Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/19/1974SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1974 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting in the City Hall Conference Room, Williston Road, on Tuesday, February 19, 1974, rather than on the 18th, which was a legal holiday. Chairman Nardelli opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Walter Nardelli, William Cimonetti, Paul Farrar, Michael Flaherty, and Mrs. Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Richard Spokes, City Attorney; Leo O'Connor of the Free Press; Raymond J. Danis, A. C. Audette, William Wessel, Jean Hildick, Leo W. Rich, Edward A. Rounds, Jim Vaillancourt, and Patrolmen Blondin, McArthur, and Kruger of the South Burlington Police Department; also Mr. Ken Boudreau, union representative from Boston READING OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 31 and FEBRUARY 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, 1974 In the Minutes of January 31, it was noted that in Section 3,101 the words "buildings used in" should be inserted after the word "the." Motion made by Mr. Flaherty that the Minutes of January 31 be accepted with the correction to be made on page 2. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. A motion was made by Mr. Farrar, seconded by Mrs. Neubert, and voted unanimously, to approve the Minutes of February 4, 1974. Mr. Farrar moved that the Minutes of February 5, 1974 be approved. This was seconded by Mr. Flaherty and approved unanimously with the notation that there was an error on page 5 which was corrected at a subsequent meeting. Mrs. Neubert said that in the Minutes of February 6, 1974 she would like to add on page 4 that when she voted against this, it was because she did not approve of the change in concept. Motion made by Mr. Flaherty to accept the Minutes of February 6, 1974, as amended. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously to approve as amended. A motion was made by Mr. Farrar to accept the Minutes of February of February 7, 1974, with a change to note that the meeting of February 8 would be a continuation of the February 7 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty, and voted unanimously to approve with the noted change. Mr. Farrar moved that the Minutes of February 8, 1974, be accepted after the insertion of the word "making" before the word "corrections" in the last paragraph on page 6. This motion was seconded by Mr. Flaherty, and voted unanimously for approval with above noted correction. Mr. Nardelli called attention to the Disbursement Orders requiring signature. Mr. Cimonetti requested that a report by him on recent meeting of the Chittenden County Transportation Committee be added to the Agenda for this meeting. Mrs. Neubert requested two additional items be placed on the Agenda – the Human Resources Committee and a meeting of the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee. The above three items were unanimously approved for addition to the Agenda. Mr. Nardelli announced that Item 3 would await the arrival of Mr. Tudhope. Next, Mr. Ken Boudreau of Boston, representing the interests of the Policeman's Union, was introduced to the Council members by Patrolman Blondin. Mr. Nardelli listed the items offered by the Council to the Police Department, as 1) a 5% increase in pay, 2) "across the board" payment of $100.00, 3) release from the delivering of papers to Council members, and 4) an increase in total sick leave to 150 days (from 120 days). Mr. Boudreau replied that this was not realistic. He proposed a 9% increase plus a cost-of-living increase which would run 8.2%, for a total of 17.2%. The basic issue is pay, and that agreement could be reached on longevity, insurance, etc. Mr. Szymanski mentioned the standard of 5.5% per annum recommended by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, in effect as of January, 1973. Mr. Flaherty said 17% was unreasonable; both sides would have to be more realistic. Mr. Boudreau said their request was not unreasonable; that the policemen are just trying to survive in the face of rising costs. Mr. Nardelli said a fair cost-of-living is negotiable; that the South Burlington Police Department gets more benefits than other Police Departments in the area; they are not underpaid. Mr. Farrar said he felt the request to be most unreasonable unless they could demonstrate some very good reasons for it; that the request was a little large. Mr. Nardelli then stated he felt personally that the requested increase was beyond what the City could afford; that all the people in the City have to be considered. If the Grand List showed an increase, then perhaps it could be discussed, but the Council did not wish to cut other services. He then suggested the possibility of a referendum to the people. Mr. Szymanski said the City if bound by the Charter, saying the figure for everything, including fixed costs, is $51,750. Mr. Farrar said he was opposed to having any increase in salaries placed before the voters. He felt that in between the two statements it should be possible to reach an agreement. Mr. Farrar then moved that the Council go into Executive Session for ten minutes to discuss pay increases. This was seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. The Council then went into an adjoining room at 8:20 p.m. The Meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Nardelli stated the Council wished to offer a counter proposal which would take time, but would be ready at the next meeting on Monday, March 4th; but that the Council would be happy to have a proposal from the Police Department. Mr. Boudreau then suggested a 10% raise which would include both cost-of-living and pay raise for the first year; the second year would try to have a cost-of-living raise. Also, $25.00 per year for longevity just to start the program in the Police Department. 150 days sick leave is agreeable, and exactly the same medical insurance policy they now have. The $25.00 per year for longevity on the years between five and ten years. Mr. Nardelli thanked Mr. Boudreau for coming. Next Mr. Rich and Mr. Rounds of the Highway Department presented their request, as representatives of the Department. Their request was for 9% increase plus cost-of-living also for 100% insurance coverage. When asked by the Chairman how they arrived at a figure of 9%, Mr. Rounds said they had received 5½% each year since they had originally started to negotiate, with last year a raise of 5½% plus $150.00 "across the board" raise. Mr. Farrar felt this request to be unreasonable. Chairman Nardelli told them of the proposal given to the Council by the Police Department, actually a counter-proposal by the Department. Mr. Rounds said they would talk it over and come back in two weeks. Mr. Farrar then told them any items could be given to the Council before their special meeting on February 25th, even though they could not be discussed then. The question of obtaining cheaper medical insurance was then raised, but the general feeling of the Council and Mr. Szymanski was that there would be little if any difference. Mr. Szymanski said one company had looked at the policy held by the City at the present time and stated they could not possibly offer anything better in the way of price. Mr. Tudhope, in his capacity as representative to the legislature, then reported on various items which he thought would be of interest to the Council. When asked about fines being returned to the City, Mr. Tudhope said the best chance would be to include it in the appropriations bill, but could not hold out any promise. Regarding shore line zoning proposition, the legislature this year is strong on local option. The flood plain zoning is going to have tough going. The poll tax issue is apparently dead for this year. The Miller Formula he described as a new Civil War, with the heat much worse than before. Seventy-eight towns now getting "zero" in State Aid creates a substantial problem. He held up a pamphlet Vermont IDEA which has been contributed to substantially by several communities, in hopes of attaching State Aid to income. He has seen nothing in the way of income plan that would do anything for South Burlington, and the Miller Formula is still up in the air. Kindergarten bill to be voted on February 20. This would require a kindergarten plan to be prepared by the community and voted on, but community not mandated to have a kindergarten. Mr. Cimonetti wondered what would happen if South Burlington said their plan was not to have a kindergarten. Mr. Tudhope replied this bill was the best bill they thought could get through the legislature; would require the community to plan ahead in terms of space required, etc. Mr. Tudhope said the land use plan is a somewhat watered-down version of the original plan and sets up natural resource and conservations areas as first step. He announced it was voted today (February 19) not to merge the highway fund and State appropriation general fund. Mrs. Neubert asked about densities, etc., — would theycome later? Mr. Tudhope answered the effective date will be January 1, 1976 for these – a supplemental land use plan. The State use plan is an effort to delineste conservation areas which cut across town lines. Philosophy of land use plan seems to be to cluster growth around villages and protect rural areas by establishing very low density patterns in these rural areas. This is favored by the two political parties and by the last two governors. Mr. Cimonetti asked for an explanation on the highway fund vote. Mr. Tudhope explained the gas tax and car use tax had been set aside for highway purposes. Now they are coming up six million dollars short, so it was proposed to merge with the general fund. Most of the programs had been highway-oriented, such as driver training. By keeping it as a separate highway fund, it can be watched. Mr. Szymanski said it was his understanding that the City would get no less than last year. Mr. Tudhope said the Governor's bill should give some additional mortgage money in the market, making money available to the banks to maintain the interest rate at 7½% for low and middle income levels. Regarding Velco, he doubts a recommendation to purchase, but there will be some recommendations for changes. Business Inventory Tax has raised a substantial amount of revenue but most business men are against it. Is not out of committee. The Transfer Tax raised $900,000 but it cost $200,000 to raise it. Mr. Szymanski asked about raising license fees, the ones now set by state law. Mr. Tudhope replied they are trying to establish equity in licensing programs. He also mentioned a new appraisal bill whereby a board of five members appointed by the Governor would appraise two sample areas of Vermont, their appraisal to be compared to the appraisal by local listers of the same areas in order to obtain information as to best methods of appraisal. Mr. Tudhope then called attention to the meeting in Shelburne regarding location of Route 7; that the purpose of the meeting is to measure the sentiment of the area as to where that highway should go. Mr. Ward asked about the Building Code. Mr. Tudhope said that if a building code is established prior to '76 or '77, it has to be the national building code. This is an attempt to get uniformity in the State. Chairman Nardelli expressed appreciation to Mr. Tudhope for attending the meeting. City Attorney Spokes then explained the interim zoning as simply a temporary measure but could be in force for two years and could get legislative approval to continue. The Zoning Regulation becomes void by March 23rd if the new regulation is not passed. Interim zoning would permit construction of single dwellings on one acre lots, construction associated with agricultural purposes, and would permit alterations on existing structures. All other uses would be acted upon by the Council after a public hearing. Would direct Zoning Administrator then to either issue or not issue a permit. He recommended first the consideration of interim zoning, then second, to think in terms of preparation of a warning for a public hearing close to the deadline of March 23rd. The document would have to be ready at the time the public hearing was advertised. A very simple document; is not a substitute for regular zoning ordinance. The Council would have a great deal of control. The residential exceptions are set by State statute. Mr. Farrar then moved that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare an interim zoning ordinance in line with his discussion at this meeting as a reasonable document, to be made available to Council members by next Monday evening if possible. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mr. Spokes said he would check the petition for referendum to make sure it is in legal order; would also check the signatures. Mrs. Neubert then moved that the Council hold a regular session on next Monday, February 25, at 7:30 p.m. to discuss the interim zoning ordinance, the budgets, and any other subjects which the City Attorney will present to the Council, and, in addition, the meeting will go into executive session to discuss union contracts. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mr. Wessel asked if interim zoning meant that powers would be transferred to the Council. Mr. Spokes replied the Zoning Board of Adjustment would still retain variance authority. The Sign Ordinance was then discussed, with Mr. Spokes presenting the question of whether non-conforming signs should be permitted to have wording changes as long as the structure and size of the sign are not affected; also should temporary signs, such as Sale signs, be permitted within a store for a certain length of time. Mr. Ward mentioned Gas signs, saying the State required them in the present emergency, but some station owners were afraid to put them up in fear of violating the local ordinance. He felt there should be some control over the temporary permit; some signs are well done but others are slapped together with a paint brush and left there forever. He also mentioned the practice of taking out S&H and putting in Triple S while retaining the same sign. He then explained that of the 300 forms sent out to business owners requesting information be filled in regarding their signs, the number returned to him was very small; he has not had time to follow up in person on each of these; and he is required to obtain this information every three years. He has had discussion with some of the owners who are challenging the ordinance; there are a number of things in the ordinance they do not like, such as no compensation for their sign, the 40 sq. ft. limit makes their 60 sq. ft. signs non-conforming, etc. He also feels himself that some things in the ordinance are just not enforceable. Chairman Nardelli said some of the matters would require amendment; others are merely administrative matters. Both Mrs. Neubert and Mr. Cimonetti suggested talking with the Sign Review Board. Mr. Farrar then moved that the Zoming Administrator be instructed to prepare proposed changes to the Sign Ordinance and to submit these proposed changes to the Sign Review Board and to the City Council. The Sign Review Board then should be asked to come before the Council to discuss these proposed changes to the Sign Ordinance and any other matters of enforcement of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion, and it was voted unanimously. Mr. Wessel then mentioned the problem of neon signs; also that any sign should be merely an identification of the business or premises. Location of Route 7 was next discussed. Mr. Szymanski said the latest proposal was to have it around Tafts Corners area. Chairman Nardelli read the announcement of the meeting to be held at Shelburne Town Hall on Thursday, February 21, at 7:30 p.m. Mrs. Neubert said she planned to attend but not as a representative of the Council. She hoped many would attend as the Highway Department is anxious to receive in-put from residents. She felt that in a general sense it could be decided that the City of South Burlington did not want the highway coming through their town. Mr. Szymanski said the proposal now is to bypass this area. Mr. Farrar said he felt they could only react to a proposal. Mr. Cimonetti said the proposal would have to be judged on its merits; would have to know what the proposal is. Mr. Wessel felt highway should be concentrated in one area and leave rest of the community unspoiled. That the Planning Commission had recommended that it not be placed on the border between South Burlington and Williston. Next, consideration was given to the resignation of Fred Sargent from the Planning Commission. Professor Sargent had stated in his letter of resignation that he could no longer devote time to South Burlington as he is working on master plans for several other communities. Mr. Flaherty then moved that following Fred Sargent's desire to resign from the Planning Commission as expressed in his letter, that his resignation be accepted, and that the City Manager be instructed to draft an appropriate letter to Mr. Sargent accepting his resignation and expressing appreciation for his services. This was seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously. Discussion then followed a suggestion by Mrs. Neubert that Mr. Sargent should be appointed as a special advisor with non-voting rights, to advise the Planning Commission. The wishes of the Planning Commission, the legality of the possible appointment were given as reasons not to try to do this. Mr. Flaherty suggested that perhaps Mr. Sargent might be requested to be available for advice. Mrs. Neubert then gave the names of Mrs. Harold Stannard, Mrs. Lee Robenstein, Mrs. Roger Audy, and Mrs. Rita Taylor and moved that these four people be appointed to the Special Committee on Human Resources. Seconded by Mr. Farrar. Asked by Mr. Cimonetti about what the charge to this committee would be, Mrs. Neubert replied the City had been requested to form a Human Resources Committee and would work with a Federal program offering Social Security supplement when needed, special aid to the blind, etc. The Committee would search out these people and let them know these services and benefits are available. Chairman Nardelli said this is to ascertain the needs of the area. Mr. Cimonetti again asked what the charge to the Committee would be. Mrs. Neubert said first the people who need the services have to be identified, then helped to have their needs met. Mr. Farrar moved that discussion on this be tabled until Mrs. Neubert and Mr. Szymanski have drafted an enabling motion as to what this Committee is to do. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously, to be tabled until Monday, the 25th. Mrs. Neubert then told of meeting with the Shelburne Natural Resources Committee and the South Burlington Natural Resources Committee. The Shelburne Committee is not happy with deletions in our Comprehensive Plan as they are concerned about developments on Shelburne Bay and also concerned about the watershed of Shelburne Pond. Mr. Cimonetti then reported on the meeting of the Chittenden County Transportation Committee held on February 9th. The Chittenden County Transportation Authority will fall a little over $28,000 behind what their predictions had been; therefore, they will be billing each of the towns proportionately; will mean $3,428 additional cost for South Burlington. Billing is to be made as soon as they can get it out, but they do not necessarily expect payment during the current fiscal year. If they get $17,000 from Burlington, will be able to carry the indebtedness until after June. We have to anticipate that in our budget next year. Mr. Farrar commented he would like clarification of their bookkeeping procedures. Mr. Cimonetti recommended taking time to analyze their performance as it relates to South Burlington. This concluded the regular meeting of the Council. Mr. Flaherty moved that the regular meeting be terminated and the Council go into Executive Session. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously. Regular meeting was terminated at 10:45 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.