Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - City Council - 02/17/1992
CITY COUNCIL 17 FEBRUARY 1992 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 17 February 1992, at 7:30 p.m., at South Burlington High School. Members Present: Michael Flaherty, Chairman; John Dinklage, William Cimonetti, Robert Chittenden, James Condos Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Peg Strait, Asst. City Manager; Albert Audette, Street Department; Joe Weith, City Planner; Don Whitten, Water Pollution Control; Brian Searles, Lee Graham, Police Dept; Linus Leavens, Bill Schuele, Joe Jabour, Andy Griffiths, John Rock, Al Tremblay, Frank Lidral, Jay & Marlene Zaetz, Robert Keenan, Denny Johnson, Wally Rooney, George Brooks, Ernest & Joan Guilbain, Bill Bright, Dan, Leo & Stephanie O'Brien 1. Comments & Questions from the Public (not related to Agenda Items): Mr. Johnson noted the light at Airport Parkway is still not working. Mr. Audette said it is supposed to go up this week. 2. Consideration of Establishment of Assessment District for Construction of Sanitary Sewers in Country Club Estates: Mr. Hafter noted several questions had been asked on this subject and he now had answers. With regard to the possibility of using the Air Guard pump station, the City Engineer reviewed this and found the cost would be greater as it would require a larger pump. This would also have to be negotiated with the federal government. Day to day operating costs would also increase. With regard to the rock ledge, Mr. Hafter said the engineer was confident his estimate was all right and that he had considered the ledge. Mr. Hafter said the Council has to establish a ballot item for a special assessment district for the May ballot. Mr. Cimonetti moved to place the question of establishing a special assessment district for the construction of sanitary sewers for Country Club Estates on the May ballot. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty said if the item is passed, construction would then start immediately. Mr. Hafter said the first payment from residents would be due in July, 1992. Mr. Johnson asked what happens if the vote fails. Mr. Flaherty said it would be back to square one. Mr. Johnson asked if roads will be put back to standard. Mr. Hafter said they would be built to city specs. 3. Second Public Hearing on Amendments to 1990 Comprehensive Plan; Consideration of approval of amendments: Mr. Flaherty read the amendment on the boat access and on adding the future boat access to the map. Mr. Chittenden moved to approve the amendment as read. Mr. Cimonetti seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty noted the second amendment would remove a pedestrian trail to the north of Lake Buick and relocate it. Mr. Dinklage moved to approve the amendment as proposed. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty read the amendment to the future land use section which would change the zoning on an area near Old Farm Rd. Mr. O'Brien said he felt the proposed amendment was a compromise between what he had asked for and what the Planning Commission had proposed. Mr. Weith added that this change was decided upon after a site walk by the Commission. The boundary is 540 ft. from the center line of Old Farm Rd. Mr. Cimonetti moved to approve the amendment as read. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Public Discussion of Mandatory Recycling Proposal: Mr. Flaherty noted there are four ballot items from the Solid Waste District, one of which is on mandatory recycling. Mr. Hafter added this is a non-binding vote. The District has the authority it needs to establish mandatory recycling without a vote. He was not sure what kind of program the District would establish. They are estimating a $2.00 pickup cost with individual citizens contracting with haulers. Mrs. LeWinter, representing the Solid Waste District, explained the components of the ballot items. The first component allows the District to license haulers; if haulers collect trash from households, they would have to provide curbside recycling service. The main reason that recycling would be mandatory is economic. 60% of capital costs are eligible for grants if mandatory recycling is implemented by July, 1992. Burlington and Underhill, which started their programs a year ago, got 80% of capital costs from grants. Mrs. LeWinter said the District is currently negotiating with the state as to how to phase in mandatory recycling. Mr. Chittenden asked what happens if the item is voted down. Mrs. LeWinter said the District would then not be eligible for the grants. They wouldn't be able to bond for the landfill. She said you have to assure the bond bank that the money will be paid back. Mr. Chittenden asked what is the guarantee of the $2.00 cost per household. Mrs. LeWinter said haulers would be competing for business and this would keep the cost down. Mr. Cimonetti asked where the grant money comes from. Mrs. LeWinter said from capital funds. Mr. Cimonetti said he believes they come from income taxes. He said what is happening is that an ordinance is being passed so funds from taxes can be distributed back. He said he was very much opposed to the mandate though he was not opposed to recycling when it makes sense and when there is a market for recyclables. He said he was opposed to the necessity for a ordinance on the municipality which isn't ordained by the municipality. He noted the proposed ballot item mandates that someone has to do the separation but doesn't say who. The District has never answered this question. Mr. Schuele stressed the need to know what degree of separation will be required. Some of these details, he said, made him wonder about voting yes, though he favors recycling. Mrs. LeWinter said less separation will be required at the household level. Haulers will decide on the separation and at the landfill there will be District staff to advise on this. Mrs. Adams asked if any consideration had been given for condos and apartments with many units. Mrs. LeWeinter said all major housing units in Burlington now have recycling. Mr. Chittenden asked about businesses with dumpsters. Mrs. LeWinter said these would be phased in. Mr. Chittenden asked if there would be fines for non- compliance. Mrs. LeWinter said yes, up to $250. Mr. Dinklage asked why, if there are so many places in the country recycling, including Burlington, haven't the answers to so many questions been thought out. Mrs. LeWinter said they have been. There just aren't printed brochures yet. Mr. Dinklage said he felt there were still too many grey areas to grant so much authority. Mr. Cimonetti asked who would enforce recycling. Mrs. LeWinter said the District would. There is $100,000 in the budget for enforcement. She noted that in Burlington, Middlebury and Underhill there still hasn't been a fine levied. People have been very cooperative. Mr. Tremblay said he supported recycling but found the guidelines unclear. Mr. Offerman said he felt uncomfortable about getting fined. Why not offer to reward those who comply. Mrs. LeWinter said they want to do that too, but the State requires fines as well. Mr. Chittenden asked who is responsible in a landlord/tenant relationship. Mrs. LeWinter said the person who pays for garbage pickup. A citizen asked who would do the enforcing. Mrs. LeWinter suggested that local police might play a part. Police Chief Searles said if the District thinks local police will play a part in this, there needs to be some serious talking. Mr. Chittenden raised the question of asking kids to take out the trash and the kids not wanting to take the time to do the separation and just dumping it in the neighbors bin. A high school student noted that it was the students who were among the first to take up the cause of recycling. Ms. Simpson said it was distressing to hear the Council digging in its heels and saying it's something we can't do. Why not, she asked, said it's something we have to do and grow with it and learn to do it right. Mr. Chittenden said he doesn't oppose recycling but that there are too many questions and the vote is 30 days away. He asked when there will be answers, one year, two years, five years. Mr. Condos said that the procedures would be worked out. This is a very tough issue. He said there will be problems. The important thing is to keep working to solve them. Mr. Belville added that he felt the Council was concentrating too much on the negative and not the positive. He said it won't work 100%, but it will be much better than what is being done now. Ms. Palerma, who works as a volunteer at the landfill recycling depot, said people want to recycle. They want to learn how to do it. It's easy to do. Mr. Audette thought people were misconstruing the "policing" aspect. He said this would be code enforcement, not policing. He said it will actually be cheaper for people to recycle. Trash costs money to put in the landfill. If we extend the life of a landfill another 5 years, it will pay off in the end. Mr. Cimonetti said he didn't oppose recycling; what he opposed was that it be mandated. He felt there should be a choice. 5. Update on Progress of Planning Commission in Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the Southeast Quadrant: Mr. Weith said the amendment package was reviewed by the Commission last week. A majority of members support it. He then reviewed the highlights: There will be two major changes, a new Article XXVI (Southeast Quadrant District) and a new Article XXV (Scenic View Protection Overlay District). In Article SSVI, it is the intent to encourage preservation of resources by encouraging development in designated areas. There will be a Southeast Quadrant zoning map to define development and non-development areas. The article defines allowable densities. There would be two density zones. Zone 1 would have a maximum overall density of 1.27/acre located primarily in the northern part of the quadrant, and Zone 2 would have a maximum overall density of 0.75/acre primarily in the southern part of the quadrant. This reflects the goal of approximately 4100 homes in the Quadrant at full build-out. A minimum lot size of 12,000 sq. ft. is proposed. In Zone 1, development density would be at 4/acre and in Zone 2, 2 per acre. The proposal also sets standards for planned residential developments (PRD's). A 25% bonus would be allowed when certain criteria are met. This bonus would not be a guaranteed "given." With bonuses, maximum overall density could go to 1.59 in Zone 1 and 0.93 in Zone 2. The transfer of residential density between non-contiguous parcels would be allowed. In the View Protection District significant views of the Adirondacks and Green Mountains would be preserved by limiting heights of buildings in special zones. The current Spear St. View Protection Zone would be amended to correct problems. The Commission proposes to add a waiver provision (Sect. 25.9) which would allow waivers if certain criteria are met. Mr. Burgess noted there is one more review by the Commission and a Public Hearing is scheduled for 3/17. Mr. Chittenden asked why there are 2 development zones. Mr. Weith said the Commission felt this was the best approach because it better reflects Comprehensive Plan goals. Mr. Cimonetti asked how the 4100 homes would divide between the two zones. Mr. Weith said Zone 1 would have 2800 and Zone 2 would have 915 approximately. Mr. Cimonetti said he was also concerned with the 2 zones. He felt people might eventually want to have more homes in Zone 2 and this would upset the 4100 total figure. Mr. Burgess noted that Zone 1 is much bigger. He said density was not just a philosophical approach. Natural features of the land were important as well. He noted if the Commission changes the density of Zone 2, it will also change the density of Zone 1. 6. Acceptance of the Phase I Streets located in Village at Dorset Park: Mr. Dinklage moved to accept the Phase I streets in Village at Dorset Park and to sign the Certificate. Mr. Cimonetti seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continue Budget Review: Planning Budget: Mr. Weith said he proposes a 27% decrease in the operating budget. He noted receipt of Act 200 money is up in the air. Mr. Condos asked what will happen within the Department without the $5000 in consultant fees that has been cut. Mr. Weith said there are some things that won't be gotten to. Mr. Hafter said if any state money does come in, it can be used for that. Mr. Weith noted he has a capital request for computer upgrade. Mr. Chittenden asked where Travel and Training money goes. Mr. Weith said $1,500 goes for vehicle use reimbursement. $1800 for local planning workshops and regional and national planning conferences. Zoning Budget: Mr. Ward said he reduced office supplies a bit. There is a capital request to replace a computer printer that doesn't work half the time. Recreation Budget: Mr. O'Neill said this is essentially the same as last year. Library Budget: There are no real changes. They are talking with St. Michael's College Library on using the same computer system as the state. It may be feasible to use the St. Mike's system. Police Budget: Chief Searles noted receipt of $85,000 from drug control money. The proposed budget will allow continuation of normal police activities, participation in the special investigation unit, upgrade of the files, accreditation application, and upgrading the computer system. The budget freezes a position. An officer in the State drug task force will come back to the Department at the end of the fiscal year. Regarding fleet upgrade, 4 vehicles would be replaced (he noted last year put them 2 behind in replacement of vehicles), That is being requested from the general fund. The drug money would be used for computer upgrade which will allow the Department to become the first accredited police department in the state. Mr. Cimonetti asked about the cost for 911 service. Chief Searles said he had approached the phone company and decided it was not feasible. It would cost about $2,000,000. to install. He noted there were discussions going on about enhanced 911 service on a regional/state level. Mr. Cimonetti said he would like to see the city initiate a formal request on what some kind of 911 service would cost. Chief Searles said if the city had a phone exchange unique to S. Burlington, it would be a simple matter. Water Pollution Budget: Mr. Whitten explained individual line item increases for replacement parts, pumpstation supplies, laboratory supplies, and telephone alarms. He noted that use of Burlington sewer lines will increase from $13.80 to $22.00 per 1000 cu. ft. for the sewers in East Woods. Mr. Whitten felt the city should look into the design engineering for sewering that area. There is also a capital request to replace the pump at Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Whitten noted they have just completed the first year of treating 250,000 gpd from Colchester which generated $100,000 in revenues. Sewer Rate Determination: Mr. Hafter said he was projecting $20,000 less revenue than in the budget. He noted the sewer rate for operating expenses didn't increase last year and would ask for a .45 increase plus an additional increase to reduce debt service for a 15% increase total. This would result in a $17.25 increase per year for a family of four. He asked that the rate of $8.85 go into effect 1 May. He noted that even with this projected increase the city would still be below the county average for sewer rates. Mr. Cimonetti asked if funds can be escrowed for plant upgrade. Mr. Hafter said it was not in the state list of what can be escrowed for. Mr. Flaherty noted that the rest of the budget will be reviewed on 2 March. 8. Review Zoning Board Agenda No issues were raised. 9. Read Minutes of 3 February 1992: Mr. Condos noted he was not present at this meeting. It was also noted that the meeting occurred at City Hall, not at the High school. In the last paragraph of p.4, the word "office" should read "officer." Mr. Cimonetti moved to approve the Minutes of amended. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Condos abstaining. Executive Session: Mr. Dinklage moved the Council adjourn and reconvene in Executive Session to discuss contract negotiations and to resume regular session for the purpose of adjournment. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: The Council returned to regular meeting, Mr. Cimonetti moved adjournment, Mr. Condos seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.