Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/17/1975CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 17, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, November 17, 1975, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman; John Dinklage, Michael Flaherty, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Dennis Lutz, Paul Gormsen, Stanley Wilber, Lyla Clark, Harry Behney, Ray Stearns, A. C. Audette, Peter Harvey The meeting was opened at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Farrar Reading of the Minutes of November 3, 1975 It was moved by Mr. Dinklage, seconded by Mr. Flaherty, and voted unanimously to accept the Minutes of November 3, 1975, as written. Disbursement orders Chairman Farrar called attention to the disbursement orders to be signed by the members of the Council. Public hearing on Facilities Plan and Environmental Assessment for Phase V, Sewers and Sewage Pumping Station Chairman Farrar opened the public hearing by reading a prepared introduction, then called upon the City Manager for a history of the project. Mr. Szymanski stated the Town Selectmen in the 1960's initiated a sewer construction project. At that time part of the south end of town was sewered by the City of Burlington and Fire Districts 2 and 3 were sewered with a small sewage treatment plant at Bartlett's Bay and an enlarged septic tank on Queen City Park Road, but the other end of town had no sewers. It was decided to divide the construction for this end of town into five phases which included all the developed area in town. There was also some work done on the Country Club Estates area which was just starting to be developed, and which was considered Phase 6. However, Mr. Szymanski said, to his knowledge that was never formally approved as a project. For Phases 1, 2, and 3, a bond issue of approximately 3.2 million dollars was passed. This included primarily Phases 1 and 2, the sewage treatment plant, the main that served the individual streets, and the large pumping station at Hinesburg Road. Phase 3 included the collector system on all the individual streets. Phase 4 was down at the south end and included up-grading the Bartlett's Bay sewage treatment plant to secondary treatment and also constructing a new interceptor main on Queen City Park Road to Bartlett's Bay, primarily to eliminate the large septic tank. A bond issue in the amount of $240,000 was passed and also that Phase 4 included sewering Queen City Park. Since that time, he said, there have been minor revisions in the project, and the last phase which is now being discussed is Phase 5 which the engineer from Webster-Martin will outline the area that covers which is basically the easterly end of the town including the new industrial park being planned. Chairman Farrar then asked Mr. Wilber of Webster-Martin to explain the project to the group. Mr. Wilber said the facility planned goes back to the 1969 report prepared by Webster-Martin and the bond issue passed in 1974. He indicated the area on a map on the board, also the location of the pumping station to be across from Vermont Heating and Ventilating with a gravity sewer main 10" or 12" along Williston Road to the crest of the hill, then down Shunpike Road. The pump station will discharge through a forced main to a trunk sewer on Airport Drive which was designed to accommodate this additional sewage when it was put in. Also the treatment plant was planned to accommodate this additional sewage. Mr. Wilber said this project has been submitted for State and Federal aid, and ultimately would include the pump station, the force main, the gravity sewer along Williston Road, and would be based on sources of pollution to determine eligibility. There is no reason for any thought of putting a septic sewage plant in this area because of environmental effects. Chairman Farrar asked if that would not be economically justified. Mr. Wilber replied it would be neither economically justified or environmentally justified. He said another alternative would be to do nothing, no action, but there are problems with septic tanks in the area now and also any developer would be in trouble without this sewer system. Because of the soil conditions the septic tank system could not be improved. The concept presented is one for sewering the area. Mr. Wilber then presented a list of organizations which had been notified of this public hearing, this list to be part of the record of the hearing. Mr. Wilber then itemized the following points that were considered: 1) Water quality — the project would enhance the water quality as far as Potash Brook and Muddy Brook are concerned except during the period of construction; 2) Water supply — there would be no effect on the water supply from this project; 3) Solid waste — there might possibly be a small amount of sludge; 4) Air quality — there would be no air quality problem and odors from septic tank system would be eliminated; 5) Radiation — none; 6) Noise pollution — the only noise would be within a few feet of the pump station and there would be no detrimental effect from this; 7) Land use — the effect on land use is the industrial park and this has been through Act 250 so this project cannot be blamed for what might happen in the industrial park; Chairman Farrar commented the industrial park is consistent with both the local and the regional plans; 8) Recreation and Aesthetic values — the elimination of septic tank effluent would be the only effect; 9) Scenic and historical — most of the construction will be below ground with the exception of the entrance to the pump station, so no problem with scenery; 10) Sociological — no relocation of residential or disruption of local services; 11) Construction process — Dust control, mud conditions, and construction noise. This would be limited to one construction season and a short cycle of time. The contractor would be required to use dust retardant, have a minimum number of excavations open at one time, with reseeding and mulching and proper control of runoff during the construction season also required. Mr. Wilber concluded by saying this covered all the environmental consideration which were brought into this project. Chairman Farrar then called on Mr. Lutz of the Department of Water Resources. Mr. Lutz said he had been working with Paul Gormsen, also of the Department, and this covers one big regulatory, one big financial, one big technical project. He said the area should be serviced by sewers; there was a point of pollution then and there still is a point of pollution now. Federal funding is in and out of the picture; once those funds dried up most of these projects also fell apart. The State assures these projects are built for the purpose of preventing pollution under Water Pollution Control for Federal funding. Under Title 10, Chapter 55, the Department of Water Resources has been given authority to make the decision that the proposed project is the right kind, type, size, and cost, for the purpose of abating pollution. For sewers to be eligible for aid from both State and Federal funds, there are limitations as to how far the aid will go; the Federal government kicks in 75%, the State kicks in 15%. The engineer has provided plans, the Department reviews the final "specs" and after the environmental hearing is completed a few more items are raised. The next thing is to apply to the Federal government for aid, step 2. Step 3 would be for construction grant. Chairman Farrar asked Mr. Lutz if he considered the project necessary to abate pollution. Mr. Lutz replied "Yes. If it wasn't we would not be here at all." Mr. Flaherty asked if 75% Federal funding is step 2. Mr. Lutz said that was right, and this particular project is on the State's priority list to obtain those funds, and they envision through September, 1975, they will not have problems of funding. Mr. Flaherty then asked if he would not expect funding to be a problem, and Mr. Lutz said that was right, they did not expect it to be a problem. Chairman Farrar then asked for comments, questions, or suggestions. No reply was received from the audience. The Chairman then stated that if there were no comments, questions, or suggestions, he would consider the public hearing closed. He stated the City had already passed the bond issue for the City's share of the funds. Resolution for authorization of signing of documents for the Shelburne Road Sewer Extension project The City Manager said the Council had previously adopted a resolution to authorize Michael Flaherty to sign resolutions. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council approve the resolution as submitted and read. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Report on Chittenden County Transportation Authority Mr. Harry Behney and Mr. Raymond Stearns were present to report on the present status of CCTA. Mr. Stearns said the biggest concern among the communities is why CCTA needs the additional subsidy, because money is tax rate and tax rate is irate citizens. In the spring the manager estimated the projected deficit to be $50,000 which proved to be a fairly accurate estimate. Application had been made for Federal funds from the Department of Transportation but Congress has not approved the money. There is every indication they are going to and they had hoped to receive the money last year. Mr. Stearns said public transportation will probably never be profitable but even with the subsidy required CCTA is the lowest per mile per person public transportation in the country. He said he felt public transportation must be looked upon in the same light as fire or sewage, it is something that must be provided for the public. Those areas of public service are subsidized and public transportation must fall into that same light. Mr. Stearns then described the operation, the exploration of possible extensions to the present routes. It was not feasible to extend service to Shelburne but it was extended on Shelburne Road to Auto Master with good ridership. In Essex the public acceptance has been good and is the best run CCTA has. Requests are received from people in Colchester but Colchester is not a member of the Authority and cannot be serviced. Bolchester residents who inquire about possible service are told to call their own Board of Selectmen if they feel Colchester needs the bus service. Asked by Mr. Farrar if this would be an economically viable thing, Mr. Stearns replied they have not run a survey but would if they were asked to expand the service to Colchester. Mr. Behney said Colchester Point area might be a possible area to service. He said they do pick up passengers in the Fort Ethan Allen area which is actually Colchester. Mr. Dinklage asked if any attempt had been made to get subsidy from that Fire District. Mr. Behney said a Fire District is not considered a community. Mr. Merrill asked why South Burlington was not better informed regarding the extra money it would have to come up with, saying it would have been beneficial in terms of being able to better plan the Budget if this information had been available in the spring. The City can't come up with these unexpected amounts. Mr. Stearns said Mr. Kramer, he understood, had advised the office in March or April of the total subsidy short-change, and he assumed Mr. Kramer felt that was time enough for South Burlington to incorporate it in the budget. Mr. Szymanski said Mr. Kramer was quite optimistic about getting Federal funds for that. It was suggested that Mr. Kramer be called in next March and asked what the projections would be for the year. Mr. Stearns said none of the communities provided for the additional subsidies. Everyone was pretty well assured the Federal funds would come in. Mr. Behney said the bill is supposed to get on the floor of Congress before the Christmas recess but warned the special services required might make it so costly the funds could not be accepted anyway. Mr. Dinklage asked if they felt the Vermont congressional delegation is doing all it can. Mr. Behney said neither senator knew the bill passed without Vermont being included — Vermont and Wyoming were not included. Mr. Farrar said it could have been corrected so easily at the time with a small amendment. Mr. Stearns then brought up the idea of zoning regulations and planning regulations complementing the public transportation and not conflict with it. Insisting on so much parking space in commercial establishment plans is working against public transportation. Even downtown Burlington is not encouraging the use of public transportation by encouraging so much parking. Chairman Farrar said it should not be the purpose to force people to take public transportation, that is a choice for each individual to make. Mr. Dinklage said downtown merchants are considering validation of tickets to park and asked if CCTA had approached them on any kind of validating of bus tickets. Mr. Stearns said they have participated with the merchants in this way for a special project or sales day, but the merchants are not willing to do it on a continuing basis. The Council complimented CCTA on the service it provided at the time of the Freedom Train's visit to Burlington. Chairman Farrar repeated it was better to let the people choose, that the public transportation was necessary for people who do not have cars, and trying to force people not to drive is counter-productive. Mrs. Neubert said a little more discretion is allowed now concerning parking requirements in planning and adjustments have been made. Mr. Stearns asked that as the industrial park is planned that CCTA receive comments as to what might be wanted for transportation. Mr. Behney explained at the end of the year most of the runs are adjusted so it is almost even, and South Burlington is now at 12.7%. Special surveys are run periodically. The service was then discussed along with the possibility of having pick-up points. Mrs. Neubert asked about service joining the two parts of South Burlington and was told it was impossible because of the long trip in between with no customers. She also asked about passenger figures for the area on the other side of Williston Road and was told they had no figures for that. Asked about fare increases, both men said as fares are increased the ridership decreases. Asked about future financial projections, Mr. Stearns said the new union contract is going to cost money. He showed a chart indicating the line of balance between income and expenses, with June, July, and August way below this line, and rising above the line in the Fall months, with this past October showing a profit over the month's expenses. Asked if the labor contract would be for one year, Mr. Stearns said it was for two years but in three steps. Because it has not been accepted he could give no data on it. Mr. Merrill suggested Kennedy Drive would be an ideal location for a collector, and Mr. Behney said they have to be outside enough to have a collector. Mr. Merrill asked how strongly CCTA had approached Williston, and Mr. Stearns said he was afraid not strongly enough. The ridership isn't there. Mr. Behney raised the question of children crossing Williston Road safely. More children would take the bus to go swimming, etc. except that parents are concerned about crossing the road. Regarding schedule changes, Mr. Behney emphasized that too frequent changes in schedule are very bad from the public's point of view. It was noted that CCTA recently received a national award in Boston, was the winner chosen from all facets of transportation. Another award has been received for transportation planning. Beaver problem along Potash Brook Mr. Szymanski said he was bringing this up, not because he had received any recent complaints, but because if the City is going to allow the beavers to be trapped during the coming trapping season it will be necessary to relax the City's regulations because trapping is not allowed. It is a City ordinance. The game warden thinks he could get somebody to do the trapping if that is what the City wants. Regarding the safety of the pond, Mr. Merrill said it is from 12 to 15 feet deep in the deepest part. Mrs. Neubert said this puts it in the category of a lake and lakes are not drained because they might be a hazard. She felt there was more danger when the area was just a swamp with people attempting to walk in it. Also the mosquito problem does not exist as it would with a swamp of stagnant water. No one has ever gotten hurt from the beaver pond. Some of the area residents want the beavers preserved. Mr. Dinklage also felt there was no real problem. It was suggested that if some of the dead trees could be removed it would improve the appearance. The Council decided to take no action on the situation at this time. It was moved by Mr. Dinklage at 9:40 p.m. that the City Council go into Executive Session to discuss land acquisition for sewer project and for open space land. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.