Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/15/1975Correction to Minutes of September 15, 1975 It was moved at the City Council Meeting of October 6, 1975, to accept the Minutes of September 15, 1975, with the following correction: On page 5, in Mr. Dinklage's motion, the amount should be $6,000 instead of $5,500. CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 15, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road, on Monday, September 15, 1975. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul A. Farrar, Chairman; John B. Dinklage, Catherine M. Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT Michael D. Flaherty, Duane E. Merrill OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; M. Morselli, M. Canedy, Wm. J. Schuele, J. A. Tabaka, R. S. Babcock, Peter Harvey, Richard Pepperman, Betsy Pepperman, Tom Schroeder, Margo Howland The meeting was called to order by Chairman Farrar at 7:30 p.m. Special Session of Vermont Legislature - September 29, 1975 Representative Robert Babcock, a member of the Ways and Means Committee of the Legislature, had asked Chairman Farrar for time to address the Council regarding the financial condition of the State, stating he would like advice from the Council as to how they felt the Ways and Means Committee should proceed in solving the anticipated deficit. The State ended fiscal 1975 with a deficit of 9.6 million dollars. Mr. Babcock said he was not yet convinced on the basis of the figures presented that there will actually be a nine million dollar deficit which has been projected for the current year, but if it is a fact, then there are only two alternatives, to raise taxes or to cut appropriations. There is a proposal to impound three million from allotted funds and to raise the sales tax by one cent which should bring in six million for the balance of the fiscal year. He feels all fuel should be exempt from the sales tax and there is a chance this will be done, with an additional one cent added to the rooms and meals tax to make up this loss of revenue. If the sales tax is not increased there has been a threat to take the money from education, thus throwing the burden back onto the local communities. The impact on South Burlington's school budget might be as much as $150,000. Mrs. Neubert asked if it wouldn't be better to let the matter be handled in the regular session of the Legislature, but Mr. Babcock explained that a tax bill never passes until toward the end of a session, and if a bill was not passed until April this would mean at least six months' loss of revenue to the State. Mr. Dinklage said he would prefer to see the tax burden distributed more evenly by means of the sales tax and income tax. Mr. Farrar felt that moving the deficit from the State government to the local government wouldn't accomplish anything as there is no way the local government can adjust its tax revenue. Chairman Farrar also felt that because Vermont was later in feeling the effects of the recession than other parts of the country, it is also going to be later in feeling the effects of improved economic conditions which are already taking place in other areas, that Vermont is just now "bottoming out." Mr. Farrar thanked Representative Babcock for his report to the Council. Minutes of Special Meeting of September 9, 1975 Because of the absence of two members of the Council the reading of the Minutes of September 9, 1975, was deferred. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were presented to the members of the Council for their signatures. Public hearing on amendments to Zoning Ordinance Chairman Farrar referred to the memo from the Zoning Administrator dated September 12, 1975, saying that the Council could have a public hearing but because of an oversight the amendment could not be adopted until October 6th. Mr. Farrar also noted that Council could reject the proposed amendment if it wished to do so. Because several questions were raised regarding 4407 it was felt that Mr. Ward should get advice from the City Attorney. Mr. Ward explained it had taken a project to bring this out, the question of density, and at that time it was felt it was only a "housekeeping" type of amendment and had set the developer back about 90 days. Mrs. Neubert felt R-7 was really just a figure, that it would be impossible for a developer to get this; he would have to grid them tight together or he wouldn't even get four. Also there is the problem of the 15% open space. She felt the amendment needed more work done on it. Mr. Dinklage moved that the City Council table this proposed zoning amendment until the next meeting, September 16th. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Dinklage then asked if it would be possible for Council to have a work session on proposed amendments before they were warned for public hearing. Mr. Ward recommended that one Council member go to the Planning Commission meetings and hear their arguments, and Mr. Farrar also suggested the Chairman of the Planning Commission could come to the Council meeting with a presentation. Mrs. Neubert said she does attend Planning Commission meetings and they discuss some things she often violently disagrees with. Mr. Schuele suggested the Commission wants R-7 to promote less expensive housing. Mr. Ward replied that R-7 doesn't do that for the developer; he has got to get up around 12 or 15 for that. Second reading of Burglary Alarm Ordinance It was moved by Mr. Dinklage and seconded by Mrs. Neubert to dispense with the reading of the ordinance. Motion voted unanimously. It was moved by Mrs. Neubert that the City Council pass the ordinance relating to the installation and use of private burglary alarm systems. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Schroeder asked for clarification of Section 3 in the ordinance. Chairman Farrar explained it means first that the actual hookup is to be paid by the user, and second that the fee structure would be set in such a way that the cost of the maintenance of the system would be borne by the users. The ordinance, he further explained, has two purposes; one is to insure that the costs of the system are shared among the users; second, to reduce the police time which is used in answering false alarms. Mr. Schroeder questioned the necessity of the City getting into this, that private enterprise should be allowed to handle it. The equipment was purchased and is being maintained by the user, not the City, and the Council is saying the City wants to have the right to control it, that the City is getting into the burglary alarm business. Mr. Dinklage told Mr. Schroeder he could continue to use the system he now has if he preferred to do so; he is not being forced to hook up to the panel. It is the intention that the users of the system assume a share of the cost. It was voted unanimously by the Council to pass the ordinance as moved by Mrs. Neubert. Resolution to acquire right-of-way for the road into the Industrial Park The proposed Resolution was read aloud by Chairman Farrar. It was moved by Mr. Dinklage, seconded by Mrs. Neubert, and voted unanimously to sign the Resolution. Mr. and Mrs. Pepperman and Mr. Harvey, Shunpike Road residents, expressed their concern and the concern of other residents about what would happen to Shunpike Road. Mr. Pepperman said they had attended the Act 250 hearing and felt things were rather indefinite. Chairman Farrar explained the resolution was one of the first steps in acquiring the permanent road into the Industrial Park as soon as possible. This has been designated as a road on the Urban Systems Map and the Selectmen of Williston have also placed it in their Urban Systems Map where it will come out in Williston. Mr. Pepperman said they were afraid Shunpike Road would be the access until the Industrial Park reached a total of 200 employees, possibly three to seven years. Also they did not want the road used by heavy trucks carrying construction equipment into the park. Mr. Farrar said the State allots money every year for Urban Systems roads, and this road was put at the top of the priority list by South Burlington. The City has taken all the necessary steps to assure that the road be built as soon as possible, but that is not the same as promising that it will be built in 1976. The Environmental Commission could impose a stipulation on the developer that he not construct until a road is put there, it could impose that only on the developer; it cannot impose on the City that the road be built at a certain time. Mr. Farrar also explained that in the old ordinance Shunpike Road itself was zoned industrial but the new ordinance wanted to protect the residents there so called it a residential area, but the land in the Industrial Park has been zoned industrial for some time. Mr. Dinklage said the Environmental Board was not putting a stumbling block before the developer by holding him up pending the building of the new road; they were giving him the "green light" to go ahead and get clients. Mrs. Neubert said she was concerned about Shunpike Road being used as an access. Mr. Harvey repeated the concern of the residents for the safety of their children if trucks are to bring in supplies and heavy equipment to start the Industrial Park, and salesmen and employees using the road for any period of time. Mr. Dinklage said there would be two safeguards, the speed limit, and the gross weight limit for that road, but unless the new road is completed and open to traffic prior to the beginning of construction of the first building, there is going to be traffic going in there. Mr. Tabaka asked how long the access road would be and the City Manager said around 3,000 feet, with the total cost estimated at around $250,000. Resolution concerning "No Parking" signs on Elizabeth, Patrick, and west side of Airport Drive The Chairman read aloud the proposed resolution and referred to the accompanying memo from the Chief of Police explaining the reason for the request. The only question members of the Council had concerned the hours, that a resident of the area might have guests parking on the street after the 1:00 a.m. restriction. Mr. Dinklage moved that the City Council sign the resolution. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Consideration of waiving of tax penalties A list prepared by the Deputy Tax Collector and reviewed by the City Manager was presented to Council giving the names and amounts of penalties for a total of $418.41, with a request for approval to cancel by journal entry the amount of these penalties. Mr. Szymanski explained that the tax had been paid in each case, the waiver would be only for the penalty incurred by late payment, and he had reviewed each case to determine the validity of the reason for payment being delinquent. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council give approval to cancel these penalties by journal entry, as recommended by the Deputy Tax Collector and the City Manager. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Information on new Teen project — Mrs. Neubert Mrs. Neubert said there had been many meetings last year concerning teen-age problems in the City and it was felt these social problems start much earlier in a child's life. This new project is designed for children in the Middle School who might benefit from contact with adults. It is to be carried on at the University Living and Learning Center by University students who will receive credit for doing the program. They have a large room at the Center with a pool table, the potential for a snack bar, refrigerator, etc. It will not cost the City any money unless the Human Services Committee should sponsor something like slipcovers for the donated furniture which is now in the basement. There is no supervisory involvement at all. She also emphasized this will have nothing to do with the police, it concerns social problems. Consideration of installation of 12" sewer main at Ridgewood Estates Chairman Farrar explained that in the review process for this development the City was granted an option of deciding whether or not it wished to install a larger size of sewer pipe to allow for future development in the area. The City Manager said it would involve around 3,000 feet of pipe at a cost of $1.57 a foot for the smaller pipe. The 12" pipe would be $3.25 per foot, or a difference of $1.68 per foot, roughly a cost of $5.040. Mr. Dinklage referred to a statement by the developer that the labor cost for handling and installing the heavier pipe would be greater. Mr. Szymanski recommended having the larger pipe installed in view of the greater potential of the area, and said the amount should perhaps be $5.500 to be requested. Mr. Dinklage moved that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate with the developer of Ridgewood Estates to install a 12" sewer main at an additional cost to the City not to exceed $5,500. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Chairman Farrar explained the money is to be taken from the surplus of Phase 1, 2, and 3 sewer funds. Mr. Dinklage asked that the Council consider changing the time of the Council meetings to 8:00 p.m. rather than 7:30, and Mrs. Neubert suggested this be discussed when all the members were present. Mr. Dinklage moved that the meeting be adjourned. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.