My Statement on Resolution to join Burlington and Winooski to formally request that the USAF replace the F-35A with a safe and quiet aircraft (April 16, 2018)

In 2010 (I was on the Council at the time), the first public meeting to discuss the proposed basing of the F-35 at BIA was held in Winooski. Later, when the draft EIS was issued in 2012, I read with consternation the data indicating a 50% increase in the number of homes that would fall in a zone around the airport deemed incompatible with residential use (rising from 1900 to 2900 homes, or over 6600 people). Over the six years since, I have only become more convinced that the F-35 is incompatible with a densely populated, residential area. This remains the case, in spite of the federal judge’s finding last year. As history as shown us — with the suffrage and civil rights movements, for instance — because something is legal does not necessarily mean that it is right.

South Burlington residents are deeply patriotic. Many have served with valor in the military or provided direct support as family members, friends, business owners, and taxpayers. As a community, we are civic-minded and actively invested in the democratic process. Our democracy is enshrined in our city charter and in the Vermont and US constitutions, which our military members solemnly swear to uphold. At the same time, South Burlington residents object to, if not the noise, then the impacts of the noise and the noise compatibility programs, which have been decimating our affordable housing stock, putting the future of one of our three elementary schools in jeopardy, and overall disrupting the peace of mind and quality of life of many who reside here. We have the policies of two federal agencies at work here in South Burlington. Mayor Weinberger of Burlington has stated and restated his desire to stop the buyout program and pursue other mitigation programs. The Regional Director of the FAA, however, has stated that, other than home acquisition, no noise mitigation exists to lessen the impact of these high-powered jets. It is a Hobson’s choice from the perspective of us living here in South Burlington. There is no win-win with the F-35, which forces me to consider my responsibility to protect the rights, the economic assets, and the future wellbeing and prosperity of South Burlington residents, which is also prescribed by our Comprehensive Plan.

In spite of the wishes of the Burlington Mayor, we here in South Burlington have to consider the likelihood that the F-35 will trigger the same mechanism that brought us the home acquisition program to begin with. Our residents will rightfully demand federal relocation assistance — thus leading to the demolition of hundreds more houses on top of the two hundred that have or will soon become unavailable to our workers. The lack of affordable workforce housing has reached the crisis point in our region and state. People, and particularly people who are responsible for ensuring the wellbeing of our community, have to look at the big picture. There are few alternatives for our workers to relocate in South Burlington. For this reason, many go to communities north, east, or south of us, further away from public transportation and job centers. The drift outward increases the number of cars on our roads, and our schools lose families with children — incurring further costs. Additionally, since Chittenden County is the center of economic activity in the state, we need housing not only for the people who work here but also for those workers whom our businesses wish to recruit. Studies show that the lack of available affordable housing in South Burlington and elsewhere is the number one factor that is hampering our economy due to slowed growth in our workforce. The lack of available affordable housing causes our grown children to move elsewhere and prospective recruits to decline job offers. The workforce shortage is real and measurable; and it is a big problem.

Today is not yesterday. We have to look at the facts now and use our best judgment based on those. Well beyond “who was here first?”, the question we need to ask is, “What should the region’s priorities be in order for our economic future to be bright?” Chittenden County is the economic engine of the state. Today, given all we know, the F35s are not compatible with our economic priorities. A federal policy decision that leads to another federal-level decision to fund the demolition of homes that serve our workforce and are in short supply is shortsighted and, therefore, unwise.

Fortunately, this seeming predicament does not leave us with another win-lose situation. The Air Force has stated on a number of occasions that there are other options. Other flying and even combat missions are available — with no loss of federal dollars and emergency responders at the airport, no loss of personnel (maybe even an increase), and certainly no loss of the base. Any suggestion that the base will go away is patently false. An excerpt from the Air Force’s brief submitted in federal court last year (a lawsuit to which Winooski was a full party and South Burlington joined as amicus curiae) states the following: “There could have been any number of reasonable alternatives available to the Air Force on how to configure Burlington” (Federal court records, Case No 5:14-cv-132, Defendants Memo in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion, March 7, 2016, pp. 59-60). Furthermore, one of the options, the C-130 — from its noise and safety profile to the jobs it brings — provides the win-win that our state, our nation, the local and state economy, and the residents of this city and region need.

Some people may wonder why politicians disagree on the conclusion to be derived from all of these factors. Or maybe not. Politicians often disagree. That is in the nature of representative democracy. We are of diverse viewpoints and opinions, just as the public is, and that is as it should be. The goal, ultimately to the benefit of the public, is a full airing of views in order to strike a balance between valid priorities and concerns. Pat Nowak provided that on this Council, and we grieve her loss. I keep her in mind, and not least of all in honor of her contributions to this six-years’ long discussion and debate that we have taken up again tonight. We had our honest, if passionate, differences. I do respect Pat and her position.

On the other hand, there is the question of vested interests (securing votes from constituencies, corporate donations, or some other political gain or promise of advancement). I will not take the time to highlight all the facts uncovered through the fine investigative journalism performed by many news outlets (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, Boston Globe), including the reporting by Jasper Craven at the VT Digger. Suffice it to say, I am happy that Burlington voters have shown more sense than has our Congressional delegation. It is also fortunate that I am free to say so. I am not bound by promises, am beholden to no one and nothing other than my own conscience, and am accountable only to the residents of South Burlington. Every day, we start anew in order to uphold the democratic principles on which this country was founded. It takes a lot of work, and there is much work to be done. The fact that petitioners had to go to the Burlington voters in order for them to have a say (instruct the local governing body that oversees the operations at the Airport) speaks to the failure of the democratic process in this basing decision. We shall see if their efforts, and the Burlington City Council’s 9-3 decision to heed the will of the voters, lead to a needed correction.

Furthermore, taxation or any form of hardship without representation goes against our basic American democratic principles. We fought a war over it. The fact that South Burlington, the community that has sacrificed and will continue to sacrifice the most and that stands to benefit the most from the economic benefits an airport provides, has no say over this basing decision or Airport Improvement Plans that directly impact our city, is, to put it simply, un-American. Some have argued to me that it is unconstitutional. Again, there is much work to be done.

We have learned about the F-35’s problems over the past six years. This decision is not just about the residents living around the airport whom the basing decision has already impacted. It is about the regional and state economy, and ultimately about our democracy. Thank you, Burlington, for listening to the people and for giving me the opportunity to stand in solidarity with you.

Advertisements

Press Release: Campaign announcement

Meaghan Emery announces her candidacy for a fifth term on City Council. She has long been an advocate for common sense policy that promotes fiscal responsibility and protects residents’ quality of life. This requires a balance between a number of competing priorities. In Council deliberations, she seeks to do the following:

– Focus development in our city’s core and preserve areas rich in wildlife and agricultural-grade soils.
– Enforce local oversight of our public assets and enter into agreements for shared regional services that do not compromise the city’s interests or squander public resources.
– Enhance the visibility of our existing commercial districts and ensure that the door remains open to new local businesses.
– Develop our bike path network and promote public transportation while maintaining our roadways and highway services.
– Support valuable public and cultural services that develop a sense of community for the benefit of all residents.

This year will see the completion of City Center projects, including a park, with accessible walking paths, play structures, and restored ecosystems, as well as the construction of Allard Square, a senior residence, on Market Street. The new culvert on Market Street has brought needed stormwater mitigation to the City Center district, and Councilor Emery has been a strong advocate for this responsible planning — with no increase in property taxes — through TIF (Tax Increment Financing). TIF, for a limited time, allows 80% of property taxes collected from new development to be invested into public infrastructure, including parks, roads, and public facilities.

Emery is committed to advancing the proposal to construct a new public library. Expected to occur next fall, the bond vote will be covered by TIF, City Center reserves, and private fundraising. Allard Square (developed by the nonprofit, Cathedral Square) benefitted from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, which the Council unanimously supported in order to encourage such development. Emery would also like to see this fund used for housing that could accommodate families with school-age children, either on Market Street (as Champlain Housing Trust is currently proposing) or elsewhere.

Emery believes concentrated development that meets the needs of families, workers, retirees, and businesses benefits our community long-term. She similarly supports the preservation of open land for agriculture, wildlife or recreation, which will ensure sustainability. Also of benefit are investments in shared services, such as regional dispatch for police and fire/EMS, which will be put before voters in March, and in renewable energy. The Landfill Solar Array, opened last year, promises to generate $45,000 to $65,000 of net metering credit value annually to offset the city’s electrical costs.

Emery wishes to continue her work to realize the end goals of these initiatives.

My thoughts on South Burlington’s priorities regarding regionalized governance of BIA

“Consistency with local land-use plans”: the FAA asked BIA to answer in their official application whether or not the Airport’s plans are reasonably consistent with South Burlington’s land-use plans. The Airport answered yes. The City of South Burlington says no.

After the January 23, 2017 passage of a Council Resolution and appeal to the FAA following the announcement of its new home acquisition program, I wish to share a few thoughts on the recent conversation regarding the regionalization of Burlington International Airport as it pertains to South Burlington now and in the future. My concern is that this proposal must fully take into account the value of Chamberlin neighborhood and similar middle-class neighborhoods in Winooski and in Williston. If VTANG’s base were to grow, and more than the now nearly 1,000 single-family homes that the FAA recommends for acquisition and demolition lost, the immediate consequence would be pressure on building out the remaining open space in South Burlington. Keep in mind: the FAA will continue to recommend the home acquisition program unless and until the Airport definitively says no.

As your City Councilor, I adopt a view seeking a compromise, and here are my reasons why: 1) there’s no joint-use (civilian/military) airport in any major metropolitan area (e.g., the Chicago Loop or on Manhattan Island), and with good reason 2) Chittenden County is, similar to Chicago and Manhattan, the State’s economic engine, and 3) according to the 2012 ECOS report (prepared under the direction of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission), the top priority for ensuring future growth in the County is the retention and construction of affordable housing for our needed workforce in order for this growth to occur. People recruited by companies in our region often turn down work offers because they cannot find a home they can afford; or they have to live outside of Chittenden County, often in Addison or Franklin Counties or in New York state. In fact, the Environmental Impact Statement produced by the US Air Force cites a negative economic impact on the region with the F-35 basing. Local and state officials cannot turn a blind eye to this.

South Burlingtonians, and particularly those residing in the SEQ and those who cherish our open spaces in the SEQ, should be skeptical of any regionalization proposal. Any pressure on Chamberlin neighborhood will have a direct impact on the open spaces remaining in the SEQ; and development in the SEQ, far from city services, puts a strain on our resources. For families and retirees living in Chamberlin, the loss of their single-family homes on quartre-acre lots amounts to a quality-of-life issue. There are no replacement homes of equal value.

Should the towns of Colchester, Essex/Essex Jct., and Shelburne be brought in on a regional airport study initiative, the issues unique to South Burlington (and potentially also to Burlington, Winooski, and Williston once the F-35s arrive) must not be lost in the mix of these other towns’/cities’ priorities regarding Airport development. Airport regionalization is a KEY question to pursue but one must consider it carefully.

Passed January 23, 2017: SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION IN RESPONSE TO 2016 BIA LAND AND RE-USE PLAN

* This Resolution constitutes the City Council’s comments on “DRAFT Noise Land Inventory and Re-Use Plan Update/ Burlington International Airport (BTV)/ FAA AIP NO. 3-09-0000-094-2012/ December 2016.”

 

WHEREAS, South Burlington is home to the Burlington International Airport (“Airport” or “BIA”), an important contributor to the local, regional, and statewide economy; and,

WHEREAS, the South Burlington City Council believes it is imperative that it act in response to the following circumstances:

* The City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the development and preservation of affordable housing within proximity to schools, parks, services, and amenities and the enhancement of the quality of life of existing neighborhoods among the top four priorities under the Plan’s stated Vision & Goals.

* The City of South Burlington City Council has recognized the development and retention of affordable housing as a top municipal priority and has instituted an Affordable Housing Trust Fund and an Affordable Housing Committee in addition to existing land development regulations, such as those governing the Kirby Cottages at 10, 12, and 18 Lily Lane, and new rules proposed by the Affordable Housing Committee in order to preserve the City’s affordable housing stock.

* The December 2016 deployment of the Vermont Air National Guard to the Middle East, ongoing taxiway and apron repaving that will be intermittently halting regular operations over the next two years, and phased departure of all F16 jets ending in March 2019, have resulted in a significant decrease in Vermont Air National Guard operations at the Airport from now into the foreseen future until late 2019 when the first F-35s are scheduled to arrive.

* The BIA 14 CFR Part 150 Update 2015 and 2020 Noise Exposure Map does not take into account future F-35 operations that are scheduled to begin in October 2019.

* The decrease in military operations at the Airport indicates a high probability that the 39 parcels now deemed eligible for the Land Acquisition Program by the FAA and Airport no longer lie in the 73.3 DNL contour.

* In January 2017 the FAA Washington Bureau expressed its willingness to buy the homes (“Kirby Cottages”) on Lily Lane and sell them or transfer them to a third party, potentially the Champlain Housing Trust. A condition of this offer is that the price at which the FAA would sell enables the FAA to recoup its investment. This offer is untenable. Accepting this offer would require that contributors to Champlain Housing Trust and/or South Burlington taxpayers subsidize the unusually generous provisions of the FAA’s purchase of homes under the Part 150 Program. The FAA offer further specified that these homes could remain on site as long as they have an avigation/noise easement attached to them or that they could be moved off site within a negotiated period of time.

 

NOW THEREFORE, the City of South Burlington does hereby state the following:

  1. We request that the FAA withdraw its grant approval for the current NCP and Land Acquisition Program given that the acquisition of the 39 parcels is based on obsolete noise levels and will result in irreparable harm to the City through the loss of affordable housing, loss of property tax revenue, and loss of peace of mind for our residents; and,
  2. We request that the FAA withdraw its approval of the most recently approved NEM and NCP and Land Acquisition Program due to cited deficiencies in the draft 2016 Land and Re-Use Plan, such as (1) the decline in commercial air passengers that contradicts the Airport’s premise that additional land is required for future airport development, (2) the inconsistency between the 73.3 DNL contour governing the current Noise Land Acquisition Program and the 75 DNL contour cited in the draft Land and Re-Use Plan, and (3) the accelerated arrival of the F-35 from fall 2020 to October 2019; and,
  3. We request that the FAA withdraw its approval of the most recently approved NEM and NCP and Land Acquisition Program due to the extraordinary decrease of military operations at the Airport until late 2019, which constitutes a significant change in the noise conditions and makes it highly probable that noise contours in the 2015 NEM are no longer accurate; and,
  4. We request that by Tuesday, February 7, 2017, the FAA begin negotiations concerning these requests with South Burlington and other officials of the state and of any public agencies and planning agencies whose area, or any portion of whose area, of jurisdiction within the Ldn 65 dB noise contours is depicted on the NEM, and other Federal officials having local responsibility of land uses depicted on the map; and,
  5. We request that the FAA recognize the City of South Burlington’s determination that residential and school uses be allowed on all land in South Burlington located within the current NEM and the NEM the City has requested that incorporates F-35 operational data, whether purchased or not purchased through the Land Acquisition Program; and,
  6. The City of South Burlington is very concerned that the integrity and quality-of-life of the most impacted residential neighborhood, including Kirby Road to the north and Chamberlin Elementary School in its center, be preserved. If it is not possible to suspend the Noise Land Acquisition Program, we request that the FAA grant the City of South Burlington/Airport an exemption so that the housing stock remain on site for residential use; and
  7. With regard to said exemptions, we request that each deed be transferred at no cost or at a reduced cost to a third party, such as the Champlain Housing Trust, in order that the properties may be maintained as affordable housing for residential use; or to another third party for a mutually agreed upon use in line with the City’s planning goals for preserving and enhancing the character of this existing neighborhood; and,
  8. Because a particular term of the January 18, 2017, FAA offer regarding its resale of FAA-purchased homes to the City, an appropriate nonprofit, or a private individual would undermine the City’s efforts to increase the number of affordable homes in the Chamberlin neighborhood, we request an opportunity to negotiate the terms of the FAA’s offer so that this provision is removed and substituted in its place is a sales-price provision that advances the City’s goals relating to increasing its stock of affordable housing. (Note: we believe that the FAA does not understand the negative implications of this particular requirement of its offer.); and,
  9. We, therefore, propose that determination of how the City should act vis-à-vis the affordable housing covenants applicable to the three Kirby Cottages at 10, 12, and 18 Lily Lane, be addressed under a separate Council resolution since this situation relates to only three of the 39 properties included on the Noise Land Acquisitions Parcels list and their circumstances differ from those applicable to the other 36 properties on the list; and,
  10. We, therefore, request that the FAA not approve the Airport’s plan to acquire noise land for the purpose of constructing an “airport access roadway” where the homes on Kirby Rd. and Lily Lane now sit (3.1 Short-Term Plan); and,
  11. We request that the FAA consider using NCP funds to construct passive or constructed Noise Buffer, including berms or other landscape improvements, sound walls, including along the Airport’s southern concourse, and an engine run-up enclosure, in order to mitigate ground noise impacting residents within the 70 DNL and greater contour; and,
  12. We request the financial and other assistance of the FAA and Airport in contracting with a qualified consultant to run the approved FAA noise model substituting F-35 data for the F-16 data that was used for the current map in order to be able to plan for the arrival of the F-35s in late 2019; and,
  13. We request that the City of South Burlington and Airport enter into a legally binding agreement that states that the Noise Land Acquisition Program will no longer be considered as a mitigation program for BTV unless there are circumstances that warrant one following an environmental impact or sound review that shows the homes and parcels are definitively impacted. We pledge to incorporate measures to achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB into building codes and to consider these measures in individual approvals. (Note: we believe that the FAA’s requirement that the airport operator provide notice and the opportunity for a public hearing on the NCP program was not fulfilled.); and,
  14. We request that future consideration of noise mitigation programs include the participation of the City of South Burlington prior to the submittal of grant requests, applications for FAA approval, and notification to eligible residents/property owners; and,
  15. In the event that noise levels become deleterious to residents’ health and quality of life and negatively affect home values, we request that the FAA work with the City of South Burlington and the Airport in order to find a mutually agreeable solution for our residents and the City’s finances; and,
  16. Since our residents naturally look to the City of South Burlington for answers to their questions and concerns, we request that the implications of future noise mitigation programs on our residents and our city be carefully explained to the City of South Burlington prior to submittal of requests to the FAA for approval and Airport implementation of such programs, whether these implications include home acquisition, buyer/seller agreement terms, avigation easements, real estate disclosures, or some other possible form of encumbrance; and,
  17. We request, therefore, that a person designated by the South Burlington City Manager receive copies of all communications, including draft documents, related to the Airport’s NEMs, NCP, etc.; and Airport presentations to the South Burlington City Council, including sharing of draft documents relating to Airport NEMs and its NCP prepared for submission to the FAA.  These presentations would take place before these draft documents are conveyed to the City of Burlington’s Finance Board and City Council.

 

DATED this __23rd_ day of ___January__ 2017,

 

SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL

 

____________________________________

Helen Riehle, Chair

 

____________________________________

Meaghan Emery, Vice-Chair

 

____________________________________

Tim Barritt, Clerk

 

____________________________________

Thomas Chittenden

 

____________________________________

Pat Nowak

 

BACKGROUND AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION

 

* In 1990, the Airport prepared its first Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) Part 150 Noise Study, and has periodically updated its component Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Plans through present day.

* The City of South Burlington City Council issued a letter in February 2011 in response to the Airport’s 2012 Vision 2030 Master Plan and in it stated, “The Council seeks assurance from BIA that the boundaries of its NCP program will not expand.  This is necessary to protect the adjacent neighborhood from BIA purchase and removal of more housing units than are currently planned” and further, “the South Burlington City Council hereby states that it disapproves of the BIA Vision 2030 Master Plan Update as currently written due to its lack of a pledge to fund and build noise mitigation devices (such as blast deflectors, sound walls, and engine run-up enclosures) and/or put in place practices whose result is that the noise experienced by the adjacent South Burlington residential neighborhood is no greater than it is today and, concomitantly, the geographic area in the City of South Burlington covered by the NCP is not enlarged.”

* According to the 2012 ECOS Report, “Chittenden County Housing Needs Assessment,” page 24, one finds the following correlation between housing affordability and the County’s and, therefore, State’s economic vitality, according to area employers: “The cost of housing was rated a serious problem by most area employers surveyed during this study. Adverse effects include losing recruits for job openings and higher expenditures when non local candidates take positions here — for sign-on bonuses and reimbursement for relocation expenses.” Further, on page 56, “VHFA (Vermont Housing Finance Agency) collected surveys from 47 Chittenden County employers asking their opinions about housing availability, cost, and location — and about the impact of those factors on their businesses. The cost of housing was regarded as a serious problem by 74% of employers for rental housing and 62% of employers for owner housing. In fact, 83% of employers said that the cost and availability of housing was an obstacle to economic development.” In addition to this survey, the Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation (GBIC) and a team of economic development consultants conducted a separate employer survey for their analysis work which produced similar results.

* The scarcity of affordable housing is the source of major hardship for the one in three South Burlington households, which spend more than thirty percent of household income on housing. Of these one in three households, thirty-six percent pay more than fifty percent of household income on housing. The housing affordability standard is paying thirty percent less of household income on housing (these data are from the 2013 South Burlington Affordable Housing Task Force Report). The loss of an additional 37 or 39 housing units in the most affordable neighborhood in the City will add to the number of households whose budgets are stressed by the scarcity of affordable housing in the City. This assertion is supported by the 2012 ECOS Report, which cites, on page 37, that low vacancy rates – along with rising fuel costs and a tightening of mortgage credit – are likely to contribute to increased homes sales prices (“The median price of homes used as primary residences has risen 70% in Chittenden County since 2000,” and “Despite the prevalence of large owner homes, large units that are rental and/or affordable can be challenging to find,” p. 38, 47).

* The FAA released updated Noise Exposure Maps in late 2015 reflective of the then current operations at the Airport and, using an updated model, identified 961 homes within the 65+ contours.

* The Airport’s consultants unveiled the new NEM on November 9, 2015 during a “Public Workshop,” followed by a public workshop at the Airport; however, according to our understanding of public hearings within our governance rules, these open public meetings do not meet the FAA requirement of a public hearing in impacted communities (and no known meetings were held in Colchester, Williston, or Winooski, although these communities are also impacted). Nor was opportunity to request a public hearing offered on the noise insulation program, a pre-requisite to the noise insulation grant request, nor one offered on the new round of home acquisitions, required by the FAA before the Airport can begin a noise insulation program. As a result, the ramifications of the noise insulation program were not clearly communicated to the communities in question nor did the impacted communities have an opportunity to respond to the Airport’s grant request for more FAA-funded home acquisitions.

* The Chamberlin Neighborhood Airport Planning Committee has identified Chamberlin Elementary School as integral to the Chamberlin Neighborhood’s identity and vitality.

* Enplanements in each of the years 2010 through 2015 have been declining to a figure of 594,034, the City of South Burlington is somewhat skeptical of projections of an increase to 670,947 in just 4 years and to 781,216 by 2030.

* Based on the 2015 Noise Exposure Map, the Airport has identified on its website 39 parcels in the City of South Burlington within a 73.3+ DNL contour that the FAA and the Airport have determined are eligible for the noise mitigation home buyout program through the FAA’s Noise Compatibility Program (“NCP”).

* The Airport and City of South Burlington signed a 10-year Tax Stabilization Agreement in July 2016, the terms of which determine that the purchase of the 39 parcels eligible for acquisition would represent a $66,253.54 annual loss in property tax, which represents a 73.5% loss of revenue for the City. The remaining $96,870 represents a loss to the State Education Fund. Overall, this would be an extraordinary loss for the City and would compound our tax revenue loss due to recent prior home acquisitions since 2006, which number more than double the amount of eligible parcels under the current Part 150 Program.

* In view of regional and state studies, there is a probability that these 37 or 39 housing units, which include both affordable and workforce housing, are highly sought after by families with school-age children. Of these units, owner-occupied homes currently figure among the existing housing stock in the County deemed most desirable to families according to the 2012 ECOS Report, “Chittenden County Housing Needs Assessment”: “On average, more ‘family’ households own their home than ‘non-family’ households” (16).  Should these housing units be purchased and demolished, families are likely to have to move out of South Burlington due to the scarcity of affordable housing in the City and new families unable to move in.  We further keep in mind that state aid for education is based on the number of children attending the City’s public schools.  Thus, the loss of these 37 or 39 housing units would potentially cause loss of revenue to the School District. Additionally, the Chamberlin neighborhood is home to Chamberlin Elementary School whose enrollment numbers have fallen ten percent, from 253 to 229, since 2010. The School’s Principal notes that the lack of affordable housing and the state of the current economy might also explain the increased number of Chamberlin students living in multiple-generation households. On page 24 the ECOS Report cites a study done by the Vermont Child Poverty Council, pertinent to this expressed concern: “A recent study of the Vermont Child Poverty Council examined a variety of data related to the greatest problems facing the state’s children. The Council noted that ‘without stable and safe housing, children may change schools frequently or may not be ready to learn in school.’ This means that children who lack affordable housing have a reduced likelihood of becoming successful adults.”

* The 73.3 DNL contour used as the threshold for determining the current properties eligible for home acquisition appears nowhere in the Airport’s draft 2016 Land and Re-Use Plan, which, under 3.1 Short-Term Plan, cites 75 DNL as the contour within which properties “should be reserved for future airport development.”

* The City of South Burlington was not notified of the current FAA Noise Land Acquisition Program grant request for acquiring 39 additional parcels until the FAA had already approved it and before the program was before the Airport’s municipal owner and government body for approval.

* Upon review of the 2016 Airport Land and Re-Use Plan, the South Burlington Planning Commission prepared a draft letter reiterating the Council’s position in 2011 that, “Land within the 75 dB DNL can also be suitable for Noise Buffer. The City of South Burlington requests that this option, for passive or constructed Noise Buffer, be added to this area. Constructed noise buffer may include berming or other landscape improvements to further reduce noise impacts of the Airport on the adjacent neighborhood.” The Planning Commission’s draft letter further stated, “the City of South Burlington does not support a limited access connector to I-89” and especially one that “could have a significant impact on Kirby Road being used as a cut-through for non-airport related traffic coming from or headed to Route 15 in Colchester.”

The financial and human cost of the current home buyout program

The financials:

Current annual property tax revenue from the 39 parcels eligible for acquisition listed on the BTV website is $186,985. Should BTV purchase these parcels based on outdated data, the loss in tax revenue would amount to $163,123.54 total. On the City side alone, the annual property tax revenue from them would drop from $90,115 to $23,861.46, assuming that the total tax rate for FY 2018 is projected to be .4946, or a reduction of $66,253.54 per year, which represents a 73.5% loss of revenue for the City. For the State Education Fund, this would equate to a loss of $96,870 per year, or a 100% loss in tax revenue from these properties. Overall, this would be an extraordinary loss for the City.  It is especially grievous to contemplate such a loss knowing that the City has already lost 97 homes and accompanying tax dollars through the previous buyout and that the homes’ eligibility for purchase under the BTV Part 150 program is based on obsolete levels of VTANG operations unlikely ever to re-occur.

For some perspective, $163,000 could cover two new hires in the City, and, in budget discussions, this sum represents just under a 1% tax increase for the rest of the City’s residents.

The human and social cost:

School-age children are likely to reside in these 37 or 39 housing units.  Should these housing units be purchased and demolished, these children’s families are likely to have to move out of South Burlington (due to the scarcity of affordable housing in the City).  State aid for education is based on the number of children attending the City’s public schools.  Thus, the loss of these 37 or 39 housing units would cause this additional loss of revenue to the School District. Additionally, the Chamberlin neighborhood is home to Chamberlin Elementary School whose enrollment numbers have fallen ten percent, from 253 to 229, since 2010. The School’s Principal notes that the lack of affordable housing and the state of the current economy might also explain the increased number of Chamberlin students living in multiple-generation households.

The scarcity of affordable housing is the source of major hardship for the one in three South Burlington households, which spend more than thirty percent of household income on housing. Of these one in three households, thirty-six percent pay more than fifty percent of household income on housing. The housing affordability standard is paying thirty percent less of household income on housing (these data are from the 2013 South Burlington Affordable Housing Task Force Report). The loss of an additional 37 or 39 housing units in the most affordable neighborhood in the City will add to the number of households whose budgets are stressed by the scarcity of affordable housing in the City.

Equally, if not even more adverse, will be the negative effect on the vitality and psyche of the Chamberlin Neighborhood should it experience the loss of an additional 37 or 39 housing units and the families residing there.

Any advantage that might accrue to BTV from acquisition of these homes in the next three to five years is far outweighed by the harm that the City of South Burlington would experience as a result of BTV’s purchase of these homes.

Incentives for local businesses to locate in City Center

“I hear from residents that they want to see more businesses move in, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. The way to encourage this is to support the development of our commercial and industrial areas. How to encourage local businesses to stay in City Center if and when big national anchor stores move in, risking to outprice our local businesses? We can advocate for the creation of tax incentives for local businesses to locate in our City Center and become new creative, perhaps technological-minded entities. Many VT politicians have advocated for Vermont to become a mini Silicon Valley, and why not? So I’m thinking about connectivity and free Wi-Fi, which NYC is putting into place. There are ways for the Council to look at our assets and think about ways to attract businesses to invest here and also to attract them here through the various resources that we might provide such as Wi-Fi AND a skilled and attractive workforce by keeping our schools strong.”

You can watch the entire video of the February 11 Candidate Forum at South Burlington High School at https://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/south-burlington-city-council-debate

Small Dog
healthyliving
Pompanoosuc showrooms