Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/01/1974SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 1, 1974 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting in the City Hall Conference Room Williston Road, on Monday, April 1, 1974 at 7:30 P.M. Chairman Nardelli opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Walter Nardelli, Catherine Neubert, Michael Flaherty, Paul Farrar and William Cimonetti MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator, Walter Douglas, Margaret Douglas, Albert C. Audette, Jean Hildick, Kenneth Hildick, Harold Black, Loren Black, Jr., Fire Chief Monell, Frank McCaffrey, Jack Tabaka, Ed Rounds, Leo Rich READING OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF MARCH 18 and 21, 1974 Mr. Farrar made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 18, 1974. Mrs. Neubert seconded said motion which passed unanimously. At this point, Mrs. Neubert stated she wanted to add an item to the agenda, it being the Teen Club. Mr. Farrar stated that on Page 2 of the minutes of March 21, 1974 he wanted it stated in the minutes that he abstained because of a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Flaherty made a motion to accept the minutes of the meeting of March 21, 1974 as amended. Mrs. Neubert seconded said motion which passed unanimously. DISBURSEMENT ORDERS Chairman Nardelli reminded the Council members that there were disbursement orders on the table to be signed. HEARING ON DOG COMPLAINT Mr. Nardelli read the letters submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Walter Douglas, dated March 2, 1974. There was discussion, re: statute about dogs being destroyed and the City law was read by Mr. Nardelli. It was stated that in the past the City has paid any damages of this kind and that the City tried to obtain reimbursement if the dog owners could be found. Mr. Szymanski stated he had checked into the costs of the rabbits and stated it is fair, but questions the labor costs. It was stated that both parties owning the dogs involved would like to keep their dogs. Mr. Nardelli stated that there are two facts before the Council, (1) the bill for damages and (2) should a license be issued to the owners of the dogs. Mr. Farrar made a motion to pay the bill as presented in the amount of $158.80. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. It was stated the City is responsible, but can ask for reimbursement if they know who the dog owners are. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the legislation states if the City is responsible for all damages. He also asked if the dog owners are willing to pay the damages. Mr. Hildick stated that both he and Mr. Black went up to the Douglas house. He stated that both he and Mr. Black thought $50.00 was reasonable. He was informed that the case was going to be taken before the Council. Mr. Hildick stated that even now he thinks the bill is too high, and stated that most people give rabbits away. He thinks the $10.45 per hour for labor is rather high. Mr. Douglas stated he is bringing this before the Council to bring out a bad feature of our Dog Ordinance. He feels we have a problem in the City the way the Dog Ordinance is written. Mr. Douglas explained about the rabbits and all the damage done and his time lost from work. He also stated that there is a State Law allowing him to shoot a dog that enters his property. He also stated he is sorry for the Blacks and Hildicks and is also sorry he did not shoot the dogs, and feel strongly that the dogs should not be licensed again. He hopes that if the dogs are sold the new owners are told that they have killed animals. Mr. Nardelli then brought out his second point, relative to the licensing of the dogs. Mr. Hildick stated he spoke to someone at the Humane Society who stated it was an old wives tale that once dogs killed they would kill again. He also stated he was not aware that his dog got into trouble, and thinks that in the future he can keep the dog contained. Mr. Szymanski stated that he had calls from Mrs. Douglas before about the same dogs. Mr. Douglas restated that he will kill the dogs if they get into his yard again. Mrs. Neubert stated that she does not understand why some dogs kill and some don't. Mr. Cimonetti asked about the licensing, re: unless there is a complaint signed by five people that a dog is vicious, they cannot deny the license. It was stated that the police recommended that the dog not be licensed. Mr. Hildick was asked if his lot was fenced in. He stated that at night he lets his dog out on an empty lot. There followed discussion, re: Dogs killing rabbits, leash law, etc. Mr. Douglas stated that these dogs were three miles away from home. Mr. Cimonetti asked if there was any other penalty other than not licensing the dogs. Mr. Szymanski stated there was - a $10.00 fine and then going through the Courts. Mr. Hildick stated that his dog is now contained. Mr. Farrar made a motion that the Council renew the license contingent on the following. 1. the City be reimbursed for one-half the cost of the claim by each owner, and 2. proper safeguards be taken by the owners necessary to contain the dogs and the owners put them on a proper leash. Mrs. Neubert stated that she would prefer that both dogs be fenced in. Mr. Flaherty stated that the City has a Dog Ordinance and would prefer a fence as a safeguard. Mr. Hildick stated a fence is a remedy but no better than a leash and thinks the leash is safer. Mrs. Neubert made an amendment to Mr. Farrar's motion and moved to vote separately on the parts of his motion. Mr. Flaherty seconded Mrs. Neubert's amendment. Mr. Cimonetti withdrew his second to the initial motion by Mr. Farrar. Mrs. Neubert made a motion that the City request the two owners of the dogs to reimburse the City for the expenses incurred in the rabbit incident, share and share alike. Mr. Cimonetti seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Douglas questioned the Council as to how they can justify licensing the dogs who killed rabbits. There was discussion by Mr. Cimonetti re: courses of action that could be taken by the City. Mrs. Hildick stated that they would like to keep their dog and have another chance. There was further discussion, re: putting the rabbit cages up on stilts, the Dog Ordinance and the dog owners building a fence. Mr. Farrar stated that he believes that the Council has a right to put contingencies on the law. Mrs. Neubert stated that the people of the community should obey the Dog Ordinance. It was stated that the Dog Catcher is not responsible for policing the dogs. There was much more discussion, re: Dog Ordinance and breaking the law, Wes Rae Kennels, and enforcing the Dog Ordinance. Mrs. Neubert made a motion that the licensing of the two dogs in question be denied. Mr. Cimonetti seconded said motion. There was a four to one vote. Mr. Farrar voting against, and the license denied. PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING BUDGET AFTER THE BUDGET HEARING Mr. Nardelli read the recommendation by Mr. Spokes, the City Attorney. It was stated that on April 11, 1974, there will be a public hearing on the budget. Mr. Flaherty asked that if at the Public Hearing, something is turned down by the public, can the budget be changed. Mr. Szymanski stated that it is usually done after the hearing. Mr. Farrar stated that the Council should take it under advisement at the Public Hearing and then make changes at a later meeting. Mr. Szymanski stated that as long as the Council stays within the budget limits, changes can be made after the Public Hearing. There was much discussion, re: changes in the budget before and after the Public Hearing. It was stated that at the Public Hearing, the Council should take under advisement any ideas and input from the public. Mr. Flaherty made a motion that the Council take under advisement, after the Public Hearing on the Budget on April 11, 1974, any suggestions by the citizens of South Burlington which will be acted on at the regular meeting on April 15, 1974. Mrs. Neubert seconded said motion which passed unanimously. There was discussion, re: publicizing any changes in the budget after the Public Hearing. It was stated the public is not required to vote on the budget as the increase is not more than allowed in the City Charter. It was also stated that Voting day is May 21, 1974. DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO SIGN ORDINANCE AS RECOMMENDED BY SIGN REVIEW BOARD Mrs. Neubert stated she had received a call from Peter Matta stating that they, the members of the Sign Review Board, had nothing ready for the Council as yet. Mr. Ward stated that the Board should write their own format. Mr. Nardelli stated that they will try for a meeting on April 15, 1974. Mr. Flaherty made a motion that the meeting of the Council with members of the Sign Review Board be tabled until April 15, 1974. Mrs. Neubert seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the Council expected recommendations by the Sign Review Board. It was stated that they are being asked for their recommended changes. He suggested that the Council get in touch with the Sign Review Board and that they list their changes. Mr. Cimonetti made a motion that the Council instruct the Sign Review Board to prepare their recommended changes and put them in writing for the City Council at their earliest convenience, if possible on April 15, 1974. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. SIGN CLAIM FOR HIGHWAY STATE AID Mr. Szymanski stated this is for work done on White Street and totals in the neighborhood of $4000.00. Mr. Flaherty made a motion to sign the claim for Highway State Aid as presented and recommended by the City Manager. Mr. Farrar seconded said motion which passed unanimously. CONSIDER MAY 21, 1974 BALLOT ITEMS a. Increasing delinquent taxes interest from 1/2 to 1% per month. It was stated there is over $100,000.00 involved. There was discussion, re: delinquent taxes and there was a question as to an option. Mr. Szymanski stated that he recommends this change. He stated it is straight and not compounded interest and would come to 6% per year. Mr. Farrar made a motion to put on the ballot list, the item of increasing delinquent taxes interest from 1/2% to 1% per month. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. b. Phase V sewerage system Mr. Szymanski stated that they have considered this and can get it on the ballot. It has to be warned by the 20th of April, 1974 and they could have a cost estimate by then. Mr. Flaherty made a motion that the Council accept Phase V sewerage system bond issue for a ballot item for May 21, 1974, contingent on a cost estimate being available by April 20, 1974. Mr. Farrar seconded said motion which passed unanimously. MEET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF HIGHWAY UNION Mr. Nardelli stated that the proposal remains the same as was given at the last meeting with the representatives of the Highway Union. It was stated that they would settle for a cost of living increase from the end of February 1973 ending the end of February 1974. This increase figures out to 10.03. Mr. Rounds stated he called Washington and got the national figure, but, he stated, they are willing to compromise and will settle for 9%. Mr. Nardelli stated the average increase is about 7.5 in the Highway Dept. It was stated that the next step is to go to mediation as the Highway Dept. is not going any lower than 9%. Mr. Farrar suggested that the Council follow the same line with the Highway Dept. as they are with the Police Dept, re: binding arbitration. There was some discussion, re: mediation and arbitration. Mr. Rounds stated that they have not decided what they are going to do as yet, but are not going to settle for less than 9%. Mr. Cimonetti explained that no increase would be in effect until after what is decided to do. There would be no raise until after the process is finished. Mr. Flaherty stated that an increase might be retroactive. TEEN AGE CLUB There was discussion by Mrs. Neubert, re: teenagers who do not participate in sports etc. They are forming a club and are applying to the City Council to use the basement room in City Hall. She stated the kids are getting organized and are very enthusiastic. She would like approval for the use of the room contingent on the outline they give. Mrs. Neubert made a motion that the Council approve use of the City Hall basement for the Teen Club contingent upon approval of the program to be presented on April 15, 1974. Mr. Farrar seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty made a motion to adjourn the meeting of the City Council and meet as the Liquor Control Board. Mr. Farrar seconded said motion which passed unanimously. It was stated by Mr. Szymanski that there are 13 licenses up for renewal at this time. They are as follows: Harper Hotels (Holiday Inn), Big Ben Pizza, Sheraton Motor Inn, Joe Barry's, the Old Board, Wesson's Diner, Aunt Sara's Restaurant, Airport Grocery, Sav-Mor Variety Store, Grand Union on Hinesburg Road and Grand Union on Shelburne Road, Twitchell's and the Tower Restaurant. There was discussion, re: renewal, dates of application, due date of May 1, 1974. Mr. Nardelli advised that the Police Chief look into all of these places. Mr. Farrar made a motion that these applications be tabled until April 15, 1974. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Mrs. Neubert made a motion that the Council adjourn as the Liquor Control Board and go into Executive Session to discuss applicants for the Planning Commission and Phase V of the Sewerage System. This motion was seconded by Mr. Flaherty and passed unanimously. At 10 P.M. the Council came out of Executive Session and reconvened the regular meeting. Mrs. Neubert made a motion to appoint Webster-Martin, Inc., of South Burlington as the Consultants for the preparation of plans and estimates for Phase V of the sewer system. The motion was seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously. On motion duly made, seconded, and so passed the Council adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Paul Farrar, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.