbitration 10. Grievances 11. Pending or probable litigation 12. Attorney-client relations Entering executive session should require two motions, one to find that premature general public knowledge would put the municipality or individual at a substantial disadvantage and one to enter executive session. Executive sessions don't have to be warned, but it would be good to say "executive session anticipated." Ms. Greco asked if there is any obligation to stick to a time-line. Mr. Barlow said not legally. 8. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Shaw moved that the Council convene as liquor Control Board. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members considered liquor/tobacco licenses for: a. Growler Garage/Bruise Brothers b. Vermont Sports Grill (new owner) Ms. Emery moved to approve the liquor/tobacco licenses for Growler Garage and Vermont Sports Grill as presented. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Shaw moved to reconvene as City Council. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business a. Items held from Consent Agenda: No items were held from the Consent Agenda. b. Other: Ms. Emery asked about the adequacy of the Airport Parkway Sewage Plant with regard to City Center. Mr. Dorn said if all anticipated buildout occurred in the Southeast Quadrant and City Center} there would not be enough capacity; however} this is not anticipated in the near future. Mr. Dorn advised that Paul Conner is preparing a report on this for the Planning Commission. Mr. Shaw drew attention to some issues that have been raised but not placed on an agenda. He noted it has been a year since residents raised the issue of private landscaping of public land. He suggested inviting residents to discuss this. Members also discussed a public recognition of volunteers and suggested adding this to a future agenda. Ms. Emery asked if there was feedback from the Airport Commission regarding the Chamberlin area planning grant. Mr. Dorn said they asked questions about the purpose, the definition of the "Chamberlin neighborhood," the funding amounts. They would like Mr. Dorn to come back to the Commission when projects start to get off the ground. They also noted a legal document regarding use of the Airport owned land. As there was no further business to come before the Council} Ms. Emery moved to adjourn. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. , Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 1 March 28, 2014 Kevin Dorn, City Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont Dear Mr. Dorn: I appreciate the opportunity to provide consulting services to the City of South Burlington. The City’s efforts to plan for the future are exciting and being a part of this effort is a privilege. The City of South Burlington is fortunate to have a dedicated and highly motivated management team guiding the operations of various departments. Their work product, both individually and collectively, is highly professional. They were gracious with their time and tremendously helpful with providing information for this report. Introduction: This report examines the City of South Burlington’s Capital Improvement Plan. The report’s objective is to determine the feasibility of the plan. The report’s goal is to enhance the viability of the plan by making suggestions for its successful implementation. Interviews were conducted with the city manager’s office, finance and planning personnel and some department heads. Material that was publicly available was reviewed and then corroborated with more detailed information gathered through additional requests. At strategic points along the information gathering process meetings were held with the city manager’s office and finance and planning personnel to review initial observations and to gather feedback on these observations. The purpose of these 2 meetings was to ensure that the report did not overlook information or interrupt data incorrectly. The conclusions reached are based on information available at the time this report was written. Changes in future circumstances may alter some of the conclusions. Background In the last two years the City of South Burlington has embarked on an effort to update its Capital improvement Plan (CIP) on a yearly basis and integrate it into its annual budgeting process. Prior to this effort the plan was upgraded only periodically, sometimes by an outside consultant, and was not fully integrated into the budget process. In addition, a major portion of the City’s CIP is the planned development of 106-acres called, City Center. Over a 20-year period there are plans to develop approximately 1.35 million square feet of residential, retail, and office space in multiple parcels within this 106-arces. This area has been designated a Tax Incremental Financing District (TIF) by the State of Vermont. Succinctly, this means that a portion of the school and municipal property taxes generated in the district as a result of new construction can be used to offset debt service needed for approved capital improvements in the district for 20 years. According to the City an increase of approximately $202,354,482 million in incremental assessed valuation over the course of the next 20 years is needed to generate the $75 million in property taxes of which $56 million is available to the City to be used to pay debt service on eligible projects within the tax incentive financing district. In addition, the city will need to divert some future anticipated impact fee revenue, increase existing property taxes to fund a portion of the those projects where TIF money 3 cannot be used, and commit to reprogramming the decrease in annual debt payments on existing capital debt to the CIP Reserve Fund. Observations and Suggestions Observation 1: The Overall Plan There has been significant improvement in the CIP process. In fact, in reviewing the plan in its entirety (with City Center included) the plan is well thought out and includes most of the necessary components to make it successful. City officials obviously take this planning process seriously. The plan is probably more sophisticated than most communities in Vermont and when compared to more fully developed plans elsewhere in the country it has only a few shortcomings. Suggestion: Department heads need to be more integrated into the CIP planning process. The City’s CIP process does a good job at capturing the current needs of individual departments but additional work is needed in gaining a more thorough understanding regarding the financial impacts of future development on departmental capital needs (as well as future operational needs). Currently neither the CIP nor the operating budget account for these costs. For example, will another fire truck be needed to handle additional development? Does that require more personnel? These conversations need to take place to get a clearer picture of the overall cost of the CIP and the impact to the operating budget. Having the department heads fully informed about planned projects, anticipated growth, and estimating the capital needs and operating costs will only enhance the CIP and the City budget process. Conducting departmental meetings with the purpose of going into detail future planned projects and time schedules will surely enhance and strengthen the process. 4 Suggestion: With respect to City Center the City needs to begin moving from a planning phase into an operational phase. Most major construction projects usually have four phases: designing a plan, making the plan operational, financing the plan, and lastly, constructing the project(s). Many entities have designed great plans for projects but never had anything come to fruition with their plans because they never figured out how to operationalize them. The operations phase is perhaps the most difficult of all phases because it is here that the entity reaches a major decision point in determining whether the project moves forward. South Burlington has done an excellent job in the planning phase for the City Center project and has received approval for a TIF (tax incremental financing) district. There has been tremendous effort put into this plan, but ironically for all this effort the next phase will determine whether this project will get off the ground in the manner that it is planned. So what is the operational phase? In 2016 the first phases of the City Center project will begin. In fact, absent an extension, the city is obligated to begin its debt financing for projects within the TIF district by 2017. In order to meet this schedule several significant events need to take place: (1) developer agreements, (2) an approved TIF District Financial Plan, (3) political acceptance (by both the political leadership and the voters) and (4) permit approvals. There are numerous steps and milestones in between each of these events that will take significant time. In order to meet the City’s schedule it must be aggressive in getting out of the planning phase and into the operational phase. Not doing so poses significant risk to City Center’s project plan. The City, in the FY15 draft CIP is projected to be borrowing heavily for the City Center project in the fiscal years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020; and yet there are no development agreements in place and no permit applications submitted for approval. Typically this process of getting developer agreements and then obtaining approvals for permits can take at a minimum of 24 months; but, more typically longer, even if events 5 go smoothly. In the case of other development projects where litigation slowed down the schedule the process lingered for years before the planned project was built. Moving forward on the plan—as it is currently conceived and in the timeframe outlined—carries significant risk to the City in light of the lack of development agreements and/or applications for permits. This is particularly risky because an expensive project (the municipal facilities) are only two to three fiscal years away from when the City proposes in the FY15 draft CIP to initiate construction. Just to pinpoint the risk if the district never generates the projected revenues then the city property taxpayers are liable for the shortfall on the TIF District financed portion of the debt. Any deficit in TIF district revenues falls directly on the property tax base to supplant that shortfall if all projects are built and development does not occur. Total exposure to the city could be over $100 million (with debt service) if the city built the planned infrastructure without the anticipated revenues. Realistically, it is highly unlikely this amount of financial liability would occur because it is unlikely the city would move forward with projects without sufficient revenues. In addition, some costs can be offset by developer contributions. There will be incremental growth in the district and revenues will be generated as a result of this growth. In fact, the district is already seeing growth with stores such as Trader Joe’s and Pier 1 Imports. The question that still remains is how much growth over what timeframe? Both are uncertain and without any answers to these questions the city is assuming a higher degree of risk than is advisable. These questions need to be better fleshed out in this operational phase. Suggestion: To mitigate risk it might be to the benefit of the City to partner with developers and/or landowners that demonstrate the relevant experience, capital resources, and site control that will enable them to move forward within a workable timeframe. The lack of development agreements and permits is a significant risk to the City with regards to the City Center project. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the city can obtain its target increase in property tax revenue of $75 million as projected in the plan 6 over the course of 20 years if it has the right development partners with the experience and capital to make the investment at the level the City needs and within the appointed time frame. Obviously, this is critical because repayment of debt with these future funds is necessary. Certainly the landowners within the district are sophisticated and successful developers. The question is: are they able to invest at the levels and within the timeframe that the city may need to generate the needed revenue to complete the project as planned? Just as important are they able to sustain development over a period of time that will probably have at least one, possible two, recessions based on historical trends? Suggestion: In succeeding years add levels of sophistication to the City CIP The City has developed a solid foundation for updating and implementing the components of its CIP. It is appropriate for the City to continue what it has been doing for the next one or two years so that the process becomes better integrated into the budgeting process. City departments still need to develop more sophistication in the submittal of costs to the plan and it needs to be uniform in how they project those costs. One way to ensure this uniformity is to issue more specific instructions regarding departmental cost estimates. Within three years the City should start adding degrees of sophistication to the CIP process. One of those tools is the introduction of an objective point value system in evaluating project priorities. This system awards points based on various criteria and sets the project priorities based on the number of points a project has received. Observation 2: Revenues for City Center The City relied on a very reputable firm (Allen & Brooks) in calculating estimates of the TIF district’s revenue generation potential for its City Center project. It is highly likely 7 that the TIF district will experience growth. Whether the needed development will be built in a size and scope to generate the $75 million in new property tax revenues over the planned time period is where more certainty is needed and where development agreements, securing of site control by experienced developers, and the application for permits could provide that certainty. Plans for City Center include additional funding of the Capital Reserve Fund for the payment of the City’s share of debt and some design costs. Currently the reserve is funded at 1 ¼ cents of the tax rate. According to the City anticipated debt would require this to be supplemented with an additional 1 to 1 ¾ cent property tax increase levied against the existing tax base to pay down debt (2 to 3 cents total). Additionally, dollars gained by the reduction of debt service payments need to be diverted to the Capital Reserve Fund. City Center is also funded with property taxes, impact fees, stormwater fees and federal grants. Suggestion: Update impact fee ordinances to better reflect current needs and costs. Currently, if the City went forward with the City Center project and kept the other capital projects that are planned the recreation fund would be in a deficit position within four years because the impact fees are insufficient to fund the planned projects. In addition, in some cases, existing impact fees will need to be revised or a new one developed in order to be used on City Center projects. This has yet to occur. The FY 15 City Center CIP projects that $3.2 million in impact fees will be used to help fund project costs over the next ten years. According to the City an additional $5.8 million will be needed to fund the City share of debt over the course of an additional 24 years. Impact fees used prior to March 2017 (the date TIF debt will be incurred) will cover design costs for projects. After March 2017, the City’s impact fees are slated to be 8 used to defray debt payments on the City share of project costs (costs that are not TIF eligible). Yet, to use the impact fees in the manner anticipated several things need to happen: 1) the impact fee ordinances need to be revised to address current infrastructure expectations; 2) they need to be updated to reflect current costs; and 3) a new impact fee for public facilities will have to be developed. None of these have yet to occur. Suggestion: Explore the possibility of expanding the TIF district to generate more incremental revenue. Admittedly, this is a tricky proposition because VEPC may require the reset of the base assessment rate of the new and expanded district. If the City resets the base of the taxable value in the existing district, it might lose the already credited incremental growth of approximately $4 million. In essence, the City would forfeit the incremental growth credit of $4 million. Obviously this suggestion of expanding the district needs to be calculated very carefully. The City needs to ensure that it has a net gain and this suggestion should only be considered if there is a strong likelihood of incremental growth in the expanded district that surpasses the “money already in the bank” from the base rate of the existing TIF. Another approach is to see if VEPC will allow the existing $4 million in new development to stay in the incremental growth calculation. Lastly, it is likely that by earmarking incremental tax growth in an expanded district only for debt service in that district on approved projects for 20 years the City’s ability to meet future operational needs will be hindered. Suggestion: If the City wishes to stay on schedule with project build out and to smooth out the property tax impact of its future borrowing cost then the City needs to begin funding its CIP reserve fund to appropriate levels. 9 The City is currently funding the CIP Reserve Fund at $335,000 annually or approximately 1¼ cents. The CIP reserve fund will need to be funded at approximately 2 to 3 cents annually in property taxes and then dedicate those funds every year to the CIP Reserve Fund over the life of the debt obligation. In addition, the City plans to reprogram and deposit certain monies into the CIP Reserve Fund that are now going to debt service in the capital budget but will no longer be needed for that particular payment because of the retirement of that debt. This has yet to happen. A substantial reserve fund balance is essential to not only pay the portion of debt service on a project that is not eligible for TIF funding (i.e., mostly the city portion of the planned new City Hall, Library, and Recreation Center, and the Williston Road Streetscape) but more importantly pay during the peak period of the City’s debt obligation payments without requiring a spike in taxes due to City Center. These increased fund deposits as described above were slated to begin in FY 2015 but were not funded in the FY 2015 approved budget. The more these funds are delayed the greater of an increase in property taxes is needed to make up for those years not funded. Observation 3: City Center Expenditures The City has either used standard methodology to best project expenditures for City Center projects or has hired firms to provide these calculations (As is the case for the proposed municipal buildings—City Hall, Library, and Recreation Center). Total projected costs for the City Center project including debt service are projected to be over $100 million. At this point the standard methodology used to calculate estimated expenditures seems appropriate but these costs need to be continually updated and refined as the projects move forward. Suggestion: Reduce the City’s risk by reprograming the municipal building projects (new City Hall, Library, Recreation Center). 10 The total cost of these municipal building projects (a new City Hall, Library, and Recreation Center) is estimated to be approximately $30 million (this price tag does not include the millions needed to finance this project). Construction of these new facilities is slated to begin 2018. The existing property tax base will fund these building projects with 10 to 30% (depending on the building) of the cost picked up by future TIF revenues. Yet the City has not signed a development agreement with a developer nor has a developer applied for permits. This means that if the TIF revenues are not generated in the amount and within the time period projected then the existing taxpayer will pick up the difference. Since these are major expenditures slated to begin at the front end of the project plan it seems prudent to reduce risk by separating the construction of these new buildings into individual projects and reprogram the construction dates to spread out the cost of these buildings. For example, start with the construction of the Library in 2018 and over the course of the next 18 years program in the Recreation and City Hall projects at different intervals to ensure needed revenues are being generated, thereby reducing the City’s risk. Suggestion: Ensure that contingencies allotted are adequate and the fund is easily recognizable. As professional and knowledgeable as City personnel are in calculating project costs there are always surprises. For example, the cost of the municipal buildings came in more than estimated. This is not unusual. Although there are some contingencies built into some of the budgets for City Center they are hard to find and analyze. Specifically, with regard to City Center there should be a contingency fund established and segregated as a line item in the specific project budget or as a separate fund within the CIP. This contingency fund needs to be constantly updated with allocations that are appropriate depending on the phase of the project. In some cases this could be up to 30% in the planning phase of a project that would reduce to 10% as more specific construction plans are approved. The segregated itemization of a contingency fund will make it easier for those reviewing the project to ensure that proper contingencies have been retained. 11 Suggestion: Establish a priority system to reduce risk for funding projects. In the ongoing effort to reduce risk in the absence of a development agreement or permits yet keep the City Center project from floundering the City should concentrate funding on those projects in the following priority: 1) those that have federal or state grant funding sources or available impact fees; 2) those that enhance the likelihood of attracting investment or enhance existing private investment; and 3) those that maximizes TIF funding. Observation 4: Impact of CIP on Operating Budget As mentioned in earlier sections the CIP will have an impact on the City’s operating budget, especially when it comes to future personnel costs. These costs have yet to be calculated, but are unlikely to be absorbed by increases in property valuation alone. In fact, the City has expended surplus funds to fund the 2015 budget on salaries and other inflation items, as necessary expenses surpass the amount of revenue generated by new growth. If sufficient development growth does not occur, the City will have two choices in the near future: cut spending or increase revenues. Suggestion: The City should convene a working session with political leaders and management personnel to discuss the future of the operating budget well before the budget process for 2016 begins. The CIP will likely add to the needed expenditures to operate the city, not reduce them. Those impacts have yet to be calculated. 12 CONCLUSION The City of South Burlington is an exciting and dynamic community with much growth potential ahead. It is apparent that City leaders take their responsibility seriously: to plan for the future with the best interest of its residents at heart. The suggestions presented in this report are to enhance the success of this planning effort. Again, thank you for the opportunity to serve the City of South Burlington. Sincerely, Michael K. Smith 13 Appendix: Non- TIF Revenue Sources for City Center City Center—Stormwater Fees Over the course of the project about $750,000 of stormwater fees are dedicated to the City Center project. This amount seems appropriate and did not require detailed analysis. However, this money is dependent on the City raising stormwater fees to fund these future revenues and ongoing operations. Given that this revenue source is within the realm of past and planned future increases these revenues are considered likely to be available. City Center—Federal Grants The City has obtained federal grants for approximately $5.5 million for the reconstruction of Market Street. This federal money has already been committed to this project. Therefore this revenue source for this particular project is strong. The CIP also proposes future federal money to build a pedestrian/bike bridge. This revenue source is uncertain. City Center—CIP Reserve Fund This fund is used to pay non-impact fee eligible design costs and will be used to pay future debt service. The plan is to supplant any existing money in the fund with additional revenues as a result of a one-time 1 to 1 ¾ cents increase on the property tax and dedicating that particular increase every year to the CIP Reserve Fund and also to dedicate the revenue resulting from the reduction in year over year debt payments. The hope is to generate sufficient revenues to help pay the portion of debt service on projects that are not eligible for TIF funding (i.e, mostly the city portion of the planned new City Hall, Library, and Recreation Center). These funds were slated to begin in 2015 but only 1 ¼ cents is funded in the 2015 budget and the difference due to the reduction in debt payments was not allocated to the CIP Reserve Fund. Because the City has not committed to neither the additional taxes needed nor the reallocation of debt service this funding source is classified as uncertain given the pressures on the operating budget. 14 City Center—Impact Fees Currently, if the City went forward with the City Center project and kept the other capital projects that are planned the recreation fund would be in a deficit position within four years because the impact fees are insufficient to fund the planned projects. In addition, in some cases, existing impact fees will need to be revised or a new one developed in order to be used on City Center projects. This has yet to occur. The FY 15 City Center CIP projects that $3.2 million in impact fees will be used to help fund project costs over the next ten years. According to the City an additional $5.8 million will be needed to fund the City share of debt over the course of an additional 24 years. Impact fees used prior to March 2017 (the date TIF debt will be incurred) will cover design costs for projects. After March 2017, impact fees are projected to be used solely to defray debt payments on the City share of project costs (costs that are not TIF eligible). Yet, to use the impact fees in the manner anticipated several things need to happen: 1) the impact fee ordinances need to be revised to address current infrastructure expectations; 2) they need to be updated to reflect current costs; and 3) a new impact fee for public facilities will have to be developed. Because the City has yet to do any of these steps this funding is listed as uncertain. Review of South Burlington’s Operating Budget8‐18‐14FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSESDRAFT 1 Methodology•Review of financial data•Interview selected department heads•Meet with financial and planning staff to gain perspective•Identify future financial issues•Explore other revenue sourcesDRAFT 2 South Burlington is Facing Operating Budget Challenges•Over the last five fiscal years the South Burlington operating budget has increased on average 8.46%, however in FY 2015 the budget actually decreased 1.5% year over year•The budget increases are largely driven by increases in public safety, public works, and debt service. These areas are difficult to reduce and the pressures to increase funding will likely continue as the City grows•Continued property tax increases to fund schools will put municipal budget in competition for scarce resources•The City does not have a budget stabilization fundDRAFT 3 Projected Impact on Tax Rate with Trend AnalysisLOW LOW/MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGHProjected FY 2016 Budget (4% Growth)$22,096,176(6.0% Growth) $22,521,103(7.5% Growth) $22,839,798(8.46% Growth) $23,043,763Minus projected non‐propertyrevenues(7% Growth) $9,667,340(9% Growth) $9,848,037(10.75% Growth) $10,006,148(12.5% Growth)$10,164.259Estimated to be Raised FromProperty Taxes $12,428,837 $12,673,065.71$12,833,649.87 $12,879,503.89Difference Between FY15 and FY16 $217,3935 $461,622 $622,205 $668,060Tax Rate Increase (in cents)(Based on GL Growth of 4%) .73( based on GL growth of 4%)1.56(Based on GL growth of 5.125%) 2.08(Based on 6.25% growth)2.21DRAFT 4 Trending of traditional operating revenues show a gap•Trending based on 5 years of actual expenditures and budget data shows a need to find additional revenues between $217K and $668K•Without additional revenue a 0.73 to 2.21 cents of property tax revenue may be needed to balance the FY 16 budget.DRAFT 5 Issues with Straight Line Trend Analysis•It doesn’t take into account the impact that City Center will have on future property tax revenue to fund future operating budgets (property tax revenues generated in a TIF can only be used to pay debt on projects in the TIF). It doesn’t take into account future development outside of the TIF and the impacts on the operating budget•It doesn’t take into account commitments made (i.e., capital reserve account, other expenditures) that need to be funded through property taxes•It doesn’t predict future economic eventsDRAFT 6 Other Considerations•City Center will have its greatest impact after the FY 17 budget in terms of slowing the increases in new property tax growth revenues that can be used to offset operating budget increases, but it will have a marginal impact in FY 16. For example: Trader Joes and Pier One are both in the TIF district•If the City wishes to move ahead with City Center then it needs to fund its Capital Reserve fund in FY 16•If growth continues added burdens of public safety and public works will occur•Recreation Impact Fees will be in deficit in four fiscal years with current scheduled projects•The City needs to create a budget stabilization reserveDRAFT 7 Measuring Impacts on Future Budgets•City Center will divert new property tax growth revenues for the next 20 years with the greatest impact after FY 2017. At the same time the City should see increases in non‐property tax revenues especially sales and use taxes. For FY 2016 a ¾ of a percent decrease in GL growth rate is calculated to estimate the impact of growth in City Center not available for General Fund purposes.DRAFT 8 Measuring Impacts (Con’t)•The capital improvement reserve fund needs to be funded with approximately $300K in FY 16 in order to have monies for non‐TIF funded City Center Projects•Public Safety and Public Works will be impacted by growth in the City. This is estimated to have an impact of approximately $125K a year in extra expenditures above the trend beginning in FY 16 •And a budget stabilization reserve fund at 5% of budget fully funded over a 4 year periodDRAFT 9 Total Impact on Tax Rate with GL Reduced ¾ Percent and Added Expenditures for Budget Stabilization Reserve, CIP Reserve, and Increase in Public Safety in Public Works in 2016DRAFT 10ITEM Low Low/Medium Medium HighBudget Stabilization Reserve (funded over 4 years) $276,202 $281,513 $285,4978 $288,047Funding CIP Reserve $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000Projected Budget Shortfall For FY 2016 $217,393 $461,640 $622,224 $668,078Needed for Public Safety/Works $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000Total $918,595 $1,168,153 $1,332,721 $1,381,125Projected Property Tax Increase in FY 16(at 3.25 GL Growth) 3.121415797(at 3.25% GL growth) 3.969423806(at 4.375% GL growth) 4.479826412(at 5.50% GL growth) 4.593033048 Expected FY 16 Property Tax Increases•Expect a property tax increase between 3.1 and 4.59 cents in FY 16 without new sources of revenue in order to fund committed and prudent future expenditures.DRAFT 11 After FY 2017 Challenges Will Become Greater•Perhaps as much as half of the GL new growth going to City Center•Increase demands on the three big cost drivers•Upcoming Deficit in Recreation Impact Fees•Continued Increases on the Property Tax from SchoolsDRAFT 12 South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 08/19/14 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid 8/19/2014 2598 All Seasons Excavating 7,759.77 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 8/3/2014 VI-13442 28231 7,759.77 7,759.77 8/19/2014 2599 Saffaa Alsaffar 20.00 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 8/7/2014 VI-13450 REFUND 20.00 20.00 8/19/2014 2600 Victoria Bruegel 21.45 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 8/7/2014 VI-13451 REFUND 21.45 21.45 8/19/2014 2601 Cheryl Coates 207.96 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 8/7/2014 VI-13447 REFUND 207.96 207.96 8/19/2014 2602 Champlain Water District 41,846.81 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 7/31/2014 VI-13439 SBWD-291 41,846.81 41,846.81 8/19/2014 2603 Champlain Water District 116,727.25 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 7/31/2014 VI-13437 JULY CONSUMPTION 116,664.62 116,664.62 7/31/2014 VI-13438 SBWD-283 62.63 62.63 8/19/2014 2604 Dean Draayer 176.95 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 8/7/2014 VI-13453 REFUND 176.95 176.95 8/19/2014 2605 Mark Fagan 175.30 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 8/7/2014 VI-13449 REFUND 175.30 175.30 8/19/2014 2606 Alexey Knyazhitskiy 165.00 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 8/7/2014 VI-13448 REFUND 165.00 165.00 8/19/2014 2607 New England Municipal Resource Center, LTD 62.50 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 7/24/2014 VI-13440 32799 62.50 62.50 8/19/2014 2608 William Oakes 40.66 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 8/7/2014 VI-13452 REFUND 40.66 40.66 Printed: August 14, 2014 Page 1 of 2 South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 08/19/14 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid 8/19/2014 2609 City Of South Burlington 269,052.60 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 8/8/2014 VI-13445 JULY SEWER 269,052.60 269,052.60 8/19/2014 2610 City Of South Burlington 193,990.45 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 8/8/2014 VI-13446 JULY STORMWATER 193,990.45 193,990.45 8/19/2014 2611 Ti-Sales Inc. 34,500.00 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 8/7/2014 VI-13443 INV0040392 34,500.00 34,500.00 8/19/2014 2612 USA Blue Book 620.38 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 8/1/2014 VI-13444 413405 620.38 620.38 Total Amount Paid: 665,367.08 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Printed: August 14, 2014 Page 2 of 2 CITY COUNCIL 21 JULY 2014 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 21 July 2014, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: P. Mackenzie, Chair; H. Riehle, P. Nowak, C. Shaw, M. Emery ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; S. Dooley, A. Johnston, C. Sargent, J. Louisos, M. Beaudin, G. Beaudoin, T. McKenzie, D. Girard, G. Palumbo, T. Barritt, A. Roberts 1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: Mr. Roberts: Expressed concern that illegal aliens may be coming to Vermont and asked the Council to contact the Governor’s administration to say “we don’t want any illegals here.” He asked that this issue be put on a Council agenda. Ms. Johnston: Asked why Ms. Nowak met alone with Gene Richards. Ms. Nowak responded said that she spoke with him for about 15 minutes because she lives in the neighborhood and wanted an overview. She had been left out of other neighborhood meetings. Ms. Sargent: Asked why the Airport neighborhood isn’t hearing about the planning grant. She noted how great it was that there were no F-16s flying this weekend and there was quiet. Ms. Johnston: Stressed that Mr. Roberts’ opinion is not the opinion of everyone. 3. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Mr. Hubbard: The Pension Advisory Committee (PAC) will meet tomorrow. They will be looking at the RFP for actuarial services. Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended. 4. Consent Agenda: a. Sign Disbursement b. Approve Minutes for 7 July and 14 July c. Correct prior notice of terms of two appointment to the Development Review Board (David Parsons and Jennifer Smith) d. Accept the resignations of Michelle Conner (Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee) and Susan DuCharme (Recreation & Leisure Arts Committee) CITY COUNCIL, 21 JULY 2014, PAGE 2 Ms. Nowak moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Volunteer Committee, Board, and Commission Interviews: The Council interviewed the following people for appointment to city boards, committees and commissions: Marcel Beaudin – Planning Commission Sandra Dooley – Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (alternate) Daniel Girard – Airport Commission Jessica Louisos – Planning Commission Pam Mackenzie – Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (representative) Gene Palumbo – Airport Commission Chris Shaw – Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (first alternate) 6. Consideration of Amendments to the Ordinance Regarding Licensure and Regulation of Circuses, Carnivals and other shows; public hearing and second reading of draft and possible action to adopt amendment: Ms. Emery moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Public comment was solicited. None was forthcoming. Ms. Nowak moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Riehle moved to adopt the Amendments to the Ordinance Regarding Licensure and Regulations of circuses, Carnivals and other shows as presented. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. General Discussion of City Center TIF District Proposal from Saxon Partners: Ms. Mackenzie noted she had talked with the Superintendent of Schools and Chair of the School Board about the steps they are taking (e.g., an appraisal of the property). Mr. Dorn said the city was well into the visioning of the partnership with the schools when the Saxon proposal came in. There will be consultant on board next week. Mr. Dorn noted that a lot of this discussion relates to the CIP for the city and the visioning process for the schools. CITY COUNCIL, 21 JULY 2014, PAGE 3 One aim is to keep up with who is going into and coming out of debt. Ms. Mackenzie said it behooves everyone to be very respectful of those who want to invest in the community as they feel it is a community worth investing in. There will be discussions about educational funding statewide, and Ms. Mackenzie said if there is talk of consolidation outside of South Burlington, that discussion should also happen in South Burlington. Mr. Dorn stressed that tonight’s discussion is just general and is not warned as an action item. It is to give advice and guidance to the staff. He then said it is an exciting concept that 20% of City Center would be built in this project with a huge chunk of housing near services and transportation. He added that the volume and pace of discussions have increased significantly since the Saxon presentation. Ms. Riehle questioned where the School Board is with regard to new schools, moving schools, consolidation, etc. She said this issue is clearly related to new debt and added that with the noise issues at Chamberlin, that may not be the best place to send more children. Ms. Mackenzie said this is a clean slate and the opportunity to work with the community to do something special for students. Ms. Nowak said she has heard interesting comments, none of the negative. People wanted a vision of Market Street beyond this project. The public is asking “what else?” Specifically where is a City Hall and Recreation Center that were part of a previous study. People also felt the proposed development would help others in the area, specifically University Mall. Ms. Riehle felt it was good that the school district was willing to look at this. Ms. Emery said the proposal has caused a lot of excitement. She asked if Phase 2 can happen without Phase 1. Mr. Beaudoin of Saxon Partners said he had seen no negative comments from Front Porch Forum or from the information on the websites. He noted there was a lot of discussion regarding the need for an anchor to make City Center work. At present, the code does not allow an anchor. He then cited failures of other developments where there was no anchor; small stores remain unoccupied below the residential units on upper floors. Mr. Beaudoin noted that the proposed project has only a small portion on Williston Rd. and Garden Street, and those are the only streets covered by Form Based Codes. He added that the only access to Central School would be on Midas Road. CITY COUNCIL, 21 JULY 2014, PAGE 4 Ms. Emery said she always felt there would be an anchor store but questioned why 3 are needed. Mr. Beaudoin said that they are leaning toward are all upscale tenants, which will help with apartment rentals. They are not very large anchors (100,000 sq. ft.), more like “junior anchors.” They would make the stores on Market Street more viable. Ms. Emery said she would like to see more families in the area. Ms. Louisos noted that in this section, the only thing allowed on the first floor is commercial use. Upper floors can have residential. Mr. Mckenzie added that this is a T-5 district which doesn’t lend itself to families. Mr. Shaw felt the Library is very attractive, but he didn’t see a “town green” (although this could be made up for by the Library). He saw the need for the scale of parking that is proposed as the development will attract people from the rest of Vermont and places like Plattsburgh. He did not want to abandon the idea of a community center in this process. Mr. Shaw also noted that closing Central School is not a new idea; it was talked about as far back as 1987. Mr. Beaudoin noted they are in a very long term contract with South Burlington Realty. He suggested the city look at City Center and where a town green might be located. Council members were OK with continuing to do due diligence with the School Board. Ms. Louisos felt it was exciting to see a proposal and it was good to keep the bigger picture in mind. The Library would be a good draw to get people to the area. She also felt the city should look at its need for additional property. Mr. Mckenzie said there should be consideration given to the safety of the school as City Center is built out. He reminded people that there is a 10-year deal to give the school access across South Burlington Realty property for safety reasons. The school district also proposed a list of uses in City Center that should be prohibited because of the school’s presence. He stressed the city is considering a lot of urban activity in the area of an elementary school. Mr. Beaudoin noted that the school district had asked for T-4 zoning. Saxon Partners is asking for that to be changed to T-5. 8. Discuss and Develop Plan for Second Round of Committee, Board and Commission Appointments: CITY COUNCIL, 21 JULY 2014, PAGE 5 Ms. Mackenzie reminded the Council that appointments to other committees have been held in abeyance because of the proposed new committee structure. She suggested the Council move forward with the understanding that appointment terms may be shortened if there is a new structure. Ms. Mackenzie also informed the Council that the Energy Committee feels they have a lot to do and they would not mind if there were not represented on the Underwood Property Task Force. Members were OK with appointing another member of the public to the Task Force. 9. Liquor Control Board: Ms. Riehle moved that the Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members considered the following applications: Monkey Hospitality, LLC – cater party on 1 August 2014 McKee Enterprises – cater wedding on 8 and 9 August 2014 Ms. Emery moved to approve the applications of Monkey Hospitality, LLC, and McKee Enterprises as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Riehle moved to reconvene as City Council. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: Re: Request of Allan Roberts: Ms. Mackenzie said the Council could hold a special meeting if the need arises. She said her guess is that the Governor is working through United Way. She also advised that there is federal funding involved. Mr. Dorn said he would try to find out what is happening at the state level. Re: Update on Planning Grant: Ms. Mackenzie suggested putting this on the agenda for the second meeting in August. Members agreed. CITY COUNCIL, 21 JULY 2014, PAGE 6 11. Executive Session: Ms. Riehle moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss appointments to volunteer committees, commissions and boards and to resume regular session only for the purpose of making such appointments and/or adjourning. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Council entered executive session at 9:50 p.m. 12. Take Action on public appointments to volunteer committees, boards and commissions: The Council came out of executive session at 10:34 p.m. Ms. Emery moved to make the following appointments: CCTA – Steve Magowan, representative; Jackie Weinstock, Alternate . City Charter Committee – Agnes Clift . Design Review Committee – Marcel Beaudin and Sheema Fahim . Development Review Board – Mark Behr (3 year term) and John Wilking (4 year term) . Library Board of Trustees – Bonnie Finnigan, Mark Coel, Jake Jurmain . Pension Advisory Committee – Spencer Baker . Planning Commission – Jessica Louisos . Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission – Pam Mackenzie, representative; Chris Shaw, first alternate; Sandra Dooley, second alternate. Ms. Riehle seconded the motion which was then passed unanimously. The Council decided that they would appoint a member of Council to be the South Burlington representative to the BTV Airport Commission. The Council sited the need to improve communications between BTV and the City of South Burlington, particularly given the upcoming joint planning project focused on the noise abatement properties purchased by the airport. Council members interested in serving as the appointee must complete an application and go through the same interview process as applicants for other Council appointments. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Ms. Emery moved to adjourn. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:36 p.m. _______________________________, Clerk CITY COUNCIL 4 AUGUST 2014 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 4 August 2014, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. MEMBERS PRESENT: P. Mackenzie, Chair; H. Riehle, P. Nowak, C. Shaw, M. Emery ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; D. Rugh and J. Barlow, attorneys for the City; B. Nowak, S. Dooley, A. Johnston, C. Sargent, L. Michaels, K. Robinson, G. Maille, R. Greco 1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to adjust the order of Agenda items to correspond with times printed on the agenda for items that were anticipated to draw public interest and comment. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Mr. Dorn: Building exterior improvements to City Hall are underway under the supervision of the Deputy City Manager. Stormwater work began today. There will also be a new entry to the building, new hardscape and plantings, and replacement of the flagpole. In September, the building exterior will be cleaned and painted. Ms. Mackenzie noted that The Rotary will be providing the landscaping. Mr. Hubbard said side lighting on the building will be replaced as will the light pole at the end of the parking lot. A statewide property tax meeting will be held on 14 August at the South Burlington High School auditorium. A meeting was held with the School Superintendent, other school officials and city officials with Frank Locker, consultant for master planning and visioning. An excellent meeting was held with Energy Investment Corp. regarding a new organization they are forming to do energy efficiency and improvements for municipalities. Work will include auditing, planning, financing, purchasing of equipment, monitoring, etc. South Burlington will be the first municipality to do this. Services will be paid for out of energy savings. A meeting was held with the Housing Commissioner regarding planning grants and City Center planning. CITY COUNCIL, 4 AUGUST 2014, PAGE 2 The Pier 1 ribbon cutting was held in City Center. Staff and some City Center people met with a branding consultant for a preliminary discussion regarding branding for City Center and ultimately for the rest of the city. Council members then reported on meeting and events they had attended. 4. Consent Agenda: A. Sign Disbursement B. Approve Minutes of 1 July and 21 July Ms. Mackenzie asked that the Minutes of 21 July be removed from the Consent Agenda for addition of a discussion that followed the executive session. Ms. Emery then moved to approve the Consent Agenda minus the Minutes of 21 July. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Shaw moved that the Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The following liquor licenses were presented for approval: A. Green Mountain Suites (outside consumption permit) B. Nectars (Burlington Tennis Center, 8/9/14) C. Vermont Retail Grocers (sampling @ Doubletree 9/9/14) Ms. Emery moved to approve the liquor license requests as presented. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Nowak moved to reconvene as City Council. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Candidate Interviews for appointment of City representative to the Burlington Airport Commission: Ms. Mackenzie reviewed the history and noted that the Council had decided to have a City Council member serve as representative to the Burlington Airport Commission. This will make it easier to have information brought back to the Council. The Council then interviewed Ms. Emery and Ms. Nowak for this position. Both candidates CITY COUNCIL, 4 AUGUST 2014, PAGE 3 reviewed their interest and qualifications for the position. 7. Consideration and possible approval of the City Council order laying out an extension of Holmes Road (TH 112): Attorney Rugh reviewed the history. He noted that surveying of the property was completed 4 or 5 weeks ago. There is now an order to lay out a right-of-way. This will go for approval by the State Board of Transportation. After that approval, there will be an order for anyone with structures, trees, etc., in the right-of-way to remove them. Ms. Nowak asked about city liability. Mr. Rugh said there is no responsibility for maintenance as the state handles all of that. Ms. Emery then moved to approve the order laying out an extension of Holmes Road (TH 112) as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consideration and possible approval of Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of 60’x30’ portion westerly extension of Holmes Road (TH 112) from David M. Farrell Trust, subject to review by the City’s attorneys: Mr. Rugh said this action will allow for a continuous right-of-way. The Farrell Trust will deed a right-of-way which the city will accept. When there is approval by the Transportation Board, Farrell will give the deed to the city. This will probably happen in mid-October. Mr. Rugh noted that all previous discussions have indicated that the Farrell Trust will do this. Ms. Nowak moved to approve the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of 60’x30’ portion westerly extension of Holmes Road (TH 112) from David M. Farrell Trust, subject to review by the City’s attorneys. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Update on the Chamberlin/BTV Planning Grant – moving forward: Ms. Mackenzie reviewed the history and read the vision statement for the planning grant. She then explained oversight of the project including a Project Oversight Committee which will report to the City Council. Membership of the Committee will include a South Burlington and Burlington Airport Commissioner, a School District appointee, and neighborhood residents from within the 65 db area and north and south of White Street. Community members felt there should be more community representation and asked that the word “oversight” be removed from the committee name (Project Committee). Members agreed to have only one City Council appointee from outside the Chamberlin district and to add CITY COUNCIL, 4 AUGUST 2014, PAGE 4 another local resident. They also agreed that the Committee will choose its own chair, subject to City Council approval. 10. Consider Affordable Housing Trust Fund feasibility Committee recommendation and possibly establish follow-on committee to evaluate potential funding sources: Mr. Dorn reviewed the history. Ms. Dooley said she had spoken with Mr. Simson who could not be present tonight. They have drafted a resolution which she presented to the Council. The resolution asked for the establishment of a task force to look into the money issues. Ms. Nowak suggested having as many people as possible from the original committee serve on this task force including those who may not be South Burlington residents but who can provide the expertise needed. Members agreed to have Mr. Simson report back to Council on the organization of the task force. Mr. Dorn stressed that he could not promise staff support for the task force because of all the other things going on. Mr. Michaels felt they could handle this without much staff support. He suggested Mr. Dorn might “drop in from time to time” and be available as a “sounding board.” Ms. Riehle moved to support the Committee’s recommendation to establish a South Burlington Housing Trust Fund and, at the same time, take the position that the City Council should not place on a City ballot a proposal for the establishment of a Housing Trust Fund that does not include one or more recommended sources of funding for this Fund. The purpose of this Housing Trust Fund would be “to provide an ongoing stream of funds to support strategic participation in development that will increase the City’s stock of housing that is affordable households with income below 80 percent of median”; and concurs in the Committee’s assessment that, in addition to a Housing Trust Fund, other tools are essential “to make progress in developing additional affordable housing.” Further, the Council shall (1) establish a committee or task force whose purpose shall be to identify and research options for funding a South Burlington Housing Trust Fund and make recommendations to the City Council regarding which it deems most appropriate for South Burlington; (2) seek recommendations for persons to serve on this committee or task force from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Feasibility Committee; the Planning Commission; city staff; and, in its discretion, other individuals and/or entities; and (3) request the committee or task force, once appointed, to complete its work and CITY COUNCIL, 4 AUGUST 2014, PAGE 5 make recommendations to the City Council no later than October 31, 2014. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Riehle volunteered to be the City Council representative to the task force. 11. Executive Session: Ms. Riehle moved that the City Council meet in executive session to discuss the appointment of a City Councilor to the Airport commission. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Regular Session: The Council returned to regular session at 8:41. By a vote of 4 – 1 the Council appointed Pat Nowak to represent the City of South Burlington on the BTV Airport Commission. The Council discussed 13. Other Business: The Council discussed future agenda items and agreed that the issue of litter in the community should be discussed. Ms. Mackenzie asked each member of the Council to come up with three ideas on what can be done to address litter throughout the community. 14. Adjourn: Ms. Emery moved to adjourn. Ms. Nowak seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Council adjourned at 8:52 PM. ____________________________________ Clerk