Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/16/1981CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16, 1981 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, November 16, 1981 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Hugh Marvin Members Absent Martin Paulsen, William Burgess Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Gloria Yandow, Bookkeeper; Margaret Picard, City Clerk; Jodie Peck, Free Press; Pat Burgmeier, The Other Paper; Merrill Jarvis Agenda addition The following item was added under Old Business: Establish the fee for the intersection improvements required by the Planning Commission approval of the Mitel plant. Minutes of November 2 and 5, 1981 The minutes of November 2 and 5, 1981 were approved on a motion by Mr. Flaherty, a second by Mr. Marvin and a unanimous vote. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Meet as Liquor Control Board to consider the liquor license application of Merrill Jarvis for the sale of liquor at theatres on Williston Road and Dorset Street Mr. Flaherty moved to recess as the City Council and convene as the Liquor Control Board. Mr. Marvin seconded the motion and all voted aye. Mr. Jarvis said he wanted to provide a new service in the Plaza and Showcase. He wants to put in a bar at Plaza 3 and at Showcase 4 only. These auditoria seat 100-120 and the bar would be set up at the back. He said the audience would be limited to 18-year olds and older, unless the bar were not going to be used. This would apply, even if the movie being shown were rated PG. If an adult brought his 14-year old, the teen would not be allowed in. Mr. Jarvis said that at the box office I.D.s would be checked for anyone buying a ticket to the movie with the bar. Mr. Farrar asked about theatre enforcement of the movie ratings. Mr. Jarvis said they tried to enforce it, but it was mainly up to the parents to do so. He said the bar facility would be under tighter control. Mr. Marvin asked how long the theatres had been operated. Mr. Jarvis said he had started with Showcase in 1973 and with Plaza in 1974. He said they had both been successful and Mr. Marvin asked why he needed a liquor license. Mr. Jarvis replied that he wanted to provide an extra service and make more money. He said illumination in the theatre would be high enough so the liquor inspector could see faces. Mr. Jarvis said he had discussed the proposal with a state representative concerned with liquor and he had seen no problems with it. He added that people had asked for the service and that three other theatres in the state were doing this. They are in Stowe, Sugarbush and Lindenville. These are all single theatres, he said. Mr. Marvin asked whether the service would be extended to other auditoria if this license were granted and Mr. Jarvis said it would not. Mr. Jarvis said anyone with a drink would have to stay in the auditorium he was in. Drinks would be sold at the rear and people would take them back to drink in their seats. Mr. Flaherty asked about control over rowdy behavior. Mr. Jarvis said there would be a person selling drinks and two other people on the floor. It was noted, however, that those two other people cover the entire complex. Mr. Jarvis said that if he was going to have problems, he did not want to run the theatres this way. Mr. Szymanski said the police chief was not familiar with this type of operation, although he has approved the application. Mr. Flaherty was concerned about the operation. He was not sure the theatre could control selling drinks only to 18-year olds in one theatre. Mr. Marvin also had concerns about it. He did not want South Burlington to be the first city to do this. He felt something like this had to be entered into very carefully and he felt there were enough problems today without adding to them. He thought the Council should leave the item on the table so the other two members could discuss it when they are present, so it was decided to do that. Mr. Flaherty moved to adjourn as the Liquor Control Board and reconvene as the City Council. Mr. Marvin seconded the motion and it passed 3-0. Consider adoption of a resolution increasing permit fees effective January 1, 1982 Mr. Szymanski said fees had not been adjusted since 1968, and it was felt they should be made comparable with fees in other communities. The proposals submitted seem to be in line with other communities. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council adopt the resolution to increase permit fees, to be effective January 1, 1982. Mr. Marvin seconded the motion. Mr. Farrar read the resolution. The motion carried unanimously. Review proposed city audit contract and discuss appointment of an auditor for fiscal 1981-82 Mr. Minnich said that what had been suggested was a draft contract with an auditor for a 1 year period, with options to renew twice, for 1 year periods. Mr. Minnich said one area needing to be reviewed was in the city's accounting and the directions taken to improve that area would depend on the city's decision on whether to have a computer, and if so, what kind, to help with that. That decision needed to be made soon, he said. The draft contract would also guarantee, as far as possible, that the city could have the same personnel doing the audit from year to year. The price would change each year, but the basic reason for the contract is to have the audit in the same form and to have some continuity for the next three years. Choice of an auditor is up to the Council. Mr. Farrar said the auditors seemed to push for an accrual system, which would, as he read the Charter, put the city on a cash system, He added that the Charter told the city how much it could spend every year, and each year it is harder and harder to tell if the city stayed within that amount. Mr. Farrar hoped that a condition of the contract could be that the audit certify whether the city fulfilled its obligation to remain within the Charter limits. Mr. Marvin noted that on page 1 of the audit report, it stated that many of the comments made were repetitive. Mr. Minnich said one comment made for several years has been about the need for a general ledger. He said it would not be hard to set one up, but they would have to know which direction the city would be going in terms of a computer first. Mr. Marvin felt item 5 in the proposed contract left no leeway in case someone died or retired. He also asked where day-to-day interest was shown. Mr. Farrar said that was not an accounting figure, but it could be pulled out. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve in principle the proposed city audit contract. Mr. Marvin seconded the motion and it passed 3-0. Mr. Minnich said a decision on the computer by early January would be great. Mr. Farrar said he did not object to having a few auditing firms come in for interviews, since the city would be committing to a 3 year course. Mr. Szymanski said it might be good to consult with the school on the firm. Review and authorize the signing of the State Highway Department Right of Way Acquisition Agreement for South Burlington Southern Connector. Mr. Szymanski said this was the contract the state has asked the city to enter into for acquisition of land for the Connector. It is mainly to acquire the Coburn-Feeley land in the middle of the intersection. Mr. Flaherty moved to authorize the City Manager to sign the Right of Way Agreement for South Burlington M 5200 (6). Mr. Marvin stated that he could not second that motion, since he had some questions on this issue. Mr. Marvin noted that on page 4, item 3, if the project were not built, the city would have to pay the state the right of way costs. Also, the ratio figure in 4 on that page is not set. He noted that the citizens of the city had not voted approval for the Connector yet, and without a bond issue having been voted he did not feel he could participate in this. The Council discussed what might happen if the bond issue were defeated or if the Connector project did not come about for any other reason. Mr. Farrar felt the right of way for the road should be acquired anyway, so the city's ability to solve traffic problems on Shelburne Road would not be foreclosed as it is on Williston Road now. Mr. Marvin wanted to give this item more thought, and Mr. Flaherty said a special meeting on it could be held, if that were wanted. Review Planning and Zoning agendas There were no comments. Old business Finalize action on police grievance #811 - Mr. Farrar said the agreement included an amendment to the contract, and the cost will be less than $600. Mr. Marvin moved to approve the amendment to the police contract as presented at the last meeting. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and it passed with all voting aye. Establish the fee for the intersection improvements required by the Mitel approval - This is money Mitel will put in escrow for the intersection improvements. Mr. Szymanski said the figure was based on engineering done by Mitel's consulting engineer, Richard Trudell. The cost for the total improvements was $20,000 - $25,000 (excluding signals). Mr. Szymanski felt the state should look at the plans, since it is a state road. Mitel is to pay a share of the cost. Mr. Flaherty moved to set the fee for Mitel to put in escrow for the road improvements at Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road at $7500. Mr. Marvin seconded the motion and all voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. In accordance with Sectim 14.40 of the City's Zoning Regulations, Section 7 of the Sign regulations and Section 2, Article N of the Sewer regulatrons, be it resolved that effective January 1, 1982 the following fee schedule is hereby adoptd by the City mil of the City of South Burlinqton. Zoning wrmits (a) New construction - residential and commercial; 5 cents per square foot of finishcd floor area. (b) Mditions and alterations - residential and mmercial; $2.00 per $l,OOfJ of the ! cstirrutd construction w5t. I (c) Demlition or relocation of buildings - $10.00 (d) Underqround tank installations - $10,.00. Sign erections - $5.00 per sign Sanitary - Wwcr Swr connections - to City system $10.00 on site-system $25.00 "No permit shall te required for any structural alterations or interior rerrodeling project which does not exceed five hundred ($500) dollars in oonstructlon cost." This prwision does rpt apply rn any exterior additions hich are subject to those requirements set form in the Zoning Regulations. Paul A. Farrar,l Chainmn . . - -- Martin D. Paulsen I I I William L. Burgess i i ugh M. Marvin ! bIIILiING PXR4IT FEES ---.. Novcmbsr, 1960 SUGGESTED PEE CilANGE: Tl~c Lxcscnt fcc of $1.00 per $1,000 coat changed to 2 ccnts per square foot. A. New Construction - Rcsidcnt.ia1 and Comcrcial .. Additions to both existing Residential ad Cornrccrciol buildings, and Garages. A fee of 2 cents per square foot of floor area, below grade unfinished cellars excluded. B. Repairs L Alt. Pee based upon estimate. $1.00 gar $1,000 of . cstirnatad cost. 1. 5 cents per square foot per lettered side. 8 .. D. Demolition or $5.00 I .. ~~clocaC~~Cip. E. Undcrqroand 'tank $5.00 F. Unlistccl - Type of $1.00 per thousand cost with $1.00 minimum. I .. Construction EXANPLCS : A. Residential Duildinq, 24' X 40' - Estimated cost $8,000-960 sq. ft. t'ca paid $8.00 Suggested fee $19.20 24' X 42'. 1240 aq. ft. Estimate& cost $19,000 Fce paid $19 .OO Suggested fee $24.80 8. Commercial Building, Justgold Uuildings 85,670 sq. feet. Estimated cost $475.00 Fee paid $475.00 Suggested fee $1,713.40 . . 0 U. V. M. aarn 80' X 36' - 2,880 sq. ft. Estimated Cost $50,000 ... Fee paid $50.00 Suggested fee $57.60 Dilly Wagon Building, 40' X 24', 960 sq. it. Estimated Coat $6,000 . FCG paid $6.00 suggeothd fce $13.20 24' X 22', 528 sq. ft. Estimated cost $2,700 Fee paid $3.00 Suggested fee $10.56 24' X 12', 288 sq. ft. Estimated cost $1,600 Fee paid $2.00. Suggested fee $5.76 @ D. Dcrnolltian Justqold Building 110 Fce suggssted fee $5.00 E. Relocated Bld~. Fee paid SL.00 Suggested fee $5.00