CONTOIS AUDITORIUM, CITY HALL

BURLINGTON, VERMONT

MINUTES OF MEETING

August 15, 2016

MEMBERS PRESENT:    Jane Knodell, (Council President) – Central District

                                    Joan Shannon – South District

Selene Colburn, East District

Sharon Foley Bushor – Ward 1

Max Tracy – Ward 2

Sara Giannoni - Ward 3

Kurt Wright – Ward 4

Karen Paul – Ward 6

Tom Ayres – Ward 7

Adam Roof – Ward 8

MEMBERS ABSENT:                               David Hartnett – North District

                                                William “Chip” Mason – Ward 5

ADMINISTRATION:                   Miro Weinberger, Mayor

                                                Eileen Blackwood, City Attorney

                                                Richard Haesler, Assistant City Attorney

                                                Bob Rusten, CAO

                                                Rich Goodwin, DFO

                                                Jennifer Kaulius, Mayor’s Office

                                                Brian Lowe, Mayor’s Office

                                                Katie Vane, Mayor’s Office

                                                Amy Bovee, C/T Office

                                                Lori Olberg, C/T Office

                                                Chapin Spencer, DPW

                                                Norm Baldwin, DPW

                                                Martha Keenan, DPW

                                                David White, Planning & Zoning

                                                Jesse Bridges, Parks & Rec

                                                Gene Richards, Airport

OTHERS PRESENT:                   Genese Grill

                                                Caryn Long for Amy Radcliffe

                                                Ron Ruloff

                                                Jack Daggett

                                                Robert Herendeen

                                                Charlie Messing

                                                Alison Crowley Demag

                                                Ross Montgomery

                                                Richard Hillyard

                                                Patrick Mignogna

                                                Suki Misrah

                                                Jack Callow

                                                Kelly Devine

                                                Clara Kelly

                                                Richard Dean

                                                Charles Simpson

                                                Alexander Friend

                                                Michael Long

                                                Dawn Moskowitz

                                                Darren Moskowitz

                                                Richard Geraldman

                                                Nate Orchan

                                                Amir Jusuefagitz

                                                Paul Bushner

                                                Jason Williams

                                                Mark Kaloz

                                                Todd Cook

                                                Tom Brassard

                                                Keith Pillsbury

                                                Ann Taylor

                                                Richard Bragg

                                                Sean Eaton

                                                Steve Goodkind

                                                Ted Adler

1.0       CALL TO ORDER and AGENDA

City Council President Jane Knodell called the meeting to order at 5 PM.

1.01 Agenda

MOTION by Councilor Paul, SECOND by Councilor Wright, to approve the agenda with the following amendments to the items listed and to take the action indicated:

• Note material for Item 2.01 (Capital Plan Overview).
• Note outline for Item 3.01 (DMUC Overlay).
• Action on Item 5.39 (Education Leave Policy).
• Board of Finance/City Council checklist for Item 5.45 (Capital Equipment and Vehicles).
• Amend Item 5.49 (Paramedic Training).
• Communication on Item 6.11 (Vehicle for Hire MOU).
• Remove Items 6.10 & 6.11 (Vehicle for Hire)
• Communication on Item 6.12 (Special Meeting 11/8/16 on Charter Changes).
• Executive Session for Item 6.15 (South Burlington Tax Litigation Settlement).
• Add Executive Session for Item 6.16 (BPOA Contract).

VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

2.0       CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION: Capital Plan Overview

2.01 Presentation: Capital Plan Overview

Bob Rusten, Chapin Spencer, Martha Keenan, Norm Baldwin, and Jesse Bridges gave an overview of the FY17 Capital Plan.

3.0       CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION: DMUC Overlay

3.01 Presentation: DMUC Overlay

David White and the Ordinance Committee reviewed the DMUC Overlay District.

City Council President Knodell recessed the meeting at 7:01 PM for the City Council Meeting Mayor Presiding.  The City Council meeting resumed at 7:22 PM. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

4.0       PUBLIC FORUM

Public Forum commenced at 7:23 PM.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

• Genese Grill spoke of the comment by the Chamber of Commerce on the small, persistent group opposed to the zoning change and Councilor Bushor’s comment that despite a great majority of citizens who came to the hearings and spoke in opposition she still does not know the sentiment of the public. Those who attended know the people of Burlington have voiced their commitment to keeping the downtown height at 65’ (not 105’) with 105’ allowed with public benefits. Those who oppose the zoning change are not radicals, but ask that the city honor the promise to the people by keeping to the PlanBTV process. The Mayor’s assertion that PlanBTV calls for higher buildings is false. PlanBTV says more development should happen within the permitted development envelope in the current zoning, and to override this would take years of public process and review, not 120 days of rushed irregularities and probable illegalities. Other misconceptions spread by the Mayor include developments like the proposal help with affordable housing, but developments such as this increase the cost of rent, and the particular zoning change removes leverage for getting affordable housing in exchange for a height increase. It is irrelevant whether the zoning change is good or bad for the city. If it cannot be done honestly and according to the rules and with the consent of the governed then do not do it at all.
• Caryn Long for Amy Radcliffe read a statement outlining five reasons to oppose the zoning ordinance as written. The reasons mentioned include the process being too rushed, the zoning ordinance being too tied to one project/developer, the process being too staff driven, the zoning ordinance being too inconsistent with PlanBTV, and the details of the zoning ordinance not matching information gathered through public participation and concepts supported in PlanBTV.
• Ron Ruloff spoke against the proposed development because the reason for the development is the city mismanaged the pension fund. The city did not pay attention to the subprime scandal and BT and then covered up the malfeasance. The total of this financial nonsense is a $90 million shortage by the city which the city thinks can be made up by additional tax revenue from pie-in-the-sky projects. The colossus on Church Street is just a larger version of the Wilson Hotel which is a mismanaged COTS project filled with dysfunctional drug addicts and ex-convicts. If this is what the city want this is what the city will get and the result will be collapse of the social structure and collapse of finances. The project will be built on the back of the depleted pension fund and renegotiating the pension contracts so people get less money. The project will be built on the backs of the working people who work for the city. In the end it will not work. The only rational comment heard was by Councilor Wright who said to sell Burlington Electric and make up for the deficit. The pie-in-the-sky, magic thinking is not going to work. In five years there will be new city councilors who have to deal with a receiver sent from Montpelier to manage the city’s finances.
• Jack Daggett, St. Paul Street, spoke of the accelerated decline and sale of large shopping malls. Macy’s is closing 100 stores. More shopping is being done online. The BTC development where the shopping mall plays a central part made no mention of an unbiased economic study by a qualified consultant group or a business plan. If the mall portion of the development fails the other parts of the development will be brought down and the TIF loans would be difficult to repay and likely to be repaid by a tax increase.
• Robert Herendeen, Ward 4, spoke of progress requiring good design, but the mall development is not designed with Burlington in mind. The development should be done in a way that is sensitive to Burlington’s physical setting and reputation with livable, people friendly streets. All the claimed benefits of the Sinex proposal can be achieved without severing the connection with the lake, mountains, and the sky. It can be done within the present zoning and height limits with careful design. There is not careful design at this point. People on the streets are enjoying the connection now. All are urged to look out and up when outside and ask why they want to live here.
• Charlie Messing, College Street, spoke in support of progress but the building should stay in the zoning height. Housing projects do not end well and this looks like a housing project. The city should stay with the zoning and not be pushed into a decision to violate zoning. The project is expected to go through, but will be contested.
• Alison Crowley Demag, born in Burlington and living in South Burlington, spoke of other towns talking about city centers. Ms. Demag spoke in support of redevelopment of the mall recalling that people long ago could not fathom a walking mall on Church Street or the underground mall. The Burlington Mall is dying. The developer (Sinex) has put in significant time, patience and work with everyone engaged in the process to move the project along. The mall will die without redevelopment and the mall developers are pros.
• Ross Montgomery, Kingsland Company, spoke of the challenge Vermont faces with retention of college grads, families and businesses wishing to do business in Vermont. A “no” vote would be telling the state at large and the community at large and the region at large that Vermont is not a place that is progressive and wanting businesses and families. City Council is urged to move the project forward.
• Richard Hillyard, Burlington resident, said in all the meetings and public forums he has not heard an opinion against revitalization of the Burlington Town Center. Everyone has been for growth and progress. Mr. Hillyard spoke of spot zoning and planning commissioners who are developers and real estate agents needing to recuse themselves if there is the potential of receiving a benefit from the city’s decision. If spot zoning is happening then the due diligence needs to be challenged so the public is better informed. According to Bloomberg, Don Sinex is the CEO of a company in Hollard that has filed for bankruptcy (June 2015). No reasons were given. City Council should share the facts and available information in the public record. There is nothing available online about the projects or history of Devonwood Investors. If there are reference projects there should be site visits done. The question is investing the city finances in a start-up company whose CEO is also the CEO of a bankrupt company overseas. It is recommended the decision be postponed on the overlay district and investment with Don Sinex.
• Patrick Mignogna, Maple Street, shared his experience of trying to find housing in Burlington that he could afford and ending up living in Winooski to commute to work at Seventh Generation. Mr. Mignogna said he finally did find housing in Burlington and supports the BTC project as an important next step to opening up more housing stock to meet demand in the city and encourage current landlords to make improvements to their properties.
• Suki Misrah expressed support for the town center and also spoke of the difficulty in finding good quality, affordable housing in Burlington that would allow walking/biking to work at Seventh Generation to minimize carbon footprints. Ms. Misrah said she ended up living in South Burlington and her peers are moving to Winooski and South Burlington in search of decent housing. The town center will move closer to solving the housing challenge and shows a commitment by the city.
• John Callow, Champlain College, said the college supports the project which embodies the values that the college holds in terms of mirroring growth and embracing new urbanism, smart growth, mixed use development, and pedestrian friendly attributes. One of the uses is housing and that is one of the most important issues facing the city and region. Champlain College is trying to house all students and has had mixed success in furthering the goal of housing students off campus. The project provides an opportunity to further the goal in a way that protects neighborhoods from students encroaching on them.
• Kelly Devine, Burlington Business Association, thanked City Council and the Ordinance Committee for the hard work that has been done and said Burlington Business Association supports the project. It is hoped a compromised solution can be found so the project can move forward. The project is essential for Burlington’s future with the combination of housing and much needed office space. Workers are needed downtown. There is a growing list of people who support the project.
• Clara Kelly, Lake Champlain Region Chamber of Commerce Workforce Development and Entrepreneurship Coordinator, stated the zoning amendment has broader importance to growth of the young workforce. The mall as it is now does not match the vibrancy of the city. The redevelopment will bring about positive change. Revitalizing the area with more dining, shopping, public spaces and housing that is desperately needed will be an attraction to young professionals who want to stay and contribute their talents, time, and resources to the Burlington community. The housing crisis is a long standing issue. Surveys show over 50% of young professionals aged 20 years to 40 years prefer to live in an area where there are shops, offices, and residences. If you do not want to build out then you must build up especially if you want a walkable/bikable community. Housing is a serious challenge. Many places are occupied by students. The housing in the redevelopment project will open up the housing rental market for young professionals and families in Burlington. The community needs to grow and strengthen the young workforce. The redevelopment plan is a great way to do this.
• Richard Dean, Ward 1 resident and architect, said there has been significant and positive change in development in Burlington and the surrounding communities. Similar concerns were heard with the Winooski downtown redevelopment, the Davis Center, and Champlain College buildings. The results show the concern was misplaced. The public representatives who reviewed the projects and moved them forward understood the resistance to change, but allowed the projects to move forward. The same is encouraged with this project.
• Charles Simpson said the issue is spot zoning which is illegal and will signify to property owners in the downtown to prepare their spot zoning requests because that is the planning and zoning process in Burlington. If it is not spot zoning then the geography of the overlay district needs to be justified because there is no rational basis for differentiating from spot zoning. The district is arbitrary. Other property owners will want 160’ and the city will not be able to deny this so the district is not five acres, but the entire downtown, not three towers, but a forest of taller buildings blocking views. City Council is urged to stick with the current, rational, appropriate zoning.
• Alexander Friend, Henry Street, thanked City Council for the support and appointment to the Planning Commission.
• Caryn Long mentioned her attendance at the Planning Commission and Ordinance Committee meetings and support for progress, but said it is insulting when people from the Burlington Business Association accuse others because they want to follow PlanBTV. Ms. Long said 65’ or 105’ with bonuses is right. Councilor Shannon wrote an amendment on height limit in 2009 and City Council voted against raising the height limit then. There was an ad hoc committee of developers in the downtown area and PlanBTV was done to mend hard feelings. It is unclear what will be done now to mend hard feelings. A zoning change of this size has not gone through the way it should have and there is resentment against people who do not live in Burlington saying they are for progress and others are not.
• Michael Long, Burlington resident, said the process of reviewing the amendment has been rushed and a rushed process does not bode well for a good result. The residents are looking for a good result, not one that has been rushed through. Many parts of the process have been “iffy” and some would say “fishy”. The most prominent is that the amendment could be titled “The Sinex Amendment”, an amendment linked inextricably and advanced for a single developer to conform to the architecture or qualities of a particular project. The predevelopment agreement makes this clear. It is not good for City Council to be associated with a process that is “iffy” or “fishy”. City Council should disassociate and reject the amendment. In 2009 a decision was made after contentious debate about building height that is settled law. The question has been determined, settled, and laid to rest. Conformity to PlanBTV is a legal requirement. For the amendment to go forward has not been established.  The matter should be taken to the people and the decision not made hastily, but the circumstances only allow to approve this hastily.
• Dawn Moskowitz, Burlington resident, spoke in support of the plan and proposed overlay district as exactly where more density in the heart of Burlington is wanted. The zoning amendment is permitting a few higher stories for a few blocks with thoughtful design. Gaining reconnection of streets is an improvement over what the current zoning with bonuses would allow. The zoning amendment has positive environmental and economic impact. The housing component is most compelling and urgent, creating a variety of housing options. Rents are too high due to lack of housing. The more expensive the more exclusive. People from all backgrounds, ages, and income levels should be able to live in the city. To be a welcoming, affordable, more inclusive and diverse city more housing is needed. The project is a critical step. City Council is urged to approve the overlay district so the project can move forward.
• Darren Moskowitz, Burlington resident and business owner, spoke in support of the redevelopment of BTC and the rezoning amendment and seeing the project move forward.
• Richard Geraldman, Cherry Street, mentioned the pedestrian path through the mall from Church Street to Battery Street that appears not be maintained with the proposed redevelopment. Senior citizens use the connection for exercise. The pedestrian pass through should be maintained. The height of the buildings should go up. The higher the better.
• Nate Orchan, Burlington resident, spoke in favor of the zoning change and expressed empathy for people who want to work in town, but cannot afford to live in the city. The project addresses the housing supply issue and not having to make a director’s salary in order to afford to live in Burlington.
• Amir Jusuefagitz, business owner, spoke in support of the zoning change, building 247 apartments, and new businesses employing people. Other towns are building downtown centers so Burlington is losing customers. There is no place to build in Burlington, only up. Having students in the apartments is bad.
• Paul Bushner, Burlington resident and business owner, urged City Council to vote in favor of the ordinance change and promoting a landmark urban infill project which is consistent with what the state is trying to promote rather than promoting sprawl in outlying communities. Burlington can choose to attract quality jobs or choose to promote the out migration of jobs from the community. Burlington can choose to create quality housing or continue to consume farm fields and have people live outside the city. Burlington can promote tourism and attract neighbors into the community or allow outlying places to attract the people. Overall the upside of the project is to promote continued vibrancy in the community. So many communities have experienced urban blight and if the city does not take action to promote development, promote jobs, housing, draw in tourists and neighbors then there is the possibility of facing blight as well. City Council is urged to support the project.
• Jason Williams, UVM Medical Center, reaffirmed support for the redevelopment of BTC. Mr. Williams mentioned years have been spent to house a significant number of employees in the downtown and the Sinex proposal rose to the top. Mr. Sinex and his staff have been very responsive and met every standard, criteria, and expectation of a developer of this nature. UVM Medical Center is close to signing a lease for nearly 100,000 s.f. of office space and bringing up to 400 employees to the downtown project.
• Mark Kaloz, resident and business manager, spoke of the welcoming community of Burlington and support of the mall which needs to be built now for the jobs, tax revenue, and housing. Height of 160’ is not very tall. The building should be higher. The mall will sustain and grow the community. Revitalization will build a bright future for future generations. City Council is urged to support the mall and the public is urged to support use of the TIF. The mall project is good and needs to move forward.
• Todd Cook, New Moran, stated Burlington needs vibrant, flexible, accessible community event space for year round activities which is the intention with New Moran. The viable community driven development of New Moran will be demonstrated by November 14^th. This is the last chance before the MOU is dissolved and also the best chance to invest in the redevelopment of New Moran. There is tremendous momentum and the intention is to earn the support of City Council for an achievable, fiscally responsible, and compelling redevelopment of New Moran.
• Tom Brassard stated the customer is the final decision maker in the economy. The customer decides to spend their money where and how. Businesses stay in business based on the quality of products and the level of customer service they provide. It boils down to fear of change and opportunity of change. The world is in constant change and will not wait for Burlington. If customer needs are not met they will go elsewhere. The project is big, but it takes a person with a certain level of risk tolerance, resources and vision to even accept doing it. Change looks like more housing, jobs, opportunity for innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, and strengthened workforce. City Council is urged to support the zoning overlay.
• Keith Pillsbury, Vermont Interfaith Action, spoke in support of the project due to the housing mix it provides. The city argued 30 years ago that it could build higher than the Masonic Temple on Church Street if there was a worthy project and it is still arguing. When housing is provided for people downtown including students that is positive for the economic vitality of the city.
• Ann Taylor thanked the Planning Commission and City Council and said the history of Burlington is nouvelle France (New France). Burlington has been a commercial industrial place. Burlington needs redevelopment. The density and height does not appear overwhelming. The housing is needed. The city needs to look to the next 50 years and see the power of the new development.
• Richard Bragg, old north end, spoke against the ordinance changes that will set a precedent for 14 story towers all over. The change is spot zoning. Housing is being built everywhere around the corners of town. The waste water treatment problem will be made worse. City Council is urged to reject the amendment.
• Sean Eaton said there was no information on the building materials with the models or how green and environmentally friendly the building will be. The building will tower over everything and because of its mass will cast everything in shadow. The building is ugly and represents a style already 10 to 20 years out of date. The building is not attractive and already is passé in style and will not age well. There is question as to how less than a third of the total housing units as affordable will make a difference in the lack of affordable housing. The problem of lack of affordable housing is due to landlords who do not take proper care of their apartments. The former Hotel Vermont is an eight story brick building with apartments of terrible quality currently. The space could be refurbished and used as affordable housing. It is not certain that a 14 story building is needed. The building could be half the height.
• Steve Goodkind stated the city missed a gigantic opportunity. If the project were within the zoning rules everyone would be praising it. The city should have been presented with a project within the rules. The redevelopment project is not like anything the city has seen before and should look like what the people want and expect. There is time to do it right and get what is wanted. The project will not happen without trying to conform to the rules because it is too divisive. There should be a united community that supports the project, but this will not happen until the project gets back on course and is done right.
• Ted Adler stated Burlington is a mall progressive community that does not like to change much. The developer as a community organizer brought together the community to raise issues around affordable housing. There is not enough housing in town and there is opportunity to redevelop and add housing, welcome in a new generation of Burlingtonians and new Americans who want to live downtown. City Council can either reject the opportunity from the community organizer in favor of green living in the urban downtown or side with the 1% who for their own vested interest choose to feel that this is not the path forward that is best for the entire community. Bringing housing to the community would be a huge economic boost and open up opportunities for people who want to live here, but currently do not have that option. You cannot always be against everything all the time, but have to be in favor of things. Those who are not in favor of downtown green living, green roofs, solar, affordable housing must be in favor of the alternative.

There were no further comments. Public forum was closed at 8:30 PM.

5.0       CONSENT AGENDA

5.01 PROCEDURAL:            Amend/Adopt Consent Agenda and Take Action(s) as Indicated

5.02 COMMUNICATION: Accountability List

5.03 COMMUNICATION: City Council Minutes April 11, 2016

5.04 COMMUNICATION: Local Control Minutes April 11, 2016

5.05 COMMUNICATION: City Council Mayor Presiding Minutes April 25, 2016

5.06 COMMUNICATION: City Council Minutes April 25, 2016

5.07 COMMUNICATION: Local Control Minutes April 25, 2016

5.08 COMMUNICATION: Special City Council Minutes April 27, 2016

5.09 COMMUNICATION: Special City Council Minutes May 2, 2016

5.10 COMMUNICATION: City Council Minutes May 2, 2016

5.11 COMMUNICATION: City Council Mayor Presiding Minutes May 16, 2016

5.12 COMMUNICATION: Local Control Minutes May 16, 2016

5.13 COMMUNICATION: City Council Minutes May 16, 2016

5.14 COMMUNICATION: Local Control Minutes June 6, 2016

5.15 COMMUNICATION: City Council Mayor Presiding Minutes June 6, 2016

5.16 COMMUNICATION: City Council Minutes June 6, 2016

5.17 COMMUNICATION: City Council Mayor Presiding Minutes June 13, 2016

5.18 COMMUNICATION: City Council Minutes June 13, 2016

5.19 COMMUNICATION: City Council Minutes June 27, 2016

5.20 COMMUNICATION: Local Control Minutes June 27, 2016

5.21 COMMUNICATION: City Council Minutes July 11, 2016

5.22 COMMUNICATION: Board of Civil Authority Minutes July 11, 2016

5.23 COMMUNICATION: Local Control Minutes July 11, 2016

5.24 COMMUNICATION: Stone Underground Construction Agreement

5.25 COMMUNICATION: ZA16-14 Downtown Mixed Use Core (DMUC) Overlay

5.26 COMMUNICATION: Regional Dispatch Study

5.27 COMMUNICATION: FY17 Vehicle Purchase

5.28 COMMUNICATION: McClure & St. Joseph’s Leases

5.29 COMMUNICATION: FY16 & FY17 Braverman Contract Amendments

5.30 COMMUNICATION: Structural Preservation Systems Dumpster Permit

5.31 COMMUNICATION: Tom Gould re: North Avenue Bike Lanes

5.32 REPORT: Board of Assessors

5.33 COMMUNICATION: VLCT Town Fair 2016

5.34 COMMUNICATION: VT Dept. of Health re: Ita Meno, Deputy Health Officer

5.35 COMMUNICATION: Nick Schieldrop re: Election of Charlie Herrick

5.36 COMMUNICATION: State of Vermont re: Highway Mileage

5.37 PERMIT (one day): Bistro De Margot, 126 College Street, August 13, 2016

5.38 COMMUNICATION: Paul List re: Meter Bag Request

5.39 COMMUNICATION: BPD re: Education Leave Policy and Agreement

5.40 COMMUNICATION: FIO Documents

5.41 RESOLUTION: Waterfront TIF District

5.42 RESOLUTION: Acting Inspectors for Election Wards 2, 3, and 6

5.43 RESOLUTION: VANG Charitable Foundation Use of College Street Kiosk

5.44 RESOLUTION: Associate Planner Position DPW

5.45 RESOLUTION: Capital Equipment & Vehicles FY17

5.46 RESOLUTION: GMT Bus Shelters, Bike Racks, Concrete Landing Pads

5.47 RESOLUTION: Hark, Inc. re: Sign in Right-of-Way

5.48 RESOLUTION: Reclassify/Retitle Fire Inspector

5.49 RESOLUTION: MOU for Paramedic Training

5.50 RESOLUTION: Panache of Paris, Inc. Lease for 180 College Street Kiosk

MOTION by Councilor Colburn, SECOND by Councilor Bushor, to adopt the Consent Agenda as amended (added information on Items 5.39 Education Leave, 5.45 Capital Equipment & Vehicles Purchase, and 5.49 Paramedic Training) and take the action indicated.  VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

Council President Knodell recessed the meeting for the Local Control meeting at 8:31 PM. The City Council meeting resumed at 8:35 PM.

6.0       DELIBERATIVE AGENDA

6.01 Special Event Outdoor Entertainment Permit Application (one day): Nectar’s, Main Street

MOTION by Councilor Ayres, SECOND by Councilor Roof, to approve the Special Event Outdoor Entertainment Permit Application (one day only) for Nectar’s on 9/4/16 for a block party on Main Street.

DISCUSSION: Councilor Bushor asked for an explanation of the streets that will be closed and the vehicle access. Representatives from Nectar’s explained Main Street will be closed between South Winooski Avenue and Church Street. The police and fire departments have been notified. An alternate route will be posted and the sidewalk will remain open. There will be an open fire lane as well. There were no further comments.

VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

6.02 Special Event Outdoor Entertainment Permit Application (one day): Seven Days, Maltex Building

MOTION by Councilor Ayres, SECOND by Councilor Roof, to approve the Special Event Outdoor Entertainment Permit Application (one day only) for Seven Days on 9/9/16 at the Maltex Building. VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

6.03 Public Hearings: ZA16-04 Zoning Administrative Officer, ZA16-05 UVM Medical Center, ZA16-07 Low Impact Development, ZA16-08 Shoreland Protection, ZA16-09 Duplexes on Existing Lots, ZA16-13 Subdivision Infrastructure

The public hearings were opened at 8:39 PM. There were no comments. The hearings were closed at 8:40 PM.

6.04 Ordinance: ZA16-04 Zoning Administrative Officer

MOTION by Councilor Bushor, SECOND by Councilor Tracy, to consider as a second reading, waive the reading, and adopt ZA16-04 as presented. VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

6.05 Ordinance: ZA16-05 UVM Medical Center

MOTION by Councilor Bushor, SECOND by Councilor Tracy, to consider as a second reading, waive the reading, and adopt ZA16-05 as presented.

DISCUSSION: Councilor Bushor explained the amendments are for the name change and reestablishment of boundaries between UVM and the Medical Center to allow the Medical Center to build an expansion over the Emergency Department and the University to build addition new housing (dorms).  A boundary line adjustment was incorporated in the map. There were no further comments.

VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

6.06 Ordinance: ZA16-07 Low Impact Development Coverage Credit

MOTION by Councilor Bushor, SECOND by Councilor Shannon, to consider as a second reading, waive the reading, and adopt ZA16-07 as presented.

DISCUSSION: Councilor Bushor explained the amendment was initiated by the Conservation Board and will allow 10% additional lot coverage for low and medium density residential zones for pervious pavement to better deal with storm water management. There were no further comments.

VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

6.07 Ordinance: ZA16-08 Shoreland Protection

MOTION by Councilor Bushor, SECOND by Councilor Ayres, to consider as a second reading, waive the reading, and adopt ZA16-08 as presented.

DISCUSSION: Councilor Bushor explained the intent of the ordinance is to stabilize the shoreline and includes a greater conservation zone and protection of vegetation and native plants. There were no further comments.

VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

6.08 Ordinance: ZA16-09 Appendix A-Use Table

MOTION by Councilor Bushor, SECOND by Councilor Tracy, to consider as a second reading, waive the reading, and adopt ZA16-09 as presented.

DISCUSSION: The following comments were made:

• Councilor Bushor said the public brought the amendment forward to allow duplexes in new conforming lots in low density residential zones. Ward 1 worries if there is greater risk of mini-dorms. The Ordinance Committee supports the amendment.
• Councilor Shannon said the intent is to include newly created lots, not just existing lots. Striking the language “or a single unit may be converted into a duplex” needs explanation. David White explained the language is not needed because a new lot is being created and there would not be an existing unit on it. A single family or duplex could be put on the lot.  A duplex could be created from a single family house on a lot of 10,000 s.f. or greater.
• Councilor Bushor said the intent is that a duplex can be created if minimum lot size is met, but even so it must be stated whether there is a house there or not.
• Councilor Shannon asked if the intent is to add a footnote to say construction of a duplex is permitted or as a conditional use. David White said the footnote has been in the ordinance for some time and constrained creating a duplex on a pre-existing lot.  The restriction on pre-existing lots is being eliminated if the lot is large enough to allow a duplex on it.
• Councilor Shannon asked if the ability to convert a single family residence into a duplex is constrained. David White said no, but creating a duplex is subject to minimum lot size requirements.

There were no further comments.

VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

6.09 Ordinance: ZA16-13 Subdivision Infrastructure Standards

MOTION by Councilor Bushor, SECOND by Councilor Tracy, to consider as a second reading, waive the reading, and adopt ZA16-13 as presented.

DISCUSSION: Councilor Bushor said the amendment is mainly administrative and incorporates reference to the City Engineer for public infrastructure improvements. Other omissions are corrected as well. There were no further comments.

VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

6.10 Resolution: Vehicle for Hire Business License

6.11 Resolution: MOU with Uber

Both items were previously removed from the agenda.

6.12 Resolution: Charter Change to Clarify Use of Parking Garage and Meter Revenues

MOTION by Councilor Wright, SECOND by Councilor Shannon, to approve the resolution for a special meeting on 11/8/16 regarding charter changes to clarify uses of the parking garage and meter revenue.

DISCUSSION: The following comments were made:

• Councilor Wright said the resolution clarifies confusion in Subsection 58 of Section 48 of the city charter. There are also some technical changes and more significant changes.
• Mayor Weinberger said this is the first step to warning a public hearing on two dates in September to create the possibility of a charter change. The item is on the ballot in November because it is tied to the decision to use the Traffic Fund to help pay for part of the Capital Plan. There are a number of items in the resolution. The most significant driver is the desire to clarify whether City Council and the Administration would like to see the Traffic Fund used to fund infrastructure projects. Clarification laid out in the resolution would be helpful. It may be possible to make many of the proposed investments without a charter change. Even if City Council chooses not to move forward with using the Traffic Fund for infrastructure projects the resolution still makes sense, but there is no longer the urgency while moving the other elements of the Capital Plan. The changes could be made in the spring with the other charter changes.
• Councilor Bushor commented there are sensible pieces and others that are not. Councilor Bushor did not favor suggesting that lots of money will be generated from the parking facilities and meters to support parking facilities.
• Councilor Wright asked if passage inhibits proposing charter change on the jurisdictional issue with City Council and the Public Works Commission. Mayor Weinberger said the resolution does not address the issue one way or another.
• Mayor Weinberger requested consideration be given to suspending opposition to use of the Traffic Fund in this way for further discussion and resolution over the next six weeks. The resolution is an administrative step to formally hear from the public in a public hearing and does not commit to using the fund. Voting down the resolution does not provide opportunity for full discussion of how the final plan that goes to the public is shaped.

There were no further comments.

VOTING: 9 ayes, one nay (Councilor Bushor); motion carried.

6.13 Resolution: Charter Change to Eliminate Tax Appeal to Board of Civil Authority

MOTION by Councilor Wright, SECOND by Councilor Shannon, to approve the resolution regarding a charter change to eliminate tax appeal to the Board of Civil Authority and require three voting members on the Board of Tax Appeals.

DISCUSSION: Councilor Wright explained the charter change applies to Section 92 of the city charter and the taxpayer appeal of their property tax assessment to the Board of Tax Appeals. City Council is being removed from the process. The three member Board of Tax Appeals must meet fully to hear a case. The taxpayer can still appeal to the State Division of Tax Evaluation or Superior Court. Councilor Shannon recalled the debate that was held on whether to take up a tax appeal City Council could not hear. Councilor         Bushor said the change is a win-win for the property owner and the BCA. Council President Knodell pointed out City Council needs to come to grips with property tax appraisal and understand how property is assessed and appraised. There were no further comments.

VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

6.14 Mutual Consent Agreement with New Moran

MOTION by Councilor Roof, SECOND by Councilor Shannon, to ratify the Mayor’s July 20, 2016 execution of a mutual consent agreement to dissolve the August 19, 2014 memorandum of understanding between the City of Burlington and New Moran, Inc.

DISCUSSION: The following comments were made:

• Councilor Colburn spoke highly of the New Moran team and their vision on what is possible with the building.
• Councilor Tracy thanked the New Moran team and the Administration for setting a hard deadline for the project. The time given has been generous to succeed with the project. Kudos to CEDO, in particular Kirsten Merriman Shapiro, for support of the project.
• Councilor Wright spoke in support of the redevelopment project which was supported through previous administrations as well. It is key to have a firm deadline and live up to what was said to the voters (i.e. to develop something that works within the timeline and financials). There will be resolution one way or another.

There were no further comments.

VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

6.15 South Burlington Tax Litigation Settlement

6.16 BPOA Contract

Both items to be discussed in Executive Session.

7.0       COMMITTEE REPORTS

None.

8.0       CITY COUNCIL – GENERAL AFFAIRS

None.

9.0       CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT – COUNCIL UPDATES

None.

10.0     MAYOR – GENERAL AFFAIRS

• All are urged to attend the beach event at Leddy Park facilitated by Parks & Rec on September 7, 2016. The events are great community enhancing gatherings.
• Downtown has had a high number of visitors during the summer which has been one of the best summers.
• Upcoming events include the Art Hop, Pride Parade, Open Streets Initiative.

Council President Knodell recessed the meeting at 9:10 PM for the Board of Civil Authority meeting. The City Council meeting resumed at 9:12 PM.

11.0     EXECUTIVE SESSION

11.01 South Burlington Tax Litigation Settlement

11.02 BPOA Contract

MOTION by Councilor Bushor, SECOND by Councilor Ayres, to find that premature disclosure of legal advice and understanding of possible settlement of litigation with South Burlington would place the city at substantial disadvantage. VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

MOTION by Councilor Bushor, SECOND by Councilor Ayres, based on the finding of premature disclosure placing the city at a disadvantage to go into Executive Session to discuss possible settlement of the tax litigation with South Burlington and invite the Mayor and Mayor’s Office staff, City Attorney and staff, CAO and staff, Airport Director and staff to attend. VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

MOTION by Councilor Bushor, SECOND by Councilor Paul, to find that premature disclosure of the collective bargaining contract with the police union would place the city at substantial disadvantage. VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

MOTION by Councilor Bushor, SECOND by Councilor Paul, based on the finding of premature disclosure placing the city at a disadvantage to go into Executive Session to discuss the BPOA collective bargaining contract and invite the Mayor and Mayor’s Office staff, City Attorney and staff, and CAO and staff to attend. VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

Executive Session convened at 9:14 PM and adjourned at 9:33 PM.

ACTION FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE SESSION

South Burlington Tax Litigation Settlement

MOTION by Councilor Bushor, SECOND by Councilor Ayres, to waive the reading and adopt the resolution regarding the South Burlington tax litigation settlement. VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

BPOA Contract

MOTION by Councilor Bushor, SECOND by Councilor Wright, to ratify the contract with the Burlington Police Officers Association (BPOA). VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

12.0     ADJOURNMENT

MOTION by Councilor Ayres, SECOND by Councilor Giannoni, to adjourn the meeting. VOTING: unanimous; motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 PM.

Rscty by tape: MERiordan