Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/21/1970BOARD OF SELECTMEN PUBLIC MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 1970 The South Burlington Board of Selectmen held a public meeting on the proposed Charter Change at the Middle School Library, Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday, September 21, 1970. MEMBERS PRESENT Charles H. Behney, Chairman; Frederick G. Blais and James C. Pizzagalli. MEMBERS ABSENT Gregory L. Premo and Raymond E. Stearns. OTHERS PRESENT Robert M. Janes, Town Manager; Wayne W. Jameson, Chairman of the Town Government Committee; John T. Ewing, Town Attorney; Dorothy Guilford, Secretary of the Town Government Committee; Charlotte C. Marsh, and about 75 other South Burlington residents. Chairman Behney called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. TOWN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED CHARTER REVISIONS The meeting opened with the salute to the flag. Chairman Behney then welcomed those present, saying it was the largest Public Meeting he could recall, second only to the meeting on a proposed dog ordinance. He then related the history of the Town Government Committee since 1967 and gave the names of the various people who have served on the committee during that period, as well as the names of many others on the various Boards who were consulted about the proposed changes. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Jameson, who also thanked the large number of people for attending this meeting. He explained that the purpose of forming the Town Government Committee was to find another method of voter participation that the Town Meeting and still protect the safeguards of the voter and maintain voter control of the government. TOWN CHARTER REVISIONS, CONTINUED He explained the main idea is to allow the voter to cast his vote by Australian ballot, but this requires many other rules. He also added that the average vote at Town Meeting has been running one-third of the average vote cast by Australian ballot. He stated that he would read Chapter 13 - BUDGET - and then open the floor to questions. Mr. Jameson noted that on Page 16, Item 2 (a) the word "twice" in the fifth sentence should be deleted. Mr. Lother Vogel suggested that the second sentence on Page 16 should be designated as Item 2 (b). In discussing budget increases Mr. Jameson stated that the average dollar amount of spending was approximately 9.7% over the past ten years. Mr. Jack Naylor asked - Why not use a cost of living index? He felt this would be of greater benefit to the taxpayer. Mr. Blais replied that other increases occur beyond the cost of living increases. This formula allows for increases in connection with town growth. Mr. Naylor still maintained that rather than an automatic 10% increase, the taxpayer should have the opportunity to vote on any money expended. Mr. John Brennan remarked that we were presuming an inflationary period. Mr. Horton commented that he feels it would be an error to compare the budget to a cost of living index. An unidentified woman asked if we had a recession, would the Grand List drop. Mr. Jameson replied that in the present state it probably would not, but if it lasted five years it could affect it, as could a major catastrophe also affect it. Dr. Robert Sinclair asked if the Steering Committee is advisory only, and did the Committee consider the possibility of having other than vested interests on the Steering Committee. He was told that it is advisory, and Mr. Blais explained that even though at present relations are very good between the School Board and the Selectmen, this could change, and the committee felt communication between the two Boards is essential. He added that this is a management group, that meetings will be held four times a year for discussions which will provide the voters the opportunity to express their ideas. He feels this will establish a liason between the two Hoards and will eliminate the possibility of both boards coming in at the same time for major spending, since priorities for spending would have been worked out. Mr. Naylor asked why it wasn't possible to have a regular budget and let the voter vote on it. Mr. Jameson replied that the taxpayer is often faced with something he does not like, and, since he has no choice, he might vote no on everything. The budget could continuously be voted down or the voters could vote for larger increases than should be made. Mr. Fayette questioned whether the charter is constitutionally available to towns, and thought the statutes could be ineffective; also consideration should be given, if the budget of the school or town is turned down, to provide for it to be re-submitted after re-study. Mr. Jameson stated that, under present state statutes the School Board can always initiate an election for additional funds. Mr. Ewing referred to Section 1308, Page 15, which covers this situation. Mr. Fayette agreed that this Section does provide for it. Doctor Sam Bogorad remarked that the only opportunity for the voter to reject the budget is if it exceeds the percentage given. Referring to Page 16, Item (1), he added that this is an open invitation for an increase in the budget each year, and that the key to limitations and what happens to the tax rate is found in Item (2) on this same page. He stated that with an increase in industry and in the Grand List, a decrease in the tax rate could be possible. Mr. Jameson stated that he thinks Item (1) is more restrictive than Item (2). If the Grand List went up 15% the tax rate would go down. In the event of an unexpected source of funds, this would be subject to restriction of 10% spent rather than a tax limitation, he said. Furthermore, he added, with growth rate, state aid, the tax rate would be subject to a vote of the town. This might appear as though you are giving a lot of leeway to different Boards, but it actually plugs loopholes; when there is an increase in the Grand List there is a tendency for the voter to approve expenditures, he said. Mr. Jameson remarked that the way we vote the budgets in now hampers the School Board and the Selectmen. Doctor Bogorad complimented Mr. Jameson on his reply, telling him it was very persuasive. Mr. Blais stated that 50% of the voters are concerned with what they have to pay, while 50% are concerned with what is spent. An unidentified man commented that no provision has been made for a percentage decrease in Item 2 (a), Page 16. Mr. Jameson replied that if the Grand List decreases, and the tax rate remains the same, spending is curtailed by 10%. To reduce the tax rate would make a double decrease Mr. Fayette suggested that on Page 16, Item (3), line 4, the work "original" be inserted before the word "maturity". Mr. Jameson explained that when a bond is retired and payment represents a certain amount in the tax rate, in the year following the retirement that money is available and can be spent any place. Also, he added, when someone votes on the bond issue in its original form he should vote on it knowing it is an original issue. Mr. Naylor asked what would happen to the $230,000 borrowed by the school district last year - where does it fit in? Mr. Jameson said this is an unusual situation, and asked if Mr. Shea, Attorney for the School District, would comment on this. Mr. Shea said the amount would not be included. Mrs. Bond, School Board member, said the net operating budget should be based on expenditures, and this would include the $230,000 loan. Mr. Ewing said in order to be consistent it would be better to stick with the authorized budget, but agreed this section needs working on. Doctor Bogorad said he thinks the debt servicing should be incorporated in the net operating budget. An unidentified man asked where this amount ($230,000.00) was going to be placed. Mr. Jameson answered that the Committee felt the bonded debt would only include that which the voters approved as a bond issue. The Selectmen have tried to work out short term borrowing. This would be included in the operating budget. Bonded indebtedness includes only money vote by the public he said, and felt that since the legislature is attempting to work on this it would be wise to wait. An unidentified woman asked what the advantage is to South Burlington in becoming a city rather than a town. Mr. Jameson answered that very few towns use Australian ballots, and when they do go to the Australian ballot system they become a city. Mr. James May referred to Page 16, Item (3), and questioned having state aid as part of the net operating budget. Mr. Jameson said it was because an increase in state aid would mean an increase in local spending. Mr. May said we were allowing a higher tax increase in the school budget than in the town budget. Mr. Blais agreed, and said this area needs some "sharpening up". Mr. Frederick Hackett, referring to Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, on page 16, stated that the primary limitation is not 10%. There must be an increase in the Grand List or there cannot be any increase in the tax rate, and the 10% increase in the budget applies as the final limitation on the total. Regarding state aid, he added, if it were not included as it is, there could be a situation where it could increase every year. It would mean that if the Grand List is up 5%, the tax rate could go up 5%, and have, on top of that, an increase in state aid. Mr. Hackett explained he feels these are restrictive limitations and he expects to see budgets submitted every year. He stated this is an attempt to allow budgets to increase gradually as there is an increase in demand for services due to the growth factor. He thinks a floating tax rate must be a reality in the city form of government. Mr. Fayette remarked that he thinks Page 16, Section 1309, Para. 3, needs drastic overhauling and suggested that the Attorneys for the School Board and the Town get together to discuss this. Mr. Blais said that since the Selectmen did not plan to approve the Charter Revisions tonight, there would be plenty of opportunity for both Attorneys to get together on Section 1309, Paragraph 3. Mr. Jameson then turned to the beginning of the Charter of South Burlington, and read all the underlined portions which constitute the changes to our present charter in the whole charter omitting Chapter 13, which has already been read and considered. It was noted that on Page 4 - Section 302 (d), the entire paragraph should be underlined. The question was asked "Why not have the town divided into districts, and why not have more selectmen"? Mr. Jameson said, after a considerable discussion on districting the town, that the vote on this in the Committee was very close, 7 opposed and 6 in favor of districting. In general he thinks it might be better to present this as a separate item later, perhaps a year or so later. Mr. Hackett said he thought we should move to a district system now, with a five man council, since it helps the councilman to identify with his own district. Mr. Jameson stated another reason for deferring on districting is that the Legislature is considereing a bill setting regulations for districting. Mr. Hackett said it is being considered, and feels the town districts should be the same as those of the state. However, changing the charter and districting at the same time could be quite complex, it was agreed by many. Mrs. Frymoyer suggested increasing the council to 7 since she has noticed that one or more of the Selectmen abstain from voting quite often. No action was taken on this after a short discussion. Further discussion took place on the subject of districting the town, and a show of hands was called for resulting in a vote of 36 for districting the town and 24 opposed. Mr. Fayette suggested listing the names of the officers for the city, and not relying on existing statutes regarding town offices. Mr. Ewing referred him to Page 6, 307 (c), where the names were listed. Charlotte Marsh referred to Section 303, Organization (b). She would like to see the title of "mayor" removed, and the word "chairman" substituted. Mr. Morse and Mr. Naylor agreed with Charlotte's suggestion. At this point a voice vote was requested and there was almost unanimous approval of the removal of the word "mayor" to be substituted with the word "chairman". Section 303 (c), Agenda for Regular Meetings - There was considerable discussion on this item, and many people spoke against item (4) regarding failure to post the agenda, saying it was ridiculous to establish a requirement and the provide means to by-pass the requirement with no penalty. A representative of the Free Press (George Lambert) said he felt the news media should be informed of special meetings as referred to under item (d). Mr. Peter Yankowski, William Ladd, Doctor Sam Bogorad, Colonel George C. Crooks, and Mr. Lothar Vogel, all gave their views on the procedure for the notification and holding of the Selectmen's meetings, both regular and special. There was concern about meetings being held without notice, and also the hope was expressed that the sense of personal involvement which has existed at Town Meetings can be maintained. Colonel Crooks suggested that, if it is necessary to have special meetings, the word "emergency" could be inserted under item (d). In the discussion on Executive Sessions, Mr. Jameson explained that no action is taken during these sessions, and Chairman Behney said that such sessions were usually concerned with personalities, negotiations for purchasing land, and appointments to Committees and Boards. In the discussion on Section 307, Page 6, (c), the suggestion was made that appointments by the Selectmen be by majority vote, annually. Mr. Jameson explained that the Town Clerk would be elected, but the Town Treasurer would be appointed under the revised charter. Miss Marsh stated she thinks the people should elect these officers (as enumerated in Section c) rather than the council appointing. An unidentified man said he did not agree with Miss Marsh, as he felt the councilmen would be well qualified in this area. Mr. Yankowski questioned the legality of the Grand Juror being appointed, but was told by Mr. Ewing that it is legal. Mr. Fayette, referring to Section 301, feels confusion would be eliminated if it read "the following officers shall be elected annually, and the following shall be appointed by the City Council." Referring to Section 310, Item 3, Doctor Sinclair suggested that the vacancies on the School Board be filled by appointment by the remaining members of the School Board. Mr. Jameson said the suggestion would be taken under consideration. Mr. Fayette referring to Page 7, Section 310, Item (3), questioned use of wordage. He thinks it should state either "remove for cause" or remove for no cause". (See lines 5 and 6). He thinks this could be a problem and feels the council should have the right of appointment and removal, and this should apply to all Committees. Chapter 5 - City Meetings - Mr. Jameson explained the reasons for changing the date of Town (City) Meeting as follows: 1. It would help in voting on the budget as the Grand List is set as of April 1st. 2. We would be acting on the budget after State Legislature has convened. 3. We are further along in the fiscal year and thereby the voters have more time to study and act, and the weather is better for campaign purposes. The question was raised as to whether or not this would affect the interviewing and appointment of teachers for the following year. Mr. Blais answered that with the new charter we would know how much money there is to work with, thus making it easier to negotiate. Mr. Jameson explained that the present members of the Council and School Board will remain in office until expiration of terms. Mr. Blais added that if the Charter is approved by the Legislature before February 1, 1971 it would go into effect then. If it is approved after February 1, 1971, it would go into effect January 1, 1972. Mr. Dennison commented that if the Legislature changes the Grand List date to January 1, it would eliminate one of the reasons for changing the meeting date and Miss Marsh said that the last Legislature considered making Election Day a holiday and thinks more voters would come to the polls if there was a standard date throughout the state. Mr. Fayette raised a question about the restriction on the sale of intoxicating liquors on a voting day. Miss Marsh referring to Page 8, Section 502 (b), would like to see the ballot box hours changed from 6:00 A.M. and 7 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 7 P.M. There seemed to be general agreement on this. Chapter 7-Planning - Mr. Yankowski said he felt appointments to the Planning Commission should reflect the general population of the community. Mr. Tudhope referred to Chapter II, Steering Committee. and asked why this committee has four elected and three appointed members. Why not have all elected? Mr. Jameson replied that the committee felt better communication between Boards could be effected. The committee would have no authority, and Mr. Blais added that since it is a management Board it could serve no purpose as an elected Board. When asked if someone outside the city might serve on this committee, Mr. Jameson said this is possible. Mr. Tudhope felt the Steering Committee will "wither and die" unless it reports to the town at different times of the year in lieu of Town Meeting. Mr. Jameson commented that the committee felt four meetings a year would get people to participate more than if monthly or bimonthly meetings were held. Miss Marsh said she does not think four meetings a year give much opportunity to talk with officials and look over the budget. Mr. Fayette asked how essential the Steering Committee is to the Charter and Mr. Jameson remarked it will establish liason between the Boards. Chapter 19 Assessment - Mr. William Bailey, Lister, questioned why the appointment of Chief Assessor is made by the Town Manager instead of the council, and Mr. Pizzagalli replied that it is an administrative function and should be subject to the same rules as other departmental duties. It was pointed out that tax grievance matters will be handled as they are now, by the Board of Civil Authority. Chapter 20 - Water Department Various questions were asked, such as: Does this abolish the position of Superintendent of the Water Department? What would his function be? What will be accomplished? What happens to the equipment owned by the Water Department? Replies to the first two questions were mad by Mr. Janes, - Nor, this does not abolish the position of Superintendent, the superintendent would be concerned with the operation of his department in the field, and would report to the Town Manager, coordinated by Mr. Szymanski, the Town Engineer. Mr. Blais said it would accomplish the placing of all categories under one head, such as sewer, public properties, water, etc., basically for management reasons. The equipment would be taken over by the town, and he stated these revisions had the total support of the Water Commission. Mr. Tudhope then raised a question on Section 2201, Page 21, method of amendment. Mr. Ewing explained it was by majority vote. Mr. Ewing further added that if the South Burlington Charter is in conflict with State regulations, the Charter is the rule. Question was asked pertaining to "how much more this charter will cost us". Mr. Behney said "No additional charge, and it is hoped to save money". Mr. Fayette commended Mr. Jameson and the Town Government Committee for a job well done, and Mr. Jameson then turned the meeting back to Chairman Behney. Chairman Behney then reported on the very successful progress in obtaining funds for the Red Rocks property and Phase IV of the sewer project. Chairman Behney also informed those present that the South Burlington Spokesman was being issued each month by two interested persons, and said he felt we were very fortunate to have this taken care of. He then thanked the citizens present for attending the meeting. Mr. Pizzagalli made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11 P.M. Motion seconded by Mr. Blais and passed unanimously. Approved James C. Pizzagalli, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.