Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/27/1984CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 27, 1984 The South Burlington City Council held a Special Meeting on Monday, February 27, 1984, at 7:00 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Hugh Marvin, Chairman; Leona Lansing, Michael Flaherty, Paul Farrar, William Peters Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; James W. Goddette, Fire Department; Albert Audette, Street Department; Donald Whitten, Water Pollution Control Department; Richard G. Carter, Brian Searles, Police Department; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Stan Wilbur, Alex Tuscany, webste-Martin: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Barry Carris, Sign Committee Discuss with Attorney Options for Treating non-conforming signs Mr. Marvin noted that the report of the Sign Committee would be presented at the next meeting, but that the City Attorney was present to outline the options available to the Council. Mr. Spokes then presented the various legal alternatives: 1) to amend the present sign ordinance to include a new amortization provision to replace the one invalidated by the Court. Mr. Spokes said he would not recommend this action. 2) to recognize that non-conforming signs could remain standing but to prohibit any alterations at all to these signs. The theory here is that in time the owners would take them down and replace them with conforming signs. A bad aspect of this alternative is that it would encourage unsightly signs if owners felt they had to replace them with conforming signs. 3) to limit the amount of changes, such as the Zoning Board procedure of granting variances where the change is not more than 25% more than the fair market value. This practice has been upheld by the Superior Court, but Mr. Spokes was not sure it made sense as a provision of the sign ordinance. 4) to leave the ordinance in its present form with no reference to non-conforming signs. Owners could then maintain or make changes in non-conforming signs but could not add to the degree of non-conformity 5) to amend the above (#4) to articulate what changes are or are not allowed. Mr. Ward said he would feel better about a 60 sq. ft. minimum as it would make fewer non-conforming signs to deal with. Mr. Carris of the Sign Committee said it was the Committee's feeling that the ordinance was working and that given time eventually all signs would come into conformity. They were concerned that the existing ordinance was difficult for the Zoning Administrator to enforce. The question was raised as to whether a sign could be taken down and a new sign, closer to compliance, put in its place. Mr. Spokes said it was a question he had not researched, but his reaction was that the purpose of the clause was to protect the sign owner's investment in his sign. If the sign is taken down completely, that purpose is no longer relevant. He said that he would look further into the question. Mr. Farrar asked if a time limit might be placed on the new sign before it would have to be replaced by a conforming sign. Mr. Spokes said he would advise staying away from any kind of amortization clause. He said it could be done, but it might get the City back into court again. Progress Report on Upgrading of Airport Parkway Sewage Treatment Plant - Webster-Martin Engineers Messrs. Wilbur and Tuscany advised that they are on schedule and envision finishing this work in December, 1984. They are now in the process of finishing the Value Engineering portion of the work. Mr. Farrar asked if they feel ready for a bond vote in May. Mr. Wilbur said the answer will be yes if at the end of the Value Engineering the State and City concur with the findings. If further information is required, this could delay them. South Burlington will be the first municipality under the new funding formula in which the federal government pays only 55% (instead of 75%) and the state pays up to 25%. This represents an additional 10% for the City to fund. Mr. Szymanski reminded the Council that the phosphorus provision will be funded under the same formula, not at 100% as before. Mr. Marvin asked whether this is the beginning of further cuts in aid. Mr. Wilbur said that best evidence is that they will continue to fund at 55%. The federal government will probably get out of the pollution abatement business altogether, but he couldn't see this happening this year. Mr. Farrar asked if cost for increased capacity and those for upgrading can be broken out separately. Mr. Wilbur said this can be done after Value Engineering. Mr. Whitten reminded the members that the federal government participates only up to 1.2 million gpd, and the state only up to 2 million gpd. Mr. Farrar calculated that for a 2.3 million gpd plant, the local share would amount to $3,042,000 and for a 2 million gpd plant $2,217,000, which suggests that the extra capacity would cost in the neighborhood of $825,000. He asked if the city goes only with upgrading and then later decides to expand, will there be charges more than the excess indicated here. Mr. Wilbur said there would definitely be. Mr. Farrar asked how long the capacities being planned would carry the city at the present rate of growth, and the estimate was 20 years, a figure derived in consultation with Dave Spitz, former City Planner. Mr. Szymanski advised that there are currently no projects waiting for capacity; however, after the University Mall expansion is approved, there will be nothing left. Mr. Farrar asked if Mr. Szymanski could provide the dollar value of growth in the past 5 years and the gallons of sewage to be treated by that growth. He also noted that there is a piece of legislation that would allow tax incremental financing by which a community could set aside all revenue to pay for infra-structure to allow a plan to go forth. So if the City could allocate those revenues from new taxes for several years, at least the money could be channeled for that purpose. It was agreed that the discussion would be continued the second regularly scheduled meeting in March. Mr. Peters noted that he was concerned about what would happen if the President decided to push all of these projects onto the towns. He advised keeping a finger on this. Continue Review of 1984-1985 Budgets Mr. Goddette presented the Fire Department budget, noting a slight increase in vehicle maintenance due to changing parts on the used trucks they bought. He also advised that they now have a new tanker bought for $15.00 through surplus. Mr. Carter noted that the Police budget reflects requests for 2 new people plus the upgrading of two secretaries and 2 dispatchers. Also requested are 2 replacement cruisers and several typewriters. Mr. Minnich noted that the personnel requests are not reflected in the proposed budget. Mr. Searles said that the personnel requests would cost about $40,000. The two new persons would be a detective and an officer to complete a team that is one person short. Regarding equipment, they would like 2 new radar sets as the present ones are 2 years old and frequently need repair. A new fire extinguisher is also requested as a man was burned by a faulty one. For investigative equipment they are requesting new body wiring equipment for sophisticated investigations. Ms. Lansing asked if anything was budgeted for a Neighborhood Watch Program. Chief Carter said that with an additional person there would be more of such programs. Mr. Audette said his budget for the Street Dept. is 3.5% above last year's. Equipment to be replaced include a sweeper, large dump truck and small dump truck. Mr. Marvin asked why there is no more significant reflection for the man who retired. Mr. Minnich will check on this. Mr. Whitten said the Sewage Dept. budget has a 7.4% increase reflecting the request for a new half-time man and the replacement of a '76 pick-up. He advised they should show a surplus from sewer revenues this year. Mr. Peters asked how many new people will be needed with the proposed expansion. Mr. Whitten said 3 more, noting they have always operated under what other municipalities use. With only upgrading, 2 people will still be needed. Mr. Marvin stressed that the expiring bond issue and the proposed bond issue should be completely laid out for the voters. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Ms. Lansing moved for adjournment. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous consent. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.