Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/17/1976CITY COUNCIL MAY 17, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, May 17, 1976, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman, John Dinklage, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Flaherty OTHERS PRESENT Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator, Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Frank McCaffrey, Albert Audette, James A. Thibault, Jr., Ethel M. Schuele, Debra Weiner The meeting was opened at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Farrar. Additions to the Agenda Personal Property Tax Liens, requested by Mr. Szymanski Discussion of possible meeting after the election of the governing boards of the City, requested by Mr. Dinklage. Disbursement orders It was noted that the disbursement orders were available for signatures. Meet with Telephone Company representatives regarding overhead telephone lines Mr. Szymanski said the Council had decided not to allow the petition for the location of these lines overhead and since then Mr. Thibault had contacted him and asked to meet with the Council. The City Manager had asked the City Attorney for his recommendation; this is contained in Opinion No. 98 dated May 17, 1976, from the City Attorney. Mr. Thibault explained they had petitioned in March to place three poles on Dorset Street without receiving any reply from the Council. The company's position is that it likes to provide service within thirty days when a new service is required. One person who built a house on Dorset Street is being fed on poles from Shelburne, getting service from Shelburne, but because he is living in South Burlington they would like to give him Burlington service which would require three poles. Mr. Thibault said the telephone company doesn't know that it is required by law to go underground, or whether the City's Master Plan is superceded by Public Service Board regulations. The request in February precluded the burying of the line at that time; there is not much choice because of the frost in the ground. The new house being built may be asking for service; there is a possibility of more houses going in; the power company may have to set another pole. Chairman Farrar told Mr. Thibault the City Attorney was making the same point Mr. Thibault was making but the Attorney is only advisory and the Council has to make a decision on how it wishes to proceed, and referred to the four factors listed on page two of the legal opinion. He said the purpose of the particular discussion was that there other possible ways' in the future that the phone company might wish use; it might well be that by incorporating specific language in the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance this could be done, but in this case Council might have no legal grounds for objecting. Mr. Thibault said he didn't think the company would have any quarrel with subdivisions; they are talking about maintaining an existing thing now, where aerial cables do exist now. Mr. Dinklage asked Mr. Thibault for his views on this because an effort may be made to enact suitable legislation on this; what would his response be if the Council said it agreed that it didn't have that legal force at the present time. Mr. Thibault said that in the case of a town passing an ordinance that all utilities be underground, the answer was that someone has to pay for this underground; the town would vote this and the company would have to have a surcharge to its customers. This was done in one town with a surcharge of two percent and it worked out that the company was losing money. The phone company does have a policy on environmental control but there is also the investment of existing plant to consider. Mr. Dinklage asked if that cost had been spread throughout a community or incurred by just a few people getting the service. Mr. Thibault referred to another cost matter, the cable they have through the Willis property for which they have the necessary easements but someone still will have to reimburse the company for that line because they do have a legal right to be there. He called this the economics of engineering. Mr. Szymanski said he was at fault for holding on to this request because there had been instances in the past where if it was just held on to, the company would go ahead and put it underground anyway. Mr. Thibault said if another house comes in they could put in 35 foot poles right now in anticipation of Green Mountain Power also coming in. Mr. Szymanski said this was probably the last place in town where there would be such a situation. Mr. Thibault said they wondered about the Master Plan language, that all utilities would be underground; they felt they would go along with it in subdivisions. Mr. McCaffrey asked who pays for it. Mr. Farrar said the people buying the houses would be paying for it; it would be added to the cost of the houses. Mr. Merrill asked who would pay for this underground on Dorset Street if Council requested this. Would the phone company pay for it or the new owner, or would it be spread over the public. Mr. Dinklage said it was not quite fair; he didn't think Council had the authority at the present time to force this underground; there is no way now to determine who is to pay for it. There should be suitable language in the zoning ordinance or some law by referendum should be established to handle this in the future. Mr. Thibault was asked by Mr. Dinklage if anything would determine the company to go underground, and he replied they are already being served by aerial cable. He said they may not put poles in; they may decide it is cheaper to just run a wire down to that house. He added that sometimes with a larger cable it is better to put it underground for protection. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council grant the telephone company's request to put three poles on Dorset Street but that they be encouraged to underground the lines if at all possible. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. Minutes of May 3, 1976 It was noted that on page 9 in the paragraph concerning appointments to the Regional Planning Commission, line 3, the word member should be replaced with the word Chairman. Same line the word chairman should be replaced with the words South Burlington's representative. It was moved by Mr. Dinklage, seconded by Mrs. Neubert, and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of May 3, 1976, as corrected. Minutes of May 10, 1976, Public Hearing It was moved by Mr. Dinklage, seconded by Mrs. Neubert, and voted unanimously to accept the Minutes of the Public Hearing of May 10, 1976, as presented. Renewal Notes The City Manager presented a list of short term notes to be renewed: Water Dept. note $ 37,320 Garvey property 2,000 Red Rocks development 20,000 " " " 4,000 Welfare note 11,000 CCTA subsidy 6,700 Sidewalks 2,000 Front end loader 17,850 Landfill machine 21,690 All these are at 4% except for the Water Dept. note which is at 4.45%. All are being renewed for six months Mr. Merrill moved that these short term notes be signed as recommended by the City Manager. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Request from Boy's Club to hold Continental Shows on Zayre's lot It was established that this was the same firm putting on the carnival at Zayre's lot for the past three years, the dates would be July 26 to 31st, and there had been no problems with this in past years. Mrs. Neubert moved that Council grant the request from the Boy's Club for July 26th to 31st and that the usual fee for this permit be waived. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Discussion for application for Bikeway funding Mr. Page referred to his memorandum of May 14, 1976 including a map showing some of the suggested routes and also a release from the Federal Department of Transportation. He said the State Treasury for Bikeways has only two dollars in it. The City Manager had worked up some cost estimates for bike facilities, one method to be by widening the road and the other by going crosslots; the map enclosed with the memo shows the routes which seemed to have the highest priority, with the cost estimates for these. The Planning Commission's priorities started from the high school and are indicated in red on the map; other routes shown are lower priorities. Mr. Page said it was necessary now to set some overall cost for the application. The figure of $100,000 which was initially brought up would entail a local share of $20,000. The details on this funding program are sketchy and he has no idea of how much of the local share could come in by other ways; he didn't know if South Burlington could choose to accept just a part of it, but he did feel that since the deadline is the 31st an application should be made. Mrs. Neubert asked about Kennedy Drive and Mr. Page said there wasn't good access from Elsom Parkway and the need is for connecting neighborhoods. Mrs. Neubert said she didn't see any need for this on Beacon Street, and asked why some of the streets that are there can't be used; coming down Elsom Parkway would save $35,000. Mr. Szymanski said this was what the Planning Commission wanted; they don't want a problem of going too close to people's property. Mr. Page said there will be competition for this money and just any old proposal isn't going to be successful; they are going to be looking for some creative thought put into the proposal. If the need is to connect neighborhoods to the high school and these easements can be used, it might be a somewhat different approach. Mrs. Neubert said she didn't see the need for the Beacon Street to Williston Road connection and coming out on Victoria Drive would be very dangerous. Mr. Page said Kennedy Drive was a good point because that is a kind of neighborhood connector. Mr. Dinklage suggested that there is $2,000 in the budget, the City would be hardpressed to find additional matching funds, so why not put in a request for Federal funds for the segment from the high school over to Hinesburg Road and the connector from Woodland Place to Elsom Parkway. He felt the City could match 20% of that total according to Mr. Szymanski's estimates. Mr. Farrar said Mr. Page needed some directives right now as to how he should proceed, and asked if this was the general area considered. Mr. Merrill recommended thinking about crossing on City land; the cost of acquiring an easement was not included in the estimates and there could be quite a problem as to whether or not access to property could be obtained. Mr. Szymanski explained there is an easement from the high school to Hinesburg Road; the City bought that land right up to Hinesburg Road; the rest of these are all on easements. Mr. Merrill suggested going over Beechwood Drive to save money and Mr. Szymanski said there was quite a drop off there, about 25 feet. Mr. Dinklage suggested staging this in the proposal, putting in the budget each year about $3,000 as the City's matching share. Mr. Page said the available money was accumulated over two years and part of it is restricted to a designated area and can't be used anywhere they want. He said he had been thinking of other ways in lieu of cash for the City's matching share. He felt some of the cost of maintaining a street could be ascribed to a bikeway, thus killing two birds with one stone. Mr. Szymanski said it wouldn't hurt to file the application; it can always be cut down. Mr. Farrar suggested putting in an application which would basically detail the whole plan, a 20-year plan, then say we want a grant for the first five or six years of that, and see what happens. He felt the probability of getting much is pretty small but the time and effort involved in applying isn't very great. Mr. Dinklage said this could be identified as unique, not only in connecting neighborhoods, but the use of the bikeways would serve to expand the community educational concept. There are a lot more words which could be used. Mr. Merrill said he would question sections 2 and 3 in terms of population; also that there is nothing in the south end of town, nothing in Laurel Hill. Mr. Farrar suggested putting the Oak Hill connector on the map even though these are not City streets, so it will show a connector with Cedar Glen. Mrs. Schuele suggested showing what had been done on Kennedy Drive; also the plan at the County level that was supposed to make a route past Patrick Gym and all the way downtown. She thought UVM was interested in that. Mr. McCaffrey asked who would be using the bike trails. Chairman Farrar said this was basically to be used by the people in the community. Mr. Merrill said it looked more like high school students, very definitely. Mr. Farrar said 2 and 3 would be used by other people also. Mrs. Schuele said it would give weight to the application if it was indicated that other people would use it too. Mr. Merrill questioned the cost of some of the sections. Mr. Dinklage said he would like to suggest reordering the priorities; that #1 be from the high school to Hinesburg Road and his next priority would be the connector off Oak Hill Drive to tie in the whole Laurel Hill area, in order to spread this on both sides of the town. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council ask Mr. Page to continue with the application, trying to work in the suggestions discussed at this meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and carried by a vote of 3 to 1, Mr. Merrill voting against the motion. Winooski Valley Park District's land acquisition request Mr. Dinklage said he would like to go on record as supporting the City's portion of the purchase price of the Sullivan farm. He then moved that in principle South Burlington supports the purchase of the Sullivan Farm property by the Winooski Valley Park District. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mrs. Neubert asked what would happen if one or two communities dropped out; it would still have to be funded. Mr. Farrar said the motion wouldn't commit the City one way or the other. Mr. Dinklage said he was strongly in favor of public acquisition of that land and he didn't know what would be a practical solution to Mrs. Neubert's question. Mrs. Neubert said she was afraid that was what was going to happen and the whole thing could collapse. Chairman Farrar said it could happen. His personal feeling was that on the way it was presented to the Council he would have supported it; if South Burlington was buying a piece of land wholly in Colchester, he wouldn't support it. Mr. Dinklage said he would want to see it put on the ballot, if there were some other communities willing to share the cost, to see if the people were willing. Mr. Merrill said he was opposing this because he really had some questions about how this could be handled. He was very much in favor of acquiring open land, but he didn't feel the cultivated land above the farm was essential. It would be leased back to the farmer; he is involved in a law suit over the upper land. Mr. Merrill questioned whether it was necessary to obtain the whole parcel. The other thing was that the first appraiser gave him too low an appraisal and then another appraiser gave a different figure. The owner of the land feels he can get more money from the Park District than he would have gotten from the developer. Mr. Merrill said he didn't like this way of doing business and we shouldn't be paying more than the developer for the land. Colchester is having problems with it. He wondered if there would be a problem of other communities dropping out. Mrs. Neubert said this motion doesn't affect anything really, but we are beginning to think about our support if the other communities drop out. Mr. Merrill felt the situation could be presented more clearly. The motion was passed by a vote of 3 to 1, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Merrill said the use of the land should be publicized; there is no money being planned for parking or rights of way on the Sullivan land. They should do a little better job of selling. Adopt resolution designating Mr. Flaherty as authorized representative for Bartlett's Bay sewer project and applications. The City Manager explained this procedure is necessary every time. Mrs. Neubert moved that the Council adopt a resolution to designate Mr. Michael Flaherty as authorized representative for Bartlett's Bay sewer project and applications. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Consider adoption of ordinances designating stops at three intersections The City Manager said he had received calls requesting stop signs at White Street at Airport Drive; Poor Farm Road at Mountain View Boulevard; and Hadley Road at Orchard Road. He had asked the Chief of Police to investigate and he had approved all three and requested that the City go ahead and put in the stop signs at these intersections. The recommendation for White Street and Airport Drive intersection was made particularly because it has been the scene of several accidents and traffic problems. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council instruct the City Manager to prepare appropriate resolutions designating stop signs as outlined in the recommendation. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Adopt a resolution of commendation Chairman Farrar read aloud the commendation expressing appreciation to Duane Merrill for his services on the City Council; this resolution to be signed by the Council members. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council approve and sign this resolution of commendation to be presented to Mr. Merrill. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted for approval. Mr. Merrill also received a desk name-plate from the Council. Mr. Dinklage asked that the City Manager draft a resolution commending the Acting Fire Chief for the service he has rendered the City, saying he considered this an outstanding job. Consider a tax lien on personal property The Chairman said this was a notice of personal property tax lien on the Rest Haven Motel. Mr. Merrill moved that Council sign this tax lien on the Rest Haven Motel. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Possible meeting with the governing boards of the City Mr. Dinklage said he had talked with the City Attorney about an opportunity to discuss the legal guidelines and policies under which the various independent boards of the City operate and Mr. Spokes thought this was a good idea and suggested it be discussed in more detail at the reorganizational meeting which the City Manager had scheduled for Friday. Mr. Dinklage said he had in mind a public meeting at which time the Planning Commission, the Zoning Board, and the Council would meet with the City Attorney to discuss the laws under which they operate and the planning and zoning concepts — a separate meeting — just a general working "bull session" on some of the problems. Mrs. Neubert asked what the goal would be. Mr. Dinklage replied education — to educate each other and to ask the City Attorney to educate each of the bodies — and he thought each of the bodies would benefit from the mutual aspect of what our imperatives are and what our legal prerogatives are. It is possible there will be some new faces on these boards so he felt it should wait until after the necessary appointments have been made. Chairman Farrar said he thought personally this was a good concept. Mrs. Neubert said she didn't know what it was going to accomplish. Mr. Dinklage then asked about opening Red Rocks Park. He had seen eleven cars parked along the roadway on Sunday when he had visited the park, and said it is a beautiful time of year down there and should be used more. Mr. Szymanski said getting someone to open and close it is the biggest problem; he had been talking with a resident of the area about doing this and he would see what can be done. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council adjourn the regular session and meet in Executive Session to discuss land acquisition, with the understanding that no action will be taken or any further business conducted. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously. The regular session was declared adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.