Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/10/2017SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 10 AUGUST 2017 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Thursday, 10 August 2017, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; P. Nowak, M. Emery, T. Chittenden, T. Barritt ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; G. Maille, J. Leas, S. Marriott, R. Greco, B. Nowak, P. Taylor, K. Jarvis, F. Gill 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Dorn provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the agenda: Mr. Marriott thanked the Council for its hard work on contentious items. 4. Consider and possibly act upon a Joint Resolution calling for Regional Governance of Burlington International Airport: Ms. Riehle reviewed the history and noted that the City of Winooski has voted to support the original draft. She also noted receipt of a memo from the City Attorney regarding his analysis of proposed amendments to State Law presented on 7 August. Mr. Chittenden said he looked to combine Council members’ comments into a “Tom 2” document. He felt it was important to include the State in the discussion as it has an interest in the Airport as do other communities. He stressed that his aim is just to start the conversation. He also noted that he had deleted the last “bullet” before the “be it resolved” section. He added that he was OK with removing the 2 blocks on p.3 if members want them removed. Ms. Emery wanted to include the St. Michael’s piece because of comments made by Nick Longo that a part of St. Michaels is directly affected. Ms. Riehle said that Shelburne and Essex are also potentially impacted and she felt the Council has to define the “real impact.” She added that there is no doubt that South Burlington, Winooski and part of St. Michael’s in Colchester are more impacted as to health and safety and to potential “buyouts.” Mr. Dorn noted there is a VOR station in Shelburne which helps to enable planes to land. Mr. Jarvis said there is also aviation activity behind the Teddy Bear operation. Ms. Nowak noted the statement about Plattsburg luring the Quebec market and said that BIA is also doing that, including having its personnel learn French. She said that enplanements in Plattsburg were down 1% last year. Ms. Emery was OK with taking that piece out of the document. Ms. Emery said her biggest concern is that if BIA were turned over to the State, South Burlington could no longer tax and not have decision power. With joint ownership, South Burlington can have some decision power even if it didn’t have taxing power. Mr. Chittenden said there is no assurance that South Burlington couldn’t get taxing power. Ms. Nowak asked about the anticipation for taxing power and noted receipt of an opinion from the City Attorney. She also noted there would have to be legislative action and City Charter changes to allow South Burlington to have taxing power. She also stressed that the Airport Commission has only an advisory status. Ms. Emery cited the opinion of the 2012 committee that the Airport Commission could be allowed to sign off on expenditures up to $200,000. This would involve changing the authority of the Commission. Ms. Greco said she had sat in on the meeting of the Committee when that discussion was held. The Committee looked at a number of models including one in which the Airport Commission actually had power. She noted that when it came to the final meeting, South Burlington no longer had a voting member on the Committee (Mr. Miller had left). The recommendation was to keep the status quo. The Committee realized this was a very contentious issue and that Burlington would “never buy it.” There were no votes taken. Mr. Barritt asked if there is a way that Burlington could be compelled to give up ownership of BIA. Mr. Chittenden said there is. The State writes the Charter, and a lot of Airport land is now owned by the State. Ms. Riehle added it could come down to legislative authority, and Burlington could be forced to come to the table to discuss a more equitable management of BIA. Mr. Dorn said he didn’t think there is a way in the law to force Burlington. He did note that all grants go through the State, and the State could create a “choke hold” on funding (the State has a 5% share of grants). Ms. Nowak said she didn’t see Burlington being willing to give up ownership and control of BIA to surrounding communities. Ms. Emery asked what Rep. Townsend has done. Mr. Dorn said she has spoken with legislative counsel. Ms. Riehle said there has been no answer yet as far as she knows. Mr. Chittenden then explained how a joint governing body would “separate” governance. Ms. Nowak asked what it would take. Mr. Dorn said BA could become a regional body through a “regional governing district” (similar to what is happening with dispatching). This joint regional/State governing body would be a unique entity in the State. Ms. Nowak said this could mean “Burlington owned, regionally governed.” Mr. Chittenden said there were 4 models suggested by the Committee one of which would have Burlington owning the Airport but having it governed by a separate entity. Mr. Dorn noted there are also practical implications involving employees. If BIA continued to be owned by Burlington, employees would work for Burlington. If BIA became State-owned, employees could be State employees. Creation of a separate entity would create a challenging situation regarding employment. Ms. Nowak noted the change from the original intention and said that information from Monday’s meeting moves from just changing the governance of BIA. Mr. Chittenden said neither of his proposals (Tom 1 and Tom 2) precludes that discussion. Mr. Barritt noted there is no State-owned, regionally governed airport in Vermont. He suggested being more “indirect” about governance, something like “an entity other than the City of Burlington itself.” Ms. Nowak said if she were sitting on the Burlington City Council, she wouldn’t get beyond the first “whereas.” Mr. Maille said it wasn’t his and Mr. Leas’ intention to challenge ownership, just to challenge governance. He cited the uniqueness of having an airport owned by one jurisdiction wholly located in another jurisdiction. He disagreed with the City Attorney’s assessment that this is not an oversight in legislation. He didn’t believe the Legislature had this situation in mind. Ms. Riehle noted the legislation was adopted in 1941, and she didn’t know if it was ever amended. Mr. Maille said it was amended once in 1985. The impetus of those amendments had to do with pollution control and noise. Mr. Dorn said there are at least 3 narrow, very specific statutes regarding an airport owned by one community but located in another community. There are other references in statutes that deal with this. The City Attorney felt there was no oversight. He added that the statute was designed to promote airports and to encourage the creation of airports. Mr. Maille said it was also to continue the health of an airport over time. Mr. Dorn said it was not for the State to assert itself into the governance of an airport. Mr. Maille felt that as written, the statutes shouldn’t preclude the recognition that South Burlington should have the opportunity to join in governance. Mr. Barritt said he feels the City of Burlington is not listening to South Burlington. He thought the wording to bring the State in was to get Burlington to listen. Ms. Nowak felt there are 2 issues that can be moving forward at the same time: first, the legislative issue to find out what opportunities there are (including how much time the city has to lobby for changes). Mr. Dorn felt it would be a major political challenge. Mr. Gill, a resident of the City of Winooski, said he was present when Winooski passed the Resolution. He said this has been a great conversation and he recognized there are a lot of issues involved. He felt that step one of the puzzle is to get Burlington to form a committee to study this. The details being discussed tonight would constitute the second step. He felt the city would be in a stronger position if it said to the State that it tried to go to Burlington but they turned it down. He urged the Council to pass the Resolution with as few “whereas” clauses as possible. He also suggested wording that would not be a “threat” to Burlington. Ms. Nowak said she felt a broadening of governance could be accepted by Burlington but not a change in ownership. Mr. Gill suggested saying the “current structure is not fair.” Ms. Emery said she felt taking a broad view of what the region needs, not just the survival of the airport, they could catch the attention of the Governor. Mr. Dorn said he felt the only thing that will get Burlington’s attention is a whole lot of communities saying the same thing. Mr. Barritt suggested saying something simple: ask Burlington to give up ownership of BIA to the state and control to a regional authority. Ms. Nowak said they don’t even know if the State has any interest in owning BIA or whether they have the money to do so. Ms. Emery then suggested 6 “whereas” items which she felt addressed the concerns of all Council members. Mr. Chittenden then moved and Ms. Emery seconded approval of the following Resolution: WHEREAS the Burlington International Airport (BIA) serves as a critical component of Vermont’s economic development and transportation infrastructure; and WHEREAS, in addition to the City of South Burlington, City of Winooski, which are the most affected cities, the Town of Williston, the Town of Colchester and other adjacent communities are directly affected by the general operations of the BIA, particularly from a noise, safety and traffic perspective; and WHEREAS the citizens of the City of South Burlington, City of Winooski, which are the most affected cities, the Town of Williston, the Town of Colchester, the Town of Essex, and the Town of Shelburne, and other adjacent communities affected by the ongoing BIA operations on the ground and in the airspace over their communities have no ability to address their concerns through shared governance in Airport decision making; and WHEREAS the BIA has begun the planning process to develop a Noise Compatibility Program update that will guide the investment of potential future FAA funds in approved noise abatement remedies that should set as a priority the protection and preservation of workforce housing; and WHEREAS while the City of Burlington holds “title” to the BIA, it does not “own” BIA in the classic sense of paid for through taxpayer investments (as that context of ownership reflects who actually paid for the assets, revenues were provided through the enterprise by passengers from throughout Vermont and the world who have arrived or embarked from BIA, commercial lease holders and other customers and by the largest of its funds being the FAA); and WHEREAS, as for the issue of governance, the June 2013 BIA Strategic Planning Committee recommendations include the following “Action Step” – “Concurrently work with the State and other potential regional partners to create a regional authority model to be implemented…” yet four years later, there has been no effort to pursue this “Action Step,” again calling into question whether or not any Action Steps have been pursued or accomplished; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE South Burlington City Council requests that: 1. The Burlington City Council consider forming a commission that reviews the structure of the BIA that would include representation from Burlington and other affected communities in the region; and 2. That the matters considered by the commission would include regional infrastructure, governance and ownership; and 3. That should neither of the actions requested in the first two resolved clauses be initiated in a reasonable period of time as determined by the undersigned, that the Governor of the State of Vermont appoint a committee made up of representatives from affected communities in the region and from the State to form a plan. Ms. Nowak asked that no addendums be included with the Resolution. Ms. Riehle said she had a problem with that as other communities may want to know South Burlington’s thinking that led to this conclusion. She felt it was fair to say these are the concerns that led us to this action. Ms. Nowak said she agrees with the Whereas and Resolve statements but could not support the Resolution without the assurance that there would be no addendums presented. In the vote that followed, the Resolution was passed 4-1 with Ms. Nowak voting against. Mr. Chittenden said he had made a promise to get a vote on “Tom 2” and moved its adoption. There was no second, and the motion was withdrawn. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Ms. Emery moved to adjourn. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.