Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/23/1981CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 23, 1981 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, November 23, 1981 at 7:30 pm in the Mini-Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Martin Paulsen, Hugh Marvin, William Burgess Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; State highway representatives Sherman Gage and Larry Blias, Nancy Hartman, of Shelburne Mr. Farrar said questions had arisen about the right of way acquisition agreement and what would happen if the Southern Connector were never built. The city understands that if the road is not built because the community decides not to do it, the city will be responsible for the cost of the land. The question is what happens if the state or federal governments decide not to participate. The city does not want to be responsible for the cost of the land in those cases. Mr. Gage said his understanding was that the city would not be. Another paragraph for the agreement was drafted by the state to clarify that point (copy attached to these minutes). Mr. Gage said his understanding was that if the city decided to eliminate the project, they would be responsible for the total cost of the right of way. If the state legislature, or the federal government decides to drop the project, the city will not be responsible for the right of way cost. The new wording said that if the project did not occur for any reason other than the city deciding not to do it, the city would only be responsible for the cost of any land or premises acquired. Mr. Bliss said that the land would be conveyed back to the city and the city could sell it in that case. Normally if the project were stopped because of the city, they would have to pay salaries and expenses involved at the state level as well as the land cost. If the state acquired the land and the city turned down the project, the land would be turned over to the city and the state would expect to be paid the fair market value of the land. If the land appreciated, the city would have the appreciated value of it. The land will be acquired in the state's name, if bought, and in the city's, if condemned. Mr. Farrar asked whether the city could still acquire right of way if the state funding situation looked like the project would be delayed. Mr. Gage said that until the project was taken off the program, it was programmed. Mr. Farrar felt that it was in the city's interest to protect the right of way here. If it disappears, the city will be in the same position it is with Williston Road, in that there will be no solution to the problem. Mr. Szymanski asked whether the city could continue to acquire land for the road and was told each case would be considered. Mr. Bliss said the land would have to be in such a situation that it would appear that the cost would be much greater in the future. Mr. Marvin asked what portion of the 10 year state plan was funded now. He was told that in theory it all was, but that in fact perhaps about 1/2 was. He then asked whether the state representatives felt the legislature would fund two major projects in Chittenden County over other needs. Mr. Gage said that these two projects were on the program. As far as the Agency is concerned, they are continuing with their 10 year program. Mr. Farrar felt it was likely that the priorities would remain the same, but the time period would be stretched out. Mr. Marvin was not sure the city should buy any land before the voters in the city had a chance to say whether they wanted the road or not, and Mr. Paulsen wondered whether that was obligating tax money without voter approval. Mr. Flaherty said the Council could build the road if it had enough money in the operating budget, without voter approval and Mr. Burgess agreed the Council did not need authorization to do this. Mr. Farrar felt it would be foolish to wait and then have to buy both the land and the building. Mr. Burgess felt buying the land was a prudent risk. Mr. Marvin asked what would happen if the project were delayed 10 years. Mr. Gage said the state would own the land, and he added that the city did not pay for construction until it accepted the road. Mr. Szymanski said the landowner had received development approval from the Planning Commission in March of this year and had6 months in which to start. That approval has now expired. Ms. Hartman asked where the property was and who the owner was. Mr. Farrar told her where it was and that the owner was Cooper-Coburn-Feeley, Inc. She asked about the agreement under discussion and was told it was an agreement dealing with early acquisition of right of way for the road. The process was started after a discussion between the state and the city. Ms. Hartman noted that the road had been moved to avoid the bottling plant, but she was told that the plant had been moved to avoid the road and thatcould not be done here because the road required so much of this lot that there would be no room left for the building. Ms. Hartman mentioned the east side of Shelburne Road, but was told there were no current plans to do anything with this road on that side of Shelburne Road. Ms. Hartman asked for a copy of the agreement, which was given to her and which she read. Mr. Marvin asked whether, if the road were delayed 8-10 years, the state had any assurance that the federal government would still participate. He was told that the federal government did not in any way approve the state's highway plans. As long as the project conforms, there is no reason to think they will enter into the politics of picking highway projects in the state. He said he had never seen the federal government withdraw from a project and he did not expect to. Their role is overseeing the state in a broad sense. If the voters turn down the bond issue, Mr. Bliss said there would be some administrative costs to be paid as well as the right of way cost. There will be no federal costs or engineering costs in it yet. Ms. Hartman wanted to know how this issue had come up and was told the City Manager had contacted the state about the parcel. Mr. Burgess moved to sign the state highway department right of way acquisition agreement for the South Burlington Southern Connector as amended by the addition on page 4 to paragraph #3. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. Mr. Paulsen asked whether the agreement could be used to acquire other land if the city faced the same problem in the future. He was told that this piece of land was the only one the federal government had approved. This agreement could be used down the road if another property were given to the state and the federal governments the same way this one was, Mr. Gage said. Mr. Marvin asked whether there was any rush with this - why did it have to be done before the legislature met in January? Mr. Bliss said there was no rush on the state's part, but they could not make an offer until they had the agreement. Mr. Szymanski said architectural work or construction could start any time, if they had approval. Mr. Marvin felt this agreement was premature. He wanted to see the situation in the state when the legislature convened in January. Mr. Burgess asked whether, if the city waited and the landowner received another permit for development of the land, the land value would go up and was told it would. Existing permits increase land value. Ms. Hartman asked whether this acquisition, by creating a project, would help the state when it applied for federal aid. Mr. Burgess felt the answer to the question was no. Mr. Gage said they had to have this agreement in order to continue. Ms. Hartman was concerned by what she felt was a single-minded pursuit of this alternative, without considering other social and economic factors. She felt highways of this nature were obsolete. She said lifestyles were changing rapidly and that transportation modes had to change also. Mr. Gage replied that the city had asked the state to put this road on its plan. They did so and the legislature approved it. He noted that the Environmental Impact Statement would address some of her concerns and he added that not everyone agreed on issues like this. The motion carried 4-1, with Mr. Marvin voting no. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. THIS AGREEEEET, meds thir 2 4 th day of m., 1983, batwean the Btate of Verncmt, eatin8 thropgh itm Agency of Truraportatiarr, hereinafter c4led the STATE urd th6 Tom of South Burlington in the &RULtY 0i Chittonden, State of Vermont, heweinrtt6r cued tho mCIPm. WHEREA8 the STATE progosee to rubsnit to the Federal Eighvag Administrution United States ~~ent of Transportation, an Urban, Fadersl-Aid Project knoM an South Burlington M 5200 (6), which xill provide certrh irPprmammtr high- of raid MWCClPALXTY sr rhaM on the plmr for this pJ8atv a8 to arid bfUEICIPALITY, md bscribed am foUawot Beginning at a polnt on U.8. Route 7, 0.10 mile north of " the Shelburac Town/&uth ~urlingtoa City tins .zrb continuer northerly a~roxhately 2.0 mil.8 to tdto rt au Inter- , , ohmgo with 3urlingtorr Rojwt M 5000 (1). UHE3EA$ the WICIPALITY &rires the improvemat of thin hlghwq~r u dercti above and further demiSetu tht the STATE rbdl eot, inmfat aa nwetwary, for t WICIPAUTY in the srowrition of l.sd and/- rights required for -6 pmJ.ct dlOW THEREFORE, in' considersticm of these @MI herob sat forthv it i. agreed by the Parties herato, rr follow: !THE STATE AOREZS: / I 1. Thatr in the event that conrtruction of thfa prod , t rspuires the wq?dSiti of lrnd and/or rights outaids of the existing ri f t-of-rry, suah laad snd/ rightr vill be aaquired by the HTATZ in comglfance with the %f0~ Relocrtlm bsirtance and Real Roprty Acquisition Policier Aat of 1970" (42 U.8.C. 4601-4655), providing that raid land and/or rightr era ba acquired by option, at Fair Market Value, axid with the understandim that if condemnation is necessary the MlllqfCIPALITP lauet be the conb-in& authority, as hereinafter provided. ." 2. Upon completion ot this project the STATE will convey all Zand and/or permanent rights acquired by it for this project to the MUNICIPALITY, with the provision that the MUBICIPALITY will not permit any encroacbmantr on the rightr-of-way to be controlled and/or acquired in connsctiom wSth raid nighway Project vithout written perorisrion of the STm, 3. If during the Right-of-Way Acquinition phue ofthe proJeet, the MUlVICXPALI must conderan lease right6 of the Vemmnt Railmy, Inom, tho 8TILTE rhrlr IOQt oppose the necessity of the roqui8itioa by the MUBICIP~. I !L'HE MUBICIPALITY AGREES: I 1. To grant the 8TATB: temporary rigbt-of-mtry into the right-oi-nvrg of rrid muniuipal highwey for the period of construction. 2. That the STATE msy une the municipal highwsyr for truckirrg aud haul- u required during the construotion of this proJect . I Upon camplction of tbir project, to eccegt from the STATE the conveyance of any and all land and/or permanent rights and impF0ydzpents scquirsa bg tbe STATE for this proJect, vith the provision that the MJlPICXPALITY vill not permit 6ny encroachments on the rightn-of-way to be controlled &/or acquired in connection with raid Highvay A.ojeet vithout vrittsrr psrni#8iOn of the STATE. 4. To allow the STATE to enter upon my ather 1-4 ovned by the MUHfCIPALfm during the period of construction to complots work on asid prodat, if such entry lr necessary. 5. To rave harmlese and indemnify the 8TB!FE, ltr officerr, rgssrts an4 ~agluyeo , from dZ suits , actions or claims for austuined by rbuttkrg or adjacent property ouners or ocaugsnts due to th. inrpwrrrm6nt. Widdng, Or relocation of rigbt-of-way. 1 6. The MUNICIPALITY aha~ enter into an agrement with the City of Burlington for $he acquieition of sny rights-of-way necessary for tbir project. agreement shall require that any project acquisition In the City of Burl be accomplished in aecordaoce vith the applicable terms of tU8 IT I8 MJTUAUY A0 BY THE STATE AWD THE WICIPAUTY: I 1. That if condemnation of all or a portion of mid land and/or rights becomes neccaeary the MUNICIPALITY must be the condemning au%hority. Thrs MUBICI- PALIm wu make every effort to condean at the Fair Market Value psiom u deterdried by the STATE'S reviewing appraiser, but may condemn d a priae which exceeds said approved Fair bhrket Valua price, if fats aet forth at a hearing varraat a higher avard. The STATE has the right to approve or disapprove such action, nnb failure by the MUNICIPALITY to obtain such vritten approval may result in the blUNICIPALITY bearing tho entire colt of the useas awunt over said 8TATE1S approved Fair Morlut Value pice. If condemnation becomes necessary, the ~ICIPALITY Vill c-oe cOndmumtl@n proceedings upon reoaiyt of notice from the STATE that conb~rmsti~n is required. Prior to aomwnaing any legal work relative to condom8tion iv vhich the WHICIPALITY intend. to meek relmbura-t thr WIIIICIPALITI srhrll enter into a contract vith m attorney or lagel firm for legal semices. vhich contract muat be approved by the aTATP us4 the f.durl Ei&W Abmin- irtrstion and shall bclude the foUovh& A. Qualifications and axpniance of the rttm~ or at- b MU of property uv. I B. AU legal work ahdl be perlome& in uacordrace vith Vermont Btrtutea md Federal-Aid Righvay Program bknual, Volume 7. Chapter 2, 8ectiOn 4. in order to assure proper maxinamn Fderd prticipstion in the amount. Wd. C. Estimsted cost of legal liervices on a lump sum or hourly rate whioh shall contain a break&un for perionnlng the vork to imeluda 8.lari.s. material costr, md my other dhect or indirect coats. no legal vork rhall becornmencad vhich viU exceed tho lump sum eatimafe vithout fir obtaining apprwd of the STATE aud the Pderal Higbvsy Admlnlstratlon and failure to obtain such approval may rosult in the WCfPALITY bearing the entire cost of such excear. I D. The MUAICIPALITY and/or attorney or legal firs aU mint&, ratein, .ad rpske available for audit by the SlXlT and Federal B-w Adminim- tration all accounting recordrr and any ather documentation Prtaining to coats incurred for legal aervloea for s par104 of throe (3) Yeum from tho date of psyment of the final vouchor by the Pederal Ooverafmt to tho ST^ in accorbance with M, Vol- I. hpter 6. 8Wh 2. All legal cost6 incurred shall be fncluded ln tho rightof-vay oosta and reipnburacwtnt to the MUIVICIPALITY of its shwe of these costs by the STATB, upon receipt of properly itemized invoices. shall bo in accordance with tho coat distribution aa hereinafter set forth. mnt for these legd cost6 shall be in accordance vith the cost ~rinci~les established bY P.rt 1-15 of1 - .. the-Bedsral Pi-ocursmant ~e&latiAa &/or 'Pe&ral Highvay stratio on golicien and compliance therevith by the b&MSCIPAWTY shall uswe pgar I msrb Fdoral hicipstion in these costa. I At the expiration of the period during which an sifectod party cau entor .n appeal from a condemnstion award of the PRMICIPALITY, the HQNICIPALIR shall sad written notification to tho STATE either setting forth tho nmru of tho appellant6 or attenting to the fact that no appeal6 wore @ad*. II Upon requeet tho STATE will furnish the HUNLCKPALITP a copy of more detailod information regarding the KDUICIPAUTY'S respwaibilitier. I 2. All right-of-way costs incurrod by tho STATS in copnecti~m vith thb projoct under this egreanmt are to bo included in tho overall puticip.~ psoject costs and are thereform eubjoct to find diettibution of approliecltely 75% Pedcrol. 15% State. and 10% Hunicipality to be mde after project Completion 1 In ths ovsrrt thie projact im not constructed as l direct or indirect reoult of my docirton. rctioo, or ombaiou of tho ~ICIPALITY. all tho right-of- vay wet. are to be relmburned in. full to the STATE by tho MIIPICIPfi~~. If, however, tha project la not colutructed for any other tourn, tho MRIICIP~LITY im only ruponribl~ for the coot of any Id or prairem acquired. 4. Any right-of-way coato which ara approvd by the STATB but ara date- to bo non-participatiw by tho Podoral Eighw.9 Adniniotration shall be rplit at A mutually acceptable ratio, botwoen tho STATE and th. MUNICIPALITY. 5. Ho otot~mtm. axpreeeiow of opinion. ropremmtaticma or yre-t8 of 4W ruture ub.taowor, not herdin exproemly outd, ude by any repmrartati*. or agent of tho STATE rhdl be bMing on, or of am7 sffact agdnot, tb. STATB. Thie Agroomont rho11 bo biadiIy upon th. ~uccoeoorm d urigM of tb. STATE mad tho MUNICIPALITV. I tR WflWESS VEEBEOF, tho Stat. of Varpwr baa eW it8 luru to b. eubocribed thie day of 19- by for the Agency of Tramportation. STATE or Ve- OF TB1L8SFORTATZa (STATE) Washington County, 6s. s AD r personally appaued ~d m2]mowb6& the fore&oirrg instrmunt by hinr executed to be bin frw .nt .rrd dsed d tb ireo act bod of the State of Vsrmont. Before me, XH WITBESB WlEMW, the City of South Burlinqton haa caused itr narnc to be arbrcribed thin 24th &y of November P A.D.. 19A by fta XSW dulJ authorired to do ro. City CITY ~MgOUTal3Immm (wumrrcnm) STATE OF VEFHOBT ~t SQPi!ngton , ws ~4tw oi Chittenden County, nu. November * A-D. r l9xr par.onallyrmarsd William 3. Szyrnanski a. !&kYbagar of the City of South Burlington , wLnovl.dgsd thin in strum^ by him subscribed to be his free act .rrd and tho fr~~ mt and deed of thq City of South Burlinqton . Before an. d7Gi,P/ Ad=--+ ~0-m lla Betty n'! Bailey Z/10z3