Voters in Burlington will do more than choose a new mayor on the first Tuesday in March. They will also decide whether to let officials increase the city’s capital improvement borrowing authority by $3 million and obligate up to $10 million more for downtown tax-generating projects. In addition, they will weigh in on whether to approve a 10.8 percent school tax rate increase at a time when federal funds are being cut.
In response to grassroots organizing and public discontent there will also be advisory referenda on reducing the disparity of wealth and recommending a constitutional amendment that declares corporations are not people. There may even be a chance to vote on whether to grant voting rights to non-citizens who have lived in the area for years.
On Monday, proposed city charter changes that would increase the city’s annual borrowing authority, by $2 million for the Burlington Electric Department and $1 million for general city purposes, faced no resistance and won unanimous approval.
By comparison, the introduction of a non-binding resolution generated spirited debate. The referendum, inspired by last fall’s Occupy protests, urges the state and federal governments to adopt revenue and investment policies that reduce the growing disparity of wealth and asks the largest corporations to pay a fair share of taxes.
Republicans on the City Council, including mayoral candidate Kurt Wright, questioned whether letting residents express their opinion about wealth disparity and fair taxation in a resolution is worth the effort. Wright appreciated the intent, he said, but called the referendum “too vague” and argued that advisory votes usually go nowhere.
His GOP colleagues were more blunt and ideological. “The (Occupy) movement says if you work too hard you should be penalized,” charged Councilor Vince Dober. “I still believe there is an American Dream out there.”
Democrat Norm Blais didn’t like the referendum for a different reason. “Our constituents don’t want us to spend time on issues like this,” he said.
During the public comment period, criticism also came from the left. An advisory referendum would “forestall action in favor of something binding,” charged Occupy organizer Jonathan Leavitt. “We need real, binding action.”
Progressive Councilor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak developed the proposal with Democrats Ed Adrian and Joan Shannon and Vince Brennan, a Progressive. “It’s time for towns to stand up and send a message,” she argued.
Burlington has a long history of ballot votes on hot political topics. Mulvaney-Stanak linked this one to funding cuts and home foreclosures, closing with a line that could have come from Bernie Sanders years ago in the same room. “It’s about the 1 percent and making corporations pay their fair share,” she proclaimed.
The referendum passed in a 10-4 roll call vote.
In December, a separate referendum on corporate personhood was approved for the March ballot without much discussion. It urges Congress to propose a constitutional amendment that declares that money is not speech and corporations aren’t persons.
At that session, the hot topic was a proposed ban on smoking in the central downtown area. The no-smoking policy became official on Monday night, despite the ambivalence of councilors who said the rule is flawed. Adrian called the ordinance “horrible policy but a baby step.” Mulvaney-Stanak, who ended up voting no, acknowledged that the class implications and “carve outs” for private businesses made her uneasy.
Public comments were divided, and so was the board. Like Mulvaney-Stanak — who joked that she might have to enter the witness protection program after her vote — Wright also admitted that he was conflicted. He proposed including a sunset provision and backed a parliamentary move to postpone the vote until employees and the public could be polled. When that failed, he voted no and lamented, “We (the council) don’t want to find out what everyone thinks.”
The ordinance’s strongest supporters were Democrats Joan Shannon and David Berezniak and Independent Sharon Bushor. Shannon described the evolution of the idea and participation by residents and businesses in the process. The only change since December, she noted, was removal of a designated smoking area in City Hall Park, a compromise that attracted considerable criticism.
As passed on an 8-6 vote, the new ordinance prohibits outdoor smoking from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. in downtown Burlington between South Winooski Avenue and Pine Street, and between Pearl and King streets. Exceptions are included for private property and sidewalk space leased to business owners. People who don’t stop smoking after a warning can be fined $50.
School taxes and looming cuts
The council also previewed a $53.3 million budget for Burlington’s schools. Due primarily to increased enrollment, retirement funding, modest wage and benefit increases and a loss of federal and state funding, an estimated tax hike of 10.8 percent will be on the ballot.
In a preliminary announcement forecasting the increase, School Board Finance Committee Chair Alan Matson noted that “FY 2013 will see the loss of significant Federal funding as well as a shift of employee benefit payments from the City budget to the School budget. On the other hand the District continues to grow.” Nearly a third of the tax increase will be offset by a lowered city tax rate, Matson predicted last month.
Unless city revenues increase, the city is meanwhile preparing for reductions in staff and services. Last year the council resisted moves by Kiss to put a tax increase on the ballot. Property taxes have remained at the same level for six years. In a memo to the Board of Finance, Acting Chief Administrative Officer Scott Schrader predicts that the police and fire departments may face layoffs, while Parks and Recreation might need to increase user fees.
Penny for Parks gets a new process
“The door is open and I’m walking through it,” said Paul Decelles when Board President Bill Keogh asked him not to bring up the past. It was early in the evening and, while airing his views on a proposed resolution to have the Parks Commission play a larger role in future use of Penny for Parks funds, Decelles brought up the skate park.
Just because spending on the skate park is allowable, he argued, that doesn’t make it necessarily wise. At that point Keogh asked him to limit his comments to the future.
In December, an ad hoc coalition including the three Council Republicans, Democrats Bram Kranichfeld and David Hartnett and Independent Karen Paul narrowly passed a resolution that questioned the use of $150,000 from the 1-cent dedicated tax to improve the city’s skate park, which is considered outdated and dangerous. Some nearby residents oppose the plan, others question the process or the amount being allocated. Mayor Bob Kiss refused to continue searching for funding, however, and sent the resolution back unsigned.
The latest proposal, sponsored by Wright, Shannon and Paul, doesn’t mention the skate park. Instead it argues generally that “issues have been raised about the selection process” and “it is important that there be a public process to determine how these limited funds are to be allocated.”
The main remedy is to put the Parks Commission at the center of developing a new Penny for Parks budget process. The resolution explicitly notes that “in the September Parks Commission minutes, Commissioners expressed surprise that they were not consulted about a major Penny for Parks expenditure for this year.”
Kiss defended the process used to set priorities, noting that engineering considerations play a significant part, and warned that the new plan gives a “disproportionate role” to the commission. Until the Clavelle era, appointed commissioners had more influence over departmental operations in what was considered a “weak mayor” system. Charter changes subsequently transferred decisions on hiring to the city’s chief executive and moved Burlington toward more unified city management.
Realizing that the issue behind the resolution – skate park funding – will not be affected by any new process developed by the Commission, Decelles ultimately decided that it was an unnecessary “futile exercise” and voted no.
Other business and upcoming deadlines
The financial issues on the ballot have been the least controversial in council discussions, at least so far. A new downtown tax incremental financing district, which would allow the council to borrow up to $10 million “by pledging the credit of the city,” was approved for a vote with unanimous support and virtually no debate in December. However, a few councilors expressed concerns about how the public may view the proposal.
Another item, exempting businesses with an appraised value of less than $45,000 from personal property taxes, also won quick approval.
The same was true this week when acting on proposed charter changes that would increase the borrowing authority of BED and the Board of Finance.
Brennan expects a more spirited discussion on Jan. 23 when his advisory referendum finally comes up for discussion. Although non-binding, if passed it would advise the City Council to prepare a charter amendment extending voting rights to any non-citizen who has been a city or state resident “for a number of years.”
On Monday, Brennan said he was guardedly optimistic about winning over a council majority. He has been contemplating a run for mayor as the Progressive candidate, but would prefer not to discuss that publicly until later in the month.
On Jan. 23, early and absentee voting begins for the Vermont presidential primary. In Burlington, it is also the last practical date for revisions to proposed charter amendments and other ballot items.
Groups or individuals not on the City Council who want to place an item on the ballot have until Jan. 26 to turn in petitions signed by five percent of voters. Nominating petitions for candidates must be filed by 5 p.m on Jan. 30.
