Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/16/1975CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 1975 On page 4 of Minutes of June 16, 1975, beginning at the bottom of page 4, Mrs. Neubert's statement should be corrected to read: Mrs. Neubert said she had mentioned this to the staff of the Regional Planning Commission and to Mr. Behney twice and she had hoped it would not be in the final plan when drafted. On page 6, 4th line from the bottom of the page: the words whether or not should be changed to this. CITY COUNCIL JUNE 16, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, June 16, 1975, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman: Michael Flaherty, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT John Dinklage OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Raymond Denis, Barrie R. Graves, Gayle Russell Burbo, Paul R. Graves, R. E. Curtis, Mrs. Evelyn Lamplough, Lewis R. Wetzl, Ann B. Wetzel, Frank Breen, Sheryl Larsen, Russell Agne, Bernis Cunnings, Leonard Drown, Brian J. Gee, George C. Crooks, Randall Munson, W. C. Bohlen, Dick Carter. Tom Ryan, W. E. Doengler, B. Bates, A. C. Audette, J. Goddette, James G. Goddette, T. Audette, A. Krapcho, John Gravel, Jack Tabaka, Nancy Grucza, E. G. Thieret, Diane Rounds, Gary Rounds, Al Guyette The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. Interviews The Council interviewed William Earl Bates for a vacancy on the Planning Commission; Russell Maynard Agne for the Winooski Valley Park District; Eugene T. Thieret for the Natural Resources Committee. Minutes of June 2, 1975 Chairman Farrar noted that on page 5. the last sentence under the section on burglar alarm systems should read ...sufficient copies be made of the ordinance in order to send one to each person connected with the alarm system, and to be included in a letter to be sent to each businessman. On page 2, Mr. Dinklage's motion should be corrected as follows; ...that the Council deems the animal identified in the petition dated May 16, 1975, by Mrs. Ilene M. Morgan, Mr. and Mrs. Jean Goodell, and Mr. and Mrs. Richard V. Deforge, Sr. to be a vicious animal or a menance to the public on the highway. It was moved by Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Mrs. Neubert to accept the Minutes of June 2, 1975, as corrected. Voted unanimously for approval. Chairman Flaherty noted that the Disbursement Orders were ready for signature. Discussion of the proposed burglar alarm ordinance and system — Chief Carter Chairman Farrar said Mr. Merrill had recommended at the last meeting that Chief Carter be asked to be present to answer questions by Council about what progress had been made before Council approved the ordinance. Chief Carter said they couldn't do too much planning until the ordinance was passed. Mr. Merrill explained he was interested in finding out what kind of system the Chief had found that he liked; he wanted to make sure that a system is compatible with this ordinance; several people have concerns about hooking up. The Police Chief said that any system the City gets will be compatible. There are only two or three separate systems but they are all compatible; there is a modular type and also a digital type. All alarms can be hooked up. He stated he was not an expert in electronics but he was sure there was no question of compatibility. Mr. Merrill said he was concerned about people who have already installed a system at their own expense and which may not be compatible. He asked the Chief to contact those people who have written and expressed concerns; that there is an obligation to spell this out in terms of fees and why the cost is going to increase. Chief Carter said they are more concerned with their false alarms. Mr. Szymanski said it will be made a condition of any system the City gets that these will be hooked up with no additional charge. He mentioned one system which records the number of alarms, records the time, for a permanent record. Mr. Merrill asked about the objection to having a phone number posted outside a building. Chief Carter said that isn't necessary and the City shouldn't be concerned about that, but there should be somebody other than the Police Department that could be called. He said he felt that portion of the ordinance had been designed for a foot patrolman, someone walking the beat. Asked by Mr. Merrill if he had picked out a system yet, the Chief said he had not, but he favored the one Bill spoke about. Mr. Szymanski said the quote was around $6,000, or with the printer, $8,000. The least expensive was around $5,000. Chief Carter said there were approximately 50 customers now. Asked by Mr. Merrill how many were waiting to hook up, the Chief said he did not know; there had been quite a few phone calls and people are being advised they are waiting to get the ordinance through. If the City does have its own panel, he said, any of these companies will be allowed to hook onto the panel. The fee would be set by the Council. Mr. Flaherty said it would be a permanent fee to offset the cost of the installation. Mr. Merrill said he would like tentative figures to offset the cost of installing it, with the number waiting to get on and also the number leaving because they don't want to pay the fee. Chief Carter said they would be getting a lot of protection and it should be a minimum of $50 a year — it is cheap insurance. He said there are some real cheap systems. 96.7% of the alarms are false alarms; the people don't try to control them. Mr. Thieret asked if the system worked in case of a power failure, and Chief Carter say it would not if the individual owner lost his power. Mr. Merrill asked the capacity of this system and the Chief it would be unlimited. Mr. Szymanski said another unit could be added. Mr. Merrill said then they would not be in a position of having to turn down people. Walter Douglas asked about the requirements for installation by a licensed person. Chief Carter said the State of Vermont is working on something like that right now but as yet there are no restrictions such as they have regarding licensed electricians; that is why it has to be approved by the City. The City Manager said the Code Officer would issue the permit and Chief Carter approves it. Mrs. Krapcho asked if there were several systems which were approved by national groups and other systems that would not meet those standards. Chief Carter replied there were no set standards yet in Vermont but it is coming to that. He then described an incident where an alarm failed to go off because it had been affected by the sun shining on it. Mr. Szymanski said a party who had a system called to ask about other emergencies and the Chief said he would object to that being included in the ordinance. Chairman Farrar asked if it was the will of the Council to schedule a second reading of this ordinance in its present format, explaining that any corrections to be made before the second reading would mean a vote to reconsider the first reading. If no one wished to make any corrections the ordinance is approved for the first reading. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council consider the second reading at the convenience of the Chairman after the appropriate advertising. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Asked by someone in the audience when Council anticipated working up a fee schedule, Chairman Farrar replied he hoped to have it worked out at least concurrently with the ordinance being passed. It would be distributed to local businesses after being approved. The motion by Mr. Flaherty was voted unanimously for approval. Second reading of the proposed dog ordinance Walter Douglas said his only comment was in regard to the portion of the ordinance that says after a year's time you go back to zero on violations. He didn't think that was realistic and would like to see it deleted. Chairman Farrar explained that if there are any amendments or changes to the ordinance as presented, Council can go back to the first hearing and will have to readvertise for a second hearing. He said that if there is no motion to the contrary at this time he will begin reading the ordinance. Mr. Flaherty moved to suspend the actual reading of the ordinance. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Motion voted unanimously. Mr. Flaherty then moved that Council approve the second reading of the dog ordinance. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. The motion to pass this ordinance was voted unanimously. Mrs. Neubert then explained to Mr. Douglas that she didn't want him to think Council was disregarding his recommendation, but that they had had several meetings and hearings on this and would like to get it passed and not have to rewarn it. Jack Tabaka asked when it would become effective and was told by Chairman Farrar it was already effective now. The City Manager then referred to a letter he had received asking that the Council consider an ordinance for the control of cats. No action was taken on this request. Discussion of Regional Plan with Harry Behney Mr. Behney is the representative from South Burlington on the Regional Planning Commission. Mrs. Neubert, referring to the Master Plan of the Regional Planning Commission, asked Chairman Farrar how he would want to proceed in reviewing this. Chairman Farrar said that it would along the channels that the Planning Commission would review the document and the Council would review those sections which it felt it would have a specific interest in. He would like to establish those sections of the Master Plan which Council intends to review and discuss, and also get some comments from the City's representative on the Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Behney said the Transportation Section would be quite important to South Burlington's over-all function. Chairman Farrar said he had serious reservations about the tax plan as presented; also about the tendency to impose another level of government without showing the benefits that might come from that level of government. He said he felt there was a very important place in our governmental structure for inter-governmental cooperation to the benefit of all the parties. This has been amply demonstrated by the Winooski Valley Park Authority, the Chittenden County Transportation Authority. The Champlain Water District, but in each of these cases the participating communities felt it was in their own best interests to participate, and the particular shape of the plan which came out to satisfy each of these communities was shaped by this need to develop, a feeling that it was in their best interest. This type of regional cooperation can only be good, he said, but he couldn't really see that setting up another level of government will achieve this. Mrs. Neubert stated she was in agreement with Chairman Farrar. Mr. Merrill said he was very much opposed to creating another level of bureaucarcy. He said he couldn't buy the tax plan at all for South Burlington but that it should be discussed at a separate meeting. Mr. Merrill said he also had serious reservations about the over-view presented in the slide show indicating that Burlington would receive most of the commercial development with the surrounding communities receiving little tax base increase. He said he would strongly recommend that Mr. Behney go back to the Regional Planning Commission and ask that the time limit be changed. Council has just received the plan; many townspeople haven't looked at this at all; extra copies not available. The public hearing set for September 1st is coming on too fast. He strongly recommended that more time be given to the communities in terms of taxes, land use, and transportation. He felt, he said, that the Plan seems to show a great deal of bias for certain communities more than South Burlington. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Behney if consideration had been given to the rapid drop in the birth rate since 1970, in basing growth figures on the 1970 Census. She questioned whether South Burlington was going to have to take a major chunk of residential growth in its area; the growth projections in the plan are what had been worked out originally. She also stated she was very unhappy with the Transportation Plan as it relates to South Burlington; that congestion was being removed from the Burlington City line to the South Burlington City line by channeling traffic up East Avenue and then into South Burlington's worst intersection. Mr. Behney said he had been told that morning that the new planner is working up a new plan for transportation. Mrs. Neubert said she had mentioned this at meetings, she did not like it, and she knew it would not be in the final plan when drafted. Mr. Flaherty asked about the tax plan provisions; a town zoning out new industry and still keeping the tax dollars coming in. Mr. Merrill expressed concern that South Burlington might find its tax base decreasing and its educational system deteriorating as a result. Mrs. Neubert wondered how many towns who would be part of the regional plan have the incomprehensive plan and zoning ordinance in shape. Mr. Behney said all the immediate communities except Colchester. Mrs. Neubert said she felt South Burlington would be hurt far more than any community in the area. Mr. Merrill said Burlington is going to continue to grow and South Burlington will have more traffic and will have to pay for the improvements. Mr. Behney explained the plan is a draft that is going out to the communities to get their comments. The Commission is not taking a position on this; they have voted it is now in a condition to go out to the communities for their comments. He said several mistakes have already been noted and are being reported to the staff for correction. He mentioned the additional hearing, that anything which goes to Act 250 now has to go to the Regional Commission first. Chairman Farrar said it was the sense of his colleagues that they wanted to take an interest in; the transportation plan; the financing plan; the regional development plan; the land use plan. Mr. Szymanski thought it might be better planning to have several areas, not just one, maybe two or three in the same county; not the whole of Chittenden County as one area. Mr. Behney said growth is predicted for the core, environ two and environ three, based on land use and facilities available. Chairman Farrar asked if this was basically a projection or a plan, and what were the reasons for saying that this was what should happen. Is it desirable — economical — or what you think will happen anyway. Mr. Behney said the answer was yes to all three. Mr. Behney then explained the reason he was there was to represent South Burlington's position; he cannot take a position. Chairman Farrar said Council has to know not only "what" and "how" but also "why." Mention was made of the suggestion to relocate Route 116, with 2-A being reclassified 116 all the way, and its effect on Dorset Street. Mr. Farrar said this was one of the things which might be reasonable for '98 but very unreasonable for '78. Mr. Behney said any plan is going to be at least ten years out anyway. Mrs. Neubert emphasized that a time table is most important. Chairman Farrar said the most important thing for Mr. Behney to take back is that Council feels the timetable is unrealistic if they really want meaningful community involvement; it is going to take many hours of discussion to understand the things being presented here and comments on the need for it. It will be necessary to have considerably more time to get community support. Mr. Merrill added that there should be more copies, too. Chairman Farrar said the four areas which Council will work on have been outlined, with the other areas to be in the capable hands of the Planning Commission; and with a reasonable amount of time there could perhaps be some meaningful input. Mrs. Neubert asked about the southern connector for Pine Street Extension, saying it is not in the Regional Plan and asked if it had been considered. Mr. Behney said that he, personally, would like to see it there. Mr. Farrar commented that if more people are going to be put into the core, planning will have to be done for their transportation. Mr. Behney said he would leave with Chairman Farrar some comments on the Urban Systems, recommended changes to the over-all Urbans System as it relates to South Burlington. Mr. Farrar said it would be put on the agenda. Mr. Behney was thanked by the Chairman for coming to the Council meeting. Report from Chairman Wessel of the Planning Commission — Lamplough property Chairman Wessel began his report by referring to the motion passed by the City Council referring certain questions to the Planning Commission. He said the Commission had held seven meetings over six weeks, two weeks remain of the eight weeks they had given themselves, and they hope to come up with a new zone within the next two weeks. Mr. Wessel said they found that Williston Road and the intersection are very nearly at capacity and any development is going to require upgrading of the intersection, with no cost estimates possible until it is known what is going in. Land acquisition would be required, at considerable expense. The main problems are left turns into the area and a backup on Williston Road from the east. Mr. Merrill said if the inner core of the city is going to be developed, Williston Road will be way beyond capacity anyway. Mrs. Krapcho said the intersection is nearly at capacity because of the left turning traffic; there is a capacity there that can never be realized because of the movement in and out of the road. The Traffic Consultant of the Regional Planning Commission said they would like to comment on any proposed design but did not feel they were in any position to propose any alternative for dealing with the problem. Mr. Merrill said he would like to know if there was any conflict of interest on Art Hogan's part. Mr. Behney said that if they get into an engineering design they have to get into a contract situation to design Williston Road; they do not have engineers on the staff to design highways. Mr. Merrill asked if the consultant is available for suggestions but not for an engineering design of Williston Road. Mrs. Neubert said the only reason the City is in this is because they have a proposal for a shopping mall, and could Regional Planning address itself to the question of the traffic impact caused by the mall. She said she didn't see how anybody could give an answer until it is decided what is going to be done. Mr. Lamphere said they have got to get a zone so they can determine what is going in and then determine the traffic and get help to design the intersections. They can't physically design the intersection until they know where they are going as far as the shopping mall is concerned Mrs. Neubert said Council can't design it. They don't know what is going in. Mr. Lamphere said the traffic study would be in excess of $15,000 and they don't want to put that money into it until they know the community is going to allow a shopping mall in there. Chairman Farrar suggested considering whether or not the mall would be of benefit to the community. Chairman Wessel said the Planning Commission is saying to go slow and be cautious and come back with a zone that is appropriate to the City. One of the problems is the topography of the site. There would be restrictions in site plan review, the way it is developed and how much. Mrs. Neubert said it is necessary to consider the capability of the soil and whether or not that was done when the zone was made. She said she would have to be shown that this type of land coverage is suitable for the type of land on which they want to make the zone, an intensive coverage of a large acreage of land. Mr. Wessel said the problem can be solved. Drainage going into Centennial Woods, for instance, would be controlled in the Act 250 process. Chairman Farrar asked Mr. Wessel if the Commission still believes that the original recommendation for making a zone change, that the proposed use is of benefit to the community, does the Commission feel that the traffic situation is one that further engineering study is necessary to resolve, and that Council should proceed, if at all, by making sure that this point is covered adequately. The last point was that do you think it is possible to draw up a new zone for that area which would perhaps be better for the City in protecting its interests in seeing what development takes place. Mrs. Neubert said the last time the Commission voted for BPD because they thought the land note suitable for commercial than the PUD. She asked Mr. Wessel if the re-affirmation of commercial means that it is more suitable for commercial or that it should be a regional shopping center as proposed of 450,000 square feet. Mr. Wessel said they have found it inappropriately zoned. Mr. Farrar asked if he was saying now that they have not determined whether the proposed shopping center is really suitable for that site. Mr. Wessel said Council had asked them to look at the worst case; whatever zone they bring to Council will have to consider the worst possible case as well as the best possible case. Chairman Farrar stated the City Attorney has received a proposed contractual agreement with the City which would basically agree that a contract would solve traffic problems which would be created by the development, and at their expense. He said, however, that he did not intend to discuse it at this meeting. Paul Graves explained they had been trying to develop a contract to meet the objections by the Council and the Planning Commission, hoping that if they could resolve these problems perhaps they could get off point one and on to point two. He emphasized they had been on this since December, and he was offering this contract as a possible solution to how they might get around it. He reviewed the three major problems which come up each time; 1) Traffic, which they are committed to solve; 2) What happens if they don't build the shopping mall and have some permitted uses under BPD which are not wanted; 3) The possibility, if the zone is changed, that they might develop it in two acre parcels. Mr. Graves then reviewed the proposed contract. Mrs. Neubert objected to a reference to "the City Planner's recommendation" with Mr. Graves answering it was a correct reference. Chairman Farrar stated the contract would only come into use if the City doesn't agree that it is improperly zoned. If the City comes up with a new zone there is nothing that prevents that from occurring, and at least things can get started if the general consensus is that the project is a worthwhile project, this puts in the safeguards that the Council and Planning Commission are looking for. Mrs. Neubert said she felt the most critical question was the traffic, and told Mr. Graces he had said he would come up with solutions for the traffic problem. Mr. Graves replied he knew he couldn't come up with a traffic solution, can't make available an evaluation of the traffic impact until they know what is going in there. Mrs. Neubert said this concerned the health and welfare of the community; nothing to do with site plan review. Chairman Farrar said the question is does the Council wish to consider this type of approach or not — to get off square one. He said the City Attorney's basic opinion is that probably this type of contract is as good a way if the situation can be enforced but there are some possible potential problems with it because this is not a usual procedure. There might be some chance of its being over-turned. Mr. Farrar said his personal feeling was that this can be considered as a possible help in getting off the launching pad but not something to be considered as a long time guarantee, only in the sense that the City is in one of the "chicken and egg" kind of deals where the cost of the traffic engineering and the detailed engineering of the site would be large and the developer feels that it is impractical for him to spend this amount of money without an assurance that when the problems are solved he can then build the development. The City feels equally that it does not wish to approve until it can see what the thing is going to look like and be able to assure itself the problems which were envisioned are not forthcoming. Mr. Farrar said he would ask his colleagues if this proposal is to have any further consideration – if not, it might be dropped. Mr. Flaherty said he would like to read it over again as part of the total package. Mr. Graves explained the City cannot contract away any of its powers; it would have the power to make or not make the zone change; there is nothing in the contract to bind the City to that zone. He said they are just trying to get ahead. Mrs. Neubert asked if all the work done by the Planning Commission can be replaced by this agreement between the developer and the Council. Mr. Graves said people keep coming back to the same three problems and the solution so far has been that a new zone might be created; there is a tremendous time span in making up a zone change. Perhaps a better way is for the developer to come with this in hand. He said if he was reading the Council clearly they agreed the Lamplough property ought to be commercial. Mrs. Neubert said they never agreed on that — they discussed it but never agreed on it. Mr. Graves said the Council was in favor of commercial development on the Lamplough property but they didn't like the additional uses. Mrs. Neubert told Mr. Graves she didn't feel he had any right to make that assumption, asking who would be holding the bag if he went bankrupt. Mr. Graves described the steps necessary in getting the project together, saying there is enough there to assure it is going to get done. Mrs. Neubert asked where the traffic solution fitted into this. Mr. Graves said under site plan review. They will agree to put it in by contract. It is pretty well agreed that the City is going to be faced with up-grading that interchange within ten years. Mrs. Neubert answered that doubling traffic with his development makes a completely different problem from solving the simple confusion that exists now. Mr. Farrar said the developer would then have to pay for the entire cost. Mr. Graves cited the additional commercial square footage on Dorset Street, the 40 acres beyind the Ramada Inn, also the motel going in on Dorset Street, as forcing the City to make improvement. He said they would be doing the engineering to make the improvements and the most economical way for the City would be to do it at the same time. They have no commitment from any other landowner to pick up any of the cost. Mr. Merrill said when he brought up this idea of contractual arrangement it meant the City for the first time could have actual controls over what it is getting. It is to be written into the contract that he is to put in a shopping mall, and what has happened in the past cannot happen again. The City is going to face that traffic problem at the intersection; there is a possibility of getting somebody else to help foot the bill and this is going to be expensive one may or the other. The State doesn't own Williston Road; the City is responsible for up­grading it. Sharing expenses and the engineering study, having it done and having them pay for it — he said he is interested in that. He is interested in at least pursuing this further, discussing it with the City Attorney, discussing some of the other possibilities of the contract. He added that he had several reservations about the contract, adjoining property owners would have a great deal to do with it. He referred to Sections 4 and 5 of the subdivision regulations, saying this is what he is concerned about guarding against. Mrs. Krapcho said the contract was very much like what the City would have with a PUD zoning; she was more interested in getting zoning for that area which requires approval by contract. Mr. Merrill replied she would find this allows for the creation of a zone. with Mr. Graves agreed to whatever is created. Mrs. Krapcho said the Commission has made no formal decision as to whether the shopping mall would be of benefit to the community as a whole; it decided it did not wish to do that. They would prefer to deal with a shopping mall as a proposal later on and deal at this point on whether or not the property they are considering is suitable for commercial development. It was better suited to commercial than to residential, primarily because of its orientation to the Interstate. She said she was concerned about traffic and the nature of the development. Neither the BR or BPD is suitable to the development of the property. The direction is toward a new zone, not for a mall. Mrs. Neubert said she would like to see the zoning ordinance written in such a way that it could handle any proposal that came in – zone changes could be granted or new zones could be granted. She felt it was very dangerous to get into private agreements. Mr. Flaherty said he was not going to reject it; they are just talking about the possibility of it. Mr. Danis asked about the chance of Mr. Graves taking the City to court. Mr. Graves replied he gave that right to the City Council. Chairman Wessel said contractual zoning is unusual in Vermont but not in other states. He said the Planning Commission is fairly far along with the process of coming up with a new zone. Mr. Ward explained that 57 days was the minimum for advertising; in approximately 60 days they would have the zone they are working for unless they wanted something more specific. The time consumed in working on this new contract might be better spent coming up with this new zone. Mr. Farrar suggested there might be something the City could get in a contractual agreement that it couldn't get into a zone; maybe the contract in itself can give some additional protection; in the traffic area there might be some advantages to the contract. Mr. Wessel they might find something new in the process of finding a zone, and with the acceptance of this contract it might be placed further away. Mr. Farrar said if they were to approve the present zone change, he would not vote to approve it until we had the contract signed. Mr. Graves referred to Mr. Dinklage's motion regarding new zoning, and said he had been operating under the general concept that this was an approval of the concept of the regional mall as opposed to strip development. He said if the City doesn't go to the regional mall, or goes to something of only 200,000 square feet, it is wasting everybody's time. Chairman Wessel said the Commission is really going to come back with a zone that is appropriate for that land – it might include a regional mall or it might not. The Commission will try to reach that deadline in three weeks. Chairman Farrar said he would like to see the situation resolved one way or the other. His personal inclination was that there could be an alternative zone within three weeks and they might wish to consider it, but it might be worthwhile to consider in parallel getting a contract. Mr. Farrar suggested that the Council members look over this and get back to him with any questions or suggestions for change which he could then give to the City Attorney. It could be worked on as a parallel with the Commission's recommendation for a different zone. He told Mr. Wessel that with his recommendation for a new zone his members would be agreeing that they feel that a regional shopping mall would be suitable in that area, or no, it would not be. Request of Vermont Gas Company for lease extension Mr. Szymanski said the original agreement for a lease was entered into in March, 1969, a five-year lease and renewable every five years. The lease expired in March, 1974, and they are requesting it be renewed for another five years. The area is 15 feet wide and about 400 feet long, protecting their underground lines in Farrell Park; it is nothing that interferes with the City. Mr. Flaherty moved that upon the recommendation of the City Manager the lease agreement with Vermont Gas Systems be renewed for a period of five years from now. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. After a brief recess the meeting was reconvened at 11:10 p.m. Request by Burlington Boys' Club for carnival permit, July 21-26, 1976. Bernard Chamings represented the Burlington Boys' Club and stated they had a carnival two years ago but skipped last year. They will only bring in two rides and a couple of shows. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council approve the request of the Burlington Boys' Club to hold a carnival July 21-26, 1975, in the Zayre parking lot and that the fee be waived. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Mrs. Neubert asked about the request from the Planning Commission last year that the Rand Corporation do something about the landscaping that was supposed to be done after the fair last year. Mr. Ward replied that it was done. The motion was voted unanimously for approval. Application for planning advance for Bartletts Bay sewer study The City Manager explained the City had the system designed once and then could not get the funds for it so had to redesign it. There has been an indication from both Federal and State government that the City can get funding but the first step is to prepare this environmental report, and also in order to do this the city has an engineering agreement in the amount of $2,000. The application is for these funds and also for $2,000 for updating the engineering, for a total of $4,000. Mr. Szymanski said that changing chairmen causes some confusion and if it was all right with the Board he would like to have Mr. Flaherty continue to sign as representative of the City to eliminate this confusion. Mr. Merrill moved that the Council authorize Michael Flaherty to continue as the authorized representative of the Council on the sewer project and sign the agreements for the application and the preparation of the application and the impact statements. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Voted unanimously for approval. Confirm the findings in the Gary Rounds dismissal hearings Chairman Farrar referred to the letter to Mr. Gary Rounds from the City Manager and proceeded to read this letter aloud. Mrs. Neubert then moved that the letter dated June 13, 1975, from the City Manager to Mr. Gary Rounds outlining the decisions of the executive session hearing on June 9, 1975, be sent to Mr. Rounds. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Merrill said he wished to bring up a point that he disagreed with in the letter, that in reality Gary Rounds is being relieved of duty until August 1st, and that he feels some of the findings of Council have been misinterpreted. Mr. Flaherty said he agreed with Mr. Merrill. The motion was voted unanimously. The letter will be sent by the City Manager to Mr. Gary Rounds. Presentation by George Khouri of Rand Industries, Inc. Mr. Khouri presented a summary of the letter originally sent to Council. He said they are looking for some kind of relief to finish the project of the mall. Council would have to determine whether it deserves consideration, and whatever form Council wished it to take: Mr. Khouri said he couldn't give directions to Council as to how it should be handled. Chairman Farrar suggested asking for comments from the City Attorney and the Planning Commission on this. Both Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Szymanski said an agreement regarding taxes would have to be voted on by the voters, and the next election would not be until May. Mr. Khouri said their anchor tenant would not wait that long. Mr. Farrar said a special election would be an added expense to the City and it would have to be considered as to whether it was worth it or not. Mr. Khouri said they have a second anchor tenant, would be another 200,000 square feet, a regional mall concept. There would be additional small stores but the small stores will not go in without the anchor, and if they have a viable tax arrangement they will have an anchor. The City Manager asked if they had agreements like this anywhere else. Mr. Khouri said that before construction they go in and talk with the tax people and establish a reasonable evaluation for the property they are going to build, but they had not done that here. He said the tenants are aware of the inventory tax being raised. Mr. Khouri said they are looking for an established valuation and hopes that no one considers it unreasonable. They are not looking for a waiver of tax but are looking for a stabilizing program, and asking for it for five years. If it is not necessary to have a vote, can Council consider establishing a valuation. He said he was just hoping that reassessment wouldn't take place within the next four or five years. The report he submitted should be looked at by the Council, he felt. Mr. Merrill said they could read it over and make their own suggestions, and also ask Dick Spokes for his opinion. Mr. Khouri said Zayre's Corporation requested a reduction on the valuation of the Zayre's building from the Board of Civil Authority, but he didn't remember whether the Board of Civil Authority reduced it or not. He would assume it was reduced but he didn't know because they pay their own taxes. Cemetery Funds Chairman Farrar noted that Council had received a report on Cemetery Funds from Charlotte Marsh. The meeting was declared adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.