Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/21/1995SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Minutes Tuesday, February 21, 1995 7:30 PM Meeting called to order 7:34 PM by Chairman William Cimonetti and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by the City Council. Councilmen Present: William Cimonetti, David MacLaughlin, Bob Chittenden, Jim Condos, Mike Flaherty City Manager Chuck Hafter, Assistant Manager Peg Strait, Peg Picard, City Clerk; Shay Totten, Burlington Free Press; Lance Moran, Local 300 Realty Corp; Paul Craven, Vermont Railway; Lynda J. Kingsbury Ring, CSWD; Lloyd Robinson, Wilbur-Smith Association; South Burlington Citizens: Dwight Palmer, William O'Fisk, Doug Riley, Duane Brown, Olivia Brown, Richard Jacobson, Lawrence Dewar, Ray Gonda, Nancy Hellen, Stephen Crowley, Nile Duppstadt, Paul Bruhn, Shelburne Citizens: Ben Vaitkus, Paul Vaitkus Mr. Cimonetti requested any comments or questions from the public not on the agenda. No items were mentioned. Mr. Cimonetti shared communication that he had received from Living Technology. He pointed out that the Council was being asked to reaffirm support of the project and lobby Congress to encourage funding and support. Living Technology is looking for $750,000 for the operating cost for the demonstration plant in South Burlington. There are three (3) other experimental projects around the nation. Total of all projects is $2.5 million and they do have technical center in this area and much of the technical work will be done in the area. 2. City Manager's Report (a) Mr. Hafter reminded those present of the Budget Workshop on Thursday, February 23, 1995 at 7:30 PM. (b) One of the items on the next agenda will be interviews for candidates for the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board. There is one (1) vacancy for the Planning Commission and (2) for the Zoning Commission. Mr. Hafter has one (1) applicant for each board and would like to encourage if there are any other candidates please get resume in some time this week. (c) The City plans on have the Grand Opening of the Dorset Street Park on Saturday, May 13, 1995. May 13 is the first day of Little League season. Baseball games and soccer games will be the center of activity. Bruce O'Neill will be heading up all festivities for the day and Mr. Hafter would encourage anyone who would like to participate to give Bruce a call. (d) The State has a new plan that the Council and residents of South Burlington should be aware of. Mr. Hafter presented the latest property tax proposal and mentioned that each proposal has made it worse for South Burlington. The equitable tax proposal is a proposal is not equitable for South Burlington. The lasted one has been sent to Mr. Hafter by the League of Cities and Towns. It appears to be equitable but when closely examined it is not. For South Burlington would net a loss of $1,119,000 from our property taxes. Incredible disincentive for growth throughout the State. All increase funds would go directly to Montpelier's education funding. Mr. Flaherty added that this plan was presented to the Democratic caucus and the only community who is more negatively effected than South Burlington is Essex Junction. 3. Presentation of Chittenden Solid Waste District FY '96 Budget; Linda Kingsbury - Financial Manager of Chittenden Solid Waste presented. Councilman Jim Condos, Chairman of the Budget Committee, is also present. Linda began the presentation by offering an overview of the budget. The three (3) elements that are primary are: landfill transfer station, no increase in tip fees for FY '96, reclassification of employees with a 3.3% total increase to the base. The major issue addressed in the budget is the landfill transfer station and the fact that the district is moving the trash to Randolph and have a contract for that. The overall cost for this is $3,000,000. If this amount was to be removed from the budget the Council would see an overall reduction in the budget. An item that has been of great concern to Council is the legal costs of the Solid Waste District. The legal fees have been dropping significantly. The amount budgeted for FY '96 is $172,000 because many of the cases are coming to a close. At this point Ms. Kingsbury asked for any questions and/or concerns. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the budget assumption if for the entire year all of the county trash is transferred to Randolph? Ms. Kingsbury answered with a, "yes." Ms. Kingsbury also confirmed that it is very firm that the interim landfill has to closed by April 30, 1995. Even though the District is seeking an extension to September 30, 1995 the budgetary process demands that it be based on the assumption that the closing date is 4/30/95. The Act 250 permit is the contract that is forcing closure of the interim landfill unless an extension is granted. Even with an extension Mr. Condos pointed out that the landfill would have to capped and seeded by October 1. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the budget would be reset if they get an extension. Mr. Cimonetti expressed that the Council only opportunity, not later than March 15, is to approve or reject the budget and he finds it hard to make a decision until this question of extension is answered. Mr. Hafter suggested that an alternative budget be established offering two different alternatives. What is going to be seen with the extension is increased revenue. Mr. Cimonetti pointed out that an increased revenue to CSWD is an increase cost to all communities. Lamoreux and Stone has just finished a recent survey and can tell how much is left, therefore, it is not that difficult to come up with a fairly concrete number. Mr. Cimonetti asked what the increased cost will be to the average user. Mr. Condos stated that in the first year there is no change. The excess tip fees have been going into the reserves to financially prepare for the transfer of trash. There will be a depletion of reserves due to the increase in transferring of trash. Mr. Cimonetti asked what the estimated cost increase would be per homeowner. Mr. Condos figured a rough estimate at approximately a $15 increase/yr. per homeowner. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the budget stated a beginning reserve account and the ending reserve account for the budget year. Ms. Kingsbury answer was, "yes," and Mr. Cimonetti then asked if the reserves continue to grow during the new budget year under this plan? Mr. Cimonetti asked that these questions be answered at their next meeting. Mr. Condos and Ms. Kingsbury did not think that there is any limitation of how large a reserve can be. This item will come before Council again on March 6, 1995 and Mr. Cimonetti pointed out that South Burlington has until March 15, 1995 to approve or reject the CSWD budget. 4. Further Discussion of Action Related to Citizen Petition on Charlotte-Burlington Commuter Rail John Pennington, Pres, of Vermont Railway, presented the economic viability of the commuter rail. Mr. Cimonetti pointed out to Council and the public that this item can be discussed in whatever way is desired. The action item before Council is a response to a citizen that deals with commuter rails on the corridor. The citizen petition is asking the Council to take a position in opposition until adequate answers are provided to the questions proposed. Mr. Flaherty wanted to make a point that we don't want the value of the road bed of Chittenden County to get tied up with the commuter rail. Doug Riley, a citizen and taxpayer, stated that public transportation leads to development. He pointed out that South Burlington is an automobile based town or a "sprawl" town. With the commuter rail he felt the community has a chance to be proactive. If we don't accommodate development with transportation development will not happen. The tracks are there, the transportation money is there, the rail cars proposed are small cars and self propelled. There are not much more obtrusive than a bus. Mr. Riley feels that Council should not oppose the rail. Lloyd Robinson, a consultant, works for Wilbur Smith Associates Transportation Consultants. Mr. Cimonetti asked Mr. Robinson if the questions that were presented at the last meeting will be answered at this meeting. Mr. Robinson stated that he was not certain whether he had the answers to the questions asked but he would like to present what has been put together as a fact sheet. It will offer a more accurate description of the commuter rail service. Mr. Robinson stated that a more accurate description of this project may be a passenger rail service serving commuters, discretionary travelers, to transport disadvantaged, and tourists trying to travel the Burlington area, a shuttle rail service. This project can be put together and put in place with half-hour service during peak hours and hourly service thereafter for about $7.75 million dollars. The operating cost of this service will gross about $1 million a year. Mr. Cimonetti pointed out that these figures are about half of the figures presented at the last Council meeting. Mr. Robinson stated that the gross cost to operated the railroad is about $1 million a year. Half of this money goes into operation maintenance, monies into feeder bus service ($200,000 additional costs will be 100% subsidized by the State), $200,000 would be recouped from the fare boxes leaving a $800,000 deficit. There may be a fare-free period early on to help the train riders to try it. This is scaled to Vermont. Two to three hundred thousand trips will be taken the first year. All the services in the country of this type this is second best economically. Low cost relatively speaking. As to who will operate it, Mr. Robinson indicated that this is under investigation but it appears that a professional rail operator will operate it. What about those living along rail corridor? By using grade crossing protection and a directional stationary horns at the grade crossings aimed at roadway the trains don't need to use their horn. The trains smaller and quieter than the standard freight train. Fencing and shrubs will improve the present situation and noise level will go down. Has this ever been done before? In Syracuse, NY there was a shuttle service started between Syracuse University and a mall about 4 miles away. It is just about breaking even. Mr. Robinson pointed out that what has failed in the project to date is the connection between the neighborhood groups, business organizations and the State. Mr. Robinson's job is to go back and redouble those efforts. Mr. Robinson offered that if neighborhoods want information or first hand contact with the study team. Mr. Robinson stands ready to provide that. On March 9, 1995 the Governor wants to host a meeting of business leaders in the corridor to go over the project and "kick it around." This meeting will be held at the Radisson and invitations will be extended. Mr. Cimonetti pointed out answers that were given to citizens at the last meeting which do not correlate with tonight's answers: * You can not put this project in operation without both Phase I and Phase II. Tonight's explanation states that only Phase I is necessary to get started. * At the public hearing in Shelburne this concept of directional horns at the crossings will blow toward the houses rather than toward the tracks. This was a major concern. Mr. Robinson pointed out that the position that the State is taking that these railroads don't have to blow their horns. Lawrence Dewar, Tanglewood Dr., asked how long the ride will take from Charlotte to Burlington. Mr. Robinson's answer was about 22 minutes if there are two (2) intermediate stops. Mr. Dewar also asked who was funding the Main Street Station. Mr. Pennington stated that it is being funded by the Agency of Transportation (80% federal, 20% state). It is being funded as a multi-modal facility. Mr. Dewar also asked where the State is getting the monies to fund this project. Mr. Robinson pointed out that Senator Lahey has pledged that he will work to get 80% of the funding from the Federal Government and 20% will then have to come from the State Transportation Department. Mr. Dewar finds it hard to believe that this won't cost the taxpayers money. Mr. Brown, South Burlington citizen, points out that is project has caused more letters and phone calls all saying the same thing, "this is a crazy boondoggle." He does not feel that administration is recognizing that people do not want to spend this kind of money on this project. People are tired of seeing CCTA and buses virtually empty most of the day, therefore, they do not want to spend more money on the same type of thing. Ray Gonda, Cardinal Woods, supports the establishment of the commuter railway for environmental reasons. It will help to reduce auto emissions. Bill Fiske, South Burlington resident, is disappointed that there have not been more numbers presented. He believes that if Senator Lahey cannot get the proposed funding the Transportation Committee will take highway monies to support commuter rail project. The problem that he is having is that the original premise for this commuter rail was to alleviate congestion on Route 7 during construction. The road project is now scheduled for '97 and it looks as though the rail project is getting ahead of road project. It appears to Mr. Fiske that we are not getting the "cold, hard facts." Mr. Flaherty suggested that if Senator Lahey gets the funding it will be designated for commuter rail only. It he doesn't get it they would have to transfer funds from other places. Mr. Flaherty feels that there is a lot of skepticism in Montpelier on this issue. If there was transferring of money this would be a very difficult hard sell. Richard Flynn asked what impact this would have on the CCTA ridership. If it is successful will it compete against CCTA? Mr. Robinson pointed out that the CCTA routes south serve somewhat the commercial zone and rigorous studies by consultants show virtually no impact on the CCTA ridership. As people find a new avenue of travel they will use CCTA more. The state's intent is to make a payment to CCTA for the shuttle bus service. More mini buses would be needed. Paul Veggas, resident and taxpayer of Shelburne, expressed that misinformation comes from Montpelier. Estimate of ridership was derived from a telephone survey assuming that everyone that said yes that they would support the commuter rail would ride the rail, a student of marketing would know that this should not be assumed. John Dinklage, South Burlington resident, thanked Mr. Pennington for his letter which Mr. Dinklage felt was very accurate and very important. He suggested that the Council consider it seriously. Mr. Dinklage sees the commuter rail as an opportunity which can be treated as a two year experiment with a total investment of about $9 million which offers us a upgrades of railroad station and upgrades very important rail track. Mr. Dinklage suggests that we may like having the track upgrade and commuter rail coupled, but that is the opportunity and the decision that we have before us. Steve Crowley, resident of Queen City Park, expressed that he is still looking for answers to his questions. A question that he has is how long will a $30 million upgrade of Shelburne Road last? It is handling large numbers of auto each day. Mr. Crowley suggests maintaining an open mind and considers the commuter rail as a thoughtful way of handling growth. He believes the rail would get used. He suggests don't say "yes" now, but insist on getting some good answer to valid questions. He also suggested holding off on a negative response right now and work to make certain that decisions are not made to fast. Paul Bruhn still sees a lot of unanswered questions. He suggests that a list of questions be presented to AOT and request that these direct questions receive direct answers. Mr. Cimonetti explained that a letter had been sent to the Governor thanking him for his participation in the previous meeting, and the letter also reinstated questions and requested answers. Dick Jacobson, South Burlington resident, thanked Council for challenging the statistics presented. He felt that the cost will be born by all people of Vermont and will only benefit a few. This cost will cover low ridership and the commuter rail will not have the positive impact on taking autos off Shelburne. Mr. Robinson stated that the phone survey was done with a very scientific approach. It was not done in a casual or haphazard way. He felt that this report came down very conservatively. Mr. Hafter pointed out that he keeps hearing the daily ridership predictions but he is interested in what the peak hour ridership numbers look like. Mr. Robinson will provide these numbers to Council and Mr. Hafter as soon as he can get them. Mr. Flaherty pointed out that the upgrade rail tracks, which would be done during Phase I, can be used to by Amtrak. Mr. Cimonetti proposed action at this time. Mr. MacLaughlin made the following motion: Motion: I move that the City Council of South Burlington withhold its support of the implementation of the proposed commuter rail system until further consistent information is obtained from the Vermont Department of Transportation regarding the estimated financial costs and the economic viability of the project, as well as, concrete plans to satisfactorily address the issues of ridership safety and environmental impact. Mr. Condos seconded the motion. Mr. Condos thanks Mr. Pennington for his letters and information of auto and truck reduction. Mr. Condos recognizes the importance of rails in Chittenden County. Mr. Condos is not comfortable with the combination of the rail tracks/rail beds and the commuter rail project. Mr. Condos indicated to Mr. Robinson that he had prepared questions and presented to them to Mr. Garahan. The changing of numbers is a real concern of Mr. Condos. Mr. Chittenden asked Mr. Robinson what the cost of the lease of Main Street Landing is. Mr. Robinson said that the cost is about $1.5 million dollars paid in advance for a lease of the multi/modal transportation facility on the waterfront in Burlington. This has been paid up front. The motion was passed 4-1 with Mr. Flaherty abstaining as a member of the House Transportation Committee. Councilman Bob Chittenden left the meeting at 9:30 PM. 5. Public Hearing on Emergency Management Ordinance of the City of South Burlington; Consideration of Second Reading of the Same. Mr. Hafter presented the this ordinance as it was presented at the first public hearing. This ordinance does not change the way things have been set up but it does codify our position in the case of an emergency. The State recommends that this be adopted. Mr. Condos moved to waive reading of ordinance and approve the ordinance as presented. Mr. Flaherty seconded this motion. This motion was passed unanimously with a 4-0 vote. 6. First Reading of Proposed Amendments to Subdivision Regulations; Scheduling of Public Hearing on Same. Nile Duppstadt elaborated on the letter to Planning Commission and Mr. Cimonetti. Mr. Cimonetti asked Mr. Duppstadt to highlight items that he would like done differently. a. Go back to gradual swale rather than wide roads, curbs, drainage. He proposes a swale not just a ditch. b. This would allow availability for more affordable housing. Mr. Cimonetti asked if it the concept that the City would be responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Duppstadt pointed out that this is the homeowners are responsible and therefore it is important to have expectations of property owners mapped out. Mr. Condos and Mr. Cimonetti see concern that homeowners would not assume this responsibility. Mr. Condos did express that he is not certain whether 30' of road with curbs and sidewalks are always necessary. Mr. Cimonetti expressed the concern an elected official has when looking to the future and having to answer to the 3rd or 4th time property owner who is not maintaining his property properly therefore causing damage to surrounding properties, and also the 3rd or 4th time property owner who might decide that they do want culverts and curbs. They might start making complaints as taxpayers that they do not have the same city infrastructure. Mr. Audette pointed to the damage a frozen culvert or a culvert overgrown with cattails etc. can do. Lack of maintenance is very expensive to the City. He stated that neighborhoods without curbs cost twice as much to maintain. Mr. Audette pointed out that properly built closed drainage systems will catch silt and allow it to be removed and many ditches hold the silt. Mr. Audette is sensitive to affordable housing but does not support lowering the standards of City infrastructure to accommodate the housing. Oak Creek is a major concern regarding all homeowners taking care of swales and ditches. One person not caring for the swale destroys the entire drainage system. Mr. Cimonetti asked if there is any flexibility without having to be a private street. Maybe the planning study should offer a waiver. Mr. Duppstadt said that the Planning Commission sent his proposal onto to City Council because they did not want to take a position. Mr. Cimonetti suggested that this go to a second hearing but does not want to do this without the Planning Commission's position being stated. In order to vote on this subject more information is needed. Mr. Cimonetti suggested that there be approval of a first hearing of the proposed subdivision amendments and set date for a second hearing. Mr. Condos made a motion that the first hearing be waived and that a second hearing be slated for March 20, 1995. Mr. Condos also proposed that the Planning Commission be asked to present their position on waiver of the subdivision. Mr. MacLaughlin seconded this motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. Review of Planning Commission Memorandum on Proposed Amendment to Industrial and Open Space District to Allow Access Roads in the Buffer Zone Along Hinesburg Road. The Planning Commission did not recommend the breaking of the buffer for access where other public right-of-way exists. Mr. Hafter will present this item to the South Burlington Economic Development and ask for their position. 8. Item for Information: a. The agenda for the Special Meeting on 2/23/95 was presented to City Council as a reminder of the South Burlington Proposed Budget Workshop. 9. Approval of City Council Minutes for February 6, 1995. Mr. Condos moved that the amended minutes of February 6, 1995 be approved and Mr. Flaherty seconded this motion. The motion was passed unanimously 4-0. 10. Disbursement orders were signed. Mr. Flaherty moved for adjournment at 10:15 PM and Mr. Condos seconded this motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:16 PM. Respectfully submitted: Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.