Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/15/1997CITY COUNCIL 15 DECEMBER 1997 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 15 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; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Barbara Evans, Diana Hall, Eileen Lauer, Doug Boehm, Debra & Jon Kruger, Stephen Crampton. 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to Agenda items): No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Condos noted that the Solid Waste District Board will meet on Wednesday at 7:00. Mr. Cimonetti noted that the MPO will meet on 17 December from 3-5 p.m. and that the CCTA Board will meet on the same day at 5 p.m. to make a final decision on involvement in the commuter rail project. Mr. Hafter reported the following: a. There will be a Steering Committee meeting on 22 January at 7:30 p.m. b. The next Legislative Breakfast will be 5 January at 7:30 a.m. in the Community Library. c. The Bartlett Bay Sewage Treatment Plant project is moving along well. The Planning Commission will hear the site plan tomorrow night and bids will be opened on Wednesday morning. d. Special meetings on the 1998-9 city budget will be held on 19 February, 23 February, and as needed on either 26 February or 5 March. e. It appears that 4 of the member communities in CCTA are opposed to having CCTA manage the commuter rail project. Ms. Strait gave an update on the reappraisal of city properties. She noted that all appraisals are now complete and computer output is being reviewed. Notices will be going out to property owners and preliminary hearings will be held. The new Grand List will be available on 1 April. Mr. Cimonetti asked how "homesteading" is being handled. Ms. Strait said the only thing you have to do this year is include the homestead and the homestead tax. The Grand List will have that information separated out. This information will be available for people to look at on 1 January. Bills will show both the homestead and the total tax as required by Act 60. Mr. Cimonetti asked when people will have a book organized by street where they can look at comparable properties. Ms. Strait said this will be available 1 April. Ms. Strait said they are right on line as far as the expense of reappraisal is concerned. Mr. Cimonetti noted the city will receive $6 per parcel from the state to help offset the cost of reappraisal. Mr. Hafter estimated the city will get about $40,000. The total cost of reappraisal will be over $300,000. 3. Update from Sonny Audette on Laurel Hill Drive Sanitary Sewer Maintenance: Mr. Audette reported that they cleaned out and filmed the sewer line. They discovered that the services were not properly installed and protrude into the line about 3 or 4 inches. This causes a barrier for some solids. There was also one spot where tree roots were involved. They did some cutting and will film the line again soon. If the situation does not get better, residents will have to do something about the services. There is the possibility that the backflow preventers are not working because the footing drains were not installed properly. Mr. Audette will report to Mr. Hafter when the lines are cleaned so that residents can be aware of this. Mr. Cimonetti suggested a memo be written about what has been done and what was learned. Mr. Condos suggested advising each homeowner about the specific service to that home. 4. Public Hearing on Ordinance Regarding Street Naming and Street Addressing; second reading: Mr. Cimonetti explained that this is part of the E-911 effort. Mr. Hafter added that in order for the city to participate in E-911 service, addressing must adhere to a standard based on a GIS numbering system. A list will be developed listing a name, old address and new address. About 95% of the addresses in the city will change. Officers Kruger and Ploof explained the process and said there will be an article in the Other Paper explaining it to homeowners. Mr. Condos raised the question of addresses for homes which have a garage fronting on a different street than the house. He felt there should be an exemption for these residences so the address reflects the street that the house faces. Officer Kruger said it would be better not to have any exemptions. Mr. Cimonetti also felt there should be an exception made for these homes and that the city and homeowner should decide on a number for the house. Mr. Austin felt it would involve driving around to look at some of these properties. Ms. Britt said the premise is that emergency personnel are being trained to look for driveways and exceptions could cause a delay in service. Officer Kruger said it is a national standard based on the GIS survey. Members suggested tabling the item to get further input. Mr. Cimonetti also asked that there be a "user friendly" list for homeowners. Mr. Condos moved to table the item until the next City Council meeting. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consideration of impact fee options on Dorset Farms water line; first reading: Mr. Hafter outlined the options as follows: a. Owners would pay a proportional share of the line based on a per unit cost. Owners would pay an impact fee only for existing units or when a building permit is taken out for a unit. Cost per unit: $215.72. b. Owners would pay a proportional share of the line based on a per unit cost but would pay an impact fee of 50% of total build-out cost when hooking up the first unit. The remainder would be prorated. Cost per unit: 215.72. Under this option, the developer would get quicker and greater surety of some return on his investment. c. Owners would pay a unit cost of $215.72 at time of first hook-on to water main. The second hook-on would be charged at 50% of the total build-out cost, with remaining units' costs pro-rated based on the remaining amount due. d. Owners would pay a proportional share of the line on a per unit cost with the impact fee district assuming 50% of the total cost, and the developer 50% of the total cost. Cost per unit would be $157.20. The cost to city residents would be $83,159. and would be allocated against all of the units excluding the developer's. In addition to the above impact fee, property owners would have to pay the standard tap-on charges to the Water Department and the cost to run the service to their private property. Mr. Cimonetti suggested a combination of options "a" and "d" as a further possibility. Mr. Crampton said they don't disagree with the concept based on density but felt the developer is already carrying his share with his development. Their major concern is timing of payments and they feel people should pay their fair share for density of a lot, not just the units they want to hook up. Mr. Cimonetti said he thought that might stimulate development. Mr. Crampton disagreed. Mr. Cimonetti said there would be less likelihood of a single family owner on a large lot that could be subdivided hooking up if he had to pay the cost based on future subdivision. Mr. Crampton suggested a plan where the property owner would pay for only one house now but would pay the full amount if anything is done to the property, whether at full density or not. Mr. Austin said there is a logic to tie the fee to an approved number of lots. He felt this would be a disincentive to subdivision. Ms. Britt wanted to be sure there is no encouragement to development along Dorset Street. Mr. Sheahan said he would be comfortable with the payment scheme of option "a" based on 50% of total cost with the remaining cost borne by Dorset Farms. Ms. Britt favored an option based on approved lots. Mr. Austin said he wouldn't go with a 50% figure and felt option "a" was fairest. Mr. Cimonetti said he wanted to see the issue of the 4 lots at the end of the road settled before there is any decision made. Mr. Condos moved the Council adopt the concept of Option 1. Mr. Austin seconded. Mr. Cimonetti noted that under this option even Dorset Farms homes will have to pay the fee. Mr. Crampton felt this could be done without a payment. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. Ms. Britt noted language in the proposed ordinance which suggests the city is paying for the line. Mr. Hafter said that language will be clarified. Members agreed to have a first reading of the proposed ordinance at the next meeting. 6. Appeal to City Council pursuant to Section 9 of the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, assessment of impact fees by the Zoning Administrator on Pinnacle at Spear: Mr. Hafter reviewed the history of this item. He noted that the Council adopted impact fees in 1995, but later in the year amended the Ordinance to grandfather projects which had received subdivision approval prior to the adoption of impact fees and which had been assessed the former fees. The grandfathering was for 10 years. The appellant feels that the grandfathering applies to their project. The Zoning Administrator feels that since the recreation fee at the time of approval of the project was only $200, the Planning Commission assumed that the new impact fee would be in place before construction of the project and thus envisioned a higher fee. Otherwise, the last sentence of the approval stipulation would be meaningless. Mr. Crampton said their position is that the Planning Commission didn't have the right to subject a developer to an Ordinance that was not adopted until far into the future. They feel their project should be grandfathered to the amount in affect at the time of approval. Mr. Ward said they have been issuing permits under the 10-year exemption for approvals since 1985. They reviewed this with the City Attorney's office which said that Pinnacle should have paid based on the impact fee. There were a total of 21 permits issued based on the feeling there was no impact fee. This situation would also affect Dorset Farms. Mr. Crampton noted that building permits were not issued to the subdivider but to homeowners. If there is a fee, it should be assessed to the homeowner. Mr. Hafter noted that the waiver was not a blanket waiver and did not include the recreation fee. Mr. Cimonetti suggested the discussion be continued in Executive Session. Mr. Sheahan moved to continue the appeal until 5 January 1998. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Final Selection of New Name for Corporate Way: Main Street or Market Street: After a brief discussion, Ms. Britt moved that the name of Corporate Way be changed to Market Street. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consideration of the use of Kennedy Drive for Soap Box Derby, June 21, 1998, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m: Mr. Hafter said the park could be used, but doing so would preclude use of the park by anyone else on that day. Kennedy Drive is an acceptable alternative to the promoter. There would be about 20 participants in the event. Mr. Audette felt it would be OK as long as you can still get residents in and out of Manor Woods. Mr. Sheahan said he would want to see a full plan of the procedures before making a decision. Mr. Hafter agreed to try to negotiate a plan with the promoter. 9. Authorization of Final Payments to VAOT for Dorset Street Project MEGC-M5200(8): Mr. Hafter said everything is in order. Mr. Audette said they still don't have the as-builts. Mr. Condos moved to authorize payment of the remaining bills for project MEGC-M5200(8) as soon as the state provides the required as-builts. Ms. Britt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Review Planning Commission Agenda for 16 December 1997: No issues were raised. 11. Review Minutes of 1 December 1997: Mr. Sheahan moved to approve the Minutes of 1 December 1997 as written. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. Executive Session: Mr. Condos moved the Council adjourn and reconvene in Executive Session to discuss potential litigation and contract negotiations and to resume regular session only to approve a labor contract and/or adjourn. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: The Council returned to open session. Jim Condos moved approval of the City Hall Employees' Association Contract (July 1, 1997 - June 30, 2000), the Water Pollution Control Employees' Association contract (July 1, 1997 - June 30, 2000), and the Police Officers' Association contract (July 1, 1997 - June 30, 2000), Joan Britt seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Jim Condos moved adjournment. Joan Britt seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.