Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/02/1984CITY COUNCIL JULY 2, 1984 The South Burlington City Council held a Regular Meeting on Monday, July 2, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Leona Lansing, Michael Flaherty, George Mona, William Peters Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Jim Cheng, Burlington, Free Press; Lowell Krassner Comments & Questions from Audience There was no discussion. Sign Visiting Nurse Service Agreement Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council authorize the Chairman to sign the Letter of Service agreement with the Visiting Nurse Association to provide whatever services are necessary. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Consider City transportation improvements projects for submission to MPO Mr. Szymanski advised that the City has been asked to submit a list of proposed projects to be included in the State's five year transportation plan. He presented a memo dated July 2, 1984 (attached) suggesting the projects to be included. It was noted that items 2 & 3 under "Federal Aid Urban" are already on the list. It was decided that if another request in this category is possible, item 1 will be proposed. Mr. Farrar advised that there is some Interstate improvement money for ramps, so it is possible that the City might get some work in this area in less than 5 years. The procedure will now be to submit the list to the MPO which will rate them and submissions from other communities. There will then be a list of projects from this region submitted to the State Highway Board for inclusion in the plan. The area will then lobby for the whole list, which it is hoped will be more effective than to have legislators working for their own towns. Mr. Flaherty then moved to instruct the City Manager to submit the list dated July 2, 1984, with the indicated change under "Federal Aid Urban" to the MPO as the City's request. Mr. Mona seconded with unanimous approval. Accept list of unlicensed dogs as required by State statutes There was some discussion as to what becomes of the list and of the unlicensed animals. Following the discussion, Mr. Mona moved to accept the list of unlicensed dogs as presented by the City Clerk and to ask the City Manager to study the statutes and propose a course of action. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous consent. Continue discussion on Airport Parkway Treatment Plant upgrade funding method Mr. Szymanski directed the Council's attention to a letter from the City Attorney (attached). Mr. Farrar felt that in view of the Attorney's comments, it might be advisable to employ both funding methods: a gallonage fee to be paid by developers, and a tax incremental financing district plan which would provide tax monies. Ms. Lansing expressed concern that the City wouldn't see any tax revenue from new development in the area for a year. Mr. Farrar said that revenue won't exist if developers can't build due to a lack of sewage capacity. Mr. Mona raised the question of the budget covering new services for new developments. Mr. Farrar said there really are no services the first year. Mr. Peters felt it would be easier just to place a tax on the entire grand list. Mr. Farrar said he felt it was a question of what was fairest. Both Mr. Mona and Ms. Lansing felt it was also a question of what would be more palatable to the voters. Mr. Mona moved that the funding for the upgrade of the Airport Parkway Sewage Treatment Plant, which is approximately $800,000 be funded out of an additional debt service tax, and that the remainder of money for the increased capacity of the Plant be funded as follows: one-half by an initial assessment on any new development and the other half by a tax incremental funding district method. Ms. Lansing seconded, and the motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Peters voting against. Mr. Peters said he felt it should be funded entirely from the Grand List. Mr. Krassner said he felt this method was better for the public because many people did not want to subsidize new development. He added that it may not be entirely fair and felt funding should be entirely on a user basis. People such as residents of Country Club Estates are forced to pay for a service to which they have no access. Sign Highway Equipment Renewal Note Mr. Szymanski explained that the note is for a land fill machine. There is a $13,187 balance. The note is for 6 months at the Chittenden at a rate of 7.95%. Mr. Mona moved to sign the Highway Equipment Renewal Note. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous consent. Zoning Board Agenda Review There was no discussion. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were signed. Other Business a) Progress report on speed reduction studies Mr. Szymanski reported that spot speed studies have been done on Hinesburg Rd, Kennedy Drive, and a portion of Williston Rd. An accident report is being compiled and will be submitted to the State at the beginning of next week. b) Charter Changes Ms. Lansing advised that she has been asked by citizens how they can petition for a Charter Change. Mr. Farrar reported that they cannot petition for a change but can petition the Council to consider it. Mr. Flaherty said he felt the City Attorney should be asked for an opinion on this question. c) Dorset Street Project Mr. Farrar reported that he and Ms. Lansing attended the hearing where a numbers of comments were voiced about the width of the road. The School Board has serious concerns about the area near the schools. Mr. Farrar felt they should come to some conclusion as to how to proceed. Mr. Szymanski said he had checked with one person at the Highway Department who thought the design could be cut down, but that Mr. Goss had said that if a Kennedy Drive on-ramp is desired, the width must be 5 lanes. Mr. Farrar noted that School Board would have final say as they own the land and he felt it would be advisable to set up a meeting with the Chairman of the School Board, the City Council Chairman and the engineering design people. The Council members agreed. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council adjourn and reconvene as the Liquor Control Board. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Szymanski presented a second class license request from Pancho's Gulf which has a new owner. There are no fire, police or tax problems. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the liquor license request for Pancho's Gulf. Mr. Mona seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Mona posed the question of liquor license saturation which was held for future discussion. Mr. Szymanski then presented the update report on Club New England. He noted memos from Fire and Police Chief. The Fire Chief is pleased with compliance to regulations and the Police report an improvement as well. A letter from Mrs. Cady was read and indicated that the neighbors feel the situation is somewhat better. It was noted that the bandstage will be moved to the east wall in the east room; a soundproofing expert has been consulted; records are now being played in one room instead of live music. Chip Ward, attorney for the Club, advised they have spent $3,500 to install soundproofing on the north wall. Sound testing procedures resulted in the conclusion that noise will diminish significantly when the soundstage is moved to the east wall. Mr. Peters raised the question of the number of police incidents. Mr. Farrar did not feel this number or the kind of incidents to be excessive. He added he did not feel opposed to having another update in 2 or 3 months, and also a comparison to other establishments in town. As there was no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Mona moved for adjournment seconded by Mr. Flaherty. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. MEMORANDUM ---------- TO : South Burlington City Council w XS FROM: City Manager William J. Szym-anski - RE : South Burlington Road Projects for submittal to M.P.O. DATE: July 2, 1984 Interstate 1. On ramp at Dorset St.-Kennedy Drive-I 189 intersection 2. Interchange at Hinesburg Rd. 1-89 Federal Aid Primary 1. Kennedy Dr.-Dorset St. to Hinesburg Rd. widen to four lanes, reconstruct and repave 2. Hinesburg Rd.-Williston Rd. to Kennedy Dr. widen, reconstruct and repave Federal Aid Urban rset St.-Kennedy Dr. to Shelburne Town Line, reconstruct 2. Swift St.-Shelburne Rd. east to top of hill, approximately .4 miles, reconstruct, widen and repave, including curbs and storm drain system I 3. Patchen Rd. -Richard TerrTF .A. I. 89 bridge, reconstruct to include curbs, drainage and sidewalk 4. Allen Road-Shelburne Rd. easterly, approximately .35 mi., reconstruct, widen including curbs and drainage Bridge 1. Poor Farm Rd.at Muddy Brook, replace bridge with culvert 2. Lime Kiln Bridge, reconstruct or replace 1. Bartletts Bay Rd. - Signalize railroad crossing SPOKES, FOLEY & STITZEL ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUN 2 9 1984 184 SOUTH WlNOOSKl AVENUE MANAG TRSS OFF^^^ P. O. BOX sas cm so. ~uRL~N~~~~ BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-09a6 Ti2, RICHARD A. SPOKES JAMES 0. FOLEY STEVEN F. STITZEL - MARY ALICE MCKENZIE (BO2t Bat- 6451 / teoa) eel-aes7 - ISAAC N. P. STOKES COUNSEL ' June 29, 1984 Mr. William Szymanski City Manager 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Sewer Connection Fees Dear Bill: You asked me to research whether the City has the authority to assess sewer connection fees to pay for the proposed expansion to the Airport Parkway sewage treatment facility. The connection fees would be charged to owners of currently undeveloped land as they connect to the system. The monies collected would be used to retire the bonds necessary to fund the cost of the expansion. It is my opinion that the City can assess connection fees for this purpose, but that the entire burden of funding the expansion project cannot be borne by new connectors. Sewage.disposa1 charges or usage charges can also be utilized to retire the bonded indebtedness. In general see 24 V.S.A. 893612-3616. The connection fees can be proportional to, but not in excess of, the benefits received. 11 McQuillen, MunCorp, Section 31.30(a) and 56 AmJur 2d Municipal Corporations, Section 574. One recent Utah case sets forth the following factors to consider in determining whether connection fees are reasonable for this purpose : 1. The cost of existing capital facilities; 2. The means by which those facilities have been financed; 3. The extent to which the properties being charged the new fee have already contributed to the cost of the existing facilities; 4. The extent to which they will contribute to the cost of existing capital facilities in the future; 5. The extent to which they should be credited for providing common facilities that the municipality has provided without charge to other properties in its service area; 6. Extraordinanry costs, if any, in serving the new property; and Mr. William Szymanski June 29, 1984 Page 2 7. The time price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amounts paid at different times. Lafferty v. Payson City, - Utah , 642 P.2d 376 - (1982). The Court in Lafferty explained that the objective in considering the seven factors was to assure that the connection fees imposed against newly connected properties do not result in these properties bearing more than their equitable share of the capital costs (in comparison with other ~ro~erties) in relation to benefits conferred. In summary, connection fees are one source to help fund the cost of expansion of the sewage treatment facilities, but they cannot be used to fund the total cost. A Florida case we read seems to best articulate the principals the City must follow in establishing connection fees: Raising expansion capital by setting connection charges, which do not exceed the prorata share of reasonably anticipated costs of expansion, is permissible where expansion is reasonably required, if use of the money collected is limited to meeting the costs of expansion. Users who benefit especially, not from the maintenance of the system, but by the expansion of the system should bear the cost of that expansion. On the other hand, it is not just and equitable for a municipality owned utility to impose the entire burden of capital expenditures, including replacement of existing plant, on persons connecting to a water and sewer system after an arbitrarily chosen time period. The cost of new facilities should be borne by new users to the extent new use requires new facilities, but only to that extent. When new facilities must be built in any event, looking only to new users for necessary capital gives old users a windfall at the expense of new users. cont=actbrs and Buildings Assoc. of Pinellas County v. Dunedin, - Fla. - 329 S.2d 314 (1976). Debt retirement can also be partially funded by usage charges, a levy against the entire grand list or by imposing a special assessment (see 24 V.S.A. 553251-3256 regarding special assessments). We still are working on a proposed charter amendment to permit tax increment financing. Quite frankly, I see little hope of this concept being accepted by the Legislature as part of a municipal charter. It seems more appropriate for general enabling legislation, particularly considering the Legislature must now affirmately approve all municipal charter amendments. Chupter 87. Special Assessments BEGTION 3251. Definitions. 3252. Purpose of assessments. 3253. Method of apportionment. 3254. Approval of voters. 3265. Collection of assessments; liens. 3256. Construction with other laws. HISTOBY Table of renumbered chaptern. For table ahowing &position of renumbered chaptera of this title, ae% table set out at end of this title. As used in this chapter: (1) "Legislative w' means 'legislative body" as defined in section 2001 of this title. (2) "Property" means real estate. (3) "Sewage system" means "sewage system'' as defined in sec- tion 3501 (6) of this title. (4) "Special assessment" means a tax assessed against one or more properties receiving the benefit of a particular public im- provement, as distinguished from a tax on the entire grand list of a municipality. (5) "Water system" means "water system" as defined in sec- tion 3341(b) (2) of this title without reference to any determination by the water commission.-Added 1969, No. 170 (Adj. Sess.), 4 10, eff. March 2,1970. g 3252. Purpose of assessments Special assessments may be made for the purchase, construction, repair, reconstruction or extension of a water system or sewage system, or any other public improvement which is of benefit to a limited area of a municipality to be served by the improvement.- Added 1969, No. 170 (Adj. Sess.), 5 10, eff. March 2,1970. § 3253. Method of apportionment A special assessment may be apportioned among the properties to be benefited thereby according to the listed value of such prop erties in the grand list, the frontage thereof, the added value ac- cruing to each property by reason of the public improvement for which such assessment is made, or by any method other than the foregoing which results in a fair apportionment of the cost of the improvement in accordance with the benefits received.-Added 1969, No. 170 (Adj. Sess.), 5 10, &. March 2,1970. 8 3254. Approval of voters A special aesessment under this chapter shall be levied only by vote of a majority of the qualiiied voters of the municipality voting at an annual or special meeting duly warned for that pur- pose. However, the question need not be submitted to the voters if an of the owners of record of property to be assessed,: or of any interest therein, other, than mortgagees or lien holders, consent in writing to the assessment. Either the vote or the consent shall include approval of the method of apportionment of the assess- ment.-Added 1969, No. 170 (Adj. Sess.), # 10, eff. March 2, 1970. 63 3255. Collection of assessments; liens Special assessments under this chapter shall constitute a lien on the property against which the assessment is made in the same manner and to the same extent as taxes assessed on the grand list of a municipality, and all procedures and remedies for the collec- tion of taxes shall apply to special assessments.-Added 1969, No. 170 (Adj. Sess.), g 10, eff. March 2,1970. Q 3256. Construction with other laws Nothing contained in this chapter shall prohibit the financing of any of the improvements referred to in this chapter by a tax on the grand list of a municipalitp-, or by other means.-Added 1969, No. 170 (Adj. Sess.), # 10, eff. March 2,1970.