Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - City Council - 05/18/2009
CITY COUNCIL 18 MAY 2009 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 18 May 2009, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: M. Boucher, Chair; S. Dooley, M. Emery, J. Knapp, F. Murray Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; Rep. A. Audette; D. Kinville, City Clerk; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; T. Whipple, Chief, and other members of the Police Department; D. Girard, S. Dopp, R. Arnold, T. Sheahan, S. Bradeen, K. Donahue, D. Sachs, J. Zaetz, T. Duff, L. Bresee, J Leddy, M. Moore, M. Beaudin, P. Kissel, B. Stuono, S. Rowe, M. Murray, L. Llewellyn, other members of the public 1. Other Business & Announcements: Mr. Zaetz advised that there will be no Memorial Day event this year. They will begin work on it earlier next year. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Knapp: The "Cars to People" working group met last week and saw presentations on how to improve both Williston and Shelburne Roads for pedestrians. Ms. Emery: Noted a request from a citizen for improved pavement markings. Mr. Hafter said that is in the work plan. Ms. Emery: Asked if there has been any feedback on the proposed 5-story building. Mr. Hafter said there has been none. Ms. Dooley: Noted the new State "Exit Only" sign as you approach Dorset St. on Williston Road is confusing. Mr. Boucher: The Library will be celebrating its new Bookmobile on 23 May, 12-2 p.m., at Dorset Park. Mr. Hafter: · He and Mr. Gravelin will attend the Town/City Managers' Association meeting this week. · On 26 May, 1 p.m., there will be a meeting regarding the Staples "third lane" project. · The 1 June agenda includes a discussion of private interest in funding Exit 12B, a public hearing on temporary signs, sign requests in connection with the Sign Ordinance, and a discussion of Front Page Forum. 3. Discussion and Consideration of Motions Related to the Implementation of New Police Station: Mr. Boucher read a Resolution in support of a 24,000 sq. ft. facility to meet the needs of the Police Department for the next 10 years. Ms. Dooley said she had thought the building would meet the Police needs for 20 years. Mr. Murray said he would add a caveat to the Resolution saying that if the city got an opinion from an architect saying that 20,000 sq. ft. would work, he would want the right to consider that. Ms. Dooley said she thought there is an option to have a smaller facility with City Hall and then have City Hall leave after a period of time and give the Police the whole facility. Mr. Zaetz said the City should respect what Chief Whipple says he needs. Mr. Beaudin said an architect does not determine the amount of square footage needed; the client does that, and the architect designs a building to meet that need. Mr. Girard said he has been following this issue, and it has been gone over "a million" times. He felt the Chief knows what he needs, and there is a responsibility to the people who serve the community. He urged the city to go forward with the Gregory Drive proposal, then get Market St. permitted, and then decide whether to build another building on Dorset St. In the meantime, the Police will have a place to work out of, and the City could always sell the Gregory Drive building in the future. Ms. Emery moved to approve a 24,000 sq. ft. Police building, recognizing that the 24,000 sq. ft. is in an existing building with the availability to be expanded. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Ms. Dooley abstaining. 4. Presentation of Construction Footprint Options at 575 Dorset Street: Mr. Hafter noted a question was raised at the last meeting regarding relocation during construction, footprint, parking, etc., for a potential building on the 575 Dorset St. site. Rebecca Arnold was asked to consider various footprints. Ms. Arnold noted there is a lot going on the site. It has very poor soils below 8 feet, which would result in higher construction costs. There is also a high water table which is not conducive to having a basement. The site already has an "impaired waterway" designation. There is no place on the site for a storm water infiltration basin, and storm water would have to be mitigated off site. There is an old water line through the middle of the site. It is very fragile, and heavy equipment could potentially damage it. This line would have to be relocated as would the sewer line. Ms. Arnold also noted that existing zoning limit's the site to 30% building coverage and 70% total coverage. There is also a 40-foot front setback and a 50- foot setback from the highway. More than 120 parking spaces would be required for City Hall and Police needs. The site is also in a high volume traffic overlay district, so that with more than one building on the site, it would become a PUD which would require a different approval. Ms. Arnold then outlined several possible options for the site, all of which meet the zoning regulations: Option 1: a 40,000 sq. ft. footprint, 3 stories in a new building. The existing building would remain while the new building is being constructed. Then it would be torn down and the space used for parking. Option 2: a variation of option 1 in which the new building would be moved closer to the existing building. This would yield 141 parking spaces. Option 3: a 20,000 sq. ft. police building and keeping the existing building. Yields 131 parking spaces. Option 4: City would purchase 595 Dorset St. and construct a 40,000 sq. ft. building. The existing building would remain through construction, and then be torn down. Yields 151 parking spaces. Option 5: 24,000 sq. ft. police building. Existing building would remain. Yields 121 parking spaces. Option 6: tear down the existing building; build a new 40,000 sq. ft. building for both police and City Hall. Would require relocation costs. Yields 141 parking spaces. Because of the soils, Ms. Arnold there could be only a 2-story parking facility on the site, and that is not feasible. Site concerns with the above options include: A. doesn't leave much green space B. parking would be inconvenient to the new building C. Security issues D. Traffic concerns for exiting onto Dorset St. E. Relocation of existing utilities F. Electric transformer and emergency generator would have to be relocated. Mr. Boucher said he had a discussion with the people who did the 2006 study. Mr. Humes e-mailed him the following information: A. The site is viable only if City offices are moved to another site; there would only retain an 1800 sq. ft. communications facility B. Renovation of the existing building is not feasible or recommended. Mr. Murray asked if the extra $75,000 for footings would still apply to a 3-story building. Mr. Arnold said it would and noted that a structural engineer made that assessment. Mr. Murray asked about the possibility of a police station at the back of the lot. Ms. Arnold said it is very wet back there. Ms. Emery added that it is also closer to the residential area. Ms. Arnold also noted that if you build within 500 feet of an interstate ramp, the state gets to review the project. Mr. Hafter said it is a good bet that this is within 500 feet of the ramp. Mr. Knapp noted there would also be issues during construction with a staging area and safe access to the existing building, were it to remain. Mr. Bradeen said the city has struggled with this for 3 years, and it's high time they got their act together. He said that with unlimited money you can do just about anything. He was concerned that the Council was trying to judge this "against an artificial ideal." Mr. Sheahan noted he had served on the Council for 9 years and had the opportunity to spend the first money to look at a new police facility. He said the city is well past that time, and the city's professional police need a place they can work from, and they need it before public safety is compromised. He asked the Council to give the voters a chance to make a decision by letting them vote on the Gregory Drive location. Mr. Zaetz noted that if the Dorset St. site costs millions of dollars more to build than Gregory Drive, the voters will vote it down. He also noted that Gregory Drive can be retrofitted for use in 6 months, and it will take years to build on Dorset St. Police Officer Lawyer asked Ms. Arnold if she had been asked to consider the functionality of a building for the Police Station on the Dorset St. site. Ms. Arnold said she had not. Rep. Audette noted that he has asked people at the State about use of State property retention ponds, and they "just laughed" at him. 5. Presentation of comparison of two preferred sites and related discussion: Mr. Knapp noted that his presentation represents an assemblage of information from various sources. His study included: location, functionality, economics/costs, and timing. Location: 575 Dorset Street is more central than Gregory Drive. Chief Whipple noted that he had accessed the Chiefs of Police resources and asked about moving a police station to the outer edge of a community. In Hanover, NH, Lebanon, NH, Weathersfield, CT, Hartford, VT, Stradsborough, OH, and E. Hartford, CT, where such a move had occurred, police chiefs reported no problems. Functionality: 575 Dorset St. would work. Chief Whipple believes 19 Gregory Drive will work. He also feels there may be a benefit not to have all emergency responders in one location. Economics/Cost: 575 Dorset Street - Costs for site work, sewer/water line relocation, storm water, and construction: $4,800,000 for a 24,000 sq. ft. building $5,400,000 for a 27,000 sq. ft. building $8,000,000 for a 40,000 sq. ft. building Fit up Costs: $ 950,000 for a 24,000 or 27,000 sq. ft. building $1,300,000 for a 40,000 sq. ft. building Permitting: $72,000 for a 24,000 or 27,000 sq. ft. building, respectively $89,000 for a 40,000 sq. ft. building Contingency (10%): $581,000 for a 24,000 sq. ft. building $641,000 for a 27,000 sq. ft. building $925,000 for a 40,000 sq. ft. building Architectural/Engineering Services $650,000 for all square footage Soft Costs: $1,048,000 for a 24,000 sq. ft. building $1,138,000 for a 27,000 sq. ft. building $1,600,000 for a 40,000 sq. ft. building Total Costs: $9,300,000 for a 24,000 sq. ft. building $10,000,000 for a 27,000 sq. ft. building $14,000,000 for a 40,000 sq. ft. building Other associated costs could include: 1. Relocation costs, if needed - $1,600,000 2. Purchase of land at 595 Dorset St., if needed - $1,400,000 Mr. Boucher read a letter received from Pizzagalli Construction Co. to the City Manager indicating their estimate of costs as follows: $6-7,000,000 for a 24,000 sq. ft. building $10,000,000 for a 40,000 sq. ft. building for police and City Hall Mr. Knapp said that paying relocation costs and costs to move utilities was "lost money, thrown away." Mr. Knapp noted that 575 Dorset St. has other issues, including Act 250 issues and the impaired water shed. Purchasing 595 Dorset St. would involve dealing with 6 different owners. There is also a potential for interference with emergency services. 19 Gregory Drive: A. Is an existing structure B. It is functional for the Police C. It has substantial parking D. There is an existing Act 250 permit E. There would be no challenge to emergency services. Economics: Cost $4,400,000 (with no costs for site work, sewer/water relocation or storm water mitigation) Fit Up $1,320,000 Special Needs $ 950,000 Permitting/other cost $ 170,000 Contingency $ 227,000 Total cost $7,067,000 Risks and Timing: 575 Dorset St.19 Gregory Dr. Permit risk Already permitted More extensive process Amend State permits Voter risk due to expense Voter risk, less expensive Development and construction risk Fit up has less development risk Vote + 1½ to 2 years (conservative Estimate) Vote + 6-8 months fit up [Click here for Pros and Cons] Mr. Donahue said he has gotten the feeling that the public is positive about the Gregory Drive site and wants to move on it. He felt it is a "no-brainer." Asked the Council to vote to bring it to the voters now. Ms. Dooley noted that Williston built a 14,000 sq. ft. building for $2,800,000. Chief Whipple said Williston has no dispatch center, is a smaller building, and did things to "cut corners" that are not recommended. Ms. Dopp said she used to feel a central location was better, but has come to a point where you have to put the practical against the ideal, and you give up your ideal. She said she was persuaded that the City has to move on this now and Gregory Drive has to be done. She thought the building looks pretty ideal from the outside. Mr. Leddy agreed with Ms. Dopp and felt the City can't hold the police hostage to the inability of the community to address numerous issues. He felt the City is doing the police a disservice by failing to act. He said there will never be a perfect answer and he supported moving to Gregory Drive. A citizen asked if the bond vote would include renovating City Hall. Mr. Boucher said his viewpoint is not to tie the 2 together. There is a minimum figure for City Hall renovations, but that is being provided so people remember the building needs work. The City Council will have to have that discussion in the future. Rep. Audette noted he was on the original study committee. He said he trusted the voters, and it was time to let them make a decision. He added that he is ashamed of the facility the police have now, and is surprised the police have "stuck with us." Ms. Kinville asked the Council not to put City Hall renovations on a back burner but to remember there are serious needs in the City Clerk's office. She added that from what she hears, people are ready to move on the police station. A member of the audience asked if there is a risk of losing the Gregory Dr. building if the city doesn't act. Mr. Hafter said there is, but he has no information that this would happen. Ms. Kissel, a former police officer and the wife of a current police officer related an experience where her husband had to come home to shower after an event because there is no shower facility in the police station. Her husband was also injured when he fell in a whole in the parking lot and was out of work for 4 months. She asked the Council to stop thinking up alternative and do the right thing. Mr. Stuono asked about the current assessment of the Gregory Dr. building. Mr. Hafter said around $4,000,000. Mr. Bresee said he supports moving on and asked people to talk with their neighbors to help get this passed. Ms. Moore said she is not against Gregory Dr. She was concerned with what is happening with the rest of the City, specifically City Hall renovation costs and how that fits in with the City Center. Mr. Murray said he felt it was a mistake not to deal with the whole picture, including the future of City Hall/City Center. He felt critical errors had been made in the past and that costs were not "site specific." He felt it was a mistake not to develop costs for the options Ms. Arnold presented. He indicated he could not support Gregory Dr. Ms. Emery said she is convinced that 19 Gregory Drive provides a lot of possibilities, and she didn't see a lot of errors. City Hall can remain until the city is ready to move to City Center, and the School administration can move some of its offices to City Hall. The City Hall building could also become a senior center. Mr. Boucher felt 19 Gregory Dr. presents options the City doesn't now have. There can also be a dialog about what to do with City Hall. He noted that in 2006, a full site study was done of the Dorset St. site. It went to the voters and was voted down. A police officer asked the City Council to "get on board" if it decided to vote on Gregory Drive and not have members try to undermine the process. Ms. Emery said the Council has to put the public first. A member of the audience asked what the tax loss would be for Gregory Dr. Mr. Murray estimated about $150,000 over a 20-year period. Mr. Hafter concurred. Ms. Emery noted that if the City used the Dorset St. site for a senior center or Library, it could save the money it would have to spend to buy land for those uses. Mr. Bradeen urged the council to come together and serve the community. Mr. Murray said it is hard to reconcile what he thinks is right with the need for unity. Chief Whipple said he is blessed with working with a great staff that does the right thing. But it is beginning to wear, so that he almost fears to go to his e- mail now. He asked the Council to vote to do something. He stressed that the current site is fraught with problems, and people's lives are changed because of it. Mr. Rowe praised the Council for trying to look at all options. He felt Mr. Knapp's presentation made it evident where the city should be looking, and he felt it would be a disservice to the citizens not to go to Gregory Drive as it is the most "tax-payer friendly." 6. Consideration of Issuing Warning to Have a Public Vote on Debt: Mr. Hafter said the process would be for the Council, at a future meeting, to approve a resolution drafted by the City Attorney which would include the date of the vote and the amount of bonding. A vote could be held 30 days after that. Mr. Knapp moved that the City Attorney be asked to draft a legal warning to go to the voters on the financing for 19 Gregory Drive based on information at hand for a vote to be held on 15 September 2009. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Murray opposing. Ms. Emery then moved that the City secure the property at 19 Gregory Drive through option or a letter of intent to preserve the City's right to proceed with this project. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Murray opposing. 7. Consideration for Capital Equipment Notes for Public Works Highway Equipment and Police: Mr. Hafter said the note is at 2.25%. Mr. Murray moved to approve the Capital Equipment Notes and related documents as presented. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Acceptance of Resignation of Peter Plumeau from the Development Review Board: Mr. Murray moved to accept the resignation of Peter Plumeau from the Development Review Board and to send a letter of appreciation for his services. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Information on Appointments to Boards and Commissions due in June/July: Mr. Hafter reviewed the previous process. Members discussed whether to interview incumbents who wish to continue in their positions. Mr. Boucher was concerned with a new applicant coming up against an incumbent when, as a general rule, the Council continues with an incumbent. He suggested talking with incumbents before advertising positions. Mr. Knapp said he didn't want to give the opinion that boards were being "recycled." Members agreed to talk with incumbents before advertising positions. 10. Review Development Review Board Agenda for Meeting of 19 May 2009: Mr. Stuone felt preference in the senior housing building should be given to South Burlington residents. Mr. Hafter said that has been the practice. 11. Review and Approve Minutes of 4 May 2009 and 15 May 2009: It was noted that in the Minutes of 4 May, p. 1, the words "transportation service" should be deleted after the word CATMA. Ms. Emery moved to approve the Minutes of 4 May as amended. Mr. Murray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. It was noted that in the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 15 May, it should say "Friday, May 15," and not Monday. Ms. Emery moved to approve the Minutes of 15 May as amended. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Murray abstaining. 12. Consideration of Entertainment License for American Cancer Society, Making Strides against Breast Cancer Walk, 9 a.m.-2 p.m.: Mr. Murray moved to approve the Entertainment License for the American Cancer Society as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY COUNCIL 18 MAY 2009 PAGE 8 Pros and Cons 575 Dorset St. 19 Gregory Dr. Pros Pros Central location Flexible & expandable Clustered public services Cost effective Near school Rapid availability Allows City Hall to stay on site with No interruption Cons Cons More expensive Periphery of city Temporary relocation Removes building from tax rolls (but Would be potential for rental money) Leaves City Hall with no Permanent location Fewer expansion options Mr. Donahue said he has gotten the feeling that the public is positive about the Gregory Drive site and wants to move on it. He felt it is a “no-brainer.” Asked the Council to vote to bring it to the voters now. Ms. Dooley noted that Williston built a 14,000 sq. ft. building for $2,800,000. Chief Whipple said Williston has no dispatch center, is a smaller building, and did things to “cut corners” that are not recommended. Ms. Dopp said she used to feel a central location was better, but has come to a point where you have to put the practical against the ideal, and you give up your ideal. She said she was persuaded that the City has to move on this now and Gregory Drive has to be done. She thought the building looks pretty ideal from the outside. Mr. Leddy agreed with Ms. Dopp and felt the City can’t hold the police hostage to the inability of the community to address numerous issues. He felt the City is doing the police a disservice by failing to act. He said there will never be a perfect answer and he supported moving to Gregory Drive. A citizen asked if the bond vote would include renovating City Hall. Mr. Boucher said his viewpoint is not to tie the 2 together. There is a minimum figure for City Hall