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 - 07/17/2017
CITY COUNCIL 17 JULY 2017 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 17 July 2017, at 6:30 p.m., in the Gymnasium, Chamberlin School, White 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; Rep. M. Townsend, Rep. A. Pugh, M. Leugers, H. Baker, Recreation Department; S. Dopp, B. Melizia, M. Cuke, J. Kochman, M. Simoneau, C. Sargent, B. Nowak, G. Maille, J. Leas, B. Servis 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from gymnasium: Mr. Dorn provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Mr. Chittenden asked to add brief item on an article regarding Facebook publishing. 3. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the agenda: Ms. Dopp noted that an RFP has been submitted by UVM regarding 2 properties near Swift/Spear Streets. These are the Edlund and Martin properties which are being offered for sale by UVM. Proposals are due on 18 August with a decision to be made by 19 September. The Edlund property would require a zoning change from IA; the Martin property is zoned for residential. Ms. Dopp said there are reasons not to develop these properties including steep slopes, proximity to Potash Brook, unique geological features and a wildlife corridor. Mr. Barritt noted that the DRB has had proposals for that property in the past. 4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended in recent weeks. Mr. Dorn: Noted that close to 1000 people attended the first Bites and Bikes event at the park. He added that the electrical upgrade was a great decision as there were no wires running through the area. Vendors could just “plug in.” There will be 5 more of these events during the summer as well as City Fest and the Mozart Festival performances. The Affordable Housing Committee continues to discuss the development of affordable housing in the community. A follow-up meeting was held with the Hospital regarding mental health issues. The dispatching project continues. A report will be presented to the Council in August. There has been no response from Burlington to the MOU regarding buying and demolishing of houses by the Airport. 5. Consent Agenda: a. Sign Disbursement b. Approve Minutes of 19 June and 5 July 2017 c. Approve proposed stipulation resolving litigation in the matter of City of South Burlington v. Rieley Cohen Partnership, LLC, Docket No. 36-4-16 Vtec Ms. Nowak asked to remove the Minutes of 5 July from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Barritt moved to approve the Consent Agenda minus the Minutes of 5 July. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Council reports related to outside committee assignments: No reports were presented. 7. Report on current and proposed activities of the Natural Resources Committee: Ms. Melizia and Ms. Cuke provided written information for Council members. Ms. Melizia noted the Committee has been reorganizing and has been receiving staff support from the Recreation Department. She praised the efforts of Holly Baker who has been working with the Committee. They are currently working on a Mission Statement, guiding principles, operating procedures, and a strategic plan process. They have also identified what will be in an orientation package. The Committee has brought in a conservation planning biologist who provides technical assistance to groups such as theirs. He has helped to start their work plan. Proposed projects for the fall include: a. Educational signage b. Input to the Planning Commission regarding renewables c. Removal of invasives at Dumont Park d. Addressing runoff concerns e. Additional garden space for another community garden f. Tree stewardship Ms. Melizia noted that they have been contacted by a citizen who has a concern regarding the use of herbicides. They have checked with the City Arborist, Craig Lambert, as to what he uses, so they can provide this information to the public. Ms. Melizia also noted that Mr. Lambert advised that people not plant more than what is required and that a “pot of money” be amassed to put plantings where needed. Ms. Riehle suggested the possibility of educating people about invasives that may exist on their properties and training them about removal. Mr. Barritt expressed concern with the loss of “meadow.” He hopes there could be tools for concerned landowners so that people can have options other than just mowing their lawns. 8. Report on current and proposed activities of the Recreation and Parks Committee: Ms. Kochman and Mr. Simoneau said they are a very hard-working committee that needs more members. The Committee’s long‐term goals include: a. Indoor recreation facilities and office space b. Looking at the CIP c. Creating additional playing fields and maintaining surfaces The Committee has been told it will take $4,000,000-$5,000,000 to maintain open space land in the city, and only $1,300,000 has been approved for this use. There has been positive public response to the work done a Wheeler and Red Rocks this year. The Committee continues to work on an NRP review. NRP provides a matrix for all Recreation Departments to enter data. They then have a report on how a community measures up. A sub-committee has met on this several times. The Committee is also looking to develop a Parks Management Plan eventually. The Committee has also begun to meet with developers to see how open space will be worked into a development plan. They would like to have a process to formalize this procedure. Mr. Simoneau noted that recreation and parks are the most visible things people get for their taxes, and it is important for the Committee to provide information to the City Council in order to demonstrate to the community the value of a proposal. Mr. Chittenden spoke to the need for an indoor pool. Ms. Kochman said this was in her mind when she learned of the drownings of the 2 young people this past week. She cited the importance of teaching children to swim as there is water all around this area. Ms. Nowak asked if it is possible for an individual to donate money to a particular city project. Mr. Hubbard said the City Council has the authority to establish a reserve fund for any particular project; this has the same effect as a non-profit donation. Ms. Nowak suggested this might be a way to get an indoor pool. Ms. Riehle said this might be a good topic for a Steering Committee meeting. Ms. Nowak said it would be interesting to know if the High School has a swim team. Rep. Townsend said she appreciates the new Dog Park. Mr. Dorn noted that a second Dog Park at JC Park will be open soon. 9. Consider and possibly act upon a Joint Resolution calling for Regional Governance of Burlington International Airport: Mr. Chittenden noted that the current governance of the Airport ascribes “ownership” of the Airport and all the decision making authority over this public asset to the City of Burlington and its elected leaders, even though the Airport is not located in that city. He ascribed the root of planning and communication friction with the Airport to this “abnormal governance” and said there is a better way to govern an airport. Mr. Chittenden said that the governance issue has been raised many times over the past decade, but there has been no progress toward that recommendation. The Airport is self-funded, and Burlington taxpayers have not been financially supporting it for 70 years; yet, its leaders have been making decisions that affect public air space and the City of South Burlington. Mr. Chittenden said it is time for a Regional Airport Authority to separate the governance of the Airport from the City of Burlington. Mr. Chittenden suggested that a governing board with representatives from the state house and all abutting communities could align the strategic decision making of the Airport to meet the needs of the region and could reduce the conflicts that distract their collective attention. He noted that while Burlington and South Burlington were engaged in suing each other over property values, Plattsburgh Airport grew to threaten Burlington International Airport’s attractiveness. Mr. Chittenden said that the creation of an Airport Authority would enable residents affected by Airport operations to have a direct line of influence to elected leaders empowered to appoint members to an authoritative body. Mr. Chittenden welcomed any suggestions and/or amendments to the resolution he presented. Ms. Emery said she shares Mr. Chittenden’s concerns for the long term viability of the Airport, but she did not believe the solution lies in the governance structure but in the state’s budgetary prioritization of the Airport. She noted that the State of New York made Plattsburgh Airport a budgetary priority and infused millions of dollars, including federal grants, into improved infrastructure. Since Burlington International Airport is too large to benefit from such grants, the State of Vermont has sought to keep the Airport “alive” through subsidies for emergency and rescue services available through the U.S. Air Force by expanding VTANG’s flying mission. This resulted in the buyout of nearly 200 South Burlington homes, one‐tenth of the city’s workforce housing, even though the lack of affordable housing has been identified as the main obstacle to worker recruitment. Ms. Emery said that as an elected official she is sensitive to the constitutional requirement that governmental officers by legally accountable to the people they govern, but this has not been the case sing the Airport began requesting federal grants to acquire South Burlington homes. She felt this lack of legal accountability would not be corrected by a regional governance structure. She felt the State would be better served by pooling the resources and pooled interest to acquire farmland north of the most densely populated are of the state to construct a fully operational, international mixed use airport . Ms. Emery noted that a federal regulation authorizes the South Burlington City Council to levy fees “on or related to a flight of a commercial aircraft or an activity or serve on the aircraft” since that aircraft takes off and/or lands in South Burlington. Burlington levies a $4.50 per passenger enplanement fee to fund airport equipment and upgrades. If South Burlington levied a similar fee, it could benefit the residents by preserving their quality of life (e.g., constructing a berm) and ensuring the future economic future of the region and state. Mr. Barritt said he felt there is value in taking complete control of the Airport from the City of Burlington. He noted there appears to be no interest on the part of the State’s Congressional delegation to changing the Air Guard’s mission. There is also no current sound data, no information on the percentage of time the F-35s would fly with and without after burners, and not consultant to tell the city what would work for the Airport and for the city. He felt the proposed resolution is a “piece of leverage”. Ms. Nowak said she doesn’t disagree with any of the thoughts previously presented. She noted that city committees have been bringing in “expertise” to help with their work. She suggested a similar approach to Airport issues, namely brining in a group of people (not to include people from the Airport, FAA or Air Guard) to find out what happened with the Airport Study Committee. She would like to see GBIC involved with their expertise regarding regionalization, representatives from the Governor (e.g., is the State interested in purchasing the Airport?), a finance person from the City of Burlington (e.g., Bob Rusten or an appointee), and others who have their finger on the pulse of the economic viability of the Airport. Ms. Nowak cited the importance of the viability of the Airport. Businesses could be lost if the Airport loses solvency. She noted that now for the first time airlines flying out of the Airport have contracts. Mr. Chittenden agreed that getting data is important, but he felt that without different governance, the City of Burlington can’t require that data. South Burlington has no influence on “the other side of the fence.” Ms. Emery said she was told that there was a study that showed other communities did not want regionalization because of the cost. Ms. Riehle said it is her understanding that the City of Burlington is not financially invested in the Airport and there are no consequences to Burlington if the Airport does not make money. She added that she was hard‐pressed to believe there is a need to buy this Airport. She didn’t see regional governance requiring communities to kick in millions of dollars. Ms. Riehle said she liked the idea of having real data and expertise involved in the process. Ms. Nowak added that experts could help with the construction of a resolution. Ms. Emery said she didn’t think South Burlington is helped by having people from Shelburne, Essex, etc., involved in governance. Mr. Chittenden said there are difference types of governance models. His resolution is only a “launch point,” a catalyst to start the conversation. He stressed that the current structure does not answer whether this Airport serves the needs of the State for the next quarter century. He also noted that the City of Winooski is taking up this resolution tonight. This is just the start of the discussion. Ms. Nowak noted that the Regional Planning Commission and Chamber of Commerce have lobbyists. She felt if this resolution goes forward and is regionally considered, support of such groups is important. She felt the city should hear “their piece” first and also hear from the state. Then a resolution could be made based on their information. Ms. Riehle said she did not feel regionalization would hurt South Burlington. Ms. Emery said she didn’t see how a regional body would be as accountable to the South Burlington electorate as the City Council is. Mr. Chittenden said that right now the Airport director reports to the Mayor of Burlington. He noted that Charlie Baker commented that the “Airport is a department of the City of Burlington.” He asked how effective it would be if the General Manager of CCTA/GMT reported only to the Mayor of Burlington. Public comment was then solicited as follows: Mr. Leas: Felt the real problem is an accountability issue. He felt the city should us the power of an enplanement fee, the funds from which could provide a benefit to residents. He also felt the City of South Burlington could derive funds from the landing fees, the parking garage, and other terminal activities. He felt the resolution would perpetuate the lack of accountability. Mr. Maille: Noted that the 2007 and 2009 NCP plans were never acted on by the Airport. He also noted that the possibility of collecting fees was never brought to the City Council because a petition to do so did not get enough signatures in 2009. He explained that the Airport has a “passenger facility charge” which is regulated by the FAA. Any fee enacted by the City of Burlington would be above that and would be economically disadvantageous to the Airport. He felt the resolution needs to be reconstructed. He personally wouldn’t give control to a state body but would recommend joint acquisition and joint maintenance. He strongly recommended using State Legislative Representatives to change the language of the law to recognize South Burlington’s unique situation. The law currently does not recognize an airport owned by one municipality but totally located in another municipality. This would change the dynamics as to “owning and hosting” an airport. Because the city now is not recognized as doing either, it has no power. Ms. Riehle asked if Burlington is required to reinvest the $19,000,000 it gets from the Airport into Airport uses or does it just go into the general fund. Mr. Maille said that money is put into a fund and the FAA is petitioned for its use. Ms. Nowak noted that revenues from Airport parking are down because so many motels are offering free parking. Ms. Sargent: praised the “refreshing conversation” and felt energized that it is taking place. She felt that any major changes should come from a position of strength, and South Burlington doesn’t have that. She felt an enplanement fee could fund South Burlington’s own studies. She stressed keeping residents included in this conversation. Rep. Townsend: Noted that regionalization of the Airport has been a discussion for a long time. She supports it and felt that it would in no way lessen South Burlington’s power. She said she is no stranger to other structures in the State where people are accountable to their local governing bodies. She felt that surrounding communities do have a stake in this and encouraged the City Council to reach out to their governing bodies. She stressed her willingness to help in any appropriate way with whatever approach the City of South Burlington takes. Rep. Townsend also stressed the need to present the strongest position possible because of the attitude of other legislators to Chittenden County. Rep. Pugh: Echoed Rep. Townsend’s comments and felt it behooves South Burlington to pass a resolution and noted that things change over time and people now have a new way of looking at things. She said she has never understood how Burlington owns the Airport and gets all the revenue from its concessions. She cited the importance of bringing other communities into the discussion so the Airport can move forward and benefit the whole state. Ms. Riehle then laid out some potential steps to take: a. Consider/have conversation regarding a legislative remedy b. Refine/recraft the resolution c. Pursue the idea of a broad information-gathering group which could lead to a broader consensus for change A special meeting to continue the discussion was suggested. Ms. Nowak said she would like to move forward on a “brain trust” group to provide perspective and give the city a position of strength. Ms. Riehle said she appreciated that concept but felt that organizing such a group would be a challenge. She didn’t think crafting South Burlington’s thoughts would be coming from a position of weakness. Ms. Nowak felt they need the educational piece on things the Council is not mindful of, specifically hearing from the person who did the original report. Ms. Riehle asked about having the City Attorney work on a “legislative remedy.” Mr. Maille stressed that whatever model the city has, it must be within statutory law, and the law is very specific on the authority of owners of an airport (e.g., ability for bonding, etc.). He said everything should be vetted through legal counsel. Ms. Riehle asked about the imposition of fees. Mr. Dorn said the city has no power to impose any of the fees mentioned tonight. There would have to be a public vote and legislative approval to impose them. Ms. Riehle then summed up a proposal for the Council to pursue: a. Ask Rep. Townsend to investigate a Legislative remedy b. Refine the resolution c. Ask Mr. Dorn to organize a broader meeting d. Pursue the fee(s) possibility Members agreed. 10. Review of issues on “Bike Rack” and/or “Parking Lot” and determine priorities: Members reviewed Bike Rack issues and made the following determinations: a. Hadley Road landscaping issue – removed from Bike Rack b. Cost of development/cost of open space – keep on Bike Rack c. Noise survey – remove from Bike Rack (is on city website) d. Water billing and rate structure – keep on Bike Rack e. Citizen participation in democratic process – remove from Bike Rack f. Building codes – remove from Bike Rack (are being worked on) Members reviewed Parking Lot issues and made the following determinations: a. East Terrace forum – remove from Parking Lot b. Street light policy – keep on Parking Lot c. Crosswalk issues – remove from Parking Lot and send to Bike/Ped Committee d. Committee reorganization – remove from Parking Lot e. Litter removal – remove from Parking Lot f. Wastewater capacity – remove from Parking Lot g. Sanctuary City designation – remove from Parking lot as Governor has said Vermont is a Sanctuary State 11. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Barritt moved that the Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Board considered the following applications: a. Hudson Store #1277 (located at Airport) – second class license b. Hudson Store #1278 (located at Airport) – second class license c. Hudson Store #1279 (located at Airport) – second class license Mr. Barritt moved to approve the 3 second class license applications as presented. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Nowak moved to reconvene as City Council. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Other Business a. Items held from Consent Agenda Ms. Nowak said she would send her recommended changes to the Minutes of 5 July to Mr. Dorn. Mr. Chittenden noted that Police Chief Whipple was quoted in a recent article regarding posting on social media. He encouraged the Council to consider that they may be on “shaky ground” with regulating what is on Facebook. He was concerned with consistency in such a questionable area. Ms. Nowak suggested the Council hear from Chief Whipple. 13. Possible executive session to discuss real estate issues where premature disclosure may put the City at a competitive disadvantage: Ms. Emery moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss real estate issues where premature disclosure may put the City at a competitive disadvantage, and that the executive session include the City Manager and Deputy City Manager. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Council entered executive session at 10:35 p.m. Following the executive session, Tom Chittenden moved to adjourn. Tim Barrett seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ________________________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 07/18/17 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid 7/18/2017 3220 South Burlington Ace 8.95 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 6/30/2017 VI-14309 800931/3 8.95 8.95 7/18/2017 3221 Suvad & Vahida Coric 300.00 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 6/30/2017 VI-14314 REFUND OVERPYMT 300.00 300.00 7/18/2017 3222 Champlain Water District 58,505.45 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 6/30/2017 VI-14319 SBWD-327 58,505.45 58,505.45 7/18/2017 3223 Champlain Water District 137,096.17 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 6/30/2017 VI-14306 10-125(HH) 24.04 24.04 6/30/2017 VI-14307 JUNE 134,081.64 134,081.64 6/30/2017 VI-14308 SBWD-320 190.21 190.21 6/29/2017 VI-14313 S.BURL-CCR-2017 2,800.28 2,800.28 7/18/2017 3224 E.J. Prescott, Inc. 2,748.63 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 6/26/2017 VI-14311 5252940 33.93 33.93 6/27/2017 VI-14317 5251855 2,684.92 2,684.92 6/28/2017 VI-14318 5254613 29.78 29.78 7/18/2017 3225 Graybar Electric Company 75.02 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 6/29/2017 VI-14310 992177596 75.02 75.02 7/18/2017 3226 Independent Pipe & Supply 243.93 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 6/26/2017 VI-14312 476758 243.93 243.93 7/18/2017 3227 City Of South Burlington 322,804.95 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 7/11/2017 VI-14315 JUNE 322,804.95 322,804.95 7/18/2017 3228 City Of South Burlington 228,042.70 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 7/11/2017 VI-14316 JUNE STORMWATER 228,042.70 228,042.70 Printed: July 12, 2017 Page 1 of 2 South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 07/18/17 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid Total Amount Paid: 749,825.80 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Printed: July 12, 2017 Page 2 of 2 CITY COUNCIL 5 JULY 2017 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 5 July 2017, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; P. Nowak, M. Emery ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; A Bolduc, City Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; B. Nowak 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Dorn provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Possible executive session to discuss settlement of pending civil litigation to which the City of South Burlington is a party: Ms. Emery moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss settlement of pending civil litigation to which the City of South Burlington is a party, and to include the City Manager, Deputy City Manager, and Director of Planning & Zoning in the session. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed 3-0. The council entered executive session at 6:38 p.m. and returned to regular session at 6:50 p.m. 3. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 4. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the agenda: There was no public comment. 5. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended in recent weeks. Mr. Dorn: Delivered the Memorandum of Understanding to Gene Richards. He said they would transmit it to their legal counsel and to Mayor Weinberger. Staff reviews are just about complete. The dispatch project continues, and the hope is to bring issues to the voters in March. There will be an earlier test with 2 or more districts participating. CITY COUNCIL 5 JULY 2017 PAGE 2 There will be a meeting with UVM people regarding the next mental health session. The State is working on similar issues City Council priorities are being worked into the work plan. The Dog Park at Farrell Park is open and in use. The other Dog Park will be open soon. The project to install windows in the upstairs conference room is set to begin. Panels are up at most of the landfill, and the project is on track to be charged up in October. Ms. Emery asked about GMP moving a substation behind a home on Country Club Estates. Mr. Dorn said that has been resolved, and the installation is being moved out of the neighborhood. Market Street construction is set to begin. Ms. Riehle asked about a Free Press article regarding the living roof at the Airport and whether it is out of compliance. Later in the meeting Mr. Conner noted the Free Press article didn’t said the roof wasn’t in compliance; it questioned whether it was. The administrative officer met with Airport people to discuss ways to make improvements as some TLC is needed. Mr. Conner noted the beautiful views from the roof and the Airport’s offer to community members to use that space. 6. Consent Agenda: a. Sign Disbursement b. Approve Minutes of 1 May, 15 May, 5 June and 19 June 2017 c. Approve All Hazards Mitigation Plan d. Approve grant application for Iby Street Gravel Wetland Stormwater project e. Approve resolution approving and authorizing execution of documents related to City Center TIF District Infrastructure and Capital Improvement bond Issuance Closing Ms. Emery asked to remove the Minutes of 19 June from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Nowak moved to approve the Consent Agenda minus the minutes of 19 June. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 3-0. CITY COUNCL 5 JULY 2017 PAGE 3 7. Reports from Councilors from Activities of Committees to which they are Assigned: Ms. Nowak read a statement that which read at the Airport Commission meeting regarding the Memorandum of Understanding passed by the City Council. This began a dialog that was very complimentary to South Burlington. Members particularly appreciated the letter sent by Mr. Dorn regarding the green roof and landscaping around the Airport. It was noted that the green roof was designed to help with runoff. The picture that was in the paper was taken after the vegetation dies back. A Master Gardener has been recommended by UVM, and Ms. Nowak said she is recommending someone. The Airport is open to having meetings and fundraisers on the roof. 8. Overview, discussion and possible action on disposition of city’s leased land interest on 61 Procter Avenue: Mr. Bolduc explained this history of these types of land which still exist today. Every once in a while, an attorney will come upon one of these pieces of land and will asked that the homeowner be released from it. There is a process in state law for conveyance of city real estate, and it makes sense to go through that process. Mr. Dorn showed members the land in question on the computer screen. Mr. Bolduc noted that the property had been bought and sold without incident until now. The other attorney seems willing to pay for the cost of the ad in The Other Paper in order to cover the city’s cost. Mr. Bolduc also explained why this process is done by quit claim deed. Ms. Nowak moved to authorize the City Manager to enter into a quit claim deed regarding glebe leased land at 61 Procter Avenue, with the understanding that costs for notice and transfer will be covered by the homeowner. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 3-0. 9. Consider and set FY 2018 Property Tax Rates and Tax Due Dates: Mr. Hubbard the proposed tax rate was .4946. This has now been reduced to .4920 and may be reduced a bit more. CITY COUNCIL 5 JULY 2017 PAGE 4 Ms. Emery moved to set tax due dates for 17 August, 15 November 2017 and 15 March 2018. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed 3-0. 10. Presentation of 2017 VTrans Pedestrian/Bicycle Grant Application and Potential Approval of Letter of Support: Ms. Blanchard said there are 2 applications for bike/ped grants. These have been presented to the Bike/Ped Committee which supports both. The small scale grant would involve a 50% city match for construction only. Construction would be next summer. There is no funding for design. Ms. Blanchard showed a map of the scoping done last year. It involves a 10-foot shared use path that will complete 2/3 of the “gap” in the path. The application is for $173,000 which will be matched from impact fees. The larger grant would be for multi-year design, permitting, right-of-way acquisition and construction. This would be federally funded up to 80%. The city would match the remainder of the cost. 50% of the cost is eligible for funding using TIF district increment. Ms. Blanchard showed a concept for the streetscape with a larger buffer and a 2-way cycle track on the south side of Williston Road. The application includes lighting, trees, cycle track, and the wider sidewalk. Ms. Nowak asked how much land would be taken from property owners. Ms. Blanchard said there may be some offers of dedication. The city has 6 feet from the curb and would need an additional 20 feet. This would not alter the function of the property (i.e. parking). The sidewalk and cycle track would be combined in some places. Ms. Emery noted how little safe biking space there is from South Burlington to Burlington and felt this is something that could be discussed with the Mayor of Burlington. Ms. Emery moved to authorize the signature and submittal letters of support on behalf of the City Council acknowledging the city’s willingness to provide a local match and future maintenance responsibility for the Dorset Street Shared Use Path and the Williston Road buffered bicycle facilities and pedestrian improvements. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed 3-0. CITY COUNCIL 5 JULY 2017 PAGE 5 11. Other Business a. Items held from Consent Agenda In the minutes of 19 June, members agreed to revise paragraph 3 on the top of p. 3 as follows: Following the first sentence, add: Council members agreed to continue with the current policy regarding appointments. Delete the remainder of the paragraph. Ms. Emery moved to approve the Minutes of 19 June as amended. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed 3-0. Ms. Nowak noted that Paul Conner did an excellent presentation at the South Burlington Business Association and was very well received. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Ms. Emery moved to adjourn. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. ________________________________ Clerk Regional Governance Burlington International Airport Joint Resolution Whereas; • The Burlington International Airport (BIA) serves as a critical component of Vermont’s economic development and transportation infrastructure linking our state to the nation and world for both business and personal travel; and • Preserving and enhancing the vitality of the airport for passenger travel and air freight needs to be a high priority for the region and State of Vermont; and • A reduction in flight schedules or the loss of service by one or more airlines would have a devastating impact on the entire Vermont economy and jobs market; and • The State has a vital interest in ensuring the viability and continuance of major airline service into the BIA yet has no role in management or operations of the Airport, its marketing plans or its relations with major carriers; and • The State owns, operates and maintains most of the airports located in Vermont including Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional Airport, Edward H. Knapp State Airport (Berlin), William H. Morse State Airport (Bennington), Franklin County State Airport, Caledonia County Airport, Middlebury State Airport, Morrisville-Stowe State Airport, Newport State Airport, Post Mills Airport, Hartness State Airport (Springfield), and Warren-Sugarbush Airport; and • The Vermont Air Guard and the Vermont Army guard, both instruments of the State in their civilian mission, are the largest tenants of the Airport and therefore subject to decisions made by the City of Burlington with no direct oversight by the State; and • The State has broad jurisdiction and responsibility over statewide economic development initiatives and the infrastructure that supports economic development and job growth yet has no role whatsoever in management of a key element of that infrastructure, namely the BIA; and • Performance indicators (see below) at the BIA call into question its viability as an ongoing enterprise and component of our State’s economic development infrastructure; and Whereas; • The City of Burlington holds title to the 880+/- acres and various buildings that comprise the Burlington International Airport; and • The 880 +/- acres that comprise the BIA are wholly located within the borders of the City of South Burlington and not physically connected in any way to the City of Burlington; and • The residents of the City of South Burlington, the City of Winooski, the Town of Williston, the Town of Colchester, the Town of Essex, the Town of Shelburne and other adjacent communities are directly affected by the general operations of the BIA particularly from a noise, safety and traffic perspective; and • The residents of Burlington are not similarly affected by the general operations of the airport; and Whereas; • The Director of Aviation serves as the general manager of non-flight and non-military-related operations at the BIA and reports to and is solely accountable to the Mayor of the City of Burlington; and • The only authoritative oversight of the management of the Airport rests with the Burlington elected officials neglecting all other municipalities affected by airport operations and Champlain Valley airspace activity ; and • The Airport Commission is perfunctory in its role and is merely advisory as they do not exercise authority over BIA operations or the decisions of the Director of Aviation; and • Four Members of the five Member Commission are appointed by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Burlington with one Member representing the City of South Burlington appointed by the South Burlington City Council; and • The City of South Burlington has no meaningful role in BIA governance given the purely advisory nature of the Commission; and • No other affected communities have a seat on the Commission even though they are directly affected by activities using airspace in the Champlain Valley; and • According to the approved minutes of the April 24, 2017 meeting of the Airport Commission a member of the Commission stated, “It may be time for the Airport Commission and the City of Burlington to reevaluate having a member from South Burlington on the Airport Commission if this is no longer as beneficial as it once was or all parties could work on having a more understanding and constructive relationship” potentially calling into question the legitimacy and longevity of a South Burlington representative on the Commission; and • A Winooski City Council passed resolution (November 17, 2016) requesting that Winooski be granted a Commissioner position on the Burlington Airport Commission due to the impact of operations on the City has not been responded to by the City of Burlington; and • The citizens of the City of South Burlington, the City of Winooski, the Town of Williston, the Town of Colchester, the Town of Essex, and the Town of Shelburne and other adjacent communities are directly affected by the ongoing BIA operations on the ground and in the airspace over their communities yet have no ability to redress their concerns through shared governance in Airport decision making; and • The lack of broad accountability embedded in the BIA governance structure combined with the existence of the BIA located wholly within another municipality with its operational affects touching other communities and not the City of Burlington is rare if not unique in the United States; 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 • Under Part 150, the FAA requires that an “Advisory Committee” be established comprised of neighboring communities and other stakeholders; and • The recommendations developed by the Advisory Committee will be provided to the Director of Aviation; and, • The Director of Aviation alone will decide which measures he will present to the FAA as the final recommendations of the BIA for future noise abatement measures; and • None of these measures or investments will be made in the City of Burlington as no relevant impacts fall upon the residents of the City of Burlington from airport-generated noise; and • The communities that are actually affected by airport operation noise will have no role in actually deciding which investments will be best for or even wanted in their communities as only the Director of Aviation will have that authority to make these recommendations to the FAA and to apply for funding to support those measures; and Whereas; • The BIA operates as a separate Enterprise Fund within the departmental structure of the City of Burlington that is wholly self-sustaining deriving revenues from commercial carrier operations, the sale of goods and services, leases and significant funding from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); and • The financial viability of BIA is wholly dependent on revenues derived from sources other than City of Burlington taxpayers; and • City of Burlington taxpayers have made no investments in the BIA or the property on which it sits since 1948 when the City taxpayers covered part of the cost of a runway extension; and, • All improvements to the BIA have been funded through the enterprise itself and the FAA, its major source of federal funding; and • The City of Burlington functions as a steward of BIA, an enterprise that is a regional asset serving a regional population and economy paid for by its own operations and FAA funding; and • While the City of Burlington holds “title” to the BIA it does not “own” BIA in the classic sense of having paid for it through taxpayer investments (as the context of ownership reflects who actually paid for the asset, 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 funders being the FAA); and, Whereas; • BIA Performance indicators as most accurately expressed though passenger enplanements (the annual number of passengers boarding scheduled flights) have declined dramatically since a peak in 2008; and • This decline in enplanements at BIA has occurred even as enplanements nationally have increased significantly; and • BIA enplanements fell from 759,021 in 2008 to 594,034 in 2015, (Source: BIA Website, BTV Monthly Passenger Enplanements) even as nationwide enplanements rose from 820,000,000 to 895,000,000 (Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2015 U.S. Based Traffic Data); and, • Enplanements at the BIA have fallen short of even the lowest forecasted projections by the BIA in its “Vision 2030 Airport Master Plan Update Summary Presentation” (Source: Chart - High, Medium, and Low Forecast Scenarios for Commercial Enplanements at BTV: 2008 – 2030) dated January 2011; and • The Vision 2030 Airport Master Plan Update Summary Presentation” dated January 2011 projected that enplanements in 2016 would be at roughly 750,000 under a “low” scenario, 1,000,000 under a “medium” scenario and 1,250,000 under a “high” scenario. Actual enplanements in 2015 were 594,034, well below the lowest predicted target (Source: Vision 2030 Airport Master Plan Update Summary Presentation, Chart - High, Medium, and Low Forecast Scenarios for Commercial Enplanements at BTV: 2008 – 2030); and Whereas; • A Committee established by the City of Burlington to develop a Strategic Plan for the BIA issued its report to the Burlington City Council and Mayor on June 10 2013 in an appearance before the Burlington City Council and Mayor that was featured in various news articles that included recommendations regarding Finances, Air Service Development, Staffing, Economic Development and Governance; and • As for the issue of governance, this Strategic Plan recommended 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 other “Action Steps” have been pursued or accomplished; and • It is unclear as to whether or not progress has been made on any of the recommendations as there is no reference on the BIA website or on the City of Burlington website as to the matter of addressing the recommendations of the Plan; and • As the line of authority and communication between Airport management goes only to the Mayor, and to no other body of authority over BIA operations, it is unknown whether or not any of the recommendations are being pursued as had been intended; and Whereas; • A vital and growing Plattsburg International Airport (PIA) creates competitive pressure on the regional landscape that has devastating implications for the entire economy of Vermont; and • The State of New York and Clinton County have invested $54 million in a very recently completed expansion of the PIA terminal, tripling its size (Source: Seven Days, August 26, 2016); and • The new terminal is projected to be able to handle 300,000 enplanements a year and is on track to exceed 150,000 enplanements this year (Seven Days, August 26, 2016); and • The new PIA terminal has five existing gates, expandable to eight, fully staffed TSA function, two baggage carrousels, fully staffed rental car agencies, massive surface level parking capacity with accommodations for US customs and immigration functions to support international flights (Source: Tour of the Airport); and • Spirit, Allegiant and PanAir currently provide service out of PIA to Boston, South Carolina, Florida, the Caribbean and Latin countries (Plattsburgh International Airport Website); and • PIA has aggressively courted the Quebec market by branding itself “Montreal’s U.S. Airport” and catering to French speaking customers (Source: Plattsburgh International Airport Website, Seven Days, August 26, 2016); and • The State of New York and Clinton County have also pledged $38 million to upgrade the industrial park adjacent to the PIA focusing on air cargo and serving as a transportation hub (Source: Governor Andrew Cuomo State of the State Address, January 11, 2017); and • It is clear that this nearly $100 million in investment is designed to lure a full-scheduled air carrier to PIA that will compete head-to-head with carriers operating out of BIA—putting added competitive pressure on decisions regarding routes and equipment flying out of BIA; and • Loss of routes and a change in equipment would have a significant impact on the economy of northwest Vermont and the State; and • There is little recognition of any competitive pressures from PIA or other airports in either the 2030 Plan, the Airport Strategic Planning Committee recommendations of June 10, 2013 or any other materials relating to BIA marketing; and • The emergence of a strong PIA calls into serious question the “Airport Vision” as presented in the Airport Strategic Planning Committee Recommendations of June 10, 2013; “Our vision is to meet the air transportation needs of all the people and businesses of Vermont, northern New York, northern New Hampshire and southern Quebec for the duration of this century;” and Whereas; • Regional governance models for larger, commercial-service airports that are county–based or authority–based is the norm in the United States which brings all affected communities to the decision making table; and • All major airports in New York State are now governed by regional authorities with Syracuse being the most recent conversion in 2013; and • Other airports, such as Gerald Ford International Airport in Grand Rapids, Michigan have also recently converted to an “authority” structure of governance; and • Syracuse, among others, has found great success in a regional governance model increasing its economic viability and engaging the entire region in support of the airport as an economic driver; and • In the Airport Strategic Planning Committee Recommendations of June 10, 2013, the Strategic Planning Committee recognized the viability of moving toward a regional governance model for BIA by making the recommendation that it “...work with the state and other potential regional partners to create a regional authority model to be implemented as financial goals are realized” and in a later recommendation to “further explore the advantages/disadvantages of conversion to a regional airport authority governance model.” Four years later, a serious review and discussion of regional governance has yet to occur. Therefore, be it resolved that the undersigned communities and stakeholders request that: 1. The Burlington City Council consider and declare that it is in the best interest of the City of Burlington, the greater Northwest Vermont region and the State of Vermont that ownership of the Burlington International Airport be transferred to the State of Vermont and that a State/Regional governing board be established to provide oversight of the management of the Burlington International Airport that would include representation from Burlington as well as other affected communities in the region and the State; and 2. That the Mayor of Burlington cause to be formed a committee made up of representatives from Burlington, affected communities in the region appointed by their legislative bodies and the State as appointed by the Governor to prepare and implement a plan to transition Burlington International Airport ownership from the City of Burlington to the State of Vermont and to recommend that a governance structure be established that includes representatives from Burlington as well as other affected communities in the region and the State of Vermont; 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 the State to develop a plan to transition ownership of the Burlington International Airport from the City of Burlington to the State of Vermont to be governed by a board comprised of representatives from affected communities in the region and the State in a structure as determined by the committee. __________________________ _________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Pat Nowak __________________________ _________________________ Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair Thomas Chittenden __________________________ Tim Barret, Clerk __________________________ Date