Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/16/1994SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting May 16, 1994 7:30 PM The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 16 May 1994, at 7:30 PM, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: Michael Flaherty, Chairman; William Cimonetti, John Dinklage, James Condos, Robert Chittenden, Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Peg Strait, Assistant City Manager; Sonny Audette, Public Works' Director; Sid Poger, The Other Paper 1. Comments and Questions from the Public Chuck raised the question that the Reorganizational Meeting for City Council is scheduled for 6:30 May 23, 1994. Chuck has a meeting scheduled for 7:00 on May 23, 1994 at Burlington Country Club, which is a very important meeting. He will be working with them on rearranging the easements for the bike path. Mr. Cimonetti expressed that he is very interested in attending this meeting being held at Burlington Country Club and suggested a later date. He thought that it may be important for one or more council members also to attend this meeting. The meeting was rescheduled for Monday, May 23, 1994 at 6:30 PM so that those interested in attending the meeting at Burlington Country Club would be able to make this 7:00 PM meeting. 2. Review of Proposed 1995 TIP Mr. Dinklage, MPO Representative, pointed out that this is the first that he had seen this report. This is at the stage of review by the TAC and it has not yet come to the MPO. Mr. Cimonetti started the discussion by expressing his concern with the Bridge Deck Rehab Program. The first bridge that Mr. Cimonetti spoke on was the bridge going over Hinesburg Road (Rt 116). It was built and still exists with no sidewalks, and no alternative transportation methods. Today's Federal Transportation Law insists that any construction project has to give consideration to alternate means of transportation. It is a requirement that has to be satisfied. The next bridge brought to the AOTs attention is Bridge #68 (bridge where Williston Road crosses the interstate) Exit 14. Mr. Cimonetti expressed concern that the Agency of Transportation. AOT has not taken any steps to answer to these Federal requirements. The State Agency of Transportation should not be allowed to proceed with reconstruction or rehabilitation that is not authorized by the Federal Government. This project has fallen behind schedule at the Agency and the cost estimates are not completed yet by the contractors but the internal cost estimate exceeded the original amount. The schedule for this is that the complete design package will be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration office in Montpelier about the end of May '94, there will then be a 2 to 3 month period for Federal approval, then it will come back and there will be about a 30 day preparation for bid, a bid letting will follow and because of the sizable project there will be probably be a 60-day bid window and about 30 days following after a contract will be awarded. Project will probably go to bid during September or October of '94. It is very unlikely that a contractor will attempt to do anything this construction season. The project would then go forward and be at least 2 construction years long. Mr. Cimonetti suggests that this Council direct the MPO to ask that the bridge at Williston Road be separated from the rest of the project and dealt with. Mr. Cimonetti does not want to kill the project or kill the bridge either. He would like to see City Council be prepared to tackle the issue and be hard-nosed and prevent the AOT from working on the bridge until they have a design which is satisfactory. Mr. Cimonetti moves that the City Council direct the City Manager to prepare and send a letter to the MPO asking that separate projects be identified in the TIP for the Rt. 116 Bridge over Interstate 89 and the Williston Road Bridge over Interstate 89. In each case to insure not only full compliance with ISTEAS but to find creative solutions for safe pedestrian and bicycle transportation. Mr. Chittenden seconded this motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter asked that the City Council require the AOT to come back to the City of South Burlington with plans prior to awarding the contracts. Mr. Hafter would like to send copies to several other Cities concerned with the same problems. Sonny Audette expressed the concern that with the information he had available he realized that there is nothing being done with the Williston Road (Class I) paving. Concerns about the figures stated in the TIP. Sonny and Chuck will make necessary contacts to get paving on Williston Road this year. Mr. Cimonetti expressed that he felt it best to keep the Williston Road paving as two (2) projects: (Dorset to Hinesburg and Hinesburg to Milham Court). Mr. Cimonetti asked Sonny which of the two parts of Williston need paving the most and Sonny pointed out the bigger need is from Hinesburg to Milham Court. Mr. Cimonetti feels that is would be beneficial for Council to state this and fight for this area to be paved in this upcoming year. Mr. Cimonetti moves that the City Council direct City Manager to inform the MPO that our first priority of Class I paving is US 2/Williston Road (between Hinesburg Road and Milham Court). Our intention is that the paving will take place during the summer of 1994 construction period. This motion passed unanimously. Sonny directed his question to Mr. Dinklage concerning the bridge on Queen City Park Road. Mr. Dinklage assured Sonny that he would follow up on this concern. There was a written agreement that if South Burlington put a foot bridge on the bridge we (So. Burlington) would share in the construction cost. Mr. Cimonetti knows that this bridge is not in the AOT Bridge Program. Sonny wonders why the upgrade of Airport Road and Kennedy Drive is in the TIP. These are local projects. Mr. Dinklage assured Sonny that he would follow up with Michael Oman and work to come up with more information. Some of the projects have come on the TIP as State requests. Mr. Hafter is concerned over the Southern Connector still being on the TIP. Mr. Dinklage double checked with Mike Oman and he indicated that this is an administrative error. The other concern of Mr. Hafter's is Kennedy Street from Williston Road to Hinesburg Road. Mr. Dinklage stated that the MPO did not agree with the addition of that until that request goes through the new evaluation process. Mr. Dinklage pointed out that the MPO is working to only have listed on the TIP the items that will have funds obligated in the next fiscal year. Mr. Condos expressed his concern with the bridges that cross Dorset Street. He would like to make it known that when these bridges are under rehab that it would be important to keep the bike path open and protected from any dangers of reconstruction. 3. Consideration of Approval of Refunding Note and Resolution of Road Sweeper. Mr. Hafter expressed that this is the third year of a four-year purchase at 3.5% interest. Everything is in order and the funds are included in the budget. Mr. Condos made a motion to approve the capital equipment refunding note and the resolution. Mr. Dinklage seconded this motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Discussion of Alternatives for Use of Existing Lime Kiln Bridge As Part of Construction of New Bridge. Mr. Chittenden directed the question to Mr. Cimonetti. "Would the State be interested in preserving the bridge?" Mr. Cimonetti felt the State would probably be required to preserve the bridge. Mr. Cimonetti is concerned about trying to preserve too many bridges. He has been told that the Lime Kiln Bridge is definitely considered a historical structure and the State will be required to preserve it. Mr. Cimonetti does not know what the State will do if the municipalities refuse to fund the preservation. The Councilmen leaned toward the Colchester position. Mr. Dinklage sees the need for Chuck and someone from the Agency of Transportation, someone from State Historic Preservation, and someone from Colchester to meet to address this issue. Mr. Hafter's concern is that this is the type of issue that holds up projects for years. 6. Consideration of Approval of Resolution Confirming City Policies on Issues Relevant to CDBG Grant and Federal and State Law Requirements. Mr. Dinklage made a motion that the Resolution be approved and Mr. Condos seconded this motion. The motion was passed unanimously. 7. Chairman Flaherty asked for the review of the Zoning Board Notice for May 23, 1994. Mr. Hafter encouraged Council support for the second item on this agenda, the appeal of Dynapower Corporation. 8. Approval of City Council Minutes for May 2, 1994. Mr. Dinklage moved that the minutes be approved. Mr. Cimonetti seconded this motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. 9. Chairman Flaherty pointed out to Council that the disbursement orders were before them. Sid Poger moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Condos seconded this motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 PM. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.