Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/30/1990CITY COUNCIL 30 APRIL 1990 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, 30 April 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; John Dinklage, Michael Flaherty, William Cimonetti Also Present Charles Hafter, City Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer, Stephen Stitzel, City Attorney; Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Dept; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Ed Blake, Bob Gardner, CWD; Howard Perkett, Pat Garahan, Water Commission; Peter Jacob, Reg Orvis, Joe Frank, Earl Greer, Walter Adams, Jr.; Sid Poger, The Other Paper Comments & questions from the public (not related to agenda items No issues were raised. Hearing on damage compensation awards for Dorset St. widening Mr. Farrar read the Warning. a) parcel #9, Nigel Mucklow, owner Mr. Orvis said .05 acre is being taken along the frontage. There is also a temporary slope easement, temporary easement to construct a drive, and a sign that is personal property. Damages offered are $78,600 ($17,500 for land, 61,000 for damages, and $100 for the temporary easement). The damages are due to rent loss because the acquisition line will be at the front of the property and the front entrance will have to be sealed. This will require interior work. Mr. Mucklow said the real estate figure is OK. The cost to relocate at $27,300 was computed 2 years ago. Three recent estimates show the least expensive figure at $41,000 not including tax. He noted the distance is 400 not 300 yards. They also have to build up the floor and put in a toilet for tenants. He said the State estimate did not take into account moving a bearing wall. Mr. Orvis said the cost of cure can exceed the property value and felt that economically you wouldn't spend $45,000 to remedy a loss of $27,000. He said that 30% of the gross loss of rent is due to loss of parking in front. He felt that the inside can be either cured or converted to warehousing. Mr. Mucklow said there are 2 rental spaces in question, both retail. Mr. Farrar noted there is a question of whether warehousing is an allowable use in this zone. Mr. Mucklow said warehousing would also be a useless use of the building as you can't get into the space once you close off the front. Mr. Farrar felt the Council should take a close look at the property in its site visit on Saturday. Mr. Mucklow said there is also a question of how a truck will get onto the property with the median strip. Mr. Hafter said they may have to instruct the driver to come so there will be right hand turn. Mr. Farrar said it would be legal to turn around in the school parking lot. Mr. Mucklow questioned the sign compensation. Mr. Farrar said in his case the sign is personal property and will be paid for at full value. He said the Council is going to try to figure out how to deal with replacing signs so they will be useful for businesses and also aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Mucklow asked if the land taking will affect his ability to add a second floor to the building. Mr. Cimonetti felt the percentage of coverage might change a bit. b) parcel #10, Hy Glutten & Co, owner No one was present to represent this parcel. Mr. Dinklage moved to table parcel #10 until later in the meeting. Mr. Cimonetti seconded. Motion passed unanimously. c) parcel #30, Evelyn I. Hedman, Trustee No one was present to represent this parcel. Mr. Cimonetti moved to table parcel #30 until later in the meeting. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. d) parcels 31A and 31B, Peter & Vilma Jacob, owners Mr. Orvil said .01 acre is being acquired across the frontage. There are also temporary slope right, a temporary right to remove fencing an construct curbing, temporary drive rights, and a permanent right for loop detectors. On parcel 31B, .05 acre is being taken. There are various temporary drive easements, curb, slope easements, a permanent easement for loop detectors. A total of $23,600 was offered. Through negotiation, a figure of $25,000 was found to be acceptable. Mr. Jacob said the problem is with a sign. They have no room for it after the land taking. They want wording that says they will come to an agreement on sign placement. With the assurance that will be taken care of, they are willing to sign an agreement. e) parcel #36, Dorset Square Associates, owner. No one was present to represent this parcel. Mr. Flaherty moved to table parcel #36 until later in the meeting. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. f) parcel #45, Earl & Catherine Greer, owner Mr. Orvis said .08 acre is being taken along the frontage. There is a temporary easement to reset a fence, temporary slope rights and two temporary drive rights. Damages are $35,100. ($23,000 for land, $12,000 for cost of cure for parking/fencing and a new building entry, and $100 for temporary easements). Mr. Frank, representing the Greers, said the focus of the Greers is on the cost of cure/severance damage. There is a world of difference between what is offered and what the owners feel is appropriate. They feel the situation is one where they have to relocate a portion of the building in order to maintain the property as a viable business property. The cost of this is $335,000. Mr. Adams, whose construction company is doing the work, said the plan was approved as a way to remedy the loss of parking plus setback and coverage issues. He showed the new plan. The building is moving toward the Texaco station. The cost for work being done by Adams is $135,000 (only the shell of the building, no site work, electric, plumbing, etc). Mr. Greer said this is the 3rd or 4th time frontage has been taken from them. He felt they deserved to park in front of the building and this is absolutely necessary for business. It would devalue the land without it. He said they have checked with people on costs to move the business presently located there and have been told $50,000 for each building. He felt they might be able to do it for less. They have a figure of $115,000 for electric, plumbing, new lights, etc. This doesn't include carpeting, new catch basins, etc., for which they are paying. He said they felt insulted by the state's offer and felt it didn't even start the ball rolling. Mr. Farrar asked for a list breaking down all the costs. Mr. Greer noted it is the sports equipment store that will be in the new wing. The dry cleaning business will still be on the west. The Mills & Greer entrance will face the new parking lot. g) parcel #46A and B, Champlain Oil, Inc., owner No one was present to represent the owner. Mr. Orvil said from parcel A .02 acres is being taken and from parcel B .01 acres. There are temporary drive rights, 2 temporary slope easements, and a permanent easement to install and maintain a sign. $22,700 is offered. The Council then considered properties tabled earlier. Parcel #10, Hy Glutten Co, owner Mr. Orvis said .05 acre is being taken. There are also temporary slope and drive rights. $22,800 is offered. Parcel #30, Evelyn I. Hedman, Trustee Mr. Orvis said .01 acre is being taken. There is also a temporary drive easement, slope easement, an easement to install a fence, and a permanent channel right. $26,500 is offered. Mr. Orvis noted there is an option now signed on this property. Parcel #36, Dorset Square, owner. Mr. Orvis said .07 acre is being taken. There are temporary slope rights, temporary drive right, permanent easement for loop detectors, temporary sidewalk easement. $21,900 is offered. Mr. Flaherty moved to close the hearing with the understanding that properties will be visited on 5 May 1990, between 9 and 11 a.m. Written testimony will be accepted until 14 May 1990. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Presentation of future expansion plans of CWD Mr. Farrar asked what problem is being solved with the excess capacity. Mr. Blake said they have treatment/pumping capacity of 11.5 million gpd. They have peak demands for up to 13 million gpd. They are 2 years into an agreement with Burlington to purchase a maximum of 2 million gpd. They pay 64¢ with an annual review. CWD's total cost of production is 70¢. At some peak times, Burlington couldn't meet CWD's demands, and they feel the transportation system to get water out of Burlington to CWD is not adequate. Mr. Flaherty asked what Burlington could supply. Mr. Blake said up to 1.5 million gallons. Mr. Farrar asked if they could supply more with a better transportation system. Mr. Blake said yes. Mr. Blake said that at this time next year they will have filtration capacity of 15 million per day. If the growth rate continues as it has been, that capacity will get them through 1992. By 1993, peak demands will be more than 15 million/day. There is also a question of whether CWD can purchase water on demand from Burlington or whether they have to buy 2 million/day for the other months of the year. They now have to take a minimum of 800,000 gpd. Mr. Dinklage asked if the rate discussed with Burlington includes upgrade of their facilities to get water to CWD. Mr. Blake said their best offer to date is 65¢ per 1,000 gal. and CWD would improve the transportation system to what is needed. This would be at CWD expense. Mr. Hafter noted an offer was made to a group of City Managers of 55¢ per 1,000 gal with Burlington improving the distribution system, but Burlington would then get any grant money that CWD might get for improving the distribution system. Mr. Blake said that offer was never given to CWD. He noted that Mr. Jacob will meet with Mayor Clavelle on Thursday. Mr. Hafter asked the production cost at the new Milton plant. Mr. Blake said 40¢, same as S. Burlington. He estimated that with transmission and storage, etc., it would go to a maximum of $1.10 when all storage is finally built, then back off from that to $1.00. He said all users would pay the same rate. Mr. Flaherty asked the capacity with the new Milton plant. Mr. Blake said 21,000,000 gpd. He felt this would cover through the year 2,000. Mr. Perkett asked if Mr. Blake would expect an opposite pattern of increasing/decreasing rates under the circumstances and asked why this isn't so. Mr. Blake said they have to build more storage in Milton and a new transmission line to Essex. They don't get to the 6 million gpd until more transmission is built. Also, debt service is critical. Mr. Garahan said it seems it would be a lot cheaper to get water from Burlington. Mr. Blake said purchasing water from Burlington doesn't get it to customers. Mr. Garahan said CWD is already building the line to Essex. Mr. Blake said someone has to pump it out of Burlington. Mr. Garahan said he has never seen a comparable analysis and it seems to him the first thing to establish is whether there is sufficient capacity, then is there transmission, then what the rate will be. Mr. Garahan asked how much of the transmission line to Milton cost is because CWD is building a new plant in Milton. Mr. Blake said 3/4. He noted that Burlington water would only meet CWD capacity needs for 7 years. It would not be an answer forever. Mr. Farrar asked if there is anything that says the future will look like the past. Mr. Blake said they feel they have to get to serious planning. He advocates a plan that is relatively short term so that incremental steps can be taken to meet needs as they come along. He said they are not planning that they can purchase water from Burlington. He felt that would be poor business. Mr. Perkett asked how much Milton and Jericho would add to CWD's base. Mr. Blake said 300,000 day. He felt the demand would grow faster than their experience has been, up to 10% in early years and up to 1/2 million gpd. Mr. Dinklage said he shared a philosophy of planning. But he wanted to understand why S. Burlington residents should have to pay an increase from 70¢ to 1.10 to provide water to Milton. Mr. Blake said only a minor part of that is for water to Milton. He noted that S. Burlington has doubled its hook-ons in 10 years. Mr. Dinklage asked how costs of pipes to Jericho and Milton will be allocated. Mr. Blake said S. Burlington pays only to the Milton and Jericho town lines. Mr. Garahan said he felt it was fair to say that people in S. Burlington will have to pay more than if the lines were not expanded to Jericho and Milton. He noted only 81 people voted in the election for this. And they had no knowledge of the rate increase involved when that vote was taken. He didn't feel it should be that way. He felt it was a dangerous precedent. If a town votes to include themselves, they're treated the same as everyone else, and he didn't think this was fair. He felt the new communities should pay an incremental cost of hookups. Mr. Garahan noted that Mr. Blake had told the Commission that CWD determined what a community could pay and the District paid the rest. Mr. Blake said he said that, he shouldn't have. He said they took into consideration the amount of pipeline in a present district, also what will be needed in the new community. He said participation by CWD goes only to CWD's present borders. The new community pays the cost of transmission line in their jurisdiction. Mr. Perkett noted if these communities weren't brought into CWD, they couldn't afford to have water, so it seemed to him to be some sort of "subsidy." Some amount of money is generated by base communities to get water to Jericho. Mr. Blake said it costs $250,000 to get the pipe to Jericho. He felt it would generate $300,000 in 30 years time. He also noted that CWD gets tapping fees. He noted Jericho could get by for 10 years for less than they'll pay for CWD water. Mr. Farrar asked if S. Burlington uses more water, is CWD committed to supply it with the cost shared by all member districts. Mr. Blake said yes. Mr. Garahan said that's not quite true. Essex asked for water but the customer was IBM and IBM paid for building their capacity. Mr. Dinklage asked if an old customer doubled his capacity, would CWD members all support the cost of the added capacity. Mr. Blake said it would depend on how much water is involved. Mr. Jacob said they look at problems a community has when they ask to join the district. Milton has a radon problem and the state came to CWD and CWD agreed to help. Mr. Blake said they anticipate a bond vote in late June. They will hold information meetings in the communities. There will be 2 items on the bond: an additional line from Shelburne Rd. to Essex ($2,280,000) and $830,000 for design of the raw water portion of the Milton system and the permit process and land acquisition. Mr. Dinklage said he would like to see CWD elections held in conjunction with normal elections in normal polling places. He felt very strongly about that, and said CWD's track record is zero for co-incidence with regular elections. Mr. Blake said they couldn't get through Act 250 in time for the May election and in order to build this building season, they can't wait for the September election. Set Date/Time for Compensation Deliberation Hearings Members agreed to meet Thursday at 8:30 p.m. Executive Session Mr. Dinklage moved the Council Meet in Executive Session to discuss Dorset St. litigation and deliberations regarding the utilities with the City Attorney. Mr. Cimonetti seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session Request for continuation of Public Hearing on revision to final plat for Butler Farms Residential subdivision relating to the establishment of a second access road. Mr. Flaherty moved to continue the Public Hearing for Butler Farms the next regular meeting. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Consideration of recommendation to increase tipping fees at the S. Burlington landfill to comply with the provisions of VSA Section 6605. Two options have been proposed. Mr. Farrar felt option 1 was OK but didn't like option 2. He didn't think the state would approve it. He said he would rather collect tipping fees than have a bond issue. Mr. Cimonetti didn't like doubling fees to save money. Mr. Hafter said he agreed with Mr. Farrar. Mr. Cimonetti felt they should know the status now. He doubted the state would make the community bond now and that they should tell the state they would request bonding authority in May 1990. He felt they should find out if that's against the rules. Mr. Audette said the rule now says closure costs will be paid by tipping fees. It doesn't allow bonding. Mr. Cimonetti insisted that the more fees are increased, the more acceptable it becomes to increase fees. Mr. Farrar asked why construction demolition debris dumping fees can't be part of closing costs. Mr. Cimonetti said he would go along with that. Members agreed to consider a maximum increase from $6.00 to $8.00. Minutes of 26 February, 3 April and 21 April 1990 Mr. Dinklage moved to accept the Minutes of 26 February, 3 April and 21 April as written. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Planning and Zoning Agendas Mr. Dinklage noted item #5 of the Planning Agenda, a sketch plan of the Deslauriers for land behind Ramada. He felt the Commission should be alerted to make sure there is clear title duly recorded as there has been litigation on this parcel. Regarding items #1 and #2 of the Zoning meeting, Mr. Dinklage noted Champlain Oil wants to put a canopy up and he wanted to be sure the Zoning Board takes into account the widening of Dorset St. in the placement of the canopy, if approved. Mr. Dinklage also noted a traffic concern on Shelburne Rd. in connection with Zoning item #5. Mr. Cimonetti expressed concern with the UVM/East Ave/Sheraton access item. Zoning has tabled UVM until the next meeting. Mr. Cimonetti said he had learned that the Burlington Planning Commission is suggesting that since this project involves both cities, it should be heard at a joint meeting of both Commissions. Mr. Cimonetti felt administrative people of both communities should look at the proposal together. Mr. Farrar agreed. Mr. Cimonetti noted residents feel all parking lot traffic should go to Williston Rd., and that the only traffic onto East Ave. should come from the residential development. He felt there would be a huge conflict. Mr. Cimonetti asked if Planning and Zoning are informed that the impact of anything on Dorset St. will be felt at Spear/Swift Sts. and that this should be considered. Mr. Hafter and Mr. Audette noted that UVM is talking about taking down buildings on the Wheelock Farm and there may be an opportunity to straighten that intersection. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter presented liquor license renewals from: Airport Restaurant, J & L Sav Mor Variety, Jake's Original Bar & Grill, Pap Gino's, Perry's Fish House, and Spillane's (811 Williston Rd). Mr. Dinklage moved the Board sign the liquor license renewals as presented. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter presented a catering permit request for a wedding at K of C Hall, on 5/26, from 2:30 to 7:30 p.m. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the catering permit for DECO, Inc. as presented by the City Manager. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.