Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/20/1975CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 1975 At the meeting of the City Council on March 3, 1975, it was voted to accept the Minutes of January 20, 1975, with the following corrections: On page 5, 12th line of the last section, Mr. Dinklage asked that his remark be corrected to read: are sensitive to the tyranny of the majority in a body such as this, and he would like to better understand the objections Mr. Merrill has to a reappraisal at this time, and if an appraisal ... On page 4, 19th line from the bottom of the page, Mrs. Neubert asked that discounts be changed to agreements. On page 2, 21st line from the bottom of the page, Mr. Merrill asked that Mr. Smyle's comment be followed by this sentence: This was the very first time that Fred Mitchell had indicated that the funds could be used for the industrial park road. CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 20, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, January 20, 1975, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Vice Chairman; John Dinklage, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Flaherty, Chairman OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Fred Mitchell, City Planner; Richard Underwood, City Assessor; Gerald Desautels, Albert Audette, T. R. Irish, F. Mazur, Bob Irish, Nancy Grucza, Sheryl Larsen, Jean Hildick, R. C. Schmucker, N. Frymoyer, Bernie and Jackie Smyle, Douglas W. Mackey, James McNamee, Frank McCaffrey The meeting was opened at 7:45 by Vice Chairman Farrar The Council interviewed Gerald W. Desautels, applicant for one of the vacancies on the Planning Commission, as the first item of business. Minutes of January 6, 1975 It was moved by Mr. Dinklage and seconded by Mr. Merrill to accept the Minutes of January 6, 1975, as submitted. Voted unanimously for approval. Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were presented to the members of the Council for their signature. Community Development Plan Hearing Mr. Mitchell, the City Planner, stated it was necessary to hold a public hearing for the purpose of obtaining opinions and views from the citizens regarding the preparation of the City's application for a share of the Community Development Funds. He said he had attended a meeting in White River Junction that day at which HUD officials were present. A community wishing to become involved must submit by March 1st a pre-application which must include certain criteria, type of activities, amount of money needed, general requirements of the community. They are looking for an application which would address itself to the extent of housing needs in the community, needs of the elderly, handicapped, also in terms of new people moving into the community. Mr. Mitchell said those municipalities who do meet the criteria must file another application by May 15th and a determination will be made by HUD in terms of funding requirements. He mentioned the various areas for which funding would be available, acquisition of property under certain conditions, public works activities, service facilities; also for a non-Federal share to match Federal funds such as BOR, a use not allowed up until now. Asked about a library, he said HUD has been very specific regarding ineligible uses and that a library could not be built from these funds. There are other funding programs for libraries. Funds could be used to buy property, demolish an old building, then the land could be retained by the City or sold to a developer. Asked if the City could use the funds to obtain an option on property, that is, to get option money for future use, Mr. Mitchell said it would have to be considered in general terms of community development for the future. Funds could also be used for purchase and restoration of an historical site or building, with certain community uses to be allowed in the building afterward. Asked about development of an industrial park with the funds, Mr. Mitchell said he felt the best chance of the City obtaining funds is to do something about industrial development which will help to provide jobs for people in other communities as well as South Burlington. South Burlington does not have the blighted area problems that other communities need funding for. Mr. Farrar said he felt applying for assistance in the development of the industrial area to be the most important. Asked if there was any chance of getting a million dollars, Mr. Mitchell explained that was the allotment for the whole state, and HUD wants to spread it around as much as possible. A city such as Burlington can still participate in this funding program even though it has already been receiving Federal funds. Discussion followed as to the cost of the proposed road into the industrial park, as well as the plans of GBIC for developing the 100 acres on which it has an option. The City has approved a bond issue for sewer construction but will not put in the sewer line until there is reasonable assurance that there will be an industrial development, assuming the tax on the industry would meet the sewer bonds interest charges. This was in answer to a question from Jean Hildick about costs to the City. Mr. Mitchell said there would have to be another public hearing, and while citizen participation is only advisory, it would be good to have as much as possible. Jean Hildick suggested a multi-purpose building that would house special learning facilities. She felt that anything that could be acquired under this program should be proposed: she didn't want the City to just go ahead with the road and have it be a dead end. Mr. Merrill said GBIC has had a great deal of interest in the property and it may be a tremendous economic boost to the area. Also he felt the housing needs are much greater in the community than people realize. Mr. Smyle commented that although citizen input had been asked for, they had been listening to a pre-arranged program. Mrs. Frymoyer said the creation of jobs for the people in South Burlington is of first priority, but the public hearings can be used to gain opinions on what are considered to be other priorities. She felt the construction of the road to be of more importance than the acquisition of open space, for example, but she urged consideration of transportation problems. Present transportation does not get the citizens to the parks which were acquired by the vote of these citizens. She feels the City has a responsibility in this respect, and should be thinking in terms of mass transportation. Mrs. Neubert explained that Chittenden Transportation will run a bus anywhere there is a high enough percentage of riders to make it pay, but people are still not using the buses enough. Mr. Dinklage said it was pretty clear that the City was going to build the road some way, and it might well be that the people would have suggestions for other uses of these funds: citizen participation should be encouraged. Mr. McNamee suggested using the funds in some way to encourage citizen involvement in the community. It was the consensus of the Council that the next hearing would be held at the regular meeting of the Council in two weeks and that there would be an announcement of this in the paper. Review of Firearms Ordinance Mr. Farrar referred to a communication from the office of the City Attorney recommencing that no exceptions regarding discharge of firearms by individuals in protection of themselves or their property be allowed in the proposed revisions to the Firearms Ordinance. Mr. Dinklage asked how a person could dispose of varmints. Mr. Merrill replied that in the southeast quadrant it could be done with a shotgun; in other parts of the City it would be a matter of judgment of the Grand Juror, or even a Grand Jury, to decide if the person was guilty of any criminal action. Mr. Merrill said he felt the proposed ordinance to be a very good one, that the attorney had taken part of it from the Vermont statutes. Mrs. Neubert said she had been receiving phone calls all the week from people saying they are totally opposed to the discharge of shotguns in the southeast quadrant and who do not want any hunting on their property. Mr. Merrill said he had talked with a number of people who voiced the opposite opinion. People knew there was to be a meeting tonight and they obviously did not come. Mrs. Neubert said people are not only concerned about hunting season activity, but about target practice and the teenage kids running around with guns. They are concerned for the safety of their children. Mr. Dinklage asked the City Manager if City officials had received complaints, and Mr. Szymanski replied that the subject of a change in the ordinance had been initiated because phone calls had been received expressing complaints. Mr. Dinklage then asked if the Police Department had received complaints, and Mrs. Neubert said she had checked with them and they had received no complaints. People in the southeast quadrant told her there was no point in calling the police because they would be told nothing illegal was being done. She felt this revised ordinance is going to be difficult to enforce because it is difficult to distinguish a rifle sound from a shotgun sound, particularly if the listener is in the house at the time. This ordinance will not take away the danger to children unless they are kept within 500 feet of their home. Children will not have the freedom to play on their own property. Mr. Merrill said he felt the City had a balanced ordinance in the proposed revision which allows people to hunt and gives a great deal of protection to the people. There was publicity in the paper, yet people did not appear at the meeting. If more development takes place in the southeast quadrant the subject may be brought up in three or four years and the Council may decide that it is time to have the ordinance changed. Mr. Farrar said he felt there had been enough discussion on the ordinance. Mr. Merrill moved that the Council approve the first reading of the South Burlington amended ordinance regulating the use of firearms. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Dinklage said he would agree that this appears to have aroused considerable controversy and one member of the Council who was undecided at the last meeting is not present at this meeting. Therefore he moved that the Council table consideration of a possible first reading of this ordinance until a full Council is present. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Motion passed by a vote of 2 - 1. Mr. Merrill voted negative. Mr. Farrar abstained. Mrs. Neubert suggested that Mr. Merrill ask people to come in next time if they wished to use shotguns in the southeast quadrant. Mr. Merrill said he would not consider contacting people and asking them to appear. Mr. McCaffrey expressed his objection to having the matter postponed again, saying that after all it had been in the paper. Mr. Merrill repeated that people had a chance to become aware of it and had not come to the meeting. Discussion of City Reappraisal Vice Chairman Farrar said the reason for having this on the agenda is that the City is morally bound by the City Charter to have a reappraisal next year and it seemed wise to have a general discussion with Dick Underwood about it. Mr. Underwood began by saying he had talked with the two appraisal groups who participated in the last appraisal for a total cost of $60,000 — $15,000 by the State and $45,000 by Archibald and Hawthorne. Can be done cheaper this time because the City is now on a card system, a State system, which makes its much easier. The firm of Archibald and Hawthorne would do it this time for $24,000 with assistance from Mr. Underwood himself. He would do all the inspecting and would probably have to hire a couple of clerical workers to finish up. Use would be made of the high school computer. The price of the appraisal being done by the State is $35,000. Mr. Underwood said he would have sufficient time to work on the appraisal as well as his other work, but it should be started soon and must be finished by April, 1976. It could be budgeted over the two years, with Mr. Szymanski saying revenue sharing funds could be used probably. Mr. Farrar asked if this could be done as an on-going thing, appraising 1/5 of the property each year with one person working with Mr. Underwood. Mr. Underwood said it would get out of line; would be best to do it all at the same time. Mrs. Neubert said having more people on the payroll would be more expensive for the five years. Mr. Merrill objected that this would be a tremendous cost every five years, and he would suggest a reconsideration of this, perhaps doing it once in ten years. Mr. Farrar said the real purpose is to keep taxes equitable, some will need to be adjusted more than others. Mrs. Neubert said that in certain periods or economic phases these appraisals pay for themselves by picking up inequities. Mr. Dinklage asked about inequities in taxing open land, saying that picking up even one might justify the cost of the appraisal. Mr. Underwood explained the steps involved in the appraisal of the Unsworth property, taking into consideration the farm-crossing type of right of way over the railroad tracks. Mr. Szymanski said the City has agreed to buy the property only if a right of way for a full roadway can be obtained. Mrs. Neubert asked about special arrangements in the southeast quadrant, would they be renegotiated now. Certain people had received large discounts, and then other people felt they should get the same treatment. These are the ones she would question. Mr. Farrar said he felt they are all development parcels, one parcel is just as developable as another. It should be handled in such a way as to assure the community that open land is going to be kept open; guidelines should be established prior to the appraisal. If a property owner sells his development rights to the City for a certain number of years and this is done before the appraisal is made, it would be taken into account when the property is appraised. The owner would not own the right to develop, so his land would be assessed for farming and agricultural uses. If we don't wish to keep the land open, then it should be taxed at the fair market value. The City would not pay for the rights; the owner would do this to get lower taxes. Mr. Dinklage then moved that the Council ask the City Attorney, City Assesor, City Planner, and City Manager to work together to draw up proposed guidelines whereby a land owner can sell his development rights to the City for a period of time in order to lower his tax rate, and to advise the Council as to the possibility of- the-City recouping the lost taxes when the property is developed either before the expiration of the development contract or at the end of the contract. As suggested by Mrs. Neubert, Mr. Dinklage added to the motion he made, as follows: that the Council also request advise from the City Attorney, City Assessor, City Planner and City Manager, advice on the question of tax abatement for agricultural land vs. purchase of developmental rights for achieving the same purpose. Motion seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Motion passed by a vote of 3 to 1, with Mr. Merrill opposed. Vice Chairman Farrar voted affirmative. Mr. Underwood said there were about 20 adjustments now with southeast quadrant property owners involving a couple thousand acres. Mr. Farrar said the Council should give Mr. Underwood direction to proceed with the appraisal, and some provision should be made for this in the budget. Mr. Merrill asked about putting it out for bid in the hope of getting it done for less money. Mr. Underwood said he knew of no one else in the State, and the out of state firms are too high by far. The firm who did it last time knows all the problems. Mrs. Neubert moved that upon the recommendation of Mr. Underwood and Mr. Szymanski should be followed and that they both be asked to proceed to draw up an agreement with Archibald and Hawthorne for a reappraisal of the City. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Merrill said he hadn't had any answers yet; none of the public has been in here. The appraisal was done in '70 and '71 and there is a strong percentage of accuracy. What would be the effect of the State coming in and appraising at a lower appraisal. Mrs. Neubert said she based her motion on the fact that Bill and Dick were both satisfied. Mr. Farrar said this should be started sometime in the next month. He then asked Mr. Underwood for a list of the pieces of property the State had appraised to be given to the Council. Mrs. Neubert asked if the Council would like to have Mr. Tudhope or Milton Nadworny come in and explain any effect of the Miller Formula. Mr. Dinklage said he felt most of the members are sensitive to the majority in a body such as this, and if an appraisal is to be completed by April, 1976, it must be started now. Mr. Merrill said he felt the accuracy in the appraisal of '70 and '71 is not that far off if new agreements are made with the land owners in the southeast quadrant. He is not sure the expenditure of $24,000 can be justified. The City Attorney said the reappraisal is not essential under the Charter. He added he might feel differently if there were gross inequities in the present appraisal. Mr. Szymanski asked if reappraising one section only could be justified. Mr. Underwood replied he did not think it would hold up. The City Manager then asked if just the farming areas, or just the commercial, could be reappraised. Mr. Underwood replied it would be discrimination: it could not be done. Mr. Farrar said he believed the Charter as understood by the people of the town when they voted for it, and not by the legal counsel, requires us to have the reappraisal. It was the intention of those who drafted it, and it was approved by the voters that it was to be done. By looking at the results of the reappraisal, conclusions might be made that the Charter might be amended to increase the length of time between appraisals. If there is a reasonable amount of variation, then it would be more worthwhile. Mrs. Neubert said the jump would be less severe if done more often. Mention was made of the fact that when new construction is assessed during the five year period, costs are adjusted back to what was in existence at the time the last general appraisal was made. Mrs. Neubert asked about the working hours of the appraisal firm which would be paid at the rate of $12,000 a year, if they worked an eight hour day. Mr. Underwood said they would be working odd hours; it would be necessary to put in many hours during the evening in order to find people at home. Basically there is one and one-half hours work for each piece of property, on an average. Mrs. Neubert's motion was voted for approval, 3 to 1, with Mr. Merrill opposed. Appointment of a Council member to serve as an advisor to Corrections Center Liaison Committee It was explained that this would involve working with the Committee for a month or so to help them get organized and get a Chairman appointed — a very important service. Mrs. Neubert said she was already involved and would be glad to serve, but she also questioned whether or not Chairman Flaherty would like to be appointed. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council direct the Council Chairman to appoint a member of the Council to serve as advisor to the Corrections Center Liaison Committee. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Motion voted unanimously for approval. It was felt that this would allow Chairman Flaherty to appoint either himself or another member of the Council. Consideration of waiver of tax penalties Mr. Szymanski presented a list prepared by the Deputy Tax Collector showing unpaid penalties on real estate, personal, and poll taxes. Mr. Szymanski explained these were for penalties only, that the taxes had been paid but paid late. Mr. Merrill moved that the Council give approval to cancel by journal entry the penalties as per the list submitted. This was seconded by Mr. Dinklage who then proposed an amendment to the motion; that that original motion be changed to cancel by journal entry all the penalties except that of United Overton Corporation. Amendment seconded by Mr. Merrill. Mr. Dinklage said he felt if the firm goes through bankruptcy there would be a chance of collecting the money. Other members felt it would cost more than it would be worth. The vote for the amendment was one vote in favor (Mr. Dinklage) with Mr. Merrill and Mrs. Neubert voting against the amendment. Amendment defeated. The original motion to waive the penalties was voted unanimously for approval. Mrs. Neubert moved that the meeting be adjourned. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.