[B]URLINGTON — A group of Burlington citizens have sued the city in an attempt to block the planned renovation of City Hall Park.
The eight citizens are arguing that the City Council had violated the city charter by not seeking voter permission before pledging city credit or acquiring bonds for the project.
The group also alleges that the City Council violated the city charter by not putting an advisory question about the park on the March Town Meeting Day ballot after the citizens petitioned the council to do so.
“Circumventing its obligation to submit the true purpose for the $4 million City Park overhaul to a vote, the Council seeks to cheat the Plaintiffs and the entire city out of their rightful role in town governance,” the lawsuit states.
The group is seeking an injunction which would halt work on the park until voters can vote on the project. The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Vermont Superior Court.
Mayor Miro Weinberger pushed back against the lawsuit’s claims in a statement to VTDigger.
“This lawsuit, like many that we have seen in the past, is full of incorrect claims and baseless arguments and we are confident the Court will quickly see through them,” he said. “We will seek all available remedies to ensure that this latest effort at obstructing the years of hard work of City employees and decisions made by our elected Councilors does not succeed.”
Weinberger and project supporters believe the plan will make the park more accessible while retaining the same number of trees and adding more than 1,500 new shrubs and grasses. The group Keep the Park Green had argued against the plan, especially the felling of fully grown trees and the increase in the amount of pavement in the park.
The council voted 6-6 on Jan. 28 to not put the advisory question about the park on the ballot.
Weinberger had argued that the park plan had gone through an extended public process, and that putting the question on the ballot would have delayed the start of the project. Keep the Park Green and its supporters had argued that voters deserved a chance to weigh in on the plan in a citywide vote.
The lawsuit alleges that since the city is using funding from bonds which voters approved but did not specifically mention City Hall Park, it is acting in violation of its charter.
Weinberger told VTDigger in January that the funding will come from philanthropic giving, property taxes, TIF funding and an institutional bond that UVM and Champlain College use to pay the city for its services to them.
“The City has violated the City Charter by wresting the rightful decision-making authority on whether and how to spend bond funds away from the voters,” the lawsuit alleges. “This maneuver attempts to avoid the necessary public vote on the City Hall Park project, demonstrating the Council’s attempt to seize unlimited spending power over the public coffers.”
Additionally, the lawsuit argues that the decision to not put the advisory question on the ballot was a violation of the charter.
The lawsuit points to Vermont Supreme Court’s Skiff v. South Burlington decision, that the South Burlington School District did not violate the law by deciding not to put their decision to change the school’s mascot to a districtwide vote. Some South Burlington residents had opposed the decision for the district to drop the “Rebels” moniker.
The lawsuit argues that under the standard set in Skiff v. South Burlington, the city should have allowed the question on the ballot. The Skiff standard prohibits the school board or City Council from omitting an article unless the petitioned item is advisory and beyond the authority of the electorate to decide.
The lawsuit states that since the city is using the credit of the city and using bonds for the project, the petitioned question is within the authority of the electorate under the city’s charter.
Kira Kelley, a lawyer for the residents, said that she believes the city was ignoring the voter input its charter outlines. She said that since city residents will be paying for the project and use the park, elected officials should be accountable to them and to the rules of the city charter.
“We need to be very vigilant to make sure these checks and balances remain something we use to protect ourselves from unilateral decision making,” she said.
