Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/08/2024 t. 4' southburlington VERMONT CITY COUNCIL January 8, 2024 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 8 January 2024, at 6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt,A. Chalnick, L. Kupferman ALSO PRESENT:J. Baker, City Manager; Chief S. Locke, Deputy City Manager; C. McNeill, City Attorney; M. Machar, Finance Officer;V. Nichols, Superintendent of Schools; K. Bailey, C. Tillinghast, School Board; T.Jarvis, School District; R. Doyle, M. Mittag, B. Britt, E. Fitzgerald, G. Silverstein, M. Simoneau, B. Haselton, D. Albrecht 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology option: Ms. Baker provided instructions on the emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology options. 2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda: There were no public comments or questions. 4. Announcements and City Manager's Report: Council members reported on recent meeting and events they had attended. Ms. Baker: The first running of the South Burlington Running Club occurred on Saturday. Twelve people attended, 10 of whom had never known each other. This will be a weekly event, Saturday mornings, 8 a.m. Chief Burke testified at the State Legislature regarding the Retail Theft bill. There will be a Public Safety legislative forum on 15 February at 5:30 p.m. in the Community Library. 5. Consent Agenda: a. Approve and Sign Disbursements PAGE 1 Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Barrio seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Hold a Public Hearing on City Plan 2024: Mr. Conner said this is the continuation of the public hearing begun last week. The city has received a few additional comments. Mr. Barritt moved to reopen the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The following public comments were made: Mr. Albrecht: He felt the document was well-researched, particularly with a good description of each of the city's neighborhoods. It was also good to see that some of the "tweaks" he had suggested had been incorporated. He still disagrees with the stating of climate resilience as an "overriding objective" of the plan. He felt this contradicts the process the public was presented with. It was never suggested that one goal was more important than any of the others or should outweigh the others. He was also concerned that the plan puts all the city's growth in a few areas (e.g., Shelburne Road corridor, City Center, etc.), with portions of the city to be contrary to good growth with large lots, etc. It was frustrating for him to see those sections of the city exempt from the goals of the City Plan. In low residential areas, there is a "desert of only residential" with fewer people living within walking distance of services or each other. He felt there should be nodes of small commercial so people don't have to get in their cars to "buy a bagel." This stands out as an inconsistency and a relic of bad planning. Mr. Mittag: Spoke in support of the "overriding" statement which he said was important in light of an unprecedented existential threat. He said there is a difference between a policy and other types of decisions, and this statement related to what the City Council does. Ms. Louisos: Most of Mr. Mittag's points speak for the whole Planning Commission. She noted that in July the Commission put out a full working draft and received public input. Following that, they did make all 4 goals equal with climate as an "overreaching goal." Mr. Doyle: What is missing from the Plan's goals are design standards relating to bikes and pedestrians. Parts of Market Street are not comfortable for bikers and walkers. Design standards are particularly important around construction sites where people/bikers are forced into the road because there isn't room for them on the sidewalks. This is mentioned in the plan but does not appear as a goal. "Medians" should also be added to that section. Mr. Doyle noted that federal law allows design standards even if their state prohibits them. He cited "Dutch style" intersections as very safe and noted that they are used in Canada. Mr. Doyle also spoke against the paragraph regarding making Williston Road 2 lanes. He cited the 28,000 vehicles per day that use the road. No further public comment was presented. 7. City Council discussion of City Plan 2024 and possibly warn a Public Hearing for 29 January 2024 at 7:00 p.m.: CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 8, 2024 I PAGE 2 Mr. Barritt moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Kupferman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Barritt suggested modified language for the "overriding" statement as follows: The guiding principle of this plan is to make policy decision through the lens of climate change, factoring in other important principles and goals in our diverse community." Ms. Emery agreed and said "overriding" was too much." She added that the city needs to be aggressive, but not overly aggressive, and should not set up "flash points." Mr. Conner suggested that since the word "principle" is used, to change the heading of the next section to "Principles" instead of"Guiding Principles." Mr. Barritt suggested "Key Principles." Members preferred that choice. Mr. Barritt then moved to approve his suggested sentence and to change the title of the following section to "Key Principles." Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery cited a resident's concern regarding Airport emissions. The resident suggested adding the words "other than aircraft" after the word emission in that section. Mr. Chalnick said he didn't find the original language misleading. Mr. Kupferman said this is a high-level planning tool and asked if there is room to add Mr. Doyle's design standards concerns to the goals. Ms. Riehle said she wasn't sure how much "into the weeds" the Plan should get. Ms. Louisos said there are Public Works standards that the Commission is actively working on. Mr. Doyle said NACTO has some great plans, and what is being done on the city level doesn't come close to that. He noted that 22% of people in Montreal bike to work because the city has designed space that makes it safe to do so. Ms. Riehle suggested asking the Bike/Ped Committee how deep they have delved into this. Mr. Barritt said he felt design standards belong with the LDRs, not in the City Plan. Ms. Emery asked for confirmation that there is infill allowed in all neighborhoods where there is municipal water and sewer. Mr. Conner confirmed this and said the only place left out is the Conservation PUD. Mr. Barritt said he appreciated Mr. Albrecht's comments, but he noted that the Red Barn has grocery essentials next to Tilley Drive and fills a need. Mr. Chalnick added there is also one in South Village. Mr. Conner noted that on p. 80 of the Plan, a sentence reads "...Commercial with Supporting Uses." He noted that the map uses the language "...Commercial-Industrial with Supporting Uses." He recommended using the latter language in both places. Mr. Conner also said that staff will take note of Mr. Britt's typo indications. Mr. Barritt then moved to make the agreed upon changes to the draft City Plan 2024 and to warn a third public hearing for 29 January 2024 at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 8,2024 I PAGE 3 8. Vermont Land Trust/Bread & Butter Farm conservation project at Auclair Farm: Review and approve Non-Development Agreement (NDA) and City Right of First Refusal (ROFR) for area excluded from conservation on Parcel B of the former Auclair Farm property, in line with prior City Council decision to release pre-approved funds on condition of City Council approval of NDA and ROFR: Mr. Conner said the City is getting to the "finish line" with the Auclair property. Lot B is the largest of the properties. It is the main focus of the City's investment. A conservation easement is being pursued for all but 10 acres which are to be used for non-conservation purposes. The owners of the full parcel are looking to split their interests. Vermont Land Trust will own all but the 10 northern acres. The land can be divided without a full subdivision hearing at the DRB; however, any activity on either piece would have to go to the DRB for subdivision. Mr. McNeill added that at this time, the property can be used only for agriculture or forestry purposes. Ms. Riehle asked whether the 10 acres is the place where there was talk about housing for farm workers. Mr. Conner said it is. If there is ever a plan to do something else with that piece, the city would have the right of first refusal. Mr. Barritt asked whether a survey is required for this. Mr. McNeill said not at this point. Ms. Haselton of the Vermont Land Trust said the land has already been surveyed. The 13.41 acre exclusion cannot be changed. A new non-profit will be the future owner of these pieces. Mr. Simoneau said he and others are not fans of this deal. The city has invested over $900,000. of taxpayer money to get more conserved land. It was supposed to have been for agriculture. Water and sewer are not far away, so there could have been hundreds of homes. Now all the taxpayers get are a few walking trails. All the literature says the land is not good for agricultural purposes. The 200-acre site across the road could have had some housing at $300,000 per lot. The city then could have purchased the Long property. Just a few houses on a property would meet two objectives: some housing and some conservation, and the money could be used over and over again. Mr. Simoneau hoped the Council will think about that with the Long property. Mr. Barritt said this is what the voters said when they agreed to the Open Space Plan. Ms. Emery moved to approve the Non-Development Agreement and City Right of First Refusal for area excluded from conservation on Parcel B of the former Auclair Farm property in line with prior City Council decision to release pre-approved funds on condition of City Council approval of the Non-Development Agreement and City Right of First Refusal. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Initial Update on the FY25 School Budget and Act 127 and Common Level of Appraisal (CLA) implications: Ms. Riehle cited the need for a lot of discussion regarding the gravity of public school funding as the consequences for South Burlington are dire. CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 8, 2024 I PAGE 4 Superintendent Nichols said the figures she is presenting could be the ones brought to the voters. Act 127 and the CLA comprise the new funding formula which has consequences for the city. She hoped the Council and School District could work together on these issues. Supt. Nichols said the new formula results in an increase to the homestead tax rate of 18.27%. This is despite a 5% cap on the CLA. Prior to the impact of the CLA, the tax increase would have been 5%. Supt. Nichols also noted that 60% of South Burlington homestead owners pay a lower rate by receiving a property tax credit based on household income and home value. If the budget does not pass in March, the budget would have to be reduced by $6,000,000, which would still result in a tax rate of 14.57%. If they decrease the budget to $64,000,000, there would be an 18.17% tax increase. Supt. Nichols said Act 127 was meant to increase equity statewide. With the new formula, districts had to be below a certain percentage increase per equalized pupil (which is now calculated differently). The School District achieved, with cuts, a modest increase. Even with reductions, pre-CLA cap,would have been a 28% tax increase. Supt. Nichols stressed that should nothing change, when we get to FY3O, she couldn't see how they could keep the schools open. Supt. Nichols then explained the CLA implications. Following the 2021 reappraisal, the CLA was at 100%. Last year, it was at 92%. It has dropped 11% this year to about 82%. Supt. Nichols noted that 80% of the school budget is workforce, including health care. There would have to be serious cuts in staffing by 2030 which is very concerning. She also noted that the budget increase is 10.66% of which 8%is staff related. There is also an increase in revenues of 4.11%. In a meeting with city staff, 4 questions arose: #1. How can the City and School Board partner to bring forward budgets the community can support? #2. If the education funding formula doesn't change and CLAs continue to decrease, how can schools support development? #3. What impacts will reduced quality of schools have on home values in South Burlington? #4. What steps can be taken by the governing bodies to partner with Legislators? Supt. Nichols noted that most communities in Chittenden County are facing the same issues. Ms. Emery said she would support the budget and encourage others to do so as well. She asked if the budget passes, would the city be "around the corner." Supt. Nichols said there won't be a 5% CLA cap in FY2O3O, and should nothing else change by then, they would be at 30% tax increase or drastically reducing what schools provide (e.g., building, art, sports, CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 8, 2024 I PAGE 5 etc.). If the CLA continues to drop, it would make the system more unpredictable and disadvantaged. Supt. Nichols said that to get to a 9.9%budget, they would have to reduce $9,000,000 in spending (e.g., all sports, arts,world languages, non-student facing staff, etc.). Ms. Baker explained the CLA calculation. She said that what has happened involves the combined ratio of COVID years. If the city doesn't develop more, the CLA will continue to go down. Mr. Kupferman said this is the result of well-intended legislation. Ms. Bailey said it is a systems issue with the formula that is not working for South Burlington. People need homes, and there aren't many in South Burlington. Supt. Nichols said the expectation is for continued prosperity in South Burlington with higher home prices which will result in the CLA continuing to go down. She also expressed gratitude to the South Burlington legislative delegation, though she did not expect overnight changes. The hope is for a CLA cap in the future which would have a significant impact on the city. She noted that there will be continuing testimony in Montpelier tomorrow. It was noted that a reappraisal to address the CIA issue is not viable as there are communities in the state on a long waiting list for reappraisals. Ms. Riehle suggested a joint letter regarding the CLA. Supt. Nichols said this is a crisis, and the City Council speaking to a level of concern would be meaningful input. She stressed that this is the week decisions are going to be made. Any form of communication, individual or as a body, would matter. She was hopeful changes could be made. Mr. Chalnick asked if it matters in FY30 what we spend this year. Supt. Nichols said it does not. Mr. Chalnick asked why not go to the $71,000,000, which doesn't increase the tax rate, and "harbor" some resources. Supt. Nichols said that could bankrupt the yield because the money has to come from somewhere. Ms. Riehle asked if it would be feasible to pay off debt. Supt. Nichols said 91% of the debt on the ZEMs is being paid for by impact fees. Supt. Nichols noted that the City of Burlington is on the receiving end of Act 127; however they still have the CLA issue. She believed the purpose of Act 127 was to increase equity statewide. Mr. Barritt asked why the assessed value of a home isn't automatically increased when a sale takes place. Ms. Baker said that is illegal at this time. There is another bill looking at the assessment process. It is very divisive at the VLCT table. This should be a good time for the city to look at the appraisal system. Mr. Chalnick said they should put in for a change to do what Mr. Barritt suggests. Ms. Baker said one huge challenge is that there isn't good information on how legislation affects communities. The state needs to be accountable on what the CLA and Act 127 are CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 8, 2024 I PAGE 6 doing to individual communities. If we erode the vibrancy of a community, it will have a statewide impact. Supt. Nichols suggested two different letters, one of which would include Ms. Baker's comments. Mr. Riehle suggested one joint letter saying the Council agrees there is a crisis and one letter from the Council from the municipal point of view. Other members agreed. Ms. Baker stressed that the joint letter needs to go out this week. The Council could then do its own letter and suggest some ideas. 10. Other Business: No other business was presented. 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 9:42 p.m. , ,0=7j> Clerk CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 8, 2024 I PAGE 7