Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/06/1995CITY COUNCIL 6 FEBRUARY 1995 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 6 February 1995, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: William Cimonetti, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, James Condos, Robert Chittenden, David Maclaughlin Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Governor Howard Dean, Patrick Garahan, Agency of Transportation; Peg Strait, Assistant City Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Eve Thorsen, Free Press; Channel 3 television crew; Toby Dion, Channel 17; Ann Hallowell, Ann Pugh, Frank Mazur, State Representatives; Christos Condos, Molly Lambert, John Dinklage, Dirk Jacobson, Dwight Palmer, Michael Oman, Lloyd Gresins, Kevin Plette, William Fisk, John Pennington, Paul Cravel, Bob Hest, Melinda Moulton, Martin Garissy, Paul Bruhn, Duncan Brown, Ray Walker, Richard Watts, Ruby Siegel, Bob Vitale, Patricia Timm, Marcel Beaudin 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to Agenda Items): No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's report: a. Mr. Cimonetti commended the Public Works Dept, City Manager and city workers for the clean-up effort following the weekend storm. b. Mr. Cimonetti announced the following upcoming events: 1. This summer South Burlington will host the Governor's Association Meeting. The Governor's staff is working with City staff on this. 2. Later in the summer, the Shriners will have their convention in South Burlington Mr. Hafter asked Mr. Garahan to insure that Williston Rd. isn't being resurfaced during these events. c. Mr. Hafter reported on the following: 1. The next regular City Council meeting is 21 February. 2. There will be a meeting on Tuesday concerning the alternative waste water treatment project. 3. The Economic Development Committee will be meeting on 15 February at 4:30 p.m. 4. Members have been given the preliminary budget for 1995-6. For the second year in a row, there is a recommendation to lower the tax rate (from 83.3 to 83.1). 5. The City is looking to revise its retirement package. Mr. Hafter asked for a Council member to assist in this process. Mr. Flaherty agreed to do this. 6. The Chamber of Commerce Board has voiced strong objection to casino gambling in the state. Members were given a copy of their statement. 7. Members were given information on the Exit 13 study. 3. Presentation from Ruby Siegel, LSTS Transit systems on Proposed Burlington to Charlotte Passenger Rail Service Project; Public & Council Discussion: Mr. Cimonetti noted the Council has received a petition signed by over 500 citizens opposing this project. Secretary Garahan then reviewed the history and nature of the proposed project. He stressed that there is no intent to have local property taxes support this service. The trains would operate on the railroad bed which has been in existence for over 150 years. The lines are used mostly for freight trains, but there will be an excursion service beginning in June. There are 22 crossings of the track in the proposed 12 mile run. This will present a challenge. The proposed project is tied to the Shelburne Road project as a mitigation method for traffic which usually uses the road. It would also allow testing of this alternative transportation method. Secy. Garahan then read a letter from Senator Leahy regarding possible funding for the project. Secy. Garahan noted that in a survey 80% of those surveyed felt rail service should be instituted. 55% supported a Burlington to Charlotte service. The Secretary noted that recent developments with Amtrak make this project even more relevant. One proposed option would be a train from New York City to Albany, Whitehall, Rutland and Burlington. The capital improvements needed to make this happen would cost $28,000,000. The Charlotte-Burlington line would require $8,300,000. In summations, Secy. Garahan said he felt this was a project that makes sense. Governor Dean then outlined his reasons for supporting the project. He felt it offered a real possibility to improve the business climate in Vermont and would also be helpful to individual towns by bringing in shoppers who don't need to worry about bringing their cars. He felt it was also important for development of the waterfront. The Governor noted that during this summer's governors' conference, participants will be transported on this railroad line. The Governor cited the history of South Burlington and the State working together on such projects as the Dorset Street reconstruction. He felt the present proposal was important from the point of view of tourism and development and for mitigation of construction problems. Ruby Siegel, Consultant for the project, then outlined specifics. Characteristics of the project will include: a. all day hourly (possibly 1/2 hourly) service b. Charlotte terminus - F-5 Ferry Rd. c. Burlington terminus - Union Station site d. Intermediate stops in Shelburne and South Burlington e. ADA compliant f. upgrading of Vermont Railway facilities g. coordination with CCTA routes h. 2 to 4 car trains, self propelled, relatively quiet Ms. Siegel then cited potential benefits: a. support of local and regional needs and land use plans b. relieving of Route 7 construction congestion c. decreasing pressure for additional widening of Shelburne Rd. d. an alternative to auto use e. contribution to local economy f. promoting local economic development g. preservation of the railroad right of way h. improving of air quality Proposed station sites are: Ferry Rd, Shelburne Museum, Town Property/Harbor Road, Bartlett Bay Rd, Holmes Rd, Southland development, Union Station/Main Street with possible additional stops at Flynn Ave and/or Home Ave. Service features would include: a. 22-mile run from Charlotte to Burlington b. 14 round trips a day c. trains from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. d. 1 person crew e. circulator bus/van/taxi services f. full freight operations between passenger trains The project looks toward 275,000 boardings in 1998, 700 per day. No significant environmental impacts are foreseen. Station sites with wetlands would be avoided. Trains would be low noise and low emissions. An added benefit would be the elimination of some auto traffic. Station site will have adequate lighting and security. Grade crossings will have warning devices. The need for turning lanes will also be addressed. Ms. Siegel foresaw the following economic impacts: a. property values would not go down b. station site acquisition c. construction and operations related employment She felt it was a low risk investment which offers opportunities for land use planning which is less automobile dependent. It would also support changing travel patterns and lifestyles. A discussion period followed during which the following comments and questions were aired: Mr. Vitale, part of the petition group, said they were concerned with the financial implications vs. benefits and felt it was too much money for too little benefit. He said they had 560 signatures in South Burlington. The most negative people surveyed lived along the track area, but 83% of signatories lived east of Shelburne Rd. The group does not feel it will take traffic off Shelburne Rd. Mr. Vitale noted people would still have to drive to the train station and get from the destination station to their place of employment or other destination. Mr. Cimonetti read the petition. Secy. Garahan responded by stressing that no property taxes would be involved in this project. He felt the petition outlined the worst possible case. He also noted the project is a continuing project and that only phase I is proposed at this time. Ms. Siegel then outlined costs. She noted that the Phase I start up cost would be $7,750,000. Phase II (which would involve additional right of way, grade crossings, etc,) which is not proposed at this time, would cost $7,920,000. Phase I operating costs (including vehicle lease) would be $1,965,000. It is possible that vehicles will be purchased which would add $500,000 to capital costs. Mr. Fisk, not a signer of the petition, said he was scared by the project. He was not impressed with the notion of "quiet" trains. Mr. Crowley of the Natural Resources Committee and a resident of Queen City Park, said he believed the time is coming when the auto would not be the most important mode of transportation. He felt "if you build it, people will come." He said if the investment is made now, people will use the train; if it isn't built now, they will never use it. Mr. Brown said he was totally opposed. He felt commuter services are a drain on resources. He didn't feel it would work. Secretary Garahan noted the Shelburne Rd. widening project will cost $14,000,000. The Circumferential Highway is now costing $70,000,000. He noted that the capital money for the proposed railroad project will be spent anyway. Mr. Plette said he didn't see a commuter line working but did favor weekend excursions. He noted that the blowing of the train horn at 22 crossings would be a noise factor to consider. He asked where the money for the project would come from. Secretary Garahan said 80% would be federal money, 20% state. Mr. Brunn felt all information should be gotten before trying to short circuit the project. He asked that costs and impacts continue to be analyzed. Ms. Timm said no one is opposed to Amtrak and improving the railroad bed but didn't think commuter rail should be a means to that end. Mr. Beaudin was dubious about the initial budgets and felt the project would cost double that amount. Secretary Garahan noted the state is attempting to make this project part of the Shelburne Rd. project which would then make it a 95%/5% federal/state split. Members of the Council were then asked for input. Mr. Chittenden asked what department the state's share of the project would come from. Governor Dean said it would come from the Transportation Dept. Mr. Chittenden asked what would not get done as a result of this. Governor Dean said they are now doing as much work as can be done and there is a surplus this year. Mr. Chittenden suggested the possibility of expanding the bus line instead. Secy. Garahan said a bus wouldn't have any easier time on Shelburne Rd. during construction than a car would. Mr. Flaherty said he would try to keep an open mind. This is a demonstration project which could be scrapped if it doesn't work in 2 years. He said the upgrading of the railroad bed for passenger service is definitely a positive thing. Mr. Condos questioned possible peripheral costs to communities such as increased CCTA costs, upgrading of roads into stations, parking lot and station maintenance and security. He asked what guarantees there are that there would be no local funding needed in the future. He also questioned the cost benefit for removing 1% of cars from Shelburne Rd. Finally, he asked if this is the right time for such a project with so many other fiscal concerns. Governor Dean asked the Council to hold off on its decision regarding the petition until they have more answers. He stressed that the state spent $14,000,000 for one mile of Dorset Street and an extra $1,000,000 to bury power lines. He said the Dorset St. project has dramatically changed the quality of life in South Burlington and felt the commuter rail project would do this as well. He said roads are a much bigger loser than railroads. He asked the Council and community to consider what will happen to Dorset St. and Spear St. during the Shelburne Rd. construction. Mr. Condos agreed that the Council needs more information before it can make a decision and asked to postpone action on the petition until it can be a warned agenda item. Members agreed to wait until the next regularly scheduled meeting to act on the petition. 4. Public Hearing on Amendment to Sign Ordinance; second reading: Mr. Hafter noted the Ordinance has been changed to indicate that signs extending from the building exterior must be 10 ft. above the finished grade. Mr. Condos moved the City Council approve the Amendment to the Sign Ordinance as presented. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Accept Resignation of George Chamberland from the Zoning Board of Adjustment: Mr. Cimonetti noted the resignation will be effective upon the appointment of a replacement. Mr. Flaherty moved to accept the letter of resignation of George Chamberland from the Zoning Board and to instruct the City Manager to send a letter of appreciation for his service. Mr. Maclaughlin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Report from Charter Committee on Review of Items from City Council: Mr. Hafter reported that the Charter Committee approved the proposed Charter change relative to not increasing appraisals of industrial/commercial property until the first building permit is issued for a lot. Mr. Cimonetti noted this will have to go to public referendum. Mr. Hafter suggested a public hearing first. The City Attorney will prepare language for a ballot item and the Council will have to approve putting it on the ballot. Mr. Condos moved that the Charter change go forward so the City Attorney can prepare language for review. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. On the other item presented to the Charter Committee, members did not wish to proceed with action that would limit the number of consecutive terms an elected official could serve. 7. Review Planning Commission Agenda for 7 February and Zoning Board Agenda for 13 February: No issues were raised. 8. Review Minutes of 23 January: Mr. Flaherty moved the minutes of 23 January 1995 be approved as written. Mr. Maclaughlin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. Executive Session: Mr. Flaherty moved the Council adjourn and reconvene in Executive Session for the purpose of discussion a personnel matter and litigation and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Mr. Maclaughlin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: The Council returned to regular session. Mr. Chittenden moved adjournment. Mr. Flaherty seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 PM. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.