Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/30/2017SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 30 JANUARY 2017 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, 30 January 2017, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; P. Nowak, T. Chittenden, T. Barritt, M. Emery ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; A. Bolduc, City Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Leas, P. Taylor, G. Maille, B. Nowak, C. Sargent, K. Robison, S. Dooley, J. Kernan, other members of the public 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: 3. Consent Agenda: a. Sign Disbursement Mr. Chittenden moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Develop, discuss, and possibly approve a directive to the City Manager related to covenants on real estate related to Kirby Road/Lily Lane properties: Mr. Bolduc reminded the Council that they had asked him to research the actual maximum purchase price of the units in question. He noted that in the covenant, there is a formula to determine this. This formula was utilized in determining the maximum purchase price. It utilized a median income of $84,000 (which had been $73,800) when the homes were purchased. Mr. Bolduc then went through the mathematical calculations (including figures for net property taxes and insurance in addition to mortgage payments). The resulting figure was $276,000 (give or take $20) for each of the properties. Considering the 5% down payment, this resulted in a figure of $290,526.30 as the maximum price for an affordable house. Mr. Conner added that they approached this from the perspective of a home seller and what that seller would be allowed to do. Ms. Emery commented that the figures seem high for affordability and felt this is why young families can’t afford to live in Chittenden County. She said that seniors are served quite well but not young families. Ms. Riehle said the question is whether the Council wishes to direct the City Manager to remove the covenants. Mr. Barritt said that the Lily Lane homeowners have been waiting a long time for a decision, and that no matter what the Council decides, they still don’t know the future of those homes. He added that he felt it was stupid to build a new home in 2008 and then demolish it a few years later. He hoped the city and the airport could work together to find a solution to this and that the Lily Lane homes can be saved for someone else. He noted that “all the forces” converge on these few homes in a battle between noise and the desire of people to have a home. There are mitigation opportunities that have not been explored by the Airport. Ms. Emery noted the buyout of the homes takes tax money from the city and from the state education fund. She said there are now a total of 141 properties on which the city is no longer collecting the same amount of taxes. Ms. Nowak noted the change in “players” and in “planes.” She also noted that when people had the opportunity, they chose to sell their homes. She felt there are other sources of mitigation including nice paneling. She hoped the City would continue to pursue seeking this mitigation. She also felt there are ways to pursue preserving the Lily Lane homes. It would not be inexpensive, but it is not impossible. She personally has no desire to demolish the homes and wants to keep them in South Burlington. Mr. Chittenden said he didn’t want to see any more homes come down until there is a plan to dampen ground noise. Ms. Nowak corrected an impression that the Council had that one of the Lily Lane homes had been rented. She said it cannot be rented but is “occupied” for security, similar to a “house‐sitting situation. Ms. Dooley read from a South Burlington Affordable Housing report that cited the 2010 median income as $61,000, similar to the county median. She also noted that a report indicated that 2000 South Burlington households made less than $40,000 a year. Ms. Emery said it seems the formula is not doing what it is intended to do. Mr. Conner said the discrepancy in figures is due to a differentiation between “median family income” and “median household income.” “Family income” excludes households with a single resident. Mr. Leas said it is much cheaper to insulate a home than to demolish it. He questioned whether this is the appropriate thing to do to a community. Ms. Emery said F16 noise is not unlivable; what is unlivable is the home buyout program. Mr. Barritt then moved to direct the City Manager of the City of South Burlington to formally remove the affordability covenants on the three homes at 10, 12 and 18 Lily Lane, South Burlington. Ms. Nowak seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Barritt asked about the timeframe. Mr. Bolduc said all they need are the written releases signed by the City Manager and the homeowners. Ms. Riehle thanked everyone for being patient and felt the outcome is what the homeowners want. She continues to be concerned with losing affordable housing in the city and was not optimistic about the possibility of moving the Lily Lane homes. She was concerned with the houses remaining dormant while the city works on that possibility. Ms. Emery was concerned that the Lily Lane homes were the first to be purchased while residents on Kirby Road have been living with uncertainty. Ms. Nowak advised that an FAA representative will be in South Burlington for a question and answer session regarding the home buyout program and other concerns on Thursday, 16 February, 5:30-7:30 p.m. at the Airport mezzanine. Parking passes will be provided to those who attend. Ms. Emery asked if the representative could come to a City Council meeting. Ms. Nowak said that offer can be extended. Ms. Nowak then proposed a motion regarding home insulation. Council members felt this was out of order as it was not on the agenda. Ms. Riehle suggested putting it on next Monday’s agenda and asked Ms. Nowak to provide members with a copy of her motion prior to that meeting. 5. Discussion regarding FAA response regarding BTV’s Part 150 Noise Study and request for support of Noise Modeling of the F-35 Aircraft: Mr. Dorn noted he had sent a letter on 28 December to the FAA asking for noise modeling using the F-35s and also asking that the City of South Burlington have “a seat at the table” when decisions regarding the City are being considered. A response from the FAA was received on 23 January. In short, they said “no” to everything. Mr. Dorn said there are several inaccuracies in the FAA response. He will write to them again and indicate corrections, pressing the city’s case harder. Ms. Riehle asked to include information that there are 2 places in the country (Idaho and Montana) where such noise modeling was done before the F- 35s were even in the offing for those communities. If it could be done there, why can’t it be done in South Burlington? Mr. Dorn noted that Boise, Idaho is not even slated for the F-35. He had no idea how noise modeling came about there. Mr. Maille felt a precedent was set in Idaho and Montana and questioned how South Burlington could be denied. Ms. Riehle felt that would be a good question to ask the FAA representative on the 16 of February. Mr. Leas said it was the afterburners on the F16s that created the noise issue, and he felt the city can’t be sure there won’t be afterburners on the F‐ 35s. He didn’t feel the city should rely on what was said in the EIS. 6. Discussion and comments regarding additional information as follow-up to the Council Resolution of the Burlington International Airport Land and Re-Use Plan and consider approval of supplemental information: Ms. Riehle said they need to make the best case possible. She cited two important points: The current re-use plan is not consistent with local plans, and the pre-requisite public hearings were not held. Mr. Chittenden asked if there were public hearings held in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Ms. Emery said she didn’t believe so. Ms. Riehle said this is for the 20-year plan, which is different from the buyout program. Ms. Emery said the Airport never notified the city of its right to a public hearing. Mr. Chittenden asked if the 9 additional homes being acquired fit on any map for an Airport access road. Ms. Emery said the 9 additional homes allow the Airport access to the highway which they can no longer get over the South Burlington Landfill because of the solar installation. Mr. Dorn said the city is going to build a solar field on the landfill. The Airport objected to that proposal when it was presented to the Public Service Board. The city prevailed at the Public Service Board. Mr. Dorn added that in order to get FAA funding, the proposed Airport access road would have to be a “single access road.” Mr. Chittenden cited several sentences in the proposed document which he could not support and felt the document could stand without those sentences and he would then support it. He did not see the value in “casting aspersions.” Ms. Riehle then noted that a Steering Committee had a scheduled meeting and suggested the Council recess until after that meeting. Mr. Barritt moved to recess the Special City Council meeting to a time following the scheduled Steering Committee meeting. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting recessed shortly after 8 p.m. and resumed at 9:55 p.m. Ms. Emery said there were invitations issued to airport representatives to come to the Council to discuss the buyout, insulation program, etc. The Burlington City Council declined, and both Gene Richards and Nick Longo declined. She felt that Airport consultants were not working with the CNAPC which was supposed to happen. There were promises made by the Airport that if they couldn’t come to the 7 December meeting, the city could submit questions and they would be included in their response. These are nowhere to be found. Ms. Nowak noted that the Airport agreed they would step aside until CNAPC was finished. She also noted that several of the South Burlington people appointed to CNAPC rarely showed up. The Committee actually voted to drop one of those people from the Committee roster. Ms. Emery said that Ms. Nowak as Airport Commissioner, did not always share all information. Ms. Nowak replied that you can’t always blame the other team. Mr. Chittenden then suggested removing from the section of the document called “Conclusion” the sentence in paragraph #1 beginning “It is also our view…” because he felt it weakened the Council’s argument to include a criticism of a Council member. Ms. Emery said she thought the Airport felt there was no need for a public hearing because the Airport Commissioner fulfilled that role. She added that she thought the Airport Commission should not be a Council member because it allows the Airport to sidestep the public hearing process. Mr. Chittenden then suggested the following wording for the above sentence: “It is also our view that this lack of transparency was compounded by communication issues between the South Burlington Airport Commissioner and the City Council.” He also asked that the words “highly suspected” in a following sentence be changed to “There is conjecture that…” He said that with those changes he could support the document because it highlights the governance issue. Ms. Riehle noted that this is an addendum to a Resolution Mr. Chittenden did not support. Mr. Barritt then moved to add the amended resolution to the Resolution approved by the Council on 23 January 2017. Ms. Emery seconded. The motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Nowak voting against as she could not support all of the items. 7. Other Business: There were no other issues raised. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.