2020 IPad Doc Pages www.icloud.com/pages/0AJGDhA2qf36_djXL2MjGGb2w

Appeal of Code Enforcement INACTION

July 7, 2008: public hearing, Board of Health

July 9, 2008 public hearing, Public Works Commission

Why should you expect your property tax rates to increase?

Today’s (29 Mar 2008) Burlington Free Press John Briggs article, “Cornell renovation plans for Battery Street on hold” http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080329/BUSINESS/803290303/1003 said “The city had paid Sanel $850,000 for the building, and it paid $595,000 to two tenants, Mesa International and Waterfront Video” to get them to leave “the building to allow the bus station to be put up.” “The city also spent $1.5 million in design costs for the bus station.” In case arithmetic is not your strong suit, that totals $2,945,000 of your and my property tax money.

The article went on to say “In October 2003, Cornell Trading Co. of Williston took an option to buy the building, planning to build on the old foundation to create a new corporate headquarters topped with three condominiums. The city arranged for a $700,000 federal loan, to be repaid from Cornell’s property taxes, to upgrade the Battery and Main Street intersection, and it agreed to pay Cornell for parking rights on the property in the evening and weekends. The plans were approved by the Development Review Board.” This means the City administration and the DRB agreed to take the property taxes from that development that would have helped to keep our property taxes from increasing, and spend them instead on road work so Cornell Trading could better use its building.  I don’t know about you, but the intersection of Battery and Main Streets looks pretty good to me, and better than many others in the City.  Why should we lose $700,000 in property taxes to rebuild that intersection?  

The good news from this article is Cornell Trading went bankrupt and the real estate market tanked so the road work did not need to be done. I assume the $700,000 loan was never drawn down so we do not have to pay it back, but I wonder. Does anybody know? If you do know, please tell us all.

The bad news from this article is the City, or should I say you and I, paid $2,945,000 to get an empty building!  $2,945,000 here, and $2,945,000 there, and pretty soon not only do you have real money, but also higher PROPERTY TAXES!  Where is the good City oversight we have every right to expect?

The other bad news is, instead of selling the land and development rights for much more than $2,945,000 to someone like Pomerleau, Retrovest, Redstone, Melinda Moulton, or any of the other many developers in Chittenden County who have a track record showing they could get the development done, what do you think the City did?  According to the article, the City let Chris Cornell keep the option to buy the land and develop the site.  Chris is quoted as being in the Cayman Islands and saying “everyone” “is cautious in financial commitments right now.”  Well, perhaps not so cautious when it comes to where to spend the winter, but only about real estate development when that is not your primary business.  

What does everyone think?  Should the City do what it needs to do to cancel Chris Cornell’s option and sell it instead to someone who can and will get the job done without Tax Increment Financing (TIF) so we can get some short and long term revenue into the City to keep our property taxes where they are?

In case you have not noticed, this winter has been hard on our City streets and sidewalks.  Steve Goodkind, the Director of the Department of Public Works has been telling the City Council how bad our streets are and how, for many years, the Council has not funded enough street repair for Public Works to stay even with the damage done every year.  Steve is going to return to the Council and give them more details of how bad our streets are with the expectation the Council will allocate more money to street repair this year.  There has already been talk of increasing our property tax rate by $0.05 for street repair.  Wouldn’t it be nice to have the $2,945,000 right now to use on the streets, much less the property, sales and other tax revenue that would be generated once that site was developed?

Tell your Councilors what you think.  Their names and phone numbers are on  http://www.ci.burlington.vt.us/citycouncil/councilors/ so you can easily contact them and tell them what you think and feel.

City Council pays lip service to Increasing Transparency in Government

We have been pushing, even fighting 🙂 , for a long time now to get more and better transparency in Burlington City Government (Administration, Departments, Sister and Owned Organizations, City Council, City Commissions and City Boards). Many people have been working on this in tandem. This push for transparency usually only shows its public head about specific issues such as Westlake, Appletree Point, Institutional Construction, etc.

We should be very gratified that all of our efforts and protestations have moved the City Council on Monday, 24 Mar 2008, to pass a resolution titled “Increasing Transparency In Government” unanimously. That is the good news and we should all thank the Council for passing that Resolution.

The not so good news is the Resolution is really a sop to everything we have been pushing to have. Even the method of selection of people to be on its Ad Hoc Committee to “develop recommendations” to “increase transparency” is flawed in the extreme. The point of transparency in government is to give the public ALL of the information a topic, pro and con, left and right, up and down, so there is nothing hidden. The next step is to have the appropriate part of government not only get public input about the topic, but also consider that input carefully and then vote as their conscience dictates. It is important for those of us not in government to keep remembering that the people in government are the ones that vote, not us, so while we deserve the information and have the right to give our opinions, ultimately it is up to them to vote or decide the way they feel they should.

Since transparency is directly for the public, there needs to be much more transparency and openness about how to organize the Ad Hoc Committee on Transparency than is in the City Council Resolution. The Resolution says the public will be represented by five people chosen by the Mayor and two chosen City Councilors. How much more controlled could the process be? Instead the process should be to go to the public and have them choose who their representatives should be on the Ad Hoc Committee. Since we have just had a citywide election, and are not going to have another one until November, our next most public venue is our Neighborhood Planning Assemblies in every Ward. Have each NPA elect two people to sit on the Ad Hoc Committee. That would be representative.

Then have the City Council nominate Councilors to be on the Ad Hoc Committee in open session and have the whole Council vote on who the two Committee Members should be. What could be more open than that?

Starting the Ad Hoc Committee with a good foundation is crucial to its success. Selecting its members any other way than by election would smack too much of a closed and controlled process.

Moran Plant: Response from Ice Factor to Petra Cliffs

Ice Factor Response to Mike Anderson’s Press Release

I’m frustrated, saddened and disappointed at the tone and content of Mike Anderson’s Press Release regarding the Moran Plant.

Given the content of our last communication, I am also surprised that he is now so apparently diametrically opposed to a project he gave his tacit support and approval to, a mere 3 months ago, when he wrote
“ .. Can you please make sure the necessary folks in City Hall know that I have nothing to give, and that as it stands today, I am not involved in this project. Perhaps the future will bring a new opportunity for me, if it does not then please know that I wish you total success here in Burlington. Cheers, Mike Anderson, M.Ed > > Owner, The Petra Cliffs Group”

This communiqué makes it clear that we parted on the best of terms. Mike from Petra Cliffs and Chris Bacon owner of Northern Lights LLC opted to develop a rope course project at the Inn at Essex, rather than the major project at the Moran Plant. My business partner and friend, Phil McCully and I, not only supported their decision making, but we were absolutely fulcrum to negotiating the deal at Essex for the site they are now building.

There are a number of erroneous points made in Mike’s press release, chiefly:

Basis of Partnership

At my first meeting with Mike, I explained that as a fellow climbing business owner, I would as a matter of courtesy expect to be informed if a new business was considering opening on my doorstep. During that discussion I highlighted our plans:

• World class rock climbing facilities – free-form rock climbing walls (making use of the superb height) in the Moran Plant, top out boulders, via-ferrata courses, beginner’s areas, kid’s club sections, ‘trad.’ lead routes, multi-pitch stances with approx 55 ropes.
• World class indoor ice climbing – water ice, neve (frozen snow), arêtes, gullies, chock-stone obstacles, overhangs, slabs, high level mountaineering ridges, multi-pitch stances and belay zones with approx 30 ropes.
• Café – featuring fresh food and coffee, snacks and soft drinks
• Restaurant – with great views over the lake
• Mountaineering Orientated Bar – museum items and old climbing equipment
• Indoor/Outdoor High Level Aerial Adrenaline Course – multiple elements on a fixed rail system to allow maximum age range participation
• Summer Camp and structured junior activity programmes.
• Showers, Changing areas and general ‘chill out zones’.
• Corporate Team Building & Development Programmes
• Outdoor Instruction/Guiding
• Festive Ice Rink, operating a Glycol Cooled, winter rink aimed at families.

Mike explained that he had limited resources and clearly a project of this size/magnitude would take a great deal of investment, something he would find difficult.

Moran Plant: Press Release from Petra Cliffs

>Sent: 2/23/2008 2:47:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
>Subj: Ptera Cliffs Press Release re: the Moran Plant
>
>The Sad Truth About the Moran Plant Why Petra Cliffs is No Longer Involved
>
Burlington, VT – March 4th is “Town Meeting” day here in Vermont. We’ll finally get to express our opinions in regards to the race for President as well as on many other issues facing our great state. This particular “Town Meeting” day will be especially interesting for me. As you all know, I am the owner of Petra Cliffs and for going on 8 years now we have served the greater Burlington area the best way we know how. This year, Burlington residents are being asked to vote for the restoration of the Moran Plant on the beautiful Burlington Waterfront. The proposal that you are being asked to approve is, at first blush, one of great interest to many people: indoor ice-climbing, a children’s museum, a restaurant, skating rink etc…why would a facility like the ever be a bad thing? I’ll explain.

Last winter I was approached by Jamie Smith, owner of the Ice Factor and Chris Bacon, the owner of Northern Lights. Some would say that Jamie is the mastermind behind this proposal for the Moran. We sat in Roque’s and had a nice lunch. During that first meeting I was told that of the intention to rebuild the Moran Plant and that the vision of that building was to build the “First Indoor Ice Climbing facility in the United States.” I was told that the Burlington area is “simply not big enough for two climbing gyms” and that Petra Cliffs should consider joining in the development of the Moran Plant…or I’d “just be put out of business”. I thought about the conversation for a couple days and decided that perhaps it was better to work collaboratively to create one really great facility that all of Vermont would be proud of. Over the coming months I sat in on MANY meetings that addressed quite a number of issues surrounding the development idea.

One issue that pressed us was determining what sort of partnership would be created between Petra Cliffs. Northern Lights and Ice Factor. Ultimately this conversation would ruin the opportunity for us to partner. First, Chris and Northern Lights pulled out of the deal for reasons having to do with money and who exactly was to contribute what. I held on for a while longer while we tried to sort out the relationship.

Appletree Point

I spoke these words to the Burlington City Council meeting on February 19, 2008

I went to the Appletree Point meeting held by the developer, Infill Development, last night. That, is an ambitious project for senior housing in a cozy wetland hamlet of a single residential neighborhood of cottages. It is the worst location for a senior housing project.

• Off the beaten path
• Bad access for employees, visitors, emergency vehicles
• More traffic for the neighborhood
• No access to mass transit
• No close shopping or other activities
• etc, etc, etc.

Well, many of you (Burlington City Council) know what I mean and probably agree with me. If this project goes ahead in any capacity, it will make a sham of the concept of zoning.

I’ve heard a couple of times already from good sources that this project will probably go through, in spite of its overwhelming opposition and bad concept because the “city needs this project.” Now, this is interesting. If the city needs this project, why? and why is this not public knowledge? I have seen and heard about many actions by city employees directing the outcomes of projects when “the city” supports a project that is contrary to popular public opinion. I have spoken to commissioners who felt intimidated by CEDO staff, who will line the walls of their meeting rooms during a deliberation of any of CEDO’s favorite projects.

This is a real problem that exists in our city government that needs to be fixed. there is no reason that citizens should have to organize, spend all their spare time and often funds fighting organizations and the city. If the city administration has an agenda let’s hear about it. If there is a problem to be fixed, lets figure it out, agree on it and put all that citizen effort into finding a resolution. The citizens of Burlington should not have to fight city hall.

Amendment to Zoning Re-write for Champlain College

January 5, 2008

Good planning and true collaboration with neighborhood residents is much needed regarding the expansion of Champlain College. The College is expanding, rightly so, as their programs are proving to be very successful. You must congratulate them on their success as I do. We currently have hired 3 interns from Champlain College in our business and have hired a recent graduate full-time. I am very happy with all of them.

The historic and pretty neighborhood in which Champlain College resides in is a highly valued asset of the Hill Section residents and Champlain College. So much so, that in 1994 the residents, in conjunction with the City and Champlain College, prepared a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would control the expansion of the College into the neighborhoods while allowing proper institutional use of its current property holdings. The 1994 MOU also established buffer areas between the school and the residential properties. This MOU is good for twenty years–until 2014. There are Memorandums of Understanding between the City and UVM and the City and Fletcher Allen also.

In most instances Memorandums of Understanding prove to be a good tool—that is, when the City Administration and the majority of the City Council choose to enforce them, or interpret them as originally intended for that matter. Notice that I used the words “City Administration” and “City Council” and I did NOT use the word “residents.” The Town/Gown problem is an age-old problem with institutions in cities across the USA. Institutions seem to have piercing and far reaching tentacles that have to be very closely monitored.

Just recently Champlain College asked the Mayor to change the zoning from Low Density Residential to Institutional on a block on South Willard Street, south of Maple Street. Champlain said the reason they needed this change was so they could do restoration work on the Cannon property. Funny, you do not need to change the zoning in order to do repairs on a building. However, Champlain College has a new 2007 Master Plan, which has yet to be reviewed and approved by the Burlington Planning Commission, or the City Council, or the residents of Ward 6. The 2007 Master Plan calls for the Cannon property to be a new Admissions building and Welcome Center. Hmm… why does Champlain College have to change the zoning on an entire block to change the use of only one building? The Master Plan does call for many changes in this block—the addition of new buildings for offices and dormitories. If they got this zoning change they could start these buildings without having to go through the planning process with the City. Additionally, this zoning change will permit uses and density that is not allowed by the MOU. It also removes the buffer between the residents and the college campus, called for in the MOU. Regarding the Cannon property, the MOU permitted the front part of the property to be used as housing and the rear as passive green space. I continue to fail to see how the City Administration can claim that the zoning change was to fulfill the requirements of the MOU.

During Champlain’s master planning process, which included a few neighbors, all of which had a difficult time attending all of the meetings because they were held during working hours, Champlain College told the “neighbor committee members” that they would change the deed on the Cannon Property to specify that the rear half or so of the property would remain in passive green space in perpetuity.

At the beginning of the City Council’s zoning rewrite process the City Administration proposed an amendment to change the zoning from the current Low Density Residential to Institutional for the entire west-side block of South Willard between Maple and Tower Terrace, as Champlain College requested–this included a private residence. The Administration stated the reason for this amendment was to support the 1994 MOU. Many residents, spoke against the amendment at the public forum at several City Council meetings, met with the Mayor and Joe McNeil, and spoke to Ken Schatz at our Ward 6 NPA meeting, and wrote letters to the Mayor and the City Council. We explained that this amendment clearly did not fulfill any requirements of the 1994 MOU, it allowed for uses and density that were not allowed in the MOU, and that the amendment changed the zoning of a private residence. Plus, the MOU required the that the rear of the Cannon property remain as passive green space for the duration of the MOU time period and Champlain College had publicly promised in it master planning process that it would keep the rear of the Cannon property as passive green space, by putting a codicil onto the deed in perpetuity, but the amendment ignored this.

In spite of this tremendous effort of the residents, the City Administration changed the amendment, slightly. The second iteration of the amendment shortened the block, stopping at the private residence. The resolution section of the amendment, which describes the purpose of the amendment, included the provision of green space on the Cannon property, but the amendment itself did not. At least we gained a little lip service about the green space if not any commitments.

Again, we continued to speak at the public forums at the City Council meetings. We had a little more success this time. Ed Adrian (City Councilor- Ward 1) got the City Attorney’s office to ask for a formal, legal easement of green space on the Cannon property. Champlain College returned with a 25 year easement offer. What happened to their promise to the neighbors during the master planning process of having a green space codicil on the deed in perpetuity? Ed Adrian got the City Council to ask Champlain for a 50 year easement. As it stands now, the City Council voted in favor of this amendment by a narrow margin with the caveat that Champlain will put a 50 year easement of green space on the Cannon property deed. It is not forever, but we are supposed to be happy because 50 years is longer than the remaining six years of the 1994 MOU (1994+20 14-2008=6) and longer than Champlain College’s initial offer to the City Council. We are all told not to mind the 50 year limit.

During this time, Champlain College and the City Administration kept pushing the City Council to make this zoning change ostensibly to support the Memorandum of Understanding. Champlain College also kept stating that it deserved the amendment, as they have been abiding by the MOU. Meanwhile, as we found out later, Champlain College was secretly purchasing a private residence at 390 Maple Street, in direct and unquestionable violation of the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding! What did the City Administration do to enforce the 1994 MOU when it found out Champlain College violated the 1994 MOU and illegally purchased 390 Maple Street? Did the City Administration penalize Champlain College for violating the 1994 MOU? No, The City Administration gave Champlain College a building permit to make improvements to 390 Maple Street even though Champlain College was not supposed to own 390 Maple Street.

In addition to everything else, the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding called for a zoning change of the properties along Jackson Court and Harrington Terrace from Institutional to Low Density Residential. As long as the City Administration has had the time to propose this amendment to the Zoning Rewrite for the changes Champlain College wanted, why did the City Administration not look out just as much for the residents and voters? I have pushed the City Administration and the City Council over and over again for a mutual change of zoning for these residents. My pleas fell on deaf ears.

The City Administration and many City Councilors have violated the public trust by passing this amendment favoring Champlain College against the wishes of the voters and tax payers under the false claim that to do so is to fulfill the City’s obligations in the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding. What happened here should not be considered a one time occurrence or be a phenomena of working with institutions. It could happen with anything and should be a warning to all of us. Not only do you have to watch the federal government, but local government requires careful vigilance and participation by each of us. I’d be happy to answer any questions about the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding, or discuss the process we went through, the effect of the expansion of Champlain College, or open Burlington City government in general.

Your City of Burlington Government Watchdog,

Susan Dorn

Citizens for a Livable City