Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Steering Committee - 10/13/2015STEERING COMMITTEE 13 OCTOBER 2015 The South Burlington Steering Commiee held a meeng on Tuesday, 13 October 2015, at 6:30 p.m., in the Library of the Tule Middle School, 500 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: City Council: P. Nowak, H. Riehle, C. Shaw, T. Chienden, M. Emery; K. Dorn, City Manager; School Board: E. Fitzgerald, Steering Commiee Chair; J. Beay, D. Fleming, P. Leduc; D. Young, Superintendent of Schools ALSO PRESENT: T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; J. Stewart, School District; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; B. Nowak, A. Klugo, other members of the public 1. Agenda Review: Addions, deleons or changes in the order of Agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Approval of the 8 July 2015 Steering Commiee Minutes: The minutes were then accepted as presented. 3. Master Planning & Visioning Discussion: Supt. Young noted that the Master Planning Task Force had presented two opons with regard to school configuraon. The School Board had then charged him with making a decision. What he had come up with was a single elementary school and upgrades to the High School. At the last School Board meeng, addional informaon was given to the School Board regarding individual schools (budgets, staffing, Act 46 cost containment ramificaons, etc.). Superintendent Young said it is his belief that there is a need to do something. Although South Burlington provides an excellent educaon for its children, there is an opportunity to benefit students in a more consolidated way. Ms. Emery asked what Supt. Young thought of the 2 opons presented by the Task Force. Supt. Young said both had merit, but he felt the number of transions was an issue as was equity. He noted that neighborhood schools in the city are much different than when they were established. In addion, City Center plans to put queson marks around the Marco (Central) School. STEERING COMMITTEE 13 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 2 Supt. Young said there is a need for addional financial forecasng for the single school model, and it may be that the single school model is beer in that regard. That financial analysis is going on now and will require going to an outside consultant. Ms. Fitzgerald noted that the Board received informaon regarding future spending and the implicaons to the tax rate and to maintaining current programs. Those concerns would be the baseline for a discussion of other opons. That baseline includes things such as stewardship (including ADA requirements), salaries, benefits, etc. Supt. Young said he feels good about a 2-year forecast window; beyond that, there are unknowns such as State funding. Ms. Fitzgerald stressed the need to preserve the quality of what is there now and to introduce improvements. Supt. Young added there is also a desire to bring back some things, such as World Languages in the elementary school and visual and performing arts acvies. Ms. Emery asked about a community survey. Supt. Young said that is an important component, but having too many opons means a potenal lack of clarity. He felt more clarity is needed before they go to the public. Ms. Nowak noted that 70% of the city’s residents don’t have children in the schools. Their most asked queson is “What’s it going to cost us?” It has been very effecve to show what each home or condo will be paying. That same informaon is needed for a decision on school opons. Ms. Nowak cited the number of seniors in the city who live in more limited circumstances. She said she understood the number of challenges but also noted that the Council was elected to make sound and appropriate decisions for the taxpayers. She said she would have liked to see more come out of the Task Force in the way of a conclusion. It seems now that it may be another year before things happen. Ms. Nowak stressed that the city’s me-line is different from that of the schools. The city doesn’t have the ability to wait for years. There has to be some acon on the city’s part, and there may be some city acons that are not in line with the schools. The city needs to answer the needs of others (e.g., the Library). If there is not private funding for City Center, the city will not get the public spaces that the residents want. STEERING COMMITTEE 13 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 3 Supt. Young said that cost modeling in educaon is very difficult. There has to be due diligence, which, he stressed, is not stalling. Ms. Riehle said she understood “due diligence,” but felt it is disappoinng that there are different me lines for the city and schools. Ms. Emery cited the need for “give and take” and said the city is pung a proposal on the table which can address the need to bring more affordable housing, and thus more families, to the city. Mr. Dorn then distributed a proposal from the city dated 12 August, which was wrien at the request of the City Council. It concerns properes owned by the city and by the school district. The city’s offer involves an exchange of those properes, which is very consistent with the model Superintendent Young has proposed. Mr. Dorn then reviewed the proposal which includes the following: a. An exchange of Central School/Chamberlin School/Orchard School properes for land owned by the city (Oak Creek School site). The city’s land, which has previously been thought not to large enough for a school, could be increased by neighboring property owners who have agreed to have that discussion. Mr. Dorn noted the Central School property is important to the city for site control over an area of City Center, which will drive City Center development. Mr. Dorn added that the city’s vision for City Center has been consistent since 1985. b. The city would not develop the Oak Creek School Site, but there would be public input. There would be a Master Plan for the City Center property, and the city would sell the property for development. Mr. Dorn added that the city is not in a superior posion to deal with the property “post school.” c. The school district would be out of the posion of having to deal with that land and would receive the proceeds from its sale. This would allow the school district to focus on construcon of school/schools. The Oak Creek site would be given to the School District at no cost to the taxpayers d. The city also has an interest in the Chamberlin and Orchard School sites. There is a need for indoor recreaonal facilies. Both buildings could be repurposed into community centers for aer school acvies, acvies for seniors, pre-school, etc. Mr. Dorn stressed that the public would have significant input into the repurposing STEERING COMMITTEE 13 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 4 of those schools. This process would also eliminate the need for a “third party” and an RFP process. Mr. Dorn then read the complete proposal outline. He noted that the school district would have the ability to set the date for the leaving of the exisng facilies. He also stressed that this is a great me for development for both private and public developers (i.e., low interest rates). Mr. Dorn said the city’s interest in a new Library is immediate, and there are other infrastructure needs as well. Mr. Shaw said that in talking with people, he has heard that the status quo seems acceptable to many, but if you add up the intangibles (equity, 21st century learning efficiencies, etc.) it is a different discussion. Mr. Lalonde said the School Board has to be sure there is a solid basis to make a change, and it has to be supported. He felt they are not at a point where they are sure Central School should be sold. They recognize the benefits of consolidang elementary schools, and they are open to trying to resolve that issue. They would like informaon from the city as to how City Center development will benefit the taxpayers and thus offset the cost of a new school. Mr. Lalonde said he liked the concept of the city dealing with the master planning. He also added that part of the Central School discussion is how much the school district can get for it. Mr. Dorn said one opon the school district has is to go to the highest bidder; however, the city’s plan is a full infrastructure piece of property, significantly more valuable than it is today. Mr. Chienden said he is surprised that aer so much study the School Board is sll pondering whether Central School should be a school. Mr. Lalonde said the concern is that if they sell the school, and people are then paying more in taxes, will they vote down school budgets and necessitate the cung of programs. Then there is also the issue of geng more money for the needs of the High School. Ms. Fitzgerald said that when they look at where there is the most need in the elementary schools, it is at Chamberlin School. She cited equity and Airport concerns as significant. There STEERING COMMITTEE 13 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 5 is also the fact that the school district would have to repay debt owed to the state which would diminish any money received from the sale of the school(s). She added that she can see the value of consolidaon, but there has to be a compelling proposal to take to the public. Mr. Lalonde added that he didn’t feel the public would support the Task Force recommendaon as it is. Mr. Shaw said the School Board has to keep in mind that City Center is a big priority for the voters as well. He said the School Board can help devise a vision for City Center that would be something other than “UMall East.” Mr. Lalonde said he supports City Center, but noted that only recently has Central School become a linchpin for City Center. Ms. Fitzgerald said it seems that Central School is now the “crical component” of City Center. Ms. Nowak said a former City Council member has told her that 20 years ago there was a queson as to whether Central School should connue to be funded. She said she is “galled” by the use of the word “linchpin.” She felt the city’s plan is a win-win which takes the burden off the School Board as to what will happen to the property if it is sold. She understood the need to flush things out, but again stressed the different me lines of the city and school district. Ms. Nowak then asked if the ming is right, and if there is enough land, whether the Oak Creek site is good for the School District. If it is not, the School District should be fair to the city and let the city make other plans for that property. Ms. Emery asked if the Oak Creek site would be an opportunity to solve issues at Chamberlin. Mr. Lalonde said he just feels the offer is premature as they haven’t decided yet to sell Central School. He noted that the school itself is on 11+ acres, but the parking lot and other land is rarely used. He asked if the city could use those 3 acres. Mr. Shaw said the city wants a municipal presence in City Center, especially a Library and a Town Green. He then asked Mr. Dorn if there is a difference in TIF revenues 2 years out and 3 years out. Mr. Dorn said there is. He added that in an ideal world City Center would be built out in 2017 when “the clock starts cking.” There has to be a buildout within 20 years of that, and there is a 5-year window in which to incur debt. He added that there is a loss of TIF revenue for every year that goes by. STEERING COMMITTEE 13 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 6 Ms. Riehle said she can’t underesmate the need to work together. The more clarity there is, the more things can happen in a more controlled way. Ms. Nowak again stressed that if the Oak Creek site isn’t a place the school district ever wants a school, the city needs to know that. The city has to look at this asset and determine whether it can hold onto it for a number of years. Mr. Lalonde said if the size issue can be dealt with, it would seem to him to be a good locaon. Members of the public were then invited to comment. Queson: Does the land swap require a vote. Mr. Dorn: Probably. The city will get a legal opinion on that. Queson: Would Central School become “anchor stores”; if not, would the city use other parts of City Center? Mr. Dorn: The city doesn’t own the rest of the City Center property and cannot require a master plan; Central School is the only property the city owns. Queson: If Central School property is not as much of a revenue generator, what is the rush? Mr. Dorn: It smulates other land owners to get going. Other than Trader Joe’s, Pier One and a small residenal development, most of City Center is undeveloped. It would also allow the city to do infrastructure and to get housing (the city gets revenue from housing as well). Mr. Klugo added that for every year that goes by, the city is losing revenue in year 20, and that’s where the real revenue is. Resident: If City Center hasn’t happened in 20 years, she has a problem with the land swap. She felt the city’s ming is very opmisc as building a school is a 3-5 year project. Resident: One or two opons isn’t enough. She felt the city should develop the other side of Dorset Street as the UMall side of the street is “a dump.” STEERING COMMITTEE 13 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 7 Resident: Closing Central School is “tearing our hearts out.” It might be the right thing, but people need to understand that. Reasons are needed for giving up schools. Ms. Nowak: Stressed that these are not opposite sides. With or without Central School, the city will move ahead with the TIF and City Center. She expressed concern that people feel there hasn’t been an opportunity to parcipate and cited the number of open meengs, and said the phone lines are always open. Queson: Could the TIF be voted on and there sll not be a new Library? Mr. Dorn: The City Council would go to the voters for funding for a Library as they would for all City Center projects (stormwater, Market Street, etc.). 4. Legislave Needs: Supt. Young said the school district is sll paying on debt for work done on the school and there is a queson of debt forgiveness for some of the iniaves that are being pursued. Mr. Lalonde said he thought there would be some sort of tax incenves for consolidaon, part of which could buy debt forgiveness. Mr. Dorn said the city is looking for vehicles for shared services with neighboring communies, which is being done with success in central Vermont. There is also a Council of Governments which would allow a regional commiee to get together on services and get an economy of scale and improved quality of services. Mr. Dorn also noted that the City Aorney has just returned from a legal forum, and one major issue was on the legalizaon of marijuana. He came back with data on the “unintended consequences” which could result in some significant changes in Vermont. He is very concerned that if Vermont sets up the same system as in Colorado, Vermont will have to deal with transacons all done in cash (because banks will not allow cash to go through), and the potenal loss of warehouse space and single family homes which would become “growing facilies.” Mr. Stewart then explained some of the ramificaons of Act 46, including: STEERING COMMITTEE 13 OCTOBER 2015 PAGE 8 1. Legislaon keeps spending increases state-wide at 2% from the Educaon Fund. (Mr. Stewart noted that the increase esmate for medical insurance is 7%) 2. The allowable rate for South Burlington is 1.7%, about $604,000 over the prior year This means the allowable for all other costs is $360,000. 3. This number will change based on the number of equalized pupils in the district. 4. If the budget exceeds the allowable increase, the tax is doubled on the amount above the threshold. 5. Debt service payments from the prior year are excluded from this limit. 6. Other Items to come before the Commiee: Supt. Young directed aenon to the Voter Informaon Overview handout. Mr. Hubbard noted that the city and school budgets must be received by 16 January 2016. He suggested the next Steering Commiee be on 20 January for the presentaon of those budgets. This will be confirmed in the coming week. As there was no further business to come before the Steering Commiee, Ms. Emery moved to adjourn. Ms. Riehle seconded. Moon passed unanimously, and the meeng was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. _________________________________ Clerk