Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Growth Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Burlington council debates growth-management plan, asks staff for scenarios and RFP draft
Summary
At an April 10 council retreat, South Burlington City Council discussed a proposed growth-management process, considered three growth scenarios (slow, business-as-usual, fast), and asked staff to synthesize options and draft an RFP for consultant work; a planned University of Pennsylvania design-studio partnership had been discontinued.
South Burlington City Council held a retreat April 10 to discuss a future growth-management plan and process, focusing on how to balance development, infrastructure needs and quality of life as the city grows.
City staff presented a memo outlining a proactive, values-driven process and recommended focusing on resilience, then modelling outcomes and trade-offs. Jesse Baker, City staff, told the council staff "recommend that a future growth management conversation center around being proactive and how we can thoughtfully plan for and shape growth over time." Baker also noted that the University of Pennsylvania professor who had been expected to participate had withdrawn from the partnership.
Council members repeatedly framed housing and population growth as the principal driver of other changes. "Housing is the root of all good and evil within the community," Councilor Tim said, summarizing the group’s sense that housing supply and form will determine pressures on schools, roads and services. Councilor Mike summarized regional planning figures presented in recent committee meetings, saying the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) targets for South Burlington imply roughly 7,500 homes over the next 25 years.
The council debated whether the city should pursue (a) an outcome-driven plan that starts from desired future conditions, (b) a data-driven approach that models infrastructure constraints and costs, or (c) a mix of both. Members emphasized the need to define measurable quality-of-life metrics (traffic congestion, noise, park acreage, police response time, water quality were suggested) and to model how different amounts and forms of growth would affect those metrics.
Several councilors asked staff to model three bounded scenarios so the city can compare trade-offs: slow growth (below business as usual), business as usual, and a higher growth trajectory. Councilor Andrew urged the group to examine both amount and form of growth, saying two identical totals of housing could have very different impacts depending on location and density.
Staff responded that modelling the scenarios and identifying candidate metrics would take time and expertise. Jesse Baker and other staff suggested returning a synthesis and a draft request-for-proposals (RFP) for consultant help; the staff recommended bringing a draft synthesis to the council before issuing an RFP and discussed engaging the school board at a steering-committee meeting.
Councilors also discussed fiscal consequences and revenue questions tied to growth, including tax impacts and the role of tools such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF). "The piece that's really important about a growth-management plan is understanding what the costs of growth are for our community and managing that so that ... residents don't get priced out," Councilor Laura said.
The council concluded the retreat without adopting a final policy. Staff committed to prepare a synthesis of the discussion, draft an RFP scope for modelling scenarios and metrics, and return with a refined proposal and timetable for council review and steering-committee engagement.
The meeting closed with a procedural motion to adjourn that was seconded and approved by voice vote.
