Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/30/1991CITY COUNCIL 30 DECEMBER 1991 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, 30 December 1991, at 7:30 p.m., at South Burlington High School. Members Present: Michael Flaherty, Chairman; John Dinklage, James Condos, William Cimonetti, Robert Chittenden Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk; Stephen Stitzel, City Attorney; Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Department; William Szymanski, City Engineer; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Linus Leavens, Alan Mihar, Chris Cavin, Jill Coffrin, Laura DeMaroney, Ed Smith, Patricia & Dale Kleppinger, Gerry Silverstein, Mark McCaffrey, Jason George, Leo & Joan Nadeau, Hugh Marvin, Andrew Price, Don & Joanne McLean, Richard Sinclair, Douglas Cauchon, Bill Schuele, Bob Bennett, Donald Weaver, Patrick Orlando, Pete Belleville, Susan & Gary DuCharme, Robert Chittenden, Jr., Thomas Chittenden, Pete Crevier, Nancy Bell, Stephen Crowley, Jim Chase, Ellen & Albert Beaudoin, Irene & Dewey Irish, Mary & Christina Spalding, Ed Markey, Rick & Diane Farnham, Barbara Hibbitts, Pat Reed, Sarah Dopp, Charles Scott, Bob Dion, Susan Pritchard, Diane McArthur, Chuck Bardier, Stephen Incavo, Dave Maclaughlin, Robert Larson, George Mona, Julia Duppstadt, Leo Brown, Paul Jordan, Don Duell, Mike O'Day, Irene Stowe, Patti Zell, Peter Harvey, Ted Winfield 1. Discussion of Proposed Bond Issue for Park Land Purchase and Development: Mr. Flaherty explained that this is a unique opportunity for the city to buy 100 acres of land for the Central Park. Mr. O'Neill then reviewed the history of the park planning process. He said that both the city and the school district have been involved in this planning. In 1980 (and possibly before that time), the Comprehensive Plan identified the goal of acquiring a minimum of 250 acres of land for recreational needs of the city and schools. They also identified the need to set aside land for a future school site and the need to preserve scenic views and overlooks. Mr. O'Neill noted that South Burlington is a city split in two by the Interstate, and the proposed park was viewed as an integrated focus for the city with its location in the center. The land acquisition process began in 1986 with the passing of a $1,200,000. bond to acquire 70 acres of what had been the Brand Farm. A master plan was prepared by a private consulting firm, and both the city and school district agreed this was the route to go. Mr. O'Neill said the focus of the park will be on participation not spectatorism. The design proposes to keep all active recreation uses together and all passive recreation areas together. The recreation path now under construction would lead to the park. Active recreation uses would include baseball/softball fields, a community center for people of all ages, an indoor ice rink, pool, outdoor basketball and tennis courts, and a "stadium" with an all-weather track for field hockey and soccer. Mr. O'Neill said that decisions are not easy. The need now is to begin to develop some of the facilities and to secure the land as it becomes available. Mr. Flaherty recognized the time invested in the park by Mr. O'Neill and his staff. Mr. Hafter then presented the current proposal. The plan is in two parts, first the purchase of the land and secondly the development of land already owned by the city. Mr. Hafter noted the city has been talking with Mrs. Calkins for several years about the possible purchase of the land in question. Mrs. Calkins now needs to sell the land to pay medical expenses. The Calkins family approached the city to see if the city would purchase 100 acres. Mr. Hafter outlined the land on the map and noted that it abuts 20 acres already owned by the city. The Calkins parcel would be for "passive" recreation uses such as hiking, picnicking, and perhaps biking through the area. The bicycle path would go off the right of way behind a row of trees. The purchase price of the land is $1,250,000. The city has $350,000 remaining from the previous bond issue and another $300,000 secured from fees paid by developers in the past. This money would go toward the purchase, leaving an additional amount to be bonded of $600,000. The City Council then received a development plan for the Brand Farm parcel already owned. After reviewing several alternatives, the Council determined that a plan (Plan C) costing $930,000 would best address the city's needs and the question of affordability. Mr. Hafter said he felt the city could probably get the work done for $900,000. Mr. Hafter then outlined the benefits of acquiring the land now: a) the land is on the market now; b) the city is looking for a 20-year bond, and with the current state of the economy, the city could borrow money at a lower rate than was possible for many years, 5.5% or possibly less. For a $1,500,000 bond, a tax rate of about .0235 would be needed. This would mean that a home appraised at $100,000 (about a $157,000 selling price) would pay $23.50 in the first year. A home appraised at $75,000 would pay $17.63 the first year. These figures would go down slightly each subsequent year. Mr. Flaherty then opened the floor for comments and suggestions from the audience. The following comments were made: Mr. Kleppinger: couldn't imagine a better investment for now and for the future. Interest rates are low now. He recommended two separate bond issues. Mr. Marvin: favored seeing the property bought. He expressed concern that in the '60's the city had the chance to buy the Farrell lakeside property and a comprehensive bond issue was turned down. He favored a bond issue for only the land. Mr. Mona: also noted the city missing the Farrell property which he called a gross error on the part of the city. He said it is always a good rule to get the property that abuts what you already own. Mr. Silverstein: suggested two bond issues. The main thing is to get the land that is available now. Ms. Hibbitts: felt it was a wonderful opportunity and that there could be very competitive bids given the hard economic times. Mr. Jordan: said he had just been to San Francisco and was struck by the wonderful picture of people enjoying themselves at so many different activities in Golden Gate Park. He noted the recreation programs have struggled because of the lack of playing fields. He suggested bonding for both land and development. Mr. Davis: supported the entire proposal. This is the type of thing that attracts people to a city, especially businesses moving in. South Burlington is low in land areas developed for recreation use. Interest rates are the lowest in 27 years, and it is hard to imagine a better time for a bond issue. He felt a rate of 5% was possible. Mr. Farnham: liked the focus on participation. He felt the city doesn't provide enough activities for its youth. The city should buy the land and get on with providing facilities for young people. They need safe, well-prepared activities. He noted that 400 children are playing youth baseball and they deserve the facilities for a healthful program. Mr. Reed: supported the purchase of the land and development of the park area. He asked about the proposed hockey rink plan. Mr. O'Neill said there has been a citizens' committee working on this and that committee has recently been expanded for discussion of potential use of such a facility by the schools. The committee is trying to come up with costs. That rink is not part of the plan under discussion now. Mr. Markey: said this is a good opportunity to do something for the community at the most reasonable rate possible. He noted people have a sense of the importance of physical fitness and recreation that they didn't have 20 years ago. He felt the city couldn't turn down a chance like this. He asked for a one-shot vote and felt the community would support it. Mr. Weaver: wondered whether the people present tonight were representative of the community as a whole. He was afraid of losing the land if the two costs were bonded together. He supported the whole thing and felt it was a very small price to pay. Mr. Scott: said it was an incredible opportunity for the citizens of the city. He stressed that there are developers who would gobble up the land. He said, "Buy it and build it." Mr. Szymanski: said it was a good price for that valuable land. He also noted there are two buildings on the land. A number of people asked what would happen if the bond were turned down. Mr. Hafter said the city could go back with a second bond issue within a year, but he didn't know if the landowner would wait. Mr. Marvin: stressed that he favored the whole thing but feared the larger amount could be defeated. Mr. Crowley: said he lived in Queen City Park adjacent to Red Rocks Park. He said there are not enough people in the city who can be that close to a recreation area. This is a must do now situation. He strongly supported acquisition and development but urged two bond issues, one now for the land and one in May for development. Mr. Crowley asked the status of the land to the south, noting it is in the 1995 capital budget to purchase this land. Mr. Hafter identified this as the Economou tract. He said that from the point of view of the planners, the city park could be sustained without this piece, but also noted that when the parcel comes in for development, the city could get a portion of it as part of a development plan. Mr. Hafter noted that the Southeast Quadrant began to develop very rapidly. Economic conditions have relieved the development pressures, but that pressure will return. As the area develops, the demographics of the city will switch to the south and there will be a need for an elementary school in that area. A part of the Economou property was designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a future school site. Ms. Pritchard: would go just for the purchase of the land so the bond won't fail. She urged a major publicity effort. Mr. Crevier: said just go for the land now and development at a later date. There may be only one chance for the land and development can happen any time. Mrs. Farnham: favored buying the land noting other priorities may come up that are more important than development at this time. Mr. Hafter noted there may be a problem developing the Brand property if more land is not secured because Act 250 requires a large piece of land be left open, and the city does not now have this land. Ms. Cavin: said she has been working on development of the recreation path and has heard people discuss the park as something they want to see developed now. She felt there needs to be something on that land that people can use. Ms. Duppstadt: asked what kind of tax increase the city is looking at in the regular budget. Mr. Flaherty said the Council hasn't yet started the budget process but is trying for as close to level funding as possible. Mr. Hafter said they are looking at a very low Grand List growth. Mr. Dinklage noted there was in the 10 year capital budget a $1,500,000 bond issue in the coming year for park development. He said the Council tries to manage it so that as some bonds are paid off voters can be asked for something new. Ms. Duppstadt: felt the city would be fools not to buy the land. Ms. Dopp: asked how long it would take to develop some facilities than could be used. Mr. Szymanski felt it could be done in one construction season. Mr. Nadeau: felt it was important to be conservative with tax money and just go for the land. If things look brighter in May, then there could be a second bond issue. 2. Consideration of adoption of Bonding Resolution and Setting a date for bond vote: Mr. Dinklage said he strongly supported both the purchase and development. He noted the input he has received has been consistent with two separate issues on the January ballot. He felt the development proposal was very reasonable. Mr. Condos said he has had several calls and talked with people who favor a one item vote in January. He felt two votes would confuse people. Mr. Chittenden was concerned as to why existing property was not developed. He said "so what" if the city can't buy this land, there will be other land. He felt they should develop existing parks with the $600,000 the city already has. He said if there is a bond vote, he favored one item for both. Mr. Cimonetti noted it is bad to increase operational spending in hard time, but it is ideal to make an investment in real property in those times. The rates for borrowing are the lowest. It is also a good time to buy goods and services that have long-lasting value such as streets, sewers and park lands. He said the city has a debt to pay to today's citizens for infrastructural needs. There has been a lot of development, but the city has fallen way behind in providing a recreation facility. He strongly supported taking advantage of this borrowing opportunity for both the land and the facilities. He felt in the 20 year life of the bond there would be tens of millions of dollars in commercial development in the city which would pay for a large percentage of the bond. He wanted to see a one-item vote. Mr. Flaherty felt this was a very unique and exciting opportunity. There needs to be some development for people who pay the taxes, and he felt there should be a linkage of the two items. He said the need is to draw people together, not separate them. Mr. Cimonetti moved the city prepare for the purchase of the Calkins property and the development of the Brand site roughly in accordance with "Plan C" and bring to a vote by the end of January a bond issue for sufficient funds for both purchase and development. Mr. Condos seconded, the motion which then passed unanimously. Members then determined to hold the bond vote on 30 January. Mr. Flahertty read the Resolution for the bond vote. Mr. Dinklage moved to adopt the Resolution for a bond vote of $1,500,000. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty then read the warning. Mr. Dinklage moved the Council approve the Warning as read. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.