Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/03/1975CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 1975 At the meeting of the City Council on March 3, 1975, it was voted to accept the Minutes of February 3, 1975, with the following corrections: Page 2, line 5, under Community Development Act discussion. Mrs. Neubert asked that her statement be corrected to read: The land could also be used for housing and the City is always tied down by BOR money, so this would be the only way this land could be bought. Page 3, line 14 of second section, Mrs. Neubert asked that Mr. Dinklage's reference to a community services organization be changed to The United Community Services. She also requested deletion of the next sentence. Page 2, discussion of the South Burlington Correctional Center in the report of the legislators, Mr. Merrill asked to have this sentence included: Mr. Merrill said there have already been indications of a change from a two-year minimum. Mr. Profero had indicated it would be changed to 8 or 9 months. Page 6, First reading of Amendment to Firearms Ordinance, within a 500-foot radius of any occupied dwelling by human beings should be changed to read within a 500-foot radius of any dwelling occupied by human beings. This is a correction to the copy of the Amendment, not the Minutes. Page 6, SECTION 2, 8th line, on the west by Dorset Street should be followed by: during the period of September 15 to December 15, provided ... This is a correction to the copy of the Amendment, not the Minutes. Page 4, under Community Center Study discussion, Mrs. Neubert asked that the words as to population projections be added to her first statement. Page 5, next to last line, under same discussion, Natural Resources Committee should be changed to Recreation Committee. CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 3, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, February 3, 1975, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Flaherty, Chairman: John Dinklage, Paul Farrar, Duane Merrill, and Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator: Fred Mitchell, City Planner; Richard Underwood, City Assesor; Raymond Barrett, Sr., Steven Bushey, F. McCaffrey, Jack O'Brien, Robert Babcock, Douglas Tudhope, Mary Barbara Maher, Sheri Larsen, J. Everett Reed, Bernhardt Smyle, Jackie Smyle, Jack Tabaka, Lissa Charles, Albert Audette, Jean Hildick, Arlene Krapcho, Alex Guyette At 7:15 p.m. the City Council interviewed Steven G. Bushey, applicant for a vacancy on the Planning Commission. At 7:30 p.m. the regular meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Minutes of January 20, 1975 The Minutes of January 20, 1975, will be considered at the next Council meeting. Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were presented for signature by the Council members. Meeting with South Burlington Legislators County Senator Jack O'Brien and City Representatives Mary Barbara Maher, Robert Babcock, and Douglas Tudhope were present to report on legislative matters which might concern South Burlington and to answer questions of Council members. The City Manager expressed the City's concern over the bill to eliminate the inventory tax because ten per cent of the City's tax revenue is derived from the inventory and personal property tax. Mr. Tudhope said the Governor's bill would substitute a gross receipts tax for the inventory tax. Mr. Babcock added that this tax would be in varying proportions paid back to the towns on a per capita basis. Mr. Babcock said there are now two plans for revising the Miller Formula, neither of which he expects will pass. Mr. Tudhope spoke of the fiscal situation of Vermont with the necessity for an eleven million dollar tax program for next year the dominant issue. Also Vermont is in debt to the Federal government for eleven million dollars for unemployment benefits. This must be paid: also a bill is coming up for additional unemployment benefits. He stated there is absolutely no talk of new programs, only talk of surviving the next fiscal year. Mrs. Maher reported she had introduced a bill to repeal the 50¢ fee paid by the towns to doctors for each communicable disease reported. This will save money to the towns as a 50¢ check actually costs much more than that to process. Mrs. Maher also reported she was happy with her assignment to the Operations Committee which involves so many areas of interest to her and to South Burlington. Abolition of the poll tax was then discussed, with Mr. Babcock saying that the towns will still have to collect the Old Age Assistance Tax, involving the same problems and same bookkeeping as at present. Also the loss of income from the poll tax would have to be made up by increasing the property tax. Chairman Flaherty said he would recommend getting rid of both taxes if it is to be done at all. Regarding the new correctional center Mr. Tudhope said it would be in the best interests of South Burlington to watch the center very closely. He said the contract to place maximum security prisoners in Federal prisons is for a three year contract only. The money to be saved in closing Windsor is to be used for the South Burlington and St. Albans Correctional Centers. He explained 40 Vermont residents are to be housed in Federal institutions, with each one beyond that to be considered on the merits of the case. Ten prisoners now at Windsor will be returned to other New England States where they were residents, and 40 will be placed in the new wing to be opened at St. Albans. He explained it really was not practical to keep putting money into Windsor: if this were to be kept open then it would not be possible to open the new facility in South Burlington or the new wing at St. Albans. Chairman Flaherty asked assistance from the legislators in seeing that South Burlington could receive information at the same time it is given to the press, stating that South Burlington had not yet received any formal notice of the velco ruling (in favor of Velco) whereas the Rutland Herald had it Thursday a.m. Mr. Tudhope promised to do something about this. Also Mr. Babcock, answering a question from Mrs. Neubert at the last Council meeting about the possibility of acquiring State funds for the acquisition of lakeshore property, said those funds have been cut completely out so it does not look very promising. Regarding revenue from traffic tickets, Mr. Szymanski said the City Attorney is looking into collecting the ten or twelve thousand dollars the State owes the City Mr. O'Brien reassured him that under the law the City will get this money. Mr. O'Brien then asked the City Manager how much money was collected under the litter tax. Mr. Szymanski said $12,000. The legislative representatives were invited to return to the first City Council meeting in March, with Mr. Babcock saying that at that time they will have more specific things to report. Community Development Act discussion Chairman Flaherty said the meeting was open to any comments from the floor, any suggestions or methods that might meet the needs of South Burlington. Mrs. Neubert suggested applying for funds to buy the Dumont property, not the Iby Street property but the Dumont property adjacent to the high school for future development. Could perhaps be used for a senior citizen type of recreational project. The land could also be used for a housing program, and this might be the only time that the City could buy such land which has a flexible use. She recommended placing both the land and the road in the proposal. There is about ten acres with nothing on it. This has already been discussed with Mr. Dumont but no price has been set. She added that no matching funds from the City would be required. Mr. Barrett objected to this proposal, saying the City already has all the land it can afford and does not need any more. Mr. Merrill mentioned that any time land is taken off the tax rolls, taxes are increased as a result. Chairman Flaherty explained for the benefits of those attending the meeting the bond issue voted by the City for the installation of a sewer system for the proposed industrial park, but that the sewer will not be started until there is a firm commitment that an industry will be in the park. The road into the park will have to be paid for by the City and there had been a recommendation that the City apply for funds for this purpose from the Community Development Act program. Mr. Smyle said his objection last time was that the plan for the road was being presented to the Council and not to the people attending the meeting, and also that it seemed to be the only plan proposed. Mrs. Smyle said if the road has to be built anyway this might be the best way to pay for it. Chairman Flaherty said the State considers this proposed park to be one of the best sites in the area and that GBIC took an option on it and is trying to get a client, and it will be necessary for the City to construct a road into the area. By developing this industrial park the City is attempting to provide jobs for people in the area which would in turn provide them with money to buy homes, and would meet the criteria of the Community Development Act. He repeated the road is necessary, but would not be built without a firm commitment. Mr. Mitchell said the City would have to make an effort to spend the money within a year. Mrs. Krapcho asked what efforts had been made to contact the Police Department and the School Department to get ideas regarding social problems which could be taken care of funds from the Community Development Act. Mrs. Neubert replied there are problems which have been discussed with the Police Department, the Guidance Department, and the Juvenile Officer; that some assistance is given to South Burlington citizens from the county services, people under the alcohol program for example. She said there is to be a meeting on this Thursday evening for discussion of ways to get funds for these problems which do exist and are not the type of problems to be discussed at a public meeting. One particular problem is that young people have no place to go in the evening, and a multiple use building could serve both teenagers and senior citizens. Mrs. Krapcho suggested dealing with this problem by using property the City already owns rather than buying new land. Mr. Dinklage suggested using the funds to contract with a community services organization to expand its services into South Burlington. Mrs. Neubert asked why give it to them when the City could do it itself. Mr. Mitchell said he would prefer a program that would result in a brick and mortar type of operation that would benefit the City in the long run rather than contracting with other ongoing service organizations and having to cut it short at the end of the funding program. Mr. Dinklage said there was some merit in setting up a short-lived type of operation. Mrs. Neubert said she could not agree to using this money for operating budget. Her proposal is to buy the Dumont land. Mr. Flaherty said the Dumont property is adjacent to the high school and he felt a future facility should be located near the school. Mr. Dinklage suggested thinking in terms of getting some of these programs going, using funds to contract with an outside group to provide services in South Burlington. Mrs. Krapcho suggested trying to pinpoint the existing social needs in South Burlington. Mrs. Maher reminded the group that they are competing with other communities for these funds, that South Burlington is considered one of the richest communities, that if it expects to share in these funds it will have to be proved that its proposed plan will benefit more of Chittenden County. She emphasized she felt the basic need is for jobs in the present economic situation. The other suggestions are good, but in competing with the other communities the emphasis should be on jobs for Chittenden County. Housing is also a basic need. Mrs. Neubert mentioned that low income housing is brought up over and over, but nothing has ever been done about it although there are several possibilities such as tying in with Burlington. Mrs. Neubert then suggested that perhaps money could be given to the agencies to use to meet needs that are being taken care of a county level. Mr. Flaherty said there are other sources to provide for this. Mrs. Larsen asked if the HUD requirements considered the particular community. Mr. Mitchell said initially it looks at what the project does for the community, but if possible a region-wide interest also. It is best that something be done along the economic development lines. Regarding housing, Mrs. Maher said the Planning Commission is an advisory body and should never take any action regarding housing. Council is the elected body and has a full-time City Planner. The charge from the Council might be to Fred Mitchell to determine how something might be done in the area of low cost housing. She would like to encourage the Council to do something along these lines Mr. Farrar asked the City Manager about the urban funds already applied for, if it would cover the whole cost of the road. Mr. Szymanski said it is a five year program and the amount for the City would depend on how much funding would be available. The City had applied for money for the road as top priority. Mr. Farrar suggested applying to the Community Development Fund for the 15% matching funds required in the Urban Funds program, perhaps $70,000 or $80,000. The three suggestions already made were for: 1) industrial park road; 2) purchase of Dumont property; 3) Mr. Dinklage's suggestions on social problems. Mr. Farrar moved that the number one priority should be to apply for the 15% funds necessary to match the Federal Highway Funds the City has already applied for the industrial road, plus the additional funds necessary for the sewer and water installation. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Mrs. Krapcho asked if there would be charges for hooking into the sewer and water installations. Mr. Szymanski said it would be up to the City Council but if it is funded entirely from Federal money he did not think the City could charge for this. Mrs. Hildick asked about soil limitation and was told this had already been checked into and the soil was suitable for construction. Mr. Mitchell said coming to HUD requesting $320,000 would scare them. Mr. Farrar suggested appoying for $320,000 with a small chance of getting it, or $60,000 with a good chance of getting it. The motion of Mr. Farrar was voted unanimously for approval. A suggestion was made to consider as second priority the acquisition of the lakeshore property which would required $26,000 in matching funds. Mrs. Hildick questioned the location of this lakeshore property serving the recreational needs. She would prefer land nearer the center of the City. Mr. Mitchell said this second proposal would not really meet the criteria of HUD for validating it for a program, and that the Dumont land purchase would be weakening the City position. The best chance is with one strong proposal. Community Center Study discussion Mrs. Neubert said she had seen a copy of the School Department Report which has recommendations very different from the ways the thinking has been going in the past. Mrs. Neubert feels that only desires, not needs, have been established for a Community Center; she doesn't feel a hockey rink and swimming pool are really needed. Mr. Sayle suggested reaching the whole community to find out what they feel is needed, and that the City government take the initiative. Chairman Flaherty explained the Steering Committee had set up a City Center Committee to come up with a definition of what a city center should be and that procedures were set up to handle this, and there would be a formal approach from the Steering Committee. Mrs. Neubert said she was asking for the next step from the Council, that she has not gotten the material she needs from the City staff. Chairman Flaherty said the Steering Committee had asked her committee to come back with a definition of city center. Various means were discussed for the circulation of a questionnaire to the community, such as enclosing it with water bills, having the poll tax listers distribute it, or mailing it out and having it picked up by the listers. Mr. Everett Reed suggested having the listers take the survey and paying them extra for this. Mrs. Neubert said there would be no problem getting the questionnaire out, the biggest problem would be in evaluating it. The committee would make a contribution but she didn't want to do it all herself. It was suggested that Bruce O'Neill and Fred Mitchell get together with the Natural Resources Committee, with Mr. Dinklage suggesting that perhaps paid employees could be used for the clerical work under the Employment Program. County Tax Assessment - Operation of County Courthouse The City Manager presented figures showing the large increase in tax levy on the towns of Chittenden County to support the new courthouse renovation. These increases are for debt service (bonded for 20 years for $1,000,000), new furniture and equipment, an additional secretary, and library costs previously funded by the Bar Association. Last year South Burlington paid $4,350, with a similar amount in this year's budget, whereas they have been notified by the County Clerk that the new assessment is to be $28,047,80 for South Burlington. Mr. Merrill asked if the City has legal grounds for refusing to go along with his because obviously the City did not budget for this amount and is unprepared for it. Mr. Dinklage moved that the City Council go on record that it is opposed to the local communities picking up the cost of the services or the expenses that were previously funded by the State, and that the Council requests an explanation. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Dinklage then added to his motion: That the Council request from the City Attorney information as to its options if the City Council is in disagreement with the tax levy from the County Clerk. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Entire motion voted unanimously for approval. Consideration of reducing speed limit on Kennedy Drive The City Manager read a letter from Dr. Morselli of Manor Woods Apartments asking that the speed limit be reduced for the sake of safety of the children who walk to school along Kennedy Drive. Mr. Szymanski said the Police Department was in favor of reducing the speed limit because Kennedy Drive is rapidly becoming a street, but it is necessary for the City to go to both the State and the Federal government to get permission to change the speed limit or to allow curb cuts. After discussion, Mr. Farrar moved that the City Council request the Chief of Police to increase the radar surveillance on Kennedy Drive. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. After ascertaining that the City has no authority to place caution signs at the exits from private property, Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council request the City Manager to contact all the owners of apartment houses along Kennedy Drive to place stop signs at their exits in the interest of public safety. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. First reading of Amendment to Firearms Ordinance This first reading had been tabled at the last Council meeting to await the full membership of Council. Chairman Flaherty explained the different amendments prepared by the City Attorney, one to ban all shooting and the other to allow the firing of shotguns in part of the southeast quadrant with certain conditions. Mr. Merrill moved to accept Mr. Spokes' letter of January 17 containing an ordinance eliminating all firearms except shotguns and conventional bows and arrows, with rifle slugs not allowed in shotguns. Seconded by Mr. Farrar. Council agreed to waive the reading of this ordinance. Mr. Reed suggested limiting this to bird and bow seasons. Mr. Merrill said he would not object to that as basically he was concerned with hunting, the upland game season, deer season, and water fowl, September, October and November. Mr. Farrar moved that the motion made by Mr. Merrill be amended by adding after the word "discharge" in line 11 the following phrase: except between the period between September 15 and December 15. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mrs. Neubert moved that the reading of the ordinance be waived. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously to waive the reading. The vote on Mr. Farrar's amendment was 4 to 1, Mrs. Neubert voting negative. The vote on Mr. Merrill's motion as amended was 3 to 2, Mrs. Neubert and Mr. Flaherty voting negative. Reappraisal and methods of tax stabilization Richard Underwood, City Assessor, was present at the meeting. The City Manager presented a copy of a proposed agreement between the City and the appraisal firm which he said was basically the same as the agreement used in the last appraisal, with the pay schedule revised, and this is to include all property, not just residential. Mr. Farrar moved that the City Council empower the Chairman of the Council to be the duly authorized person to sign the agreement for approximately $24,500 with the firm of Archibald and Hawthorne for the purpose of the reappraisal of the City of South Burlington. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Farrar said that finding an average variance of 25% between appraised value and actual selling price of a number of pieces of property had convinced him for the need of a reappraisal. Mr. Merrill said he still did not believe that things could be that far off, and he felt this to be a terrible pitfall for the City to get into every five years. The City Charter, if it requires this, should be changed. This should be brought up in the agenda and the problem solved. Mr. Underwood said that according to the State, property in South Burlington is appraised at 92% of its fair market value for the whole town. Mr. Farrar repeated that he had found a range of 25% in the actual sales that he had checked on. Mr. Merrill said that continually changing the zoning is going to affect the appraisals, also the deals made with owners in the southeast quadrant. Chairman Flaherty said it could be put on the ballot in May to ask for a charter change. Mr. Merrill said he would like figures to compare with other communities who appraise at different times. The vote on Mr. Farrar's motion was 3 to 2, with Mr. Merrill and Chairman Flaherty voting negative. Mr. Underwood said Mr. Spokes had suggested three ways of handling appraisals in the southeast quadrant: 1) tax stabilization contracts; 2) acquiring development rights; 3) zoning on fair market value. Tax stabilization is for farmers who receive two thirds of their income from farming. This would eliminate many of the landowners. Development rights could apply to anyone, not just for farmers, Could be acquired for five or ten years. Dick Spokes is going to do more research on it. Mr. Merrill suggested the City might want to use this as a way of regulating development and placing the growth of the City where it wanted it. The development rights could be for different times in order to tie in with the sewer and water development there. Mrs. Neubert said everyone should have the same chance, in reply to Mr. Farrar's suggestion that the City might not want to buy any rights near the interstate. Mr. Merrill said the number of dollars should be determined in terms of removal from the tax list; that would have to be acted on by the whole community. Mr. Underwood said he felt zoning for this area should be looked at first to see how it would affect the area. Mr. Farrar suggested the offer be made after it has been appraised but before the taxes are due. Question was raised as how to appraise a piece of open land on which development could arise but had not as yet taken place. Mr. Underwood said if it is already close to water and sewer lines then it is worth more. Mr. Merrill said the courts have gone through this many times. Unless there are utilities right at the door it cannot be assumed a piece of property is all developable land. Mr. Underwood said the southeast quadrant would be reappraised first, then it will be gone over to see if these people are going to be satisfied or dissatisfied. Mr. Dinklage said that for the record it is the intent to have the options available to the landowners. Mr. Farrar said that while it did not need to be decided right now, there should be some definite proposals before any appraisal is done. Mileage Certificate for State Aid Reimbursement The City Manager presented a certificate for reimbursement to be signed by the Council members in order to be sent in before February 10th. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council sign the State Aid Certificate for reimbursement as presented by the City Manager. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Liquor Control Board A motion was made by Mr. Farrar that the Council move to Liquor Control Board meeting. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously. Mr. Szymanski said an application had been received from the Twin Oaks Tennis Club, Kennedy Drive, for a First Class liquor license. He added that Chief Carter has no objections to the granting of this license, and there have been no citizen objections. Mr. Farrar moved that the Liquor Control Board approve a first class liquor license for the Twin Oaks Tennis Club of Kennedy Drive, as recommended by the Chief of Police. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Executive Session Mr. Farrar then moved that the Council come out of Liquor Control Board and go into executive session for the purpose of discussing applicants for the vacancies on the Planning Commission, also that the Council will come out of executive session and go back into regular session for the purpose, if possible, of making appointments to the Planning Commission. The executive session convened at 11:15 p.m. with regular session reconvened 11:30 p.m. On a motion by Mrs. Newbert, seconded by Mr. Dinklage, the Council appointed James Ewing to complete John Dinklage's term on the Planning Commission which expires in 1976; and Frank Lidral to the unexpired term of Sidney Poger which goes to 1975. Three members voted in the affirmative for these appointments, with Mr. Merrill and Mr. Farrar abstaining. The meeting was declared adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.