Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/15/2003CITY COUNCIL 15 DECEMBER 2003 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 15 December 2003, at 7:30 p.m., in the conference room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members present: T. Sheahan, Acting Chair; C. Smith, D. O'Rourke, S. Magowan, J. Condos (by telephone) Also present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; B. Hoar, Dept. of Public Works; L. Kupferman, Development Review Board; G. Cox, WPCD; A. Johnson, The Other Paper; G. Forbes, P. Collins 1. Comments & questions from the audience, not related to agenda items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements and City Manager's report: Mr. Sheahan: Will attend housing task force meeting on Wednesday. Mr. Hafter: Thanked Bruce Hoar and the Public Works Department for the work they've done during the 2 recent snowstorms. Distributed budget calendars. Budget discussion meetings are scheduled for 19 and 23 February, but this is subject to change because of school vacations. The County budget hearing will take place tomorrow at 2 p.m. The new Pizzagalli building will have its grand opening on Friday, 1-3 p.m. The next Council agenda (5 January) will include discussions on the proposed community center and proposed zoning changes. 3. First reading of amendment to official city map; schedule public hearing for 19 January 2004: Mr. Hafter explained the purpose of the official city map. He noted that it puts developers on notice as to city plans for land within the city. If a developer does come in with a plan for an area the city has other plans for, the city has 90 days to initiate condemnation proceedings. Mr. Hafter then reviewed proposed changes to the official map. These include: a. identification of University-owned land b. changes and additions to proposed rec paths c. park and open space area near the Winooski Valley Park d. the proposed 12A Interchange at Hinesburg Rd. e. 5-10 acres of open space on the O'Brien Farm property f. the dead-ending of Swift St. at Meadowlands Industrial Park g. connection to Dorset Heights from the Chittenden property deleted h. Autumn Hill Rd. deleted as well as roads running from it i. East-west road to the Isham property deleted j. North-south road through Farrell/UVM property added (had been left off inadvertently) k. Shelburne Rd. corridor road (alternate) deleted l. 150' strip of Farrell Estate designated as park/open space m. recreation path on Allen Road added n. indication of common open space near Air National Guard. Mr. Hafter noted that the Rec Path Committee has some minor changes to make, but they are not yet detailed enough. A motion will be needed at the public hearing to add the proposed park on Spear St. across from Whately Road. Members agreed they still want to leave a northbound on-ramp at Exit 13 on the map. Members asked for more details on the east-west roads that have been deleted from the map. This will be provided at the public hearing. Mr. Magowan moved to approve the first reading and schedule a public hearing to include 2 amendments for 19 January 2004. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Report on Phase I, Stormwater Utility Implementation Study: Mr. Hafter said this has been a very exciting project. He cited the 2 committees that have been working on this and noted that members represent all aspects of the city. Mr. Forbes then reviewed the project organization. He said they used a 6-phase approach: program description, problems/needs, program priorities, planned program, funding options, final report. Mr. Forbes noted that maintenance of the city's stormwater system has been mostly a "bandaid" approach. This has resulted in 6 impaired streams (Bartlett Brook, Centennial Brook, Englesby Brook, Muddy Brook, Munroe Brook and Potash Brook) with issues of sediment and erosion. New stormwater regulations have made it imperative to address the issue so that the city can be in compliance with the new rules. There is a need for public outreach/information and also a need to understand the condition of the existing system. This has been complicated by the lack of a comprehensive map of the existing system. Mr. Forbes said the highest priority need is for routine maintenance. A major question the committees confronted was: what level of stormwater management does the city want to provide? The key program goals identified to answer this question are: 1. Adequate funding 2. Public education/outreach 3. Regulatory compliance 4. Understanding the system and planning for improvements 5. Fixing priority CIP's first 6. Reducing capital construction backlog. Proposed program actions include: 1. Instituting a stable funding method 2. Hiring a full-time stormwater administrator 3. Hiring a part-time engineer 4. Doing additional watershed planning 5. Completing an inventory of the system 6. Capital planning Mr. Forbes estimated the cost to be $600,000 in the first year, then dropping down a bit after that. Mr. Collins then reviewed possible funding options. He noted there are 4 sources for revenue: taxes, service changes, exactions (approval or privilege to use), and assessments (for a special benefit or added value to a property). In the state of Vermont, there are 6 primary sources of revenue: property taxes, franchise fees, sales taxes, income tax, gas tax, and user fees. In addition, there are "secondary" funding options such as: fees for service (inspection fees, etc.), bonding, special assessments, flexible rate structures (large house vs. small house), and credits (to encourage "good behavior"). Mr. Collins said a tax of 5 cents per $100 would be easy to collect and would be "invisible" to the citizen. User fees might be set at $5 per month per ERU with a 5-8% administrative cost. This would include a "built-in" incentive to reduce imperviousness. Mr. Collins cited the growth in utilities since 1975. He also explained how residential and commercial rates are calculated. Mr. Collins said that there are those who would not like the proposed system: these include tax exempt properties, people with large paved areas with "cheap" buildings, people on fixed incomes, and small developers. To anticipate any legal challenges, the city must be fair and reasonable. The cost must be related to provision of facilities and services and rates must be based loosely on demand. Mr. Collins noted that about 25% of such utilities have been challenged in the courts. Mr. Forbes then outlined some of the next steps to be taken in establishing a stormwater utility. These include: establishing a single flat rate for residences, enhancing equity (via credits), employing secondary funding methods (impact fees, system development charge, etc.), upgrading software, addressing staffing needs, dealing with complaints, establishing billing methods and a means to maintain a database. The city needs to find a way to measure imperviousness as this is what the service fee will be based upon. Talks are underway with UVM about using satellite imagery to identify impervious areas. Mr. Forbes also emphasized the importance of the "public information track." The intent is to implement the utility within a year. Bills would go out at the end of 2004. Mr. Forbes stressed that the existing problems are real and have not been resolved. He said these problems can be resolved but government must take the lead in achieving a solution. There will be a cost, but Mr. Forbes said the benefits will be worth the expenditure. He recommended the City Council authorize proceeding to Phase 2. Mr. Hafter noted that with respect to residential property, the city would take over the responsibility to maintain the system, once it has been brought up to standard. The property owners would pay a fee for this. The city will work with condo associations to bring the systems up to standard. Mr. Hafter also noted that the study had been paid for by a grant at no charge to the taxpayers. Mr. Condos moved to continue to Phase 2 of the Stormwater Utility Plan. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Report on Airport Parkway plan renovation and expansion feasibility study: Mr. Forbes showed the service area for this treatment center. It includes about 2/3 of the city and some of the Town of Colchester. This involves 40 miles of public sewer in South Burlington. There are also 18 pump stations; Hinesburg Rd. and Williston Rd. are the 2 major ones. The total existing flow is 1.5 million gpd (400,000 from the city, 340,000 from Colchester, and 750,000 from inflow/infiltrations (from cracked pipes, connections to roof drains, etc.). There is also a reserve of 300,000 gpd for projects with permits that are not yet built. Colchester also has 310,000 unused existing allocation. The remaining capacity is 190,000 gpd. Mr. Forbes then reviewed future wastewater needs using information from the 2001 Comprehensive Plan and the city's Planning Department. In the year 2027, it is estimated that South Burlington will need 1,460,000 gpd, Colchester 900,000, inflow/infiltration 800,000, and septage 12,000 gpd, for a total of 3,200,000 gpd. At full build-out South Burlington will need 2,720,000, Colchester 900,000, inflow/infiltration 800,000, and septage 12,000 gpd for a total of 4,400,000 gpd. A map of the major flow routes to the treatment plant was then shown. It was noted that the current condition of pump stations is a concern. Old pumps are starting to deteriorate, there is inadequate storage capacity (which is a requirement), and telemetry systems are not adequate. The city needs to insure that developers build these facilities to standard. An evaluation was done on alternative routes to the treatment plant. The preferred and recommended route is through Dorset Park pump station to the Hinesburg Rd. pump station. The cost to upgrade the system is $8,400,000. Mr. Cox noted that some of the work is already being done. Some funding is being done by the private sector. He also noted that the figure cited is for full buildout. The recommendation is to continue to fund the capital reserve and to upgrade the facility for immediate needs. Mr. Forbes then reviewed the components of the facility and showed a diagram of the existing plant. He indicated what would be included in an upgrade of the facility including: septage receiving system (currently severely corroded), primary treatment (including equipment), secondary treatment, BNR treatment system, replacement of the aeration system, expanded capacity. With regard to sludge, the recommendation is to add a thickener and upgrading to a 2-phase anaerobic digestion system with a new dewatering facility (which would handle Bartlett Bay sludge as well). Mr. Forbes showed a site plan for the proposed facility concept. The cost for the total project would be $13,250,000. Sources for funding would include: state revolving loan, septage grant (50% of up to $2,000,000 for septage and sludge facilities), phosphorus grant (apx. $700,000), and the Town of Colchester A time line for the plan would have final design implemented in 2004, construction beginning in 2005, and the plant on-line in 2006. Mr. Hafter noted the city already has collected $2,000,000 in impact fees. He said that with the acceptance of state revolving loan funding (at 2%), the city would not have to begin repayment until construction begins. Mr. Magowan moved to accept state revolving loan funds to do a final design for the Airport Parkway Treatment Plan facility upgrade. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Condemnation Resolution: Mr. Hafter noted that on 15 January 2004, there will be a hearing at 7 p.m. on condemnation of property needed for the Lime Kiln Bridge upgrade. He then read the proposed resolution of condemnation. Mr. O'Rourke moved to adopt the Resolution as amended to correct a date, and to authorize Mr. Sheahan to sign on behalf of the city. Mr. Magowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Review Development Review Board agenda for 16 December 2003: Mr. Sheahan expressed concern about the convenience store proposal for Kennedy Drive and wanted to know what kind of restaurant will be there. He was concerned with how appropriate it was in that location. Mr. Condos had the same concern, specifically with regard to odors from cooking so near a residential area. Messrs. O'Rourke and Magowan did not participate in this discussion due to a potential conflict of interest. 8. Review minutes of 1 December 2003: Mr. Magowan moved to approve the Minutes of 1 December 2003 as written. Mr. O'Rourke seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 10. Executive Session: Mr. Magowan moved the Council adjourn and reconvene in Executive Session to discuss litigation and contract negotiations and to resume regular session only to approve a contract and/or adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Regular session: The Council returned to regular session. Mr. Magowan moved approval of a three-year contract between the city and Highway Workers' Association (July 2003-June 2006). Mr. O'Rourke seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. O'Rourke moved adjournment. Mr. Magowan seconded. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.