Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/01/1997CITY COUNCIL 1 DECEMBER 1997 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 1 December 1997, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: William Cimonetti, Chair; James Condos, David Austin, Joan Britt, Terrence Sheahan. Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Peg Strait, Asst. City Manager; Anna Johnston, The Other Paper; Albert Audette, Highway Dept; Frank Mazur, Bill Wessel, CCTA; Michael O'Neil, Fire Chief; David & Diana Hall, Ed & Ruth Rich, George Holcomb, Frederick Anderson, Doug Boehm, Donna Watts, Eileen Lawer. 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to Agenda items): a. Mr. Hall, a resident of Laurel Hill Drive, addressed the issue of sewer backups in the area. Several residents also reported that they had had numerous backups over a period of years. These incidents have caused extensive damage, and residents have lost irreplaceable items. The installation of a backflow valve this summer seems only to have moved the problem further up the street. Mr. Hafter said the city plans to borrow a micro-camera to see exactly where the problem is occurring. Mr. Audette said they should have the equipment by the end of the week. He said the area is very flat and there is not much flow through the system. The situation is aggravated by the use of disposal equipment which puts a lot of grease into the system. This builds up in the pipes and eventually blocks (slows) the flow even more. There will be a report at the next meeting, after the system has been filmed. b. Mr. Holcomb read a letter to the Council thanking the city for the sidewalk recently installed. He reported that most of the neighbors are very happy about it. Mr. Audette said the first course has been paved in all driveways. There will be seeding, grading, and a second course in the spring. 2. Announcements and City Manager's Report: a. Mr. Hafter announced the following: 1. Pictures for the annual report will be taken at the 15 December meeting. 2. The pre-bid meeting on the Bartlett Bay Treatment Plant upgrade project will be held tomorrow. Bids are due on 17 December. There has already been a great deal of interest on the part of potential bidders. 3. The review of the Queen City Park water line will be held on 11 December. 4. The proposed impact fee formula for the Milot project will be on the next agenda. b. Report from the Fire Chief of Insurance Rating: Chief O'Neil reported that the insurance rating for the city has gone up from Class 5 to Class 4 as a result of a recent inspection. This should mean a decrease in fire insurance premiums for commercial businesses that are sprinklered. The rating of the Fire Department also went up as a result of the new equipment purchased last year. A plan will be provided outlining steps to be taken so the city can get an even higher rating. The Department will then evaluate costs and see what steps can be taken. Chief O'Neil said all equipment is top of the line compared to any place in the area. The City of Burlington is now adapting some of their equipment based on what they've seen in South Burlington. Mr. Condos suggested an information campaign to have people plow around hydrants. Chief O'Neil said that will be done. In addition, they are discussing chimney problems with condo groups. Some dangerous chimneys were found during inspections. Mr. Sheahan asked if there is any chance for the city to move up to Class 3. Mr. O'Neil said it is not out of the question. They need to see the list first and then assign dollar values to see what can be accomplished. Chief O'Neil said that in the future, he may bring the Council a sprinkler requirement ordinance. He noted that sprinklered buildings help contain fires so it requires less manpower to put them out. Chief O'Neil noted he has received some interest in purchasing the city's old fire truck. Mr. Hafter praised the "prevention mentality" of the Department and said there has been a lot of positive comment about it. 3. Discussion of City Position on Appropriate Level of Involvement for CCTA in Commuter Rail Project: Mr. Cimonetti advised that the State has asked CCTA to manage the commuter rail project. CCTA has asked for comments from the member municipalities. Mr. Mazur said he met in September with the state and came to the conclusion that CCTA wanted minimal involvement (consultant role). Since then, there has been a lot of discussion at the State level, and CCTA was asked to reconsider its position. Mr. Mazur said he asked the General Manager to put together a letter regarding options CCTA might have. Two such options exist: a. Consultant/Contractor Role: In this capacity, CCTA would have minimal involvement. They could disseminate information, create a marketing plan, integrate rail and bus service, and be "on call" in a consultant role. b. Project Management Role: As project manager, CCTA would assume full responsibility for management of the system. They would provide the service, have the system ready for start-up, and assume all management risks. There are many implications involved in the Project Management Role. CCTA would have a liability issue regarding accidents, etc. This also involves a community exposure which could be addressed by a "hold harmless" contract by the State. If the project fails, CCTA would have the image of a failed effort. Mr. Mazur said he would recommend getting an outside firm to manage the operation. He would also want the assurance that no local funding would be involved. Commuter rail will be a reality late next year, and Mr. Mazur felt local control may be more appealing than state control. Mr. Cimonetti noted that CCTA operates under a broad charter. Since it is the County's transit authority, managing the project would be well within its authority. Mr. Cimonetti also noted that CCTA assesses member communities to keep its operation going, and members are still obligated for bonded debt even if they pull out of the organization. The project is starting as a 3-year demo, and South Burlington has been very concerned about obligations after the demo period. Opting out of the project wouldn't relieve a community of financial obligations. Mr. Cimonetti said there would have to be an insistance that there be absolutely no local obligation. Communities now have individual Memorandums of Understanding with the State that there will be no local costs. In addition, since the city is a member of CCTA, it could also be a target if a liability issue arose. Mr. Mazur said CCTA would do everything it could to have an ironclad agreement regarding liability. Mr. Condos said he was concerned that of the 4 communities involved in the rail project, only 3 are members of CCTA (Charlotte is not). He compared the situation to Colchester getting the benefits of CCTA without paying a cent for the service. He felt this could be true for Charlotte as well. Mr. Condos said what he would like to see happen is a statement that CCTA recognizes the Memorandums of Understanding with the State. There is also the issue of a South Burlington station. Mr. Condos felt the State is not moving on this. If CCTA agreed to take on the project, they would be doing it without a South Burlington station. This might be a good opportunity to use some leverage to get a multi-modal station hub at Southland. There is also the issue of how CCTA is funded. Each home in South Burlington pays about $20 a year for CCTA. Mr. Condos felt it was time the State recognized that CCTA is the only bus system in the state that gets such a small amount of operating money from the state. He felt it is time to use the gas tax money for this. Ms. Britt asked what CCTA would prefer to do. Mr. Mazur said they are going back and forth on the options. There are some things to be said for local control, but they also know there could be problems with state relations in the future. It is a very volatile issue. Mr. Austin asked how other communities feel. Mr. Mazur said Burlington favors it. Shelburne is mixed. Winooski is in the middle. Essex wants as little participation as possible. Mr. Cimonetti noted that CCTA would not be using its personnel to run the trains, etc. But they would be managing the contract with whoever does. He questioned why the state is not willing to do this since it has greater ability to manage major contracts. CCTA would have to create a whole new organization to do this. Mr. Austin asked if the State is willing to take on all additional expenses that CCTA would incur. Mr. Mazur said they would be, for three years. Mr. Austin agreed with Mr. Cimonetti that it is very odd that the state is asking CCTA to do this. Mr. Sheahan felt there are too many ugly possibilities for him to favor this plan. Mr. Condos asked about the libability the state has for federal dollars. Mr. Mazur said there is a possibility that the state would have to pay back 17/20 of the federal money if the project ends after three years since the federal government is lending the money based on a 20-year basis. The state is trying to get this waived. Mr. Cimonetti said it seems the state is questioning its ability to put the system into operation next October. If that is true, no one is better equipped to do it than CCTA. Mr. Sheahan asked how managing the rail project would detract from CCTA's real business of serving bus riders in Chittenden County. Mr. Mazur said they are very concerned about this and would want the assurance that there is no interference with their ability to manage the bus system. Mr. Austin said he felt documents could be drawn to adequately protect CCTA and its members. He thought the city might be better off with some control but he didn't think CCTA would want the onus if the project is not a success. Mr. Cimonetti said he was concerned that the project might be continued after 3 years and would then have to be heavily subsidized. He suggested a 3- year partnership role with the state where CCTA and the State would be partners and make joint decisions. Mr. Mazur said the Board felt it would be better to have a black and white relationship, with no grey areas. Mr. Cimonetti said he didn't believe the state would allow CCTA to set fares or have sole responsibility for a contract with whoever runs the system. Ms. Britt suggested having the state run the project during the 3-year demonstration and then have CCTA consider taking it over. Mr. Austin felt this was a good idea. A poll of members showed the following: Ms. Britt and Mr. Sheahan favored option 1 for 3 years, then converting to option 2. Mr. Austin wanted minimal involvement coordinated with CCTA bus users. Mr. Condos leaned toward option 2 but was not opposed to Ms. Britt's idea. Mr. Cimonetti felt option 2 should not be employed now. The Council then gave unanimous consensus that it does not support option 2 at this time, but it is willing to see growth in that direction. 4. Consideration of recommendation from Charter Committee to amend City Charter regarding tax installment due dates: Mr. Hafter reviewed the history of this item. Under Act 60, the tax rate for schools will not be set until June 30th, so the city's July 15th tax due date cannot be legally required. The new Charter language would have taxes due "in no fewer than three equal installments and on dates as determined annually by the City Council." The bill for municipal taxes could still go out for 15 July. This would eliminate the necessity for tax anticipation borrowing. Mr. Cimonetti said there would have to be a public vote on this and then legislative approval before the change is made. Mr. Hafter also noted that since the city cannot collect taxes on 15 July this year, there is a question of whether the city can enforce a penalty on taxes not paid in time since it will be in violation of the Charter. Mr. Cimonetti suggested accepting the Committee's recommendation but assigning no dates for a public hearing at this time. Mr. Condos moved to accept the recommendation of the City Charter Committee but to set no public hearing at this time in anticipation of possible further changes. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Cimonetti noted there has been no discussion on other implications of Act 60 on the City Charter. The City Attorney is looking into this as is the City Charter Committee. There will have to be public discussion in the future. 5. Consideration of agreement with conceptual plan for Lime Kiln Bridge replacement: Mr. Hafter noted that there has been wrangling over the fate of the old bridge. No one was willing to pay to maintain it. The new plan is to document the old bridge and leave it open while the new bridge is being built. The new bridge would be built in the shape of the old bridge. There would also be an overlook to take advantage of the excellent views. This could be taken in as part of the Winooski Park District. The new bridge would be about 7 feet higher than the old one. It would have historical type lighting. There would be a 6 ft. wide sidewalk and 5'11" shoulders. There will be two 10'11" travel lanes. Bikers could use the breakdown lanes. Mr. Audette said this is the alignment the city has always wanted. The project also continues 1/4 mile beyond the end of the bridge. Mr. Hafter noted the costs on the Colchester side are much higher than on the S. Burlington side. There was to be a 50-50 split on costs, but the city doesn't want to do that now. Mr. Condos moved to approve the concept of the typical as presented. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Audette said there needs to be discussion about what to do about the intersection. 6. Accept resignation of Susan Fitzpatrick from Leisure Arts Committee: Mr. Condos moved to accept with regret the resignation of Susan Fitzpatrick from the Leisure Arts Committee and instruct the City Manager to send a letter of appreciation for her service. 7. Review Zoning Notice for Public Hearing on 8 December 1997: No issues were raised. 8. Review City Council Minutes of 17 November and 21 November: Ms. Britt moved to approve the Minutes of 17 November as written. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Cimonetti abstaining. Ms. Britt moved to approve the Minutes of 21 November as written. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Messrs. Austin and Cimonetti abstaining. 9. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.