Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/07/1976CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JULY 7, 1976 At the City Council meeting of July 19th it was voted to accept the Minutes of July 7th, 1976, with the following corrections: Page 2, 50,000 square feet should be changed to 30,000 square feet. On page 3, line 15, the word he should read the Chairman. On page 6, line 26, the vote was 4 against, 1 in favor, rather than 3 to 2 as stated in the Minutes. On page 5 the length of term for Ray Stearns is to be checked for accuracy. CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 7, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Wednesday, July 7, 1976, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul A. Farrar, Chairman; Frank H. Armstrong, John B. Dinklage, Michael D. Flaherty, Catherine M. Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Gayle Gertler, Ernest Levesque, James A. Lamphere, Marilyn Charkin, Sylvia H. Smith, Ruth B. Winton, Dan Duell, Bruce O'Neill, P. Caldwell Munt, George Watson, Fred Blais, Harry Behney The meeting was called to order by Chairman Farrar at 8:00 p.m. Additions to the Agenda Council agreed to add as Item 8 on the Agenda a discussion of the Southern Connector Extension. This was requested by Mrs. Neubert. Minutes of June 21, 1976, and June 24, 1976 It was moved by Mr. Flaherty, seconded by Mrs. Neubert, and voted unanimously to accept the Minutes of June 21, 1976, as presented. It was moved by Mr. Dinklage, seconded by Mr. Flaherty, and voted unanimously to accept the Minutes of June 24, 1976, as presented. It was moved by Mr. Flaherty, seconded by Mrs. Neubert, and voted unanimously to accept the Minutes of the Executive Session of June 24, 1976, as presented. Disbursement orders Chairman Farrar called attention to the Disbursement Orders to be signed by Council members. Consideration of undertaking the construction of a portion of the Phase V sewer project Mr. Szymanski explained the Phase V sewer project was for Williston Road from Kennedy Drive and includes running a line to the Industrial Park. The proposed building for a car rental agency on National Guard road was planned with a temporary plastic sewer line running along Williston Road up to the gravity line on Airport Drive. This line would be used until the completion of Phase V. Mr. Szymanski said he felt this seemed like a wasted effort and if the cost was not too much extra and if the developer was willing to absorb that extra cost, the City could undertake to do Phase V in two contracts and provide the main pumping station and a gravity line for about 1,000 feet or so. The consultants doing the design work for Phase V felt they could certainly do this if there was no problem with the Federal government. There are no objections from the State but it would be necessary to consult with the Federal agency; if they had no objections, then construction could be started very soon. Asked what was meant by a temporary sewer line, Mr. Szymanski explained it would be a plastic line forcing the sewage up to Airport Drive and would be duplicating the services to be provided by Phase V and would be abandoned when Phase V was completed. Asked by Mrs. Neubert if the City had planned to build a sewer in that area and if it would go on both sides of the road, Mr. Szymanski answered that was part of the Phase V project. Mr. Farrar said GBIC is anxious to develop as soon as possible and would like to coordinate their site work with the City's sewer work. Their time table is basically to have a building on the site by next year. He felt Mr. Szymanski's suggestion would be speeding up one part of the plan, starting one part of the project this year rather than waiting until next year. The Chairman stated the procedure to be followed would be to establish that the conditions under which the bonds were approved by the citizenry were met, and he would suggested that Council get a commitment in writing that GBIC will do its part and construct a building of not less than 50,000 square feet or will have sold a site to a reputable firm which will agree to do that by next July. He felt there would be no problem in getting such a commitment from GBIC and by common consent Council could proceed this way. The City Manager agreed to find out if there was any logic in starting this one part of Phase V now. During the discussion Mr. Munt asked about his water and sewer bills, saying he felt his water bill which he pays to Burlington was out of line; his sewer charge is paid to South Burlington. Mr. Szymanski explained the agreement which South Burlington has with Burlington and recommended to Mr. Munt that he ask Burlington to check his water meter. Mr. Szymanski is to check into this also and report back to Council. Agreement with the Visiting Nurse Association Copies of this agreement had been given to Council members. The only change suggested was under Item 4. Time span, to replace the words Town Meeting with the words City Budget Meeting. Mr. Szymanski explained the contract is executed on a yearly basis with the Visiting Nurse Association. South Burlington's representative on the VNA Board is Mrs. Plumley. It was moved by Mr. Flaherty, seconded by Mr. Dinklage, and voted unanimously that Council authorize the City Manager to execute this agreement with the Visiting Nurse Association. Discussion regarding length of terms of Zoning Board appointees Chairman Farrar noted that the terms of the Planning Commission had been straightened out with two terms expiring each year, and also referred to a change made in the City Charter two years ago to increase the membership of the Planning Commission from five to seven members. Because three terms on the Zoning Board expired this year, there had been discussion regarding the length of terms, and research indicated that the number of members and terms of office were spelled out in the City's Zoning document. However, the enabling legislation gives to the City Council alone, unless restricted by the City Charter, the ability to set the terms of office and the number of members up to seven. The City Attorney felt that by a simple resolution, for the sole purpose of regularizing the terms, it would be possible to set terms other than three years. Changing the number or terms for other reasons would be debatable, but this could be done for the single purpose of trying to get more even spacing in the terms. Mr. Farrar said it was his personal feeling that if Council wished to change the number of members on the Zoning Board or change the period of the regular terms for more than three years, it would have to proceed by either amending the Zoning document by resolution or by putting it in the Charter. The City Attorney felt this should not be in the Zoning document but that in reading the enabling legislation the City Charter seemed the appropriate place for it. The Planning Commission has been put in the Charter and he felt it would be wise to do the same thing with the Zoning Board. There has to be a reasonable degree of independence for members of these committees but on the other hand there must be some ultimate citizen control acting through their legally elected representatives. He felt Council could proceed by resolution at this meeting and it could, if it wished, ratify other than three year terms for the single purpose of regularizing terms. Council should try to outline the changes it is going to make and give this to the City Charter Committee for their comments. Mrs. Neubert asked about the time frame on the warning and was told it was 30 days, with Mr. Farrar adding there was time for Council to proceed in an orderly fashion to decide what is best for the City. Mrs. Neubert said she would prefer not to change the number of the Board members by resolution. Mr. Farrar said he would agree with that; he had only been trying to make plain the options available. Mrs. Charkin asked if the number of terms a person may serve could be discussed, and Mrs. Neubert replied they didn't have to have an ordinance to do that; Council has the power of State law. Mr. Farrar said it was certainly possible and possibly meaningful to consider this. Asked if Council could appoint as many people as it wished by resolution, Mr. Farrar explained it could not. State Law puts a maximum of seven people. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council adopt a resolution to affirm the appointments made at the last meeting which were of different lengths of term, for the purpose of regularizing the number of appointments to come up each year. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Chairman Farrar read aloud these appointments, as follows: J. Everett Reed, three years; Richard Myette, two years; Frederick Fayette, Jr., one year. He explained this would mean two people coming up for each of two years and one person for the third year. The motion was voted unanimously for approval. The following wording was suggested by Chairman Farrar for a resolution: That the City Council of South Burlington, for the purpose of regularizing the terms of office of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, hereby resolves that the appointments for the year 1976 shall be one term for one year, one term for two years, and one term for three years, giving therefore terms of office of three years which will expire two each year for two years and one for the third year. Mr. Farrar said this would get away from the point where there are now three terms expiring in one year but he felt doing any more than that by resolution would be unwise. Mr. Farrar felt if Council wishes to change terms of office or the number of members, it should proceed by a separate action. The Zoning document would be amended by taking that section out and the entire thing could be put in the Charter. Mrs. Charkin said she felt that if Council is changing the length of terms it didn't make any difference anyway if the same people are being appointed. Mr. Farrar explained Council always has to work from a conservative point of view, that its actions cannot be challenged. Mrs. Neubert explained Council was trying to avoid having a new Council after election being able to turn over the Board by making appointments every year. Mr. Flaherty said they were trying to arrange it so there would be two appointments every year. Mr. Armstrong said he would like to point out that there is difficulty in attracting people to apply for the Zoning Board and putting a limit on the number of terms a member can serve on any board would mean running into problems in attracting people to apply. Chairman Farrar said that was something which could be discussed separately. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council adopt the resolution as expressed at the bottom of Page 3 of the Minutes of the Meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mrs. Neubert asked if this would have to be changed again when other people are up for reappointment. Mr. Farrar said either Council would take no other action or it will take some action in a separate proceeding to change the length of terms similar to those of Council where there are two and three year terms. This resolution can be modified by a subsequent resolution by Council. He said he personally would not support modifying the terms of office because although it is probably legal there is sufficient question that Council could end up with somebody suing when they received an unfavorable decision. He felt, therefore, that this should be done by first amending the Zoning document to remove it, and then to have it just by resolution or by Charter. Asked from the audience why the Zoning Board doesn't have seven members now, Mr. Farrar explained it was never really discussed, with Mrs. Neubert adding the question never really came up. Mr. Dinklage then moved that the resolution adopted by Council be sent to the City Attorney to be prepared for signature by the Council. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Chairman Farrar stated discussion was open for numbers and terms of office. Mr. Armstrong objected that this was not on the agenda and he felt it was unfair to bring it up at this meeting without having it on the agenda and without having members of the Zoning Board here. Mrs. Neubert asked if Council could vote on whether or not the wording of the agenda would cover this discussion. Mr. Farrar said he would rule that Mr. Armstrong's opinion was upheld by the Chair. His ruling could then be appealed and a vote taken on the appeal. He said his understanding of the enabling legislation was that unless there is unanimous consent for a change in the printed agenda, other items cannot be added. The question was whether or not the topic of discussion was properly warned in the agenda and from reading this it was his personal interpretation that it is not — but that is open to vote. Mrs. Neubert replied only because it is challenged. Many times there are items added to the agenda. She said she would not appeal the Chair's ruling, however. Mr. Armstrong felt that by having it on the next agenda they would be able to have the Zoning Board present. Mr. Dinklage suggested discussing the possibility of having a joint meeting between the City Council, the Zoning Board, the Planning Commission, and the City Attorney, to discuss procedures and anything else felt to be beneficial. He felt it would be useful to take up with the Zoning Board the question of having additional members. Mrs. Neubert asked why it was necessary to ask the Zoning Board about this. Mr. Flaherty said it was only fair to ask them to come in and offer their opinions. Mr. Dinklage said he was suggesting a work session, an open public meeting, on the rules under which the boards operate, the prerogatives different boards have, constraints placed on these bodies by State law. Mrs. Neubert said if part of that motion was asking the Zoning Board whether or not they want more members, she would object to it. Mr. Farrar said presently the number of members of the Zoning Board is fixed by the Zoning ordinance at five. The enabling State legislation says the terms of office and the numbers, with a limit of seven, shall be fixed by the legislative body of the town or city. There is some ambiguity there by the fact that South Burlington put it in the Zoning ordinance and a change there must be initiated by the Planning Commission. This was probably not the right way to do it and he felt there was some question as to whether Council could by simple resolution increase the number. Mr. Farrar said he was only responding to a question from the audience, since the subject was not under discussion. Council agreed that the City Manager would find a suitable date for the joint work session suggested by Mr. Dinklage. Committee appointments Chairman Farrar read aloud a letter of resignation from the Chittenden County Transportation Authority submitted by C. Harry Behney. Mr. Farrar explained Mr. Behney's term would have expired next year and that of Ray Stearns expired this year; it would now be necessary to make an appointment for three-year term and for a one-year term to replace Mr. Behney. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council reappoint Ray Stearns for a three-year term to the Chittenden County Transportation Authority. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council appoint Frank Mazur to fulfill the unexpired term on the Chittenden County Transportation Authority left vacant by the resignation of Mr. Behney, which expires in 1977. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Regarding Recreation Committee appointments, Mr. Szymanski said it had not been specified which of the persons appointed would fill in the unexpired term of Major Long and Mr. Munt had been suggested for this by Bruce O'Neill. Mr. Szymanski also said Mrs. Sylvia Smith had expressed an interest in serving on the Recreation Committee and was present at Council meeting. This would mean expanding the committee and Mr. O'Neill had indicated he would like to keep it at nine members. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council, to clarify the previous appointments, appoint Mr. Munt to the unexpired term of Major Long whose term expires in 1978. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Mrs. Sylvia Smith was then interviewed by Council for possible appointment to the Recreation Committee. Mr. O'Neill said that while this was nothing to involve Mrs. Smith personally, his concern was when was this expansion of his committee going to stop. He had five members originally when he came here, it was increased to seven, then to nine. Mr. Szymanski said this had been a problem in the past and Council had cut it back to five. At that time there had been guidelines such as one member from Jay-Cee's, one from Kiwanis, etc. Mr. Dinklage said he appreciated what Mr. O'Neill was saying but he was very reluctant to discourage a very enthusiastic applicant, so he would go along with appointing her. Mr. Flaherty said he agreed with Mr. Dinklage but he also felt perhaps a lid should be put on it. Mrs. Neubert moved that Council appoint Sylvia Smith to the Recreation Board. She further moved that at the time of the next vacancy on the Board the number of members be held at nine; that no appointment would be made and the number remain at nine. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Watson objected to increasing the membership of the committee, saying Council has no power to do this, and it was a meaningless committee as far as what goes on in the committee. There was no need for ten or fifteen people and he recommended putting a limit on it. Mrs. Neubert said a limit of nine had been put on it. Mr. Dinklage said there need not be any real limit to this board whereas in the case of the Zoning Board and Planning Commission membership is circumscribed by State law. The Recreation Committee's tasks are generally quite different. Mrs. Neubert's motion was defeated by a vote of 3 against, 2 in favor. Mrs. Neubert commented that this had been very embarrassing for Council, with the presence of the applicant and the bitterness of some members of the Recreation Committee. Mr. Blais described the high and low points in recreation in South Burlington and stated the lowest points in recreation aspects were from 1965 to 1970 with a 12- member board which resulted in massive resignations. He said when Bruce O'Neill came an attempt was made to include this board in the Charter with the Zoning Board and Planning Commission but it was defeated by a 2 to 3 vote. He cautioned Council that a 10-member Recreation Committee was as ridiculous as a 10-member Council would be ridiculous. Mrs. Neubert commented she felt it was inappropriate for an applicant to come in without going through the regular procedure; she prefers the regular procedure Council takes in making appointments and she felt the procedure this evening was out of place. Chairman Farrar said there had been nothing that anyone should take personally. Mr. O'Neill said, he was an employee of the City and he was not trying to dictate. He had just met Mrs. Smith a couple weeks ago. He was only concerned that it seemed to be a very automatic thing to add on to the committee. At the present time there are no problems and he didn't want to get into problems by going too far. It could be a problem trying to conduct a business meeting and reach some decision. Mr. Watson asked about what if someone else came in next week — would that be another appointment. He had no objection to Mrs. Smith but asked "How big are we going to get?" Chairman Farrar said he wished to extend his request to Mrs. Smith to come around again next year. He hadn't had a chance to think this through and she really did Council a favor in forcing us to go through this exercise — it was a healthy discussion. Mrs. Smith said her intention had been to represent South Burlington at a Recreation Work Shop, as a member of the Recreation Committee. Southern Connector Extension Mrs. Neubert said the committee set up was not a Burlington committee but is a Highway Department Task Force because they want public participation in their action plan. There had been a misunderstanding on the part of Burlington on this. She said it was made plain to Burlington that South Burlington would participate to the full extent which means looking at their proposal impact on South Burlington. She said she had pointed out that South Burlington has to put the connector extension on the Urban Systems Map. She wanted to make sure Council still supports the Southern Connector extension as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan and on the Urban Systems Map and she felt the connection with Shelburne Road should be planned now. Chairman Farrar felt the whole problem must be addressed from a regional point of view; the whole thing must be planned and not half of it. Mrs. Neubert felt Mr. Szymanski should be appointed to the Task Force, that he should be there as the City Engineer for South Burlington and could be more effective as a member than trying to speak from the audience. Mr. Farrar felt the purpose of the Task Force was to get both governmental and citizen input as required by Federal statutes and in the spirit of that legislation it was reasonable to appoint people. He suggested scheduling interviews with any applicants available at the next meeting. Mr. Szymanski said it had been advertised in the paper. Mrs. Neubert said she would rather have Mr. Szymanski appointed now because there would be a Task Force meeting next week. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council appoint Mr. Szymanski to the Southern Connector Task Force. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. It was suggested that other candidates could be interviewed at the next meeting of the Council. Meeting with Kiwanis Club representatives on swimming pool-skating rink complex proposal Mr. James Lamphere distributed copies of a Feasibility Study of South Burlington Recreational Facilities prepared by Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects, and commissioned by the Board of Directors of the Kiwanis Club. Mr. Lamphere reviewed this study, including the purpose of the study, the reasons for the site location, a description of the structure, the estimated project cost of the Pool Facility, the Skating Facility, and the Locker Facilities, a projected schedule for use of the facilities with projected income to be derived, the estimated expenses for personnel and operating expenses. The final page of the study was a Cost Summary showing an annual cost to the City of $204,230.00 with an estimated tax increase of 31¢ over the present tax rate. This cost to the City was based on funding by bond issue. Other sources of funding were discussed such as BOR and State educational funding. A lengthy discussion took place on the various aspects of such a project, such as contacting the School Board for their comments, the question of whether there was room for another facility in the area or could the area be overbuilt, the prospects of the new BOR legislation now in Conference Committee being enacted, the advisability of holding a public meeting to get citizen reaction, whether the project should go to the voters in the Fall, the inclusion of this project in the questionnaire being prepared for circulation, the possibility of locating the facility on the other side of the street with perhaps a land swap with the School District, the question of a facility designed for public use being integrated with the schools. Council members felt they should read and study the Feasibility Study and the project would be a very important thing to be included in the Capital Budget Program. A time table must be set up for the Capital Budget Program. The program will be adopted as a by-law; it will not be put out for vote. The job was given to the Council under the Charter. Each time an item in the program is bonded the citizens would have a chance to vote on it, but it is incumbent on Council to put the whole program together. Mr. Dinklage felt the Feasibility Study was a thorough one and should get much wider public airing and that the group behind this would find there was a tremendous community interest and they might want to hold a public meeting in the near future to discuss the details. Mr. Behney said it had been a difficult thing to hold together because there is an impatient hockey group as well as a swimming group. He would like more exposure for the proposal. Mr. Dinklage said he personally was very much in favor of a facility like this coming to South Burlington but there was the question of integrating it into the spectrum of capital expenses Council is going to be faced with in the near future. School problems and traffic problems and expansion plans which bind us to such areas as the industrial park. There has to be some sort of priority. This could make a 15% increase in the City's operating budget and would take a substantial selling job. He would like to participate in that but he would like to see Council try to put it into the perspective of the other capital costs that must be anticipated in the near future. Mr. Flaherty said he agreed in theory with the Capital Budget but all this is doing is putting it on the back burner; more and more problems are going to come up and he felt that at some time it would be necessary to allow this to go to the voters for them to decide whether they do want it or don't want it. Mr. Dinklage asked about the possibility of the YMCA having a branch facility in South Burlington. Mr. Behney said he had talked with them but it never got past the first discussion. They have problems in maintaining their building in Burlington. Everyone felt the income estimates in the study were too low. Asked about using the facility for tennis, Mr. Lamphere said it could be used for roller skating or it would make two tennis courts. Mrs. Neubert said she would like to have the survey completed, and after this was completed take the proposal to the voters. Mr. Flaherty asked what would be the sense of having the survey anyway if it was going to the voters. Chairman Farrar felt Council should know what the real cost of this would be, and second, that people should know what other requests are going to come down the line for bond issues or tax increases. Council owes it to the community to present as complete a picture as possible. There should be a reasonable estimate on other capital expenditures to be faced and this should not be dragged out for a couple of years. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council acknowledge the receipt of the Feasibility Study from the Kiwanis Club. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. Chairman Farrar suggested this be on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting and also the Capital Budget be discussed in order to move as fast as possible. Information should be brought to the voters so they can make a intelligent decision when voting. Council also has to do the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council should go on record as saying it would like to collect facts and data pertaining to the South Burlington Recreational Facility as proposed by the Kiwanis Club with information to be collected by the end of September so it could be put on the November ballot. Council would also hope that a Capital Budget Program be available at that time. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. It was moved by Mr. Flaherty, seconded by Mr. Dinklage, and voted unanimously that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was declared adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.