Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/04/1977SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL APRIL 4, 1977 Correction to minutes of April 4, 1977 made at meeting of April 11, 1977. The following should be added to the first motion on page 8: The equivalent value is determined by the assessed valuation divided by the equalization rate for the previous year. The City Council held its regular meeting on Monday, April 4, 1977 in the City Hall Conference Room, Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Paul A. Farrar, Michael D. Flaherty, Catherine M. Neubert, John B. Dinklage and Frank H. Armstrong. OTHERS PRESENT City Manager William J. Szymanski, David Smith, Gregory Mitchell, David Heim, Lynn St. Amour, Mr. and Mrs. L. K. LaBelle, H. Clinton Richard, Ira Tate, and Melinda Tate. MEETING WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT UNION Chairman Farrar called this part of the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Speaking to the Police Department Union Representatives, Mr. Farrar said that the Council had no serious objections to including the sergeants in the union. Also that the City Council will approve the extra compensation time for the holiday pay, but that it could not be retroactive to this fiscal year. He further stated that the Council would recommend to the City Manager that any surplus in this year's Police Department budget be utilized for police department purposes, including the putting of more police personnel on patrol. Mr. Smith asked what guarantee the Union would have that this would be done and Chairman Farrar answered that it would be an order to the City Manager. After a short conference on the above, the P. D. Union representatives said they would have to discuss this proposal with the rest of the members. Chairman Farrar asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Smith remarked that the landfill area is eating into the firing range and that an alternate site will have to be perused. Chairman Farrar said this will be worked on by the Chief of Police, the City Manager and the Superintendent of Streets. It was agreed to schedule the next meeting of the Police Department Union representatives and the Council on Monday, April 11, 1977, at 8:00 P.M. in the City Hall Conference Room. The meeting continued with a public hearing on Disposition of Dogs. Chairman Farrar called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., saying that at the meeting of March 28, 1977, the Council reviewed Police Report No. C-13744 prepared by investigating officer Gregory E. Mitchell and concluded that the killing of several sheep owned by Mr. Eugene G. Thieret of 150 Swift Street did in fact occur, and that the dogs captured by the police at the site were properly identified as doing the killing and that the dogs were the properly of Mr. Richard Liberty of 206 Pearl Street, Burlington Vermont. Officer Mitchell was present at this meeting. Chairman Farrar asked the representative of the owner, Ms. Lynn St. Amour, if there was any doubt in her mind as to whether the two dogs belonging to Mr. Liberty were responsible for the sheep killings. She answered no. Chairman Farrar asked Mr. Thieret, owner of the sheep, as to what action he expects to take to reclaim his loss, explaining that Vermont Statutes provide two alternatives, the owner may claim his loss directly from the dog owner or seek compensation from the City. Mr. Thieret said he would persue his claim directly from the owner of the dogs, Mr. Liberty. Ms. St. Armour said the dogs are gentle and have not been a problem in the past. Ira Tate of Goldset Kennels, the area dog catcher, confirmed that, and said that he had picked up the dogs one previous time. Mr. Thieret said the dogs should be impounded until such time as he made his settlement with Mr. Liberty. Councilman Dinklage made a motion that the dogs remain impounded until such time that they leave Vermont for the State of Florida, that Mr. Thieret either be paid an amount satisfactory to him or the City Council determines that an adequate amount of compensation was offered and also that the poundkeeper be paid his impounding fees. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. Mrs. Neubert then asked if there was any way dogs can be broken of this habit. Mr. Tate said that it is very difficult. 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting All Council members present. OTHERS PRESENT John Rock, City Manager Szymanski, Richard Ward, Stephen Page, Patricia Burgmeier, William Wessel, and Richard Leopold. INTERVIEWS FOR VACANCY ON PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Leopold was interviewed first. He said he was mainly interested in what the appointment entails. Chairman Farrar explained in detail what a Planning Commissioner does, and asked Mr. Leopold if he had read the South Burlington Master Plan. Mr. Leopold said no, and went on to say that he felt one of the city's top problems was the traffic. Councilman Dinklage asked if we should control growth in South Burlington and Mr. Leopold answered that growth control is necessary. Councilman Flaherty asked about acquisition of recreation areas and open spaces from developers. Mr. Leopold said he supported such a policy. Councilman Armstrong asked if a developer builds tennis courts should the developer be asked to contribute and Mr. Leopold said he did not think so. After further discussion Mr. Leopold said he would be willing to serve on another board. Mr. John Rock was interviewed next. He said he had lived in this area for some time, is interested in the community and wanted to get involved in the city's future. Chairman Farrar asked if he had read the Master Plan and he said no. Mr. Rock said one of his concerns is tax base growth. Councilman Dinklage asked what Mr. Rock thought of the responsibility each community has to the other. Mr. Rock said some cooperation is necessary and this should be accomplished through the Regional Planning Commission. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Rock as to how he would control growth in the community. Mr. Rock stated this is a difficult question and should be handled with careful consideration by the Planning Commission. Mr. Armstrong asked about conflicts between the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Plan and the City Master Plan, and what would Mr. Rock's preference be. Mr. Rock said he felt it was a problem that would have to be resolved mutually, but he would favor the local City Master Plan. Additions to the Agenda There were no requests for additions. Reading of the Minutes of the special meetings of March 17th and 28th and regular meeting of March 21, 1977 It was moved by Mr. Dinklage, seconded by Mr. Flaherty, and voted unanimously to accept the Minutes of the special meetings of March 17, 1977, and March 28, 1977, and the regular meeting of March 21, 1977, as presented. Sign disbursement orders The Chairman noted the disbursement orders were ready for signatures. Consider setting of fee for recreational land or facilities Mr. Page, Planning Assistant, explained the plan being considered is to resolve the inadequacy of the subdivisions; the issue of recreational land has always been a source of controversy. In the more recent subdivisions approved there is still a burden that is going to be absorbed by the taxpayers. The developers provide their own private facilities but the City doesn't get the mileage out of those facilities that it should; in other words there is a spillover of recreational demands which is not resolved by private concept facilities. If the private tennis courts are filled up, there is a spillover onto the public courts, but it doesn't work the other way. This plan is a comprehensive answer to recreation planning and problems to specifically focus on the neighborhood park policy. It is not going to address the need for parks like Red Rocks or distinctly City-wide parks, but is talking about active recreation like tennis courts or basketball courts, with these types of parks located within a certain distance of residential subdivisions. He said he felt this plan was a fairly unusual approach. Chairman Farrar asked if the City Attorney had said this was legal. Mr. Page said Mr. Spokes had looked at it. Mr. Page continued, saying this was an unusual approach, unique in Vermont, taking a conservative approach, and he would prefer that this be adopted and put into effect and accepted by all parties concerned rather than to try to get something much more ambitious which would be less acceptable to developers. There could be a lot of harm done to the planning process if it were to be over ambitious and then be over-turned. Chairman Farrar felt this was dealing with two things. First, a policy which says how you are going to proceed, and he had some doubts as to where it would fit into the Planning and Development Act as he reads it. Second, the suggested procedure is setting a fee. That is clearly something that can be set up, an equivalency ratio, depending on how Council wishes to approach this. Mr. Flaherty asked if this was a recommendation from the Planning Commission sent to the Council. Chairman Wessel of the Planning Commission said they had recommended a fee schedule and sincerely hoped Council would adopt it. The Planning Commission has adopted the policy but only Council can set a fee. Chairman Farrar said what is really being discussed this evening is the fee schedule. The rest is for Council's information. It turns out to be about 25% of the estimated fair market value of the land. He asked why anybody would give the City land under these circumstances. Mr. Flaherty asked if the Commission would have the option of requesting either one, or the option of getting either one. Mr. Wessel said that had been discussed. Mr. Page felt the Planning Commission should decide. Chairman Farrar said he understood the idea was to treat all developers equally and unless they were willing to settle for money from everybody. If procedures are set up it is necessary to see that there is a somewhat reasonable equivalency so when the Commission does say either land or money, the balance will be somewhat even. Mr. Flaherty felt the developer could have land which would be much easier to give than money. Mr. Wessel said it would depend on what kind of recreation space was wanted, city-wide parks or very small mini parks. Right now there is pressure for another city-wide park. That is the current need but for the long haul they will need both. By giving the Planning Commission the flexibility to choose the small neighborhood park or a contribution to use toward a large park, they can end up with larger parks by using the fee schedule. He would like to see it working for both simultaneously. Chairman Farrar asked Mr. Wessel if he could explain the logic the Planning Commission used to arrive at a fee schedule like this which is so tilted in a way to discourage the developer from giving land instead of money. Mr. Page said it would be the Planning Commission's decision whether to accept land or a fee. Mr. Farrar said the point was brought out that the Commission wanted to be in a conservative position but he thought they would be in a fairly exposed position to ask one developer for land and another for a fee. He asked why they couldn't set it at $10,000 an acre and give the Commission the option of which way it wished to go. Mr. Page said Mr. Spokes felt there were different ways of evaluating and he felt it was better to avoid getting into an assessment situation. Chairman Farrar said what was to be discussed now was how to set the balance between land and money. The Commission proposed one way of setting it and he had some difficulty in how that balance was set. First, they say they want to treat everybody reasonably, and second, they want the ability to say whether they want land or money, and then set the ratio in a way that it is weighted toward the person who is being asked for money. It would be very unfair to the person who is asked for land. Mr. Armstrong referred to Meadowood at Spear where the developer was asked to set aside a lot for recreation, and asked if that would qualify under this criteria. Mr. Page said No, because it is a private park. Mr. Armstrong asked, if another developer should appear, how would the line be drawn between public and private. Mr. Dinklage said the line was clear — the line of trespass. Mr. Wessel said most developers give a swimming pool and two tennis courts for 200 apartments. Chairman Farrar said he supported making the developer contribute in a way but what bothered him personally was that this plan is so heavily weighted to favor the person contributing money instead of land. There is no way to ever get a developer to contribute land under those circumstances. Mr. Page said the past practice has been to acquire neighborhood parks of around 5 to 7 acres in size with certain facilities on them. All the developers currently in front of the Commission are not large enough to give neighborhood park sites so that is another reason for having an alternative fee. Mr. Farrar said he did not argue the fee — it is only the value of the fee. Mr. Page explained it is heavily weighted because of the fact that we use State and Federal money. The cost of recreation grants is going to be passed on to other taxpayers, to people who either rent or own units. It is an unfair burden on them to pay more for park land. Taxpayers have paid in the past 15% of the fair market value and it would be an unfair burden on those people to assume 100% of the cost of the land. Mr. Flaherty thought a fee might be more than a developer would be giving in land because recreation land is included in his gross. It may be weighted, but not that much. It just means putting the houses a little closer together. Mr. Dinklage felt that in giving up a building lot he would also be giving up the profit he might get from building a house on the lot. Mrs. Neubert asked what the legal situation was. Mr. Wessel said the Enabling Legislation says a fee can be required. Mr. Farrar said it seems to say that in each development you can require that much, and asked if the Commission could set down a specific schedule saying each developer will do exactly this. He asked if in any specific contribution of either funds or land is that one of the things that weigh in favor of approving the development, but the mere fact that he did not contribute either land or money to the City is not sufficient reason to turn it down if the rest of the development is worthy of approval. He felt the equivalency was not necessarily the actual value of that acre of land on the open market because it doesn't necessarily cost the developer that much to donate it. Mr. Flaherty felt it might have no value at all. Mr. Wessel felt if all developers are treated pretty much the same way, it therefore becomes a stronger policy and more likely to be enforced. Mr. Farrar said he didn't have any objection to it if it would pass the legal test. He suggested changing the wording to say a contribution of at least this much would be considered. If the contribution was greater, more weight would be given to it. Mr. Dinklage said he viewed this as one of the many tools of the Planning Commission to be used at their discretion to assure the best possible development of subdivisions, and having many tools doesn't mean they should or could employ all of them at all times. Mr. Farrar referred to one developer with streets, sidewalks, lights, installed but who doesn't provide recreation land; another one does not install sidewalks or lights or roads and it might be appropriate to require an even larger appropriation for recreation from him. Mr. Armstrong felt the fees are very low. Mr. Farrar felt the amount being asked is small compared to the enabling legislation and it might be revised upward considerably. Mr. Dinklage referred to Ridgewood Estates development which built a sidewalk along Dorset Street and asked the City Manager what that dollar value might be. Mr. Szymanski said it was just a gravelled walkway. Mr. Dinklage felt it really didn't benefit the developer, it benefited the City, and he was trying to put it into some balance against the fee which was suggested might be assessed on them. Mr. Page said people have agreed to other things which have been asked of them and he would fall back on his statement that this is a comprehensive solution. There was a timing problem with one draft being approved by the Planning Commission, then reviewed by Mr. Spokes, then back to the Planning Commission which made certain changes which did not get finalization. The essential elements are there but the one point made about considering this as a tool is well taken. The reason the plan was not finalized was because Mr. Spokes was on vacation out of town. Mr. Szymanski asked Mr. Page why the vacancy ratio was used, and Mr. Page said he took the numbers out of the Nadworny report. Mr. Dinklage asked about including this as a formal part of the subdivision regulations since it occurs at subdivision review, or was the Commission planning to continue this as just a resolution of the Planning Commission, just a By-law. Mr. Page said the City Attorney didn't make any recommendation. Mr. Dinklage felt it was not mentioned that the cost of acquiring land is just the beginning and the City has quite a few parcels which have been acquired and not developed because the City has no money for development. He said he wouldn't feel badly about asking a developer to pay the equivalent value of land if it meant being able to recover some of that from BOR funds because the City could certainly use that money toward the development of that land. Mrs. Neubert said she was not opposed to trying to get money but she really wondered about what kind of recreation planning the City has. The City has these vacant pieces of property and she felt there had been no proposals to do anything about them. No planning has taken place for this vacant land. Mr. Dinklage said proposals made by the Recreation Department for improvements to the parks but were turned down because the City didn't have the money. Mrs. Neubert asked where was the outline or plan for the community as it exists, are they waiting for the recreational survey to come back to know the needs of the people. Mr. Page said their plan was based on "status quo." Mrs. Neubert said the City had gone along with the policy of acquiring land, taking it off the tax rolls, but not actually developing it. It is true they haven't had the money. What they have had is small proposals for fixing up, or eliminating problems, and she felt it was necessary to justify this kind of development and she would like to see something come forward for that. She didn't think the Master Plan lays out exactly what is to be done. She was not opposed to acquisition but she would like a plan to start moving so this could be justified. The Chairman said Council was being asked to either approve, modify, or turn down an equivalency schedule for the land and money. Mr. Dinklage asked how much of the cost is to be transferred to a new home owner. It would work out to a little over $100 per unit. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council accept the recommended recreation land's equivalent fee policy developed by the Planning Commission and that Council set the fee to be collected at the full equivalent value of the recreation land in question. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mrs. Neubert said she would like to have the City Attorney's recommendation. Mr. Farrar said Mr. Spokes recommendation would be on the policy. Council should certainly send it to him before approving it but there is another way to approach it, to take the assessed valuation of the land and divide by the equivalency ratio of the previous year. Just take the average for that particular site. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Wessel why they picked 25% rather than 100%. Mr. Page said it was because the local share is usually about 20%. Mr. Flaherty felt that every time a little is being added, the price of the house goes up, and the City takes a certain responsibility by adding these things. He felt a developer could give land cheaper than he could give cash because he would have already paid for his land. South Burlington is pricing houses out of the market. Mr. Farrar felt the point Mr. Flaherty made was a good one. 25% isn't too low. Mr. Armstrong said he though 25% was too low but he was not sure he wanted to go to 100%. Mr. Dinklage felt in many areas there are no guidelines but he thought it was equitable to treat land and equivalent value in a way that the Commission can't be put under pressure by the developer to consider one alternative as opposed to the other. Mr. Farrar felt in principle it would cost the developer either way. The motion was voted unanimously. Consider request of Burlington Boys Club to hold an annual carnival rides in rear of Grandway from May 24th to 28th, 1977. Mr. Szymanski said this is an annual event and there has never been any problem. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council approve the request of Burlington Boys Club to hold its annual carnival in the rear of Grandway from May 24th to 28th, 1977. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Review status of Subdivision Regulations Mr. Szymanski said a date should be set for the public hearing which has to be held by May 16th. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council set a date for the public hearing on the Subdivision Regulations for April 28, 1977, at 8:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Review Planning Commission and Zoning Board Agendas There were no comments on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Ward reviewed the items on the Zoning Board agenda. The City is already a party to the appeal of Limoge Brothers which had to be rewarned. Chairman Farrar suggested putting a limit on the duration of such variances as that requested by Wickes Lumber in order to give the Board an automatic review procedure. Mr. Ward explained in most cases the Board does that, sometimes it is a year to year review. There was no action taken on any of the other items, with Mr. Dinklage saying he would prefer to leave it to the Board and the neighbors, and Mr. Farrar commenting he would hope the Board would exercise caution. Dog damage complaint — McIntosh Avenue The City Manager explained he had received a call from Mrs. Cook and sent the police down immediately to investigate. The officer found dog tracks and contacted the neighbors but nobody had seen the dogs. Mrs. Cook suspected two dogs, one of which couldn't be found and no one was home there, and the other party denied their dog was out that morning. So the dogs were not identified but there were three rabbits killed. Mr. Szymanski said he told Mrs. Cook he would bring this to the attention of the Council to negotiate a settlement for these three rabbits. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council accept the responsibility that the City is liable for reasonable damages for the three rabbits which were killed, and the City Manager be authorized to negotiate a settlement with the owner. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Armstrong asked if there was any indication of the value of the rabbits, if they had any especial value. Mr. Szymanski said he hadn't heard but they could be any price from $8 to $16 apiece. The motion was voted unanimously. Discussion on City growth policy Chairman Farrar said the Council will have to assist the Planning Commission, they are both going to have to work together to come up with some procedures on how to handle the situation which is: We have proposed developments over the period of from now through July '81 for construction which will certainly exceed the planned growth as outlined in the Master Plan. The formula in the Plan is subject to variables between now and '81 and his best estimate is it will exceed it by 600 to 750 units. Not only exceed this in the planning document but also exceed the sewer capacity of the Williston Road sewer system—if the current estimates for capacity and for construction of that plant for the demand in the future are correct. Mr. Farrar said at Council's request he did attend the Environmental Board hearing on the property which was up for approval, 76 units to be located off Quarry Hill property, and he gave them an outline of the proposal. He had requested that their permit be so stated that it will require them to build the units within the next couple of years or the permit will have to be negotiated. The City doesn't want to constrain some other builder because some other builder said they were going to built but dont. This will keep the uncertainty down to a minimum. Mr. Farrar said he thought it would be necessary to put a firm policy in place as to the way Council would wish to work with the Planning Commission in dealing with this situation and he would suggest a multi-faceted approach, so that they set aside for the presently approved developments a certain allocation of building permits as would be indicated by the phasing of the plan and notify each of these developers of that plan and the Zoning Administrator he instructed to issue building permits up to that number. In cases where a developer does not request the permits, they would go back into the general pool and be issued to the next person coming along. That the City Manager also be asked to go over again the sewer projects to make sure those are correct to the best of our ability, and that we consider in our sewer projects not only the proposed residential development but also that proposed commercial development which has not been proposed but which would be reasonably expected to take place, so it can be seen what kind of problem is being dealt with. Mr. Farrar said he thought it was an unreasonable burden on a developer to say that he can't build because we want to save two or three hundred thousand gallons of sewer capacity for some unknown. If the growth rate is getting in excess we might want to save some for '80 or '81. Mr. Farrar suggested he could meet with the Chairman of the Planning Commission, the City Attorney, the City Engineer, and the Zoning Administrator, trying to get the City Attorney's guidance and bring back more specific suggestions for approval. The other thing Mr. Farrar suggested was to try to issue a separate permit for each unit, not necessarily each dwelling unit but each physical structure, three separate permits for three separate buildings. He didn't want to get caught in a situation of issuing a blanket permit. Each of these people will have a phasing plan and permits will be made available to match that phasing plan. A developer will be at the end of the line again if he comes back. You do have to allow a reasonable amount of phasing to make it economically feasible. The problem being anticipated will not arrive until two or three years from today. Mr. Dinklage said Council had seen the preliminary thinking of the Planning Commission's growth subcommittee and it contained all the items just expressed except for the integration of this into a controlled rate of phasing. Mr. Farrar said sewers are just the obvious problem. The same problem will come in schools and the City's ability to provide all the services necessary to support the growth. The way the Master Plan is set up any developer or builder has the right to appeal to the Council or Planning Commission and say even though the City has reached this point, what he is doing will have no impact on the community. Council has to recognize this and all we are doing is putting machinery in place. Mr. Dinklage suggested notifying developers what rate of development would likely be acceptable to the City. Mr. Farrar felt it was necessary to proceed reasonably rapidly on this. If we don't take some action we will have led some developer into expending funds which they have no way of recovering quickly and they should understand the situation as soon as possible. If all the proposals we have approved or are now in various stages should be built it would be an unacceptable situation. Mr. Wessel said they will warn the developers that the growth policy and the recreation plan may be involved. He asked if Council would think it appropriate to reserve some of that capacity for two or three years. Mr. Dinklage said he thought that language was included in the draft which was sent to the members. There was some statement to the effect that which building permits would be granted would depend on the rate of commercial and residential growth, implying a desire to possibly reserve some sewer capacity for commercial growth to maintain a balanced growth. Mr. Farrar felt they should reserve at least enough capacity for residential growth so we can, with the present planned developments where they are, at least allow the residential development. That should be set aside for residential even if it means some constraints for commercial growth. Residential growth should have the priority up to the limitations set in our Master Plan and above that a balance should be maintained. Mr. Wessel asked if it should be on a first come, first served basis, how should it be allocated. Mr. Farrar said to take the presently approved developments which were approved as of today and allocate per year so many building permits to each of those developments based on phasing plans prepared by them or by us, then inform each of these developers this is what we propose to do and this is the allocation we propose to make between now and '81. In most case, for they will be completed before '81. They can modify this if they choose. Then each of the subsequent ones as they are approved they would negotiate a phasing plan. If they don't use the time it goes back into the pool. Mr. Dinklage asked if we have approved a development plan, couldn't we simply constrain them to not exceed the development plan. If they don't even meet that development plan, then the excess goes back into the pool on a first come, first served basis. Mr. Armstrong said he still felt that an individual who owns a piece of land should be allowed to build on it. Mr. Farrar said a certain amount is set aside for such people. Mr. Flaherty said he anticipated these needs would be taken care of. Mr. Armstrong felt some developers are building in damper ground and are using much greater proportion of capacity than others. Mr. Szymanski said they watch the new ones to make sure there are no sump pumps. Mr. Armstrong asked if they could be forced to connect to the storm drains. Mr. Szymanski said Yes, if we had the storm drains, but there are no storm drains to run it into. He said when a developer makes decisions on what his phasing is to be, then the City can find out how much there is left to go to the others. Mr. Page said he felt caught between one unit in an elderly housing project and one unit in a low income family project and wondered if there was any mechanism to rate them less in their sewage capacity. Mr. Farrar said all this does is put the thing in place so they can start looking and put the burden on the applicant to explain in detail so we can make an intelligent decision. Probably they will be able to allow some in excess of what was planned but he would hope the Planning Commission could work out some phase plans. Mr. Page asked what would happen if the Forest Park project only completed half of the units. Mr. Farrar said if it was economically not viable for one of these people to stretch out the phasing he might find himself in an economically untenable situation. We don't want to regulate any developer into bankruptcy. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council empower the Chairman to meet with the Chairman of the Planning Commission, the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the Zoning Administrator for the purpose of establishing guidelines in the interest of promoting an orderly growth in the City of South Burlington without straining City services. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Consider adoption of a resolution on side road maintenance as prepared by Frank Armstrong Mr. Armstrong explained his resolution, copies of which had been submitted to Council members. Mrs. Neubert said she does have a problem with snow removal; people have no place to put the snow. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council waive the reading of the resolution. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mr. Armstrong the City already has about 3,000 shade trees and has about 500 to be planted this week. Oak trees can't be planted under power lines, it takes a little bit of judgment at the time of planting. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council accept and adopt the resolution prepared by Frank Armstrong. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Authorize Mr. Flaherty to sign contract for the construction of the Phase V sewer system Mr. Dinklage moved that Council authorize Michael Flaherty to sign the contract for the construction of the Phase V sewer system. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Discuss effect on '77-'78 budget of anticipated State Aid to schools Mr. Farrar explained the legislature's modification of the proposed budget by changing the formula for distribution of school aid. They have never funded what they should. The change this time would be $35,000 negatively. The School Board has authority to increase the tax rate by 2¢ and this would raise approximately $14,000. It might be reasonable that Council add at the hearing Thursday evening a proposed item of $15,000 of next year's Revenue Sharing money into the bond vote for Revenue Sharing funds for use by the School Board. This would provide the school system with $15,000 this year. Next year the City's tax rate could be about 2¢ higher than it would be otherwise and this year the school tax could increase by 2¢. If the senate rejects the bill, then the school system would end up with $35,000 surplus and could apply it to their bonded indebtedness. Mr. Farrar said he was suggesting that Council consider being prepared to take some action at the hearing. It was not necessary for Council to take any action tonight, but the consensus was that this was a reasonable way to proceed. Meet as Liquor Control Board to consider applications for liquor licenses Mr. Flaherty moved that Council adjourn its regular session and reconvene as the Liquor Control Board. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. The City Manager presented two applications for second class licenses for the Airport Grocery and for the Cork and Board and a first class license application for the Rotisserie and Pub at 1355 Williston Road. He said Chief Carter had reviewed the first class application and had no objection. Mr. Dinklage moved that upon the recommendation of the Chief of Police Council approves the license applications before it as submitted by the City Manager. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mr. Flahert moved that Council adjourn as the Liquor Control Board and reconvene in Executive Session to consider appointments to the Planning Commission and the Corrections Center Liaison Committee, and that Council then reconvene in regular session for the purpose of making any appointments. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Council went into Executive Session at 10:00 p.m. At 10:20 p.m. Council adjourned the Executive Session and reconvened in regular session. Mrs. Neubert moved that Council appoint Jan Rozendaal to the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council appoint John McGuire and Michael R. Chrmielewski to the Corrections Center Liaison Committee. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. The regular session was declared adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.