Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/06/1995CITY COUNCIL 6 March 1995 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 6 March 1995, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: William Cimonetti, Chairman; Robert Chittenden, David Maclaughlin, James Condos, Michael Flaherty Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Peg Strait, Asst. City Manager; William Burgess, Planning Commission, Sonny Audette, Street Dept; Rosalind Saunders, Barbara Hibbitts, Marcel Beaudin, Mary Ann Murray, John Wilking, David White, Ernie Pomerleau, Charles Brush, Dwight Palmer, Frank Mazur, John Giebink 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to Agenda items): No issues were raised. 2. Announcements/City Manager's Report: Mr. Condos stressed that it is important for S. Burlington citizens to understand the House bill on property tax and how it will hurt S. Burlington. He felt residents should contact their legislators and voice the opinion that this bill punishes communities that have planned ahead. Mr. Hafter added that some "property rich" towns are getting together to discuss this, and there will also be an interactive TV forum on this issue on Thursday. Mr. Hafter noted the following upcoming meetings: a. the Governor's presentation on commuter rail, Monday at 8 a.m. at the Radison b. Regional Planning Commission meeting on the Lime Kiln Bridge on 14 March c. S. Burlington Steering Committee on 16 March at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Hafter reported on the following: a. The lease agreement for the skating facility has been signed. b. The Annual Report is at the printers. Mr. Cimonetti noted that S. Burlington will be 130 years old on 15 March. Property taxes are also due on this date. 3. Consideration of Approval to Present City Manager's Budget to Steering Committee; Review of 10 year Capital Plan and 10 year Operating Additions: Mr. Cimonetti noted a very slight reduction in the tax rate for next year. Mr. Maclaughlin asked what happens to the fire vehicle replacement fund if reductions stay in place. Mr. Hafter said the department is still able to purchase a new pumper. The city will need to increase this fund in the future to continue to purchase the new equipment that is needed. Mr. Hafter noted that if the tax rate decrease were eliminated, it would raise $14,000 more which could be added to the fire equipment reserve fund. A straw vote of members showed that 3 members favored keeping the tax rate reduction and 2 favored no decrease. Mr. Chittenden moved to present the City Manager's budget to the Steering Committee. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Presentation from Social Responsibility Committee: Ms. Saunders and Ms. Hibbitts reported for the Committee. Ms. Saunders thanked the Council for maintaining a separate committee to focus on human services programs that benefit the citizens of South Burlington. She noted that the Committee got requests for funding from 19 agencies, 3 of which were new requests. The criteria used to allocate funding were: quality of services, duplication of services, services specifically to South Burlington residents, financial need, and how volunteers are used. The Committee has made allocations totalling $42,000 although it received requests for $55,000. They did not fund agencies applying for the first time nor did they simply level fund other agencies. Small increases were given to VNA, Project Home, and the Agency on Aging while Adult Basic Ed and the Agency for the Blind had small decreases. Ms. Saunders noted that agencies funded last year served 2600 South Burlington residents, averaging $16.50 per person. The Committee now wants to look at education and awareness of services by community residents. They also want to research how S. Burlington compares to other communities in its funding of human services. The VNA has quantified its work in S. Burlington noting that its services allow people to leave hospitals sooner. Costs to VNA for services to S. Burlington residents last year totalled $951,928. About $95,000 of this was not covered by insurance. South Burlington funded $9500 of this, about 10%. Ms. Hibbitts stressed that these agencies enhance a quality of life, dignity, and self esteem for city residents. 4. Interviews with Candidates for Appointment to the Planning Commission and Zoning Board: The Council interviewed Marcel Beaudin, Mary Ann Murray and John Wilking for the available positions. Ms. Murray expressed an interest in serving the community. She felt it is an excellent place to live and would like to keep it that way. She noted she had served on the golf course study committee which whetted her interest in planning issues. Mr. Beaudin is an architect who did graduate work in urban planning. He was on the Shelburne Planning Commission for 10 years and also on an advisory committee in South Burlington. He also served on the Regional Planning Commission and was on the Burlington advisory committee for the Market Place. He didn't see a conflict of interest with his Burlington activities. Mr. Wilking began as an architect and is now in commercial real estate. He enjoys S. Burlington and would like to see that it is protected. He also wants to see the development process made more fluid. Mr. Flaherty asked candidates how they would like to see the Southeast Quadrant developed. Mr. Wilking agreed with the vision in the plan. He didn't mind the golf course and housing if planned within confines of zoning. Mr. Beaudin felt the Planning Commission has done a fine job and the Quadrant plans are well thought out. He would hope to continue that process. Ms. Murray agreed that a lot of time and thought has gone into the planning for this area and she wanted to see benefits for the whole community and that what happens there can be afforded by the citizens. Mr. Condos asked for candidates thoughts on the mixing of legally established statutes and subjective judgments. Mr. Beaudin said he confronts this issue all the time and indicated he is irked by people with a personal agenda that is not in the community's interest. Mr. Wilking said he doesn't take responsibility lightly and would like to see politics kept out of planning. Ms. Murray said she has no agenda and comes with an open mind. She is concerned with the entire community and with generations to come. Mr. Maclaughlin asked the candidates thoughts on the proposed City Center. Mr. Beaudin said he is impressed with the model done by the students. He felt the city deserves a downtown noting the geographical split. He felt the Dorset St. improvements have helped connect the city. Ms. Murray felt the city lacks a core and that it would be good to have a place people identify as being the heart of the community. Mr. Wilking felt it is often more difficult to put it into place and felt public and private support would be the toughest part. He felt it would take a long time to realize. He added that people who own the land must help make it happen. Mr. Maclaughlin then asked how the candidates would handle a situation in which there was a conflict between the city's Master Plan and the Regional Plan. Mr. Wilking said he would support the city's plan. Mr. Beaudin said he would tend toward the city's plan but would not be blind to other issues. Ms. Murray agreed with Mr. Beaudin and said she would want to know why the two plans differed. Mr. Chittenden asked if the candidates favored maintaining the balance between residential and commercial. All candidates were comfortable with the mix. Mr. Wilking felt the city needs to attract more non-retail business. Both Messrs. Beaudin and Wilking favored the Planning Commission. Ms. Murray said she would serve on either Board. 5. Discussion of Implementation of Impact Fee Ordinance and Consideration of Amendment: Mr. Hafter said there is a question of when impact fees are charged. The language of the ordinance says it is when the developer gets a building permit. The city has, however, a number of approved projects for which all permits have been obtained except a building permit, and some of these go back a long time. This raises a question of fairness. The City Attorney has proposed language which would grandfather for three years projects approved before the impact fee ordinance. This would not apply to education impact fees since no such fees were in effect at the time of approval. Mr. Pomerleau asked for a longer period than 3 years, if possible as they are doing a lot of road work for some of their projects. David White agreed and felt that the language of the enabling legislation made such impact fees a condition of approval at the time of approval. Mr. Pomerleau felt 5 years would be acceptable. Mr. Condos noted there are a number of approved projects that will have a tremendous impact on the schools. Mr. Cimonetti suggested getting the Planning Commission's input on this question. Mr. Hafter said he would like to bring a range of proposals to be considered for a public hearing. Members agreed. Mr. Condos left the meeting at this time. 6. Consideration of approval of Letter of Intent to Apply for Community Development Block Grant for Development of Senior Citizens Center as Part of the Pines Development, Dorset St: Mr. Brush noted there was once a proposal for a Seniors Center, and if approved, seniors could use the facility he is proposing. The City would become applicant for the grant to complete the project. A letter of intent would be the first step in the process. There would be no financial obligation to the city. Mr. Maclaughlin moved to authorize the city's support in a letter of intent for the development of a senior citizens center as part of the Pines Development. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. Consideration of approval of Chittenden Solid Waste District Budget, 1995-6: Mr. Cimonetti said he got a response to the questions raised by the Council and all issues were addressed. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the Chittenden Solid Waste District 1995-6 Budget. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Discussion of Proposal to Amend the South Burlington City Charter to Modify Tax Appraisal Methodology on Unimproved Commercial/Industrial Land Holding Approved Permits: Mr. Cimonetti said that 2 public hearings would be necessary plus a public vote and approval of the General Assembly. Members agreed to hold the public hearings on 10 and 17 April. Mr. Chittenden moved to put the proposed Charter amendment on the 16 May ballot and to schedule public hearings on the amendment for 10 and 17 April. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Discussion of Proposed Expansion of Bartlett Bay Water Treatment Facility and Financing Options: Mr. Hafter said he will have the best cost estimates at the next meeting. He estimated costs would be $4-5,000,000. The state has revolving loan funds at 0% interest which is equivalent to a 43% grant. Voters would have to approve taking out the loan. The impact on fees would be $24.50 a year if $5,000,000 were borrowed. Mr. Chittenden asked when construction could begin. Mr. Hafter said design would take 3-4 months, then 18 months to begin work. He felt capacity would be available in about 2-1/2 years. Members favored paying for the loan via user fees. 10. Discussion of State Legislation Authorizing Adoption of Development Review Board: Mr. Hafter noted the Legislature gave towns the authority to change how planning functions are done. One Board could handle all permits including conditional use, variances, subdivision and site plan reviews. The other Board would do long range planning. Mr. Burgess said the Planning Commission hasn't had a chance to discuss this, but he personally doubted it would decrease the work load although more long range planning might get done. Mr. Cimonetti said this would mean 2 entirely new boards, and the problem is that what you face in development review is what initiates changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations. Mr. Burgess said the concept would also put the planning process further away from the review process. He felt it would also add more work for the paid staff. Members agreed they would like to hear from the Planning and Zoning Boards on this. 11. Review Planning Commission Agenda for 7 March and Zoning Board agenda for 13 March: No issues were raised. 12. Review Minutes of 21 and 23 February: It was noted that the vote on commuter rail in the 21 February meeting was 4-0 with 1 abstention. It was also noted that in the meeting of 23 February Dwight Palmer was among those present. Mr. Chittenden moved to approve the Minutes of 21 and 23 February as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. Members agreed to postpone the Executive Session to review applicants for Boards and Commissions until a full Council is present. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.