Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/17/1990CITY COUNCIL 17 SEPTEMBER 1990 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday 17 September 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, John Dinklage, James Condos, William Cimonetti Also Present Charles Hafter, City Manager; Albert Audette, Solid Waste District Rep; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Dept; Vi Luginbuhl, State Representative 6-2; Mike Smith, Solid Waste District; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Pat Myette, Hank Fischer, Louise Laroque, Elise & Frank Lidral, Cynthia & Edward Fischer, Marlene & Jay Zaetz, Jane Bunnar, Wally Rooney, Jim Whaley, Marvin & Connie Novak, L. O'Brien, H. Thhruger, Ron Jones, Robert Keenan, Andrew Griffiths, Timna & Barry Genzlinger, Sam and Lee Hemingway, Bernie Maiskill 1. Comments & Questions from the Public (not related to agenda items) No issues were raised 2. Consideration of Engineering alternatives for pump station at Country Club Estates Mr. Hafter said there are 2 options: the first would be to serve only the present Country Club Estates development at an estimated cost of $164,000 which Mr. Hafter felt might actually be closer to $131,000 at this time; the second would be to build the pump station at the end of the proposed new Belter development which would cost $274,000 and possibly less at this time. These estimates don't include easements. Mr. Hafter noted that the Act 250 hearings on the Belter proposed development have been continued until November. Both options are contingent upon easement being obtained from Belter. Mr. Cimonetti asked if there is any city land that could be used as an alternative to the Belter land. Mr. Hafter said there is no reasonable alternative. Mr. Fischer said he had noticed that everything is dictated by the Belter project going through which may not be a true assumption. He asked if the city would consider eminent domain. Mr. Farrar said that is possible. Mr. Fischer said it is then a question of how much individual home owners would have to pay and how much the city would pay if the Belter project doesn't go through. Mr. Farrar advised that he had asked the City Manager to talk with Mr. Belter to see what kind of arrangements could be worked out. Mr. Farrar said that if there is a way other than eminent domain, it would be better. He stressed that no one in Country Club Estates will pay anything until a decision is reached. A citizen raised concerns about the kind of discussions that will take place with Mr. Belter since he is on the Planning Commission. Mr. Farrar stressed that the Council wants to see what will be the lowest cost for the citizens of Country Club Estates and for the City, not what is cheapest for Mr. Belter. Mr. Cimonetti said he would like a sense from the community group as to the city's historical policy of residents paying 1/2 the cost and the rest of the city paying 1/2. A citizen said a lot of people feel that because this has been delayed so long and the cost is much higher, more of the cost should be borne by the city. Mr. Dinklage noted that 5 years ago, the whole system would have had to be put in by the city. Now that Belter has put in the initial system to serve his commercial development, there is a system to hook into. A citizen noted that some residents have paid $2,000 to put in new individual sewage systems. Mr. Jones felt that since there is no state rule on sewering a non-sewered area the chances are it wouldn't get done if the cost got too high. He felt eminent domain might take 5 years. Mr. Farrar said this isn't true. Eminent domain is usually a quick process. The item of contention is compensation and the money can be decided by the courts after necessity is established and the project is underway. Ms. Myette said they live adjacent to the proposed Belter project and asked what the problem would be with going across their property instead of Belter property. Mr. Hafter said the problem is topography. The pump station has to be at the lowest spot. A resident said that for the peace of mind of the residents, they would like a representative present at discussions with Belter. Mr. Farrar said he would have to discuss that with the City Attorney but felt it was not an unreasonable suggestion. Mr. Cimonetti noted that if the White Rock project is approved by Act 250, Mr. Belter would have to put in a sewer system and deed it to the City. A citizen said it looked like Belter was playing cat and mouse, tying the 2 different issues together, the sewer and his project. Mr. Farrar said he was sure Mr. Belter saw them as tied together. 3. Authorize City Manager to Sign Amended Contract with UVM Rescue Squad Mr. Farrar noted the new rate is $15,000. Mr. Cimonetti suggested starting a new 12-month contract at $15,000 instead of having it retroactive at the new rate. Mr. Condos moved the City Manager be authorized to enter into a contract with UVM Rescue Squad at a rate of $15,000 per year with the new contract to be effective in October. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Mr. Dinklage then moved to amend the motion to make the contract retroactive to July and run until 1 year from then. The motion to amend was not seconded. In the vote which followed, the motion passed unanimously. 4. Discussion of decision of Solid Waste District to have a ballot on the imposition of $5.00 per ton service fee on solid waste to fund recycling and household hazardous waste program Mr. Smith noted that household hazardous waste products will be banned from the proposed regional landfill. He added that from South Burlington's point of view, the District wanted to keep any exposure for environmental liability down. He said the District is trying to fund the recycling program themselves without state funds. The components of the program include: a permanent facility in Burlington for hazardous waste, a traveling facility in various communities, and continuation of the District pilot recycling program. He said that $4.40 of the $5.00 service fee would be dedicated to the household hazardous waste program. The remaining 60¢ would be for recycling programs. He estimated the cost would be about $10.00 a year per household. Mr. Smith said they were asked to be on the city ballot for the November election. He said he personally felt it should not be voted on, but other members of the District felt it better to give the people a say. Ms. Picard noted a decision for ballot items had to be made by 20 September. Mr. Anderson, attorney for the District, said people in S. Burlington will get ballots one way or another. If the Council denies the request, the citizens will be given a separate ballot. He said it would be easier and cheaper for S. Burlington staff to tabulate and also cheaper to print if the item is approved for the city's ballot. Mr. Condos said he felt solid waste is one of the biggest problems communities face. So is household hazardous waste. But he was very concerned about the cost. He felt the information given to the Council by the District was not in enough detail. Mr. Dinklage asked why the program can't be phased in. He felt the people were owed a much more substantial explanation. Mr. Farrar wanted to know the data base that says this is the right way to do it. Mr. Cimonetti wanted the figures from the recent one-day experiment and why the proposed program would be more cost effective. Mr. Dinklage asked the basis for the 6 lb. hazardous waste per person figure. The District's engineer said it is a national standard. Mr. Condos noted that if fees keep going up, people will find other ways of getting rid of trash and are already using roadside areas and commercial dumpsters. Mr. Smith said he is more worried about trash diversion and that insurance companies will look at the liability. He stressed that solid waste is an expensive game. Mr. Cimonetti said he felt the representation of a cost of less than $10. per year per household is wrong. Mr. Smith said there are some inequities in S. Burlington tipping fees as it is. He said people wouldn't pay the full $5.00 if there wasn't a full ton. Mr. Cimonetti noted that is not what the ordinance says. He read from the ordinance which said "...per ton or part thereof." Mr. Anderson said he would have to look at the language and that it wasn't supposed to say that. Mr. Condos said he was bothered that the District hadn't addressed the City's concerns on the Charter. Mr. Smith said he would make a commitment to look into it. Mr. Dinklage said he believes the service is needed but that his approach would be different. He asked that the District consider a scale-up. Begin with a permanent facility only. Then get some experience before going into the more expensive mobile facility. He said he is very opposed to an "all or nothing" proposal where the all is so huge. Mr. Cimonetti said he would like the District to come back with better language, better representation of cost per household, with some part of the fees returned to the community that has to administer the program. Mr. Flaherty said he was concerned with time constraints. Mr. Condos expressed concern that the District came to the City only 3 days before an item has to be on the ballot. Mr. Hafter stressed he had no idea this was to be a ballot item. Mr. Dinklage noted there is very little time to establish a public awareness and noted the recent defeats of the CWD items. He suggested the District take time and deal with issues that can be addressed before voters turn it down. Mr. Cimonetti added that if the District loses this vote, it would put them in a worse position for a vote on a site. Mr. Dinklage suggested a ballot item that would suggest a household hazardous waste program be put in place with the scope and fees to be worked out over time with public input. Mr. Smith said the Board felt the voters deserved a specific program. Mr. Anderson said he felt the City should support the District. Mr. Cimonetti saw he wanted the District to listen to the City's concerns and stressed that the communities are the District. Mr. Farrar said he wasn't sure S. Burlington was in the District. He wanted to know how the Charter got changed. He felt there was no reason for the Charter ever to go to the Legislature where it was changed. Mr. Dinklage moved to approve placement of the proposition on the city's ballot in November. Mr. Condos seconded. Mr. Cimonetti said he was opposed to the Ordinance and can't see how he could present it to the voters. Mr. Farrar said what the Council was voting on was whether this was on one piece of paper or 2. Mr. Dinklage said it was his understanding the Council couldn't prevent it. The motion was then passed 3-1 with Mr. Cimonetti opposing. 5. Request for City Council authorizing and sponsoring LWCF application for grant for the Recreation Path Mr. Dinklage moved to authorize the Chairman to sign the grant application. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Discuss plans for City Council/Department Head Retreat Ted Mable was suggested as facilitator. He is willing to donate his services. Members discussed a date after 11/6 with one session from 9am to Noon, then 1-3pm, and a Council Executive Session from 3-5 pm. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. 10. Minutes of 20 August Mr. Condos moved the Minutes of 8/20 be approved as written. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Bicentennial Committee Mr. Dinklage noted the Minutes of the Committee raised a question of what to do with left over funds. He suggested an escrow fund to be used for the City Center, however the area develops. 12. Executive Session Mr. Dinklage moved the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss Dorset St. litigation and personnel matters and to resume regular session only to adjourn. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session The Council returned to open session. Jim Condos moved adjournment, Bill Cimonetti seconded. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.