Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/07/1977CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES CITY COUNCIL 2/7/77 At the February 22nd meeting city Council it was voted unanimously voted to accept the Minutes of February 7, 1977, subject to the following corrections: On page 8, line 21, the words or 2% should be deleted. On page 10, beginning with line 5, the wording should be: Mr. Poger felt that Burlington has the lowest unemployment rate in the State. The Chairman felt there was enough unemployment to fill Digital up four times from the Burlington area, although Burlington has the lowest unemployment rate. On page 11, in the paragraph regarding the notes for Highway and Water Department trucks, the interest rate should be 3.35% rather than 3.5% in both line 3 and line 6 of this paragraph. CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 7, 1977 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, February 7, 1977, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul A. Farrar, Chairman; Frank H. Armstrong, John B. Dinklage, Michael D. Flaherty MEMBERS ABSENT Catherine Neubert OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Tim Wood, Wm. J. Schuele, Conrad Decker, Stephen Page, Albert Audette, Ted Maglaris, Wayne Wilson, Jim Harvell, George Marchacos, Peter Yankowski, Sidney Poger, Rita Lavallee, Gregory Mitchell, Wendell North, David Smith, Peter Gadue, Pat Burgmeir The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:00 p.m. Additions to the Agenda The Chairman asked for a discussion of anything Council might wish to put on the ballot regarding City Charter changes. Minutes of January 17, 1977 On page 2, line 4, it was, the last part of the sentence should read 2% or the average growth. On page 4, line 16, the same correction should be made: 2% of the average county growth rate. It was moved by Mr. Flaherty, seconded by Mr. Armstrong, and voted unanimously to accept the Minutes of January 17, 1977, as corrected. Sign disbursement orders Disbursement orders were presented by the City Manager for signatures of Council members. Public Hearing: Request for a zoning permit by Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, 1184 Shelburne Road, formerly the A & W Drive-In. Chairman Farrar explained the reason for this public hearing was because a possible change to the zoning ordinance is now in the warning status and this would affect this particular proposal, so Council is required by State law to hold a public hearing prior to making a decision as to whether or not Council wishes to grant this. Mr. Conrad Decker of Friendly Ice Cream Corporation distributed copies of a site plan. He stated their proposal was to construct a family restaurant on the former A & W site at the corner of Shelburne Road and McIntosh Road. The building would be placed on the north side of the property, with 30 foot setback for the sideyard and 75 feet for the front yard. He explained they had first requested a 50 foot setback which was denied so they subsequently went to the 75 foot setback. There will be egress only from Shelburne Road with ingress and egress both at McIntosh. Parking capacity is to be about 71 cars, approximately what exists there. A free standing sign is to be located 5 feet in from the property line, to be of 50 square feet. He was advised by the Council that he was over on his sign size, that the present limit is 40 feet. Mr. Decker said the seating capacity would be for 95 persons, and the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 12 midnight, with a full breakfast, lunch, and dinner menu. They have 580 restaurants already operating in 17 states in the northeast and the midwest. They are generally known as ice cream and sandwiches type of operation but this one is to be different, a family dining concept. They have 8 of these now with 12 more in construction. The building concept is colonial with good landscaping. The building is of white antique brick, and will have a little difference in elevation from the one in the photograph he had presented, but the general architecture is exactly the same. Mr. Decker said the South Burlington Planning Commission approved this on January 25th subject to five conditions. He said they have complied with the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding ingress and egress and will have signs at the curb cut saying "Do Not Exit" so traffic will have a circular motion. The character of the neighborhood as well as the commercial strip along there will not be adversely affected by this use. It will actually upgrade it. The A & W is a fast food operation and is non-conforming whereas this will be conforming, so basically this should upgrade the character of the neighborhood and should look much better. Mr. Dinklage said he would agree that it would be upgraded considerably. Mr. Flaherty asked if they would still have window service for ice cream, so there would still be a fast food turnover. Mr. Decker explained the interior has a high volume area for ice cream service but they do not get the ice cream sales they had expected they would be getting in this type of operation. The Chairman told Mr. Decker his corporation had already agreed it would comply with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mr. Decker said Yes, that was right. Mr. Dinklage asked about the discussion concerning the screening of the adjacent property, and asked how that was resolved. Mr. Decker said he understood the adjacent owner was asked whether or not he would like it. Mr. Dinklage asked if there were no stipulations on this. Mr. Page said No. Mr. Decker said they do have a fence on the east property line and will screen the adjoining residential use. The Chairman felt the traffic signs needed additional indicators as to how to get out for people coming in from Shelburne Road for the first time, either additional arrows or something to make sure they understand how they are to go out, and not drive out on to Shelburne Road. He said he would recommend directional signs. Mr. Armstrong asked about a sidewalk there now and was told there is one. He then asked if there was any recommendation for continuing this on to McIntosh Avenue. He said the sidewalk on Shelburne Road was not in the best possible position as he remembered it, and asked if there was any plan to upgrade this. The Chairman said the plan said new sidewalks. Mr. Decker said what is being done is moving the curb cut 30 feet south. Mr. Flaherty referred to the concern of the motel over the noise from the parking area disturbing the guests. Mr. Page said he looked at the site and saw the motel was close to the parking lot. He brought this up at the Planning Commission meeting; it was suggested that he contact Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson wanted screening along the entire property line. The Commission decided not to require screening. Mr. Flaherty asked if this was for any particular reason. Mr. Page explained Mr. Wilson wanted Friendly's to pay the entire cost and the Planning Commission felt it was a joint problem. Mr. Armstrong commented they still have to put in a fair amount of landscaping Mr. Page said they meet all the landscaping requirements. Mr. Wilson, owner of the motel, said there were a couple of things that should be considered as far as the property line is concerned between his property and Friendly's. He said he welcomed their coming in there; they will improve the property; but he has people managing his property and he thinks they have experienced problems. He said he made a mistake when they put in their intercom system and he learned they were not far enough away. He really would like Council to consider the fact that he does have people living there. There are living quarters there and these particular rooms back up to the property. If Council would study the plot plan, the elevation is about 3 feet and cars coming in there may create a problem for the guests. He said his feeling was this; he is there; he is not creating the problem for anybody. He felt if Friendly is going to come in there and their parking lot is 10 feet from his building, he is certain there will be some problems with lights and noise. There are problems now, unless some sort of a screen is put up. But he said for him to share the cost, he didn't understand that. Mr. Flaherty asked about the parking lot now. Mr. Wilson said they are 30 or 40 feet from the line now. Mr. Dinklage asked if this was just open grass now, and Mr. Wilson said Yes. He said he had no problems, but to come within 10 feet of his building he knows there is going to be a problem. Mr. Flaherty asked if there was screening next to the residential area. Mr. Decker said Yes, a 6 foot stockade fence along the property line. Mr. Dinklage said as he understood the procedure the Council is performing essentially the same function the Zoning Board will perform in the future, and that is that a proposal of this type would be referred to them because it is a potential high traffic generator and the use would be conditional only upon demonstration of this proposed use not being a high traffic generator, and while he thought the Council had the prerogative of reviewing any of the arguments, he felt Council's primary purpose tonight was to review this as a conditional use application with emphasis on whether or not it is a high traffic generator and whether or not it will burden the City's facilities in that area, and he had not heard any arguments that it will unreasonably cause traffic congestion, although it is quite appropriate to discuss anything anyone wants to discuss. The issue of screening has been discussed at length by the Planning Commission. Mr. Flaherty said he would rather handle this now than have a complaint six or nine months down the road when there is nothing Council could do about it. The Chairman said Council could approve this as it is, or it could add any reasonable stipulations, or it could turn it down. Mr. Harvell said he thought Firneldy had offered to pay for half the cost. The condition already has existed for 20 years. Mr. Dinklage asked if that was actually in the Minutes (the offer to pay half). Mr. Page said he believed it was in the Minutes but it was not a stipulation. The Chairman suggested Council could make that a stipulation. The Chairman then asked if anyone present wished to speak against this application or ask any questions on it. Mr. Yankowski said Friendly's is going to attract a lot of kids from Twin Orchard area and it might be well to make a place for a sidewalk on McIntosh. It would be a potential danger spot for children and other pedestrians. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Wilson if he felt that Friendly's should put up the screening. Mr. Wilson replied they have people living there; his full-time manager lives there, and if zoning is concerned about residential protection he felt that should be considered a residence. They also have other people there a great deal of the time and if there were problems he would have to call the police. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council approve the request of Friendly's Ice Cream with the added stipulation that they pay for the screening between the parking lot and the property line of the motel. This screening to be a six foot stockade fence. Mr. Farrar suggested modifying it to say This screening to cost no more than a six foot stockade fence, with the type of screening to be negotiated between the two parties involved. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Dinilage said he was willing to support some alteration of that which would recognize the joint interest of both parties to try to work out some way that the cost of this would be shared, if either party should desire to have it done. Mr. Decker asked if under this motion Friendly's would put the fence in. Chairman Farrar said Yes unless the two parties got together to have something else. The motion was passed unanimously. Public Hearing: Proposed amendments to the City Comprehensive Plan Chairman Farrar said Council had before it the two pages of changes, basically talking about traffic, which were approved by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 26, 1976. The Chairman suggested deleting any reference to dates shown on page 2 because these will be fixed by the Capital Budget Plan. He felt a Master Plan should lay out philosophy but time and dates are part of the Capital Budget Program. He said that what is proposed here is that Williston Road will forever basically serve as the major east-west artery of South Burlington, and he had some personal doubts as to whether that is something that is going to really happen. It is necessary to be really careful that this is our goal, he said, and one of the implications was that there would have to be a median barrier from one end of Williston Road to the other. That would have quite an impact on the way Williston Road is used. If the planning is such that Williston Road is for east-west traffic, his opinion would be that in the next ten years that type of solution would be mandated by the traffic. It is important that it be understood that this is possible. If the reverse type of approach is taken it means moving in the direction that Williston Road more and more serves as a local street, with an alternative route to move east-west through traffic. This is an important decision to be made fairly soon. Mr. Dinklage said his personal support, besides looking for an alternative bypass around the City, would be facing the situation of Kennedy Drive. That doesn't get the emphasis he would like to see it get. Mr. Armstrong said he could still not see traffic escalating in the future to the extent that it has in the past four or five years. If gas rationing should come it could throw this whole thing out. Although we should go ahead and plan, he just felt this situation will be coming. Mr. Dinklage asked Mr. Page if there was much discussion about that particular paragraph. Mr. Page said he thought there had been some confusion in communication from the Planning Commission to the Council. Just before this was transmitted to Council, Mr. Poger had mentioned that the words "to" and "through" were reversed. After talking this over with Bill (Wessel) Mr. Page said he had reached the conclusion that the statement is not made clear enough on the basic question of whether it is a local road or not. He suggested that discussion on this be delayed until Mr. Poger arrived. Mr. Dinklage said the wording said to him that they would like to have the emphasis on the through road. Mr. Page said he would have to disagree. There is vacant land for an alternate route such as going north around Kirby Road. The Planning Commission had recognized the error of the Topic Study requiring an unlimited barrier along Williston Road. Mr. Farrar said if this was a typographical error, it would be easily corrected, but if it is a recommendation, then there may be some problems. Mr. Dinklage said he would like to send this back to the Planning Commission and ask them to consider the emphasis they would like to place on a possible alternative east-west road which would consist of the Shunpike Road, the new industrial road, and Kennedy Drive. That is potentially significant a route to deserve some mention. His personal preference as a planning objective would be to make it a through route. Mr. Page said he thought that was the gist of the thought, but the emphasis was not clearly made here. The Chairman said he would accept a motion to return this to the Commission. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council return the proposed amendments to the Transportation Plan to the Planning Commission so they may have the opportunity to consider the discussion reflected in our Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Armstrong said a potential amendment he would like to discuss would be a sidewalk policy, if there shouldn't be one incorporated with this. How far back should they plan on putting a sidewalk. If it is set 8 or 10 feet back from the road there is room enough to put the snow, also there should be some enforcement regarding keeping the snow cleared away. He wondered if this should be included here. The City Manager then called attention to the last sentence in the suggested amendment for the Mary Street, Hinesburg Road, High School paragraph. He said the Council had gone on record and the School Board also as being opposed to a through street from Barrett Street because it would go through a residential area and would really serve no purpose by putting traffic in that residential area. The motion by Mr. Dinklage was voted unanimously. Appoint Mr. Page as Assistant Zoning Administrative Officer The Chairman explained this appointment would allow Mr. Page to perform legally certain functions. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council appoint Stephen Page as an Assistant Administrative Officer. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Discussion on Dorset Street-Kennedy Drive Interchange with Sidney Poger of the Planning Commission. Mr. Poger stated the Planning Commission had forwarded to the Council the recommendation of the Williston Road Task Force that an on-ramp be put in at the Dorset Street-Kennedy Drive intersection to relieve some of the traffic at the Dorset Street-Williston Road intersection. The Task Force felt that those who did get onto the interstate would not have to travel the extent of Dorset Street and would not have to make that lefthand turn. It was felt this was the easiest and cheapest way to do this; the land is there and available. It could be done easily and it would make sense. However, he said, he understood from what was in the paper, that Council had asked for a full interchange with on and off at the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Dorset Street. The Planning Commission views this with a great deal of alarm because first of all it would put a great deal of pressure on the development of Kennedy Drive; second, it would increase the traffic there at that intersection, taking the mess from Williston and Dorset Street and making another mess at the corner where the high school is at Dorset and Kennedy; third, it would be difficult to do this, difficult and very expensive. So, he said, the Planning Commission was asking the Council to reconsider the recommendation for the full interchange and go back to the on ramp, north bound, just the north bound. Digital will have easy access to Exit 12; this would be the normal way to go to Montpelier, also to go north. Mr. Flaherty asked if Mr. Poger would put an entrance right at the Digital site. Mr. Poger said No, because there are limits of distance set by the Federal government. Exit 12 would be the normal exit and entranve. Chairman Farrar said the motion by Council was to implement the language of the Master Plan and one of the objectives in the Master Plan was a full interchange at this intersection; also since this long range project would probably run six years from now, the thing was to get the planning process in motion so it could be seen what is feasible and what the cost might be. Mr. Dinklage said the experience in other areas in changing the interstate says it would be reasonable to expect five or seven years to accomplish this. He said he agreed with the suggestion to let's get the northbound lane in as soon as possible because that would help the Williston Road-Dorset Street intersection today, but in the long range a full interchange is going to be needed and it is desirable to enhance Kennedy Drive as a serious alternative to Williston Road. Mr. Poger said he didn't think the Planning Commission at this time would agree that a full interchange is a good idea. He thought, however, that it should be re- studied by the Transportation Committee, but right now the Planning Commission was unanimous in the request that Council withdraw the full interchange and that only the northbound on-ramp be requested. The Chairman told Mr. Poger that just before he came in, the Council had sent back to the Planning Commission the recommendations. The reason for the Council's motion requesting the full interchange was to communicate to Montpelier that this is something Council wants included in the planning process because if we don't get it in, in a few years we will want it, and at that point the request can be modified for whatever is necessary. Mr. Poger felt that subsequently the City could have an interchange it did not want. Mr. Farrar felt there was no danger of that. Mr. Poger said the Planning Commission feels there will be more and more pressure; the Planning Commission wants to go very slowly. What it is saying now is just ask for the northbound on-ramp. If the other is necessary later, we can get it later. Chairman Farrar said he still hadn't heard a good alternative for getting people east and west and that is why Council was sending the amendments back to the Planning Commission. The more people that can be gotten off Williston Road, the better the situation will be. Mr. Armstrong said at the time it had been brought out that there was a possibility of an exit ramp down into the Digital property, and he had strong reservations even with the present projection that possibly they could avoid the Dorset Street-Kennedy Drive intersection and make this off-ramp so connected to Kennedy that it would avoid that intersection. Mr. Flaherty said the motion was primarily to get Montpelier to take recognition of the project. Mr. Poger said what was wanted was just that northbound ramp now. We don't know what the effect of Digital is going to be. Mr. Farrar said there was no possibility of this being done in less than four years, but he thought that when the Capital Budget Program is discussed, and this is part of it, Council would wish to consider that as something we would be funding — when and how. Mr. Poger said he was not sure of the status of the Capital Budget but he would be very nervous if this was put in for five years because he was afraid it would lock us into something we wouldn't want. The Chairman said Council might very well want to come back and modify the request. He would like to see from the Traffic Committee some type of solution for the east-west traffic rather than what has been seen so far. Mr. Dinklage said the proposed Capital Plan does show improvements at that intersection being in three years but he doubted it would happen in that period of time if this reflects the thinking that has been in the Capital Plan for some time. Mr. Poger said there was a matter of communication and asked if they could specify that the improvements would be only the northbound ramp. Mr. Dinklage didn't think there was a communication problem; it is a matter of difference of opinion. He said his intent was to get something in motion Mr. Poger suggested there perhaps should be a discussion between the Planning Commission and the Council to straighten some of these matters out. Mr. Schuele said some of the people in the community were somewhat aghast at the concept of the full interchange. Mr. Yankowski felt nobody really knows where we are going right now because of the energy crunch — it may be necessary to change our whole way of living. He would consider going slower on the full interchange. Mr. Farrar said personally he would not be at all adverse to splitting it into two sections; there seemed to be no disagreement about one piece of it being done first. Looking at the list of Capital things needed, it is going to be necessary to set some priorities there. Mr. Yankowski then asked about the growth rate, the thinking on this. Mr. Farrar explained it is or 2% of the county growth, whichever is greater. Mr. Yankowski said he felt that was originally more or less a compromise figure to hold the line. He hated to see what we have wiped out. He would like to see the City keep the way of life we now have. Mr. Farrar explained any control put on development has to be put on in a rational way to allow for the rights of people to live the way they want to and also the rights of other people who want to live here. They had tried to clarify first, how to implement it, and second, how to put the brakes on if necessary. It is necessary to plan for the type of development which improves the quality of life as much as possible. Mr. Armstrong thought the Planning Commission was told to give Council a warning as soon as we reach the 2% growth rate since July, 1970, and something would have to be done. He didn't feel the brakes should be put on as far as individual houses on existing lots are concerned. The small man with a lot already lined up shouldn't be hit; we should concentrate on some others rather than on him. Mr. Schuele felt the basic concept of wanting an orderly growth had been defeated by putting a 10% growth into the City in nine months. Mr. Flaherty said the City hadn't had any growth for five years and he would rather have homes for the elderly as opposed to some of these other developments simply because Digital is coming in. Mr. Schuele said the concept is that nothing is done for awhile and suddenly there is a lot of everything. Mr. Armstrong said the Comprehensive Plan implies the 2% would be compounded so it would be cumulative since 1970. Mr. Schuele felt this defeats the intention which established an orderly and gradual growth. Mr. Farrar said he was not sure this defeats the intention; it can still be planned and orderly; it depends on the impact on the services. Mr. Farrar said the high school is crowded but not because people have moved in, but because the high school wasn't built for the services it is supposed to provide. The elementary schools are down in enrollment. Mr. Yankowski felt the quality of life is being endangered and what we have will be destroyed if we try to take care of all the other people. Mr. Poger felt the basic decision was an arbitrary decision, with the problem of 1970 being that we are now in 1977 and we are allowing 14% so we now have 10% in 1977. He said that seemed to him to be the problem. It should have been said that the cumulative amount should not go above four years accumulation which would seem to do the kind of things we meant to do. Right now the City is getting a tidal wave, referring to the 1100 units expected; there should be some kind of limit to how long you can save up this growth. Chairman Farrar referred to the Master Plan, saying it only applies if City services can support the growth rate. Mr. Poger felt there should be such a limit, even with the orderly growth of the City's services. Mr. Schuele referred to the need for additional Fire Department staff whenever a new complex comes in. Mr. Dinklage explained the population growth section in the Master Plan which would say about 11,200 for 1977 from a base of 10,000. That would mean about 200 building permits since 1970, and would also mean a ceiling of about 300, which would make impossible the numbers being talked about at this meeting. Mr. Schuele called attention to the Planning Commission meeting for the next evening and a request for an additional 300 units. Mr. Dinklage said many things proposed never get built. The Planning Commission committee on growth is approaching this on the basis of simplicity, from the control of the issuance of building permits. Mr. Schuele said what he sees from sitting in the audience is that every time there is a large proposal and many of these are approved, so there is that potential, and their approvals are good for four years. Mr. Page stated that none of the projects presented since last fall have received final approval; all are in various phases of approval. Chairman Farrar said he shared the people's concern and that is the reason why Council had the discussion two weeks ago to get something on record so it would be possible to say No. The point to be recognized is that when we say No, we want to be sure we can make it stick. The worst thing that could happen would be to say No and end up with a lawsuit. He would rather, he said, make sure the purpose is sound and not act hastily and end up with the whole community suffering. Mr. Poger asked if the growth policy was applicable only to housing units, or also to industry and commercial units. Chairman Farrar said the way it was framed would require that it all hinged around the impact of people. Mr. Poger said he would appreciate it for Council to discuss this and decide whether the growth should be applied to commercial business and industry as well as housing units. Mr. Dinklage said he thought they were going to deal first with the residential question. The clear intent of the Master Plan was to control the commercial development by zoning and they would hope for cooperation from the Zoning Board by not granting any zoning changes, not allowing for any greater commercial than what is already zoned for that. Chairman Farrar said the Digital situation is such that most of their labor force is from the area so he didn't expect any large influx of people in the next two or three years. He didn't see that as a strong spurt of growth. Mr. Poger felt that although Burlington has the lowest unemployment rate, there is enough unemployment to fill Digital up four times from the Burlington area. Mr. Schuele said he didn't think the people building apartments had that feeling. Mr. Yankowski said he had felt comfortable with the 2% per annum growth figure but now this bothers him. Chairman Farrar closed the discussion by saying it had been a very useful One. Meet with Police Department Union personnel Five members of the Police Department Union were present with David Smith as spokesman. Mr. Smith stated they would keep the bargaining sessions to a maximum of two hours and would like to receive a copy of the Minutes of such sessions. Chairman Farrar said that after Council had heard the Union's proposals they would discuss their responses to the proposals in executive session. Mr. Smith said the issue of pay schedules had been left open until later. Referring to Article VIII, Section 4, on page 4, Chairman Farrar asked how things had been working out. The reply was that they had not worked out extremely well, there had been times when no attempt was made to fill the shift with another man. Mr. Dinklage asked Mr. Szymanski if he had been aware of these situations. He replied "In most cases, Yes." Mr. Smith said Section 4 states exactly what they want to see happen to provide adequate protection for the City. It was explained the changes in Article IX were to clear things up so that the man who chooses to take comp time has something to say about when he takes it. Section 9 was put in to cover a situation if the Department should grow in size. Under Article XI, Section 1, an additional holiday has been added. Under Article XIII, Section 1, an item was added for duty helmets. It was explained this is for safety purposes, would be protection when a man has to enter a bar or enter a home where a domestic quarrel is taking place. Mr. Dinklage asked about Section 4 under Article XV, what equipment might be used for off duty work. Mr. Mitchell explained they might want to use a portable radio if they were asked to guard something such as a construction site. It was noted that Section 2 and 3 on page 12 would be discussed by the Salary Review Committee. The Chairman suggested setting a definite time to meet with the Police Department Union. Wednesday, February 23rd, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. was approved by Council and the Union members as the next meeting date. Discuss sewer debt funding Chairman Farrar referred to the two-page document prepared by the City Manager regarding sewer debt obligations. Mr. Farrar said it was the intent of previous Councils that the area discharge fee be eliminated in a period of seven years, and definite plans should be made to phase this down. It is proposed that the area charge be 20¢ for the Williston Road area this year, and that next year's Council set it at 10¢, and the year after that it should be eliminated. This would be in keeping with the intent that was promised to the voters; also it is fair and equitable in looking at the operating expenses of the sewer plant. He suggested a motion be made to that effect. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council set the area discharge rate for the Williston Road area at 20¢ for this year; that it be recommended to the next year's Council that this rate be set at 10¢, and subsequently that it be zero. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. The Chairman said the bonded indebtedness will range between 28¢ and 32¢ depending on where certain costs are allocated. This year it was possible to fund two items of Capital debt outside of bonded indebtedness. This may not be the case again. Sign note for Highway truck and sanction signed note for Water Department truck The City Manager explained the Water Department bought a truck and instead of taking it out of savings it was decided to finance it with a note at 3.5%. This had to be accomplished in just one day but he was able to get three signatures that day from Council members and that number was all that was necessary. These signatures should now be approved by the Council. The other truck is for the Highway Department with the note also at 3.5% and requires signatures from Council. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council sign the note for the truck for the Highway Department and sanction the signatures on the note for the Water Department truck. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Planning Commission and Zoning Board agendas Council had no comments on these. Discussion on recommending a method of setting priorities for selecting future Federal E.D.A. projects Mr. Armstrong stated there is strong opposition to the formula used by the Federal government in setting priorities for issuing grants. It has been repeatedly recommended by the AFL, the CIO, and the country's governors and mayors that local governments be permitted to establish priorities. Mr. Armstrong said he felt it was wrong for the Federal government to set such priorities without having a knowledge of the situation. This procedure does have the advantage of minimizing the conflicts, with Washington absorbing the responsibility for unpopular decisions. He recommended that Council take a stand on this issue and ask our representative to the Regional Planning Council to have this discussed and if there is a consensus within the region, to ask the Governor to take this up at the next meeting of the New England Governors, and if they go along with it, then the recommendation should go to our representatives in Washington. Mr. Farrar said this would be assuming that if there is a change in Washington to allow local priority setting, that the next larger unit would be the five or six regional planning commissions we have in the State, that priorities be set at this level. Mr. Armstrong said he felt an effort should be made to get this incorporated in the revised Public Work Program. Mr. Farrar said Mr. Armstrong's suggestion was basically that in Vermont this be done on a regional basis. Mr. Flaherty said he would agree with that. Mr. Szymanski said these allocations are made according to a labor district, and we are in a labor area which includes Chittenden, Franklin, and southern Grand Isle counties. Mr. Farrar felt Mr. Armstrong's suggestion was worth exploring. Mr. Armstrong moved that Council instruct its representative on the Regional Planning Commission to explore the possibility for establishing priorities for Public Works projects at the regional level. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. The City Manager is to contact Mr. Graves on this. Discussion on Charter Changes Chairman Farrar said one item would be the term of office for membership on the Zoning Board. The second item is that the office of City Clerk be appointive and not elective. That person is doing two jobs now, that of City Clerk which is elective and that of City Treasurer which is appointive. Because these jobs are not policy making, they are really administrative, they should be appointive. The voters would have a great difficulty in determining whether or not a City Clerk was doing the job well. It is up to the City Manager to make that determination. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council ask the City Charter Committee to consider making the office of City Clerk one to be appointed by the City Manager. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. The Chairman said that regarding the Zoning Board there should probably be some substantial discussion. His personal feeling was that it be a seven member board the same as the Planning Commission. It would be the right balance so if the board is changed by taking out one or two people it does not mean taking out such a large portion of experienced personnel as is the case with a board of five members. Discussion of Capital Budget A proposed 10 Year Capital Budget had been presented by the City Manager for consideration by the Council. The City Manager explained concern with the pollution permits deadline as it affects the upgrading of the sewer treatment plants, that the timing of the two phases is as late as it can be without violating the permits. Mr. Flaherty asked about the Williston Road improvement, if that was for the widening of the road. The City Manager explained it is for all the work from the jughandle to the interstate. Instead of the barrier median, they would put in another lane. The Chairman said there would be more than one project to be bonded at the same time and asked if there was any way to avoid that so there would be only one project each year. Mr. Szymanski said they would have to get the School Board's plans, and put all the backup together. He then mentioned the need for a vault. Mr. Dinklage asked how much of this investment for a vault could be moved if a new City Hall should be built. Mr. Szymanski said not much except possibly the doors. Mr. Farrar suggested renting vault space. Mr. Dinklage asked if there was any category of records that are not used often. Mr. Szymanski explained anything that is not used is put downstairs. Solutions to the storage problem were discussed. Asked about any other projects coming after 1988, Mr. Szymanski said there might be some before that such as sewering the Swift Estates, but that might be done with some surplus. The City Manager was complimented by Mr. Dinklage on the good job he had done on the Capital Budget. The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.