Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/16/1974CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 16, 1974 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, December 16, 1974, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Flaherty, Chairman: John Dinklage, Paul Farrar, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager: Richard Spokes, City Attorney: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator: Jack Tabaka, Frank McCaffrey The regular meeting was opened at 8:10 p.m. by Chairman Flaherty. The regular meeting was preceded by an executive session which began at 7:30 p.m. John Dinklage was welcomed as a new member of the City Council. Mr. Dinklage had served as a member of the Planning Commission prior to his new appointment. Additions to the Agenda Mrs. Neubert asked that two items be discussed: 1) City Center Committee; and 2) notice of public meetings. The City Manager wished to add a State Aid Claim for signature. Minutes of December 2, 1974 Mr. Farrar called attention to the first paragraph on page 4, saying that he thought Mr. Valine's statement "recommendations have been made in the past for increases" should be made clearer by adding "increases in coverage". Mr. Farrar then asked if the voting record should be included on page 5, the report of the executive session. The members did not feel it was necessary. Mr. Farrar moved that the Minutes of December 2, 1974, be accepted as amended. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Election of Clerk for the City Council Mr. Farrar moved that John Dinklage be elected Clerk for the Council. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were presented for signatures of Council members. Report from Attorney Spokes re possible taxing or licensing of transient merchants. Following the appearance of several local merchants at the last Council meeting to protest the unfair competition to local business by allowing auctions and sales to be held by transients in South Burlington motels, and asking if the City could do anything to help in this respect, the Council asked the City Attorney for another study as to what might be done. Mr. Spokes explained the difference between authority to regulate to protect the public welfare and authority to tax for revenue purposes. Mr. Farrar asked if the City could use the tax base to regulate. Mr. Spokes said it would be necessary to show a connection between the tax and the promotion or regulation of the public good. It is a regulatory or control power. Mr. Farrar asked if basically there is no way the City could tax these operations unless we tax every merchant, and the City Attorney replied the City does not have the authority to impose a sales tax. Mr. Farrar then said that if any fee the City could charge would only be something that would cover the cost of issuing a license, practically nothing, there is, therefore, no method to deal with the problem. He felt that what the Council was really considering was some means to equalize competition between the itinerant salesman and the permanent one, so therefore it would be a waste of time to discuss this any longer. The City Attorney's answer was that there is no way. He added that even the Sunday blue laws are questionable for enforcement. Mr. Farrar moved that the Minutes of the Meeting show that the Council discussed this matter with the City Attorney and the conclusion was reached that there was no way the City could control or regulate the problem, which had been brought to the attention of the Council by local merchants at the meeting of December 2nd. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Amendment to Firearms Ordinance Copies of the suggested amendment were distributed by the City Manager, who explained that complaints had been received about the amount of shooting this past year in the only area in South Burlington where hunting is allowed, that is, south of the interstate and east of Dorset Street. The proposed amendment would exclude hunting throughout the whole town because there are now more houses in the area where hunting had been allowed. Chairman Flaherty asked if Chief Carter had looked at it. Mr. Szymanski said the Chief had not read the amendment, but he was in favor of excluding hunting in the area. Mr. Dinklage questioned the wording of Section 1 vs. Section 3. Mr. Spokes said he thought Section 3 was just trying to describe, in effect, what the violation is. The Chairman suggested deleting Section 3, and renumbering Section 4 as 3. A discussion followed safety to residents, safety or danger from various types of guns and ammunition, the use of bows and arrows for hunting as against bows and arrows used by children in their yard. Mr. Merrill said there is good hunting in the southeast quadrant along Muddy Brook, very good duck hunting, woodcock, partridge, squirrel, etc. However, in deer season people are coming in there with high powered rifles. Mr. Farrar the question was being able to establish limits which would give the individual the greatest amount of freedom but give protection to the innocent bystanders. Mrs. Neubert described an incident on her own property where a shot coming out of the woods missed by inches a baby on her lawn. Mr. Merrill mentioned the safety zone used in some areas, whereby a homeowner posts a sign saying no shooting within 500 yards of his house. Mr. Farrar suggested that all rifles, shotguns, etc. including hunting bows be banned in all areas except the southeast quadrant, also the firing of weapons into that area; and that in the southeast quadrant all weapons except rifles would be permitted. Mr. Ward mentioned the possibility of a slug being used in a shot gun. Mrs. Neubert suggested asking the people who live in the southeast quadrant how they feel about hunting being allowed. The Chairman asked the City Attorney to rewrite the proposed amendment, and also asked the City Manager to check with Chief Carter on it. Emergency Employment Act Mr. Szymanski explained the City has an opportunity to get employees under the Federal Employment Act, and there must be a designated representative to act for the City. Mr. Farrar asked if the funds could be used to pay people the City already has, or if a vacancy exists in the Police Department, could it be filled this way with the Federal funds. Mr. Szymanski said the purpose is to make new jobs and the money can only be used for this purpose. Mr. Farrar expressed concern over hiring employees this way and having to use City funds later in order to keep them. The City Manager said there is always a need for more policemen, and the paper work is being prepared to hire one. He would be thoroughly screened and tested before hiring, and the Federal money would pay for training him. The City would only have to furnish the uniform. Application is to be made for five policemen, but there is no assurance that the City will get five. Mr. Dinklage asked about the unemployment situation in South Burlington today, that it was not obvious to him that a person who would be qualified to be a policeman is the person to be most likely represented by those now unemployed in South Burlington. Mr. Farrar said he though it would be a mistake to apply for all of these positions in any one category. The City Manager said they can be requested for any department. Mrs. Neubert said certain job categories require certain types of people and she didn't feel the City is going to get that with these people. Chairman Flaherty said Congress is putting even more money into this program, and the City does have an obligation to hire the unemployed. While the funding is only guaranteed until July, 1975, the Police Department does have the largest turnover. Mr. Szymanski said Chief Carter feels he could use more than the one that is being applied for initially; the Fire Department wants three, and the recreation program could use someone. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council authorize the present chairman. Mr. Flaherty, as agent for the City in this matter, but the Council suggests that the application be redrafted to include people from several departments. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously. Mr. Flaherty said it should be kept in mind that the person being trained is not only being kept off welfare, but will have something to offer someone else later even if South Burlington doesn't keep him. Report of Salary Review Committee Mr. Farrar said that one thing that came out of the discussions was that there was not a very good handle with respect to adequate compensation from the point of view of the tax payer and the point of view of the city employee. This was the reason for the establishment of a committee to look at salaries, the committee being composed of two Council members and one citizen with expertise in this area, and four members of the City Government basically selected from the different job categories, and the City Manager. This committee tried to establish some kind of parity between different types of jobs, the right discrepancy between salary levels; and what was expected of the employee. Secondly, a comparison was made with the salary structure of other communities. Third, to consider what type of salary package or program was beneficial to both City and employee. This meant considering; 1) a merit program; 2) paying every individual in a certain category the same amount; or 3) paying according to seniority. Mr. Farrar said the committee felt that all of these provisions should be within the salary program. There should be some encouragement to do a job better, but that experience should count for a lot, especially in the Police Department. A program was put together which basically involves all of these factors. One key ingredient in any kind of plan, however it is structured, is that the plan is only as good as the up-dated angle. Work was done several years ago but there was nothing included to deal with changing conditions and the program soon became worthless. The recommendations of the Salary Review Committee are: 1) That there be a compensation committee, to be a permanent committee of the City Council. A charter provision is not recommended at this time, but it is recommended that there be a permanent standing committee of three to five members, and that the Council will get input each year from this committee. 2) The Salary Review Committee will recommend very shortly a specific plan for action for next year. This plan would include some changes in salary levels to try to correct what the Committee feels are some large inequities in the present structure. Mr. Farrar said this would cost from five to six thousand dollars, and asked if Council would be willing to ask the City Manager to see if he could find that much, that it would be useless to make this specific recommendation without finding out from the City Manager if the money can be found. He explained he was not asking for any commitment from Council at this meeting, merely a request to the City Manager. Mrs. Neubert asked if this would be retroactive, and Mr. Farrar said it would be for the balance of the year, not retroactive. Mrs. Neubert asked why it couldn't start in July, 1975; that the Council had told the unions they did not have the money; now Council is being asked to find it. Mr. Merrill said if there is any money available, possibly some of these injustices can be corrected. The City Manager said it is going to be difficult to find money, that revenues have been falling off. Mrs. Neubert said if any money is found, she wants to know where it is coming from, Chairman Flaherty commented that perhaps money has not been spent as anticipated in some areas. Mr. Merrill suggested perhaps only a fractional portion of it could be found, a thousand dollars for instance. Mr. Farrar said he wished to propose on behalf of the Salary Review Committee a basic motion asking the City Manager to make the determination as to the availability of the money to be used for the purpose of correcting salary inequities. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Four members voted affirmative, with Mrs. Neubert abstaining. Mrs. Neubert stated she had spent time working on this budget and she did not think the Council should adjust its budget to the Salary Committee. If there are inequities, they can be worked into the next year's budget. City Center Committee Mrs. Neubert, as Chairman of the City Center Committee, expressed discouragement with the results of the Committee thusfar, saying that people don't want to be bothered and that of the men in the community do not want to work with a woman, apparently. She felt she needed guidelines from the Council as to what direction she should go; she needed leadership. When she suggested the Council might wish to appoint a new chairman, she was reminded that she had been appointed by the Steering Committee, not the City Council. Mrs. Neubert said it was not the Steering Committee, it was the City Council. It was suggested by Mrs. Neubert that the material she had presented to the members at this meeting be read in preparation for the next Council meeting. Mr. Dinklage suggested that the service that could be best provided to Council by Mrs. Neubert would be to ask the School Department to bring in their report, hold a meeting, and simply try to condense the inputs, for the purpose of the committee is to try to provide a forum for getting input to the Steering Committee for their information. The report should go to the Steering Committee. Mrs. Neubert said nobody is really thinking about it, library, adult education, recreation needs. The special needs of the high school are being evaluated and she is awaiting that report, as some of things depend on whether or not they are wanted within the school. Regarding recreation, Chairman Flaherty said every gym is in use every evening that they are available. Mr. Farrar suggested another discussion after the reports have been read. Mr. Dinklage said the committee is now at the most difficult stage of the request that was made to it — to pull it all together. Notice to citizens of public meetings Mrs. Neubert said she was greatly concerned last week upon learning that changes were being made in the zoning ordinance that would affect large groups of people in the community and none of them knew the zone changes were coming up. One proposed change the Planning Commission itself did not know of — so how could the public be expected to know. Chairman Flaherty asked the Zoning Administrator if this had been warned, and Mr. Ward replied it was warned. Mrs. Neubert felt someone has to take the responsibility to see that there is an article in the paper informing the citizens, as well as the legal warning. Mr. Farrar asked why the changes were warned in the first place if the Planning Commission didn't know about them. Mr. Szymanski said he could not be convinced that they didn't know about it. Mr. Ward explained that in most zone changes there is an applicant coming in, but this was a situation where the City itself was the applicant. Mr. Szymanski said there was an error in the zoning map that had been discussed but never changed. It was just a correction. The Chairman suggested that Jack Tabaka could always be called and told that there was something that might be of interest to the community. Mr. Dinklage moved that the City Council pass a resolution that heads of all committees take responsibility on themselves to specifically notify the press on each article that is appropriate whenever there is action before that body which would have substantial impact on the City or would be likely to generate substantial controversy. pass a resolution changed to approve a policy (first line) Substantial controversy changed to substantial public interest (last line) Motion seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. In response to Mrs. Neubert's criticism of the methods used by the Planning Commission, Chairman Flaherty said none of these proposed changes are made until the Council itself approves them. Jack Tabaka of the Free Press commented that he cannot always be present at the meetings as "spread out over two towns" means he often has other commitments. Mr. Ward suggested that many people might have attended the present Council meeting if they had known firearms would be discussed. State Aid Claim The City Manager presented a claim for State Aid for signature of the Council. This was in the amount of $11,616.93, mostly for work done on Allen Road and portion of Spear Street. Mr. Farrar moved that the City Council sign this claim for State Aid as presented by the City Manager. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Chairman Flaherty said he had not yet received Mr. Poger's resignation from the Planning Commission and understood Mr. Poger would attend the meeting on December 19th. Chairman Flaherty announced Lakelands Corporation would be discussed in the executive session to follow: also an appointment to the Planning Commission. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council Meeting be adjourned and the Council go into executive session for the consideration of the two items, and that subsequent to the executive session the Council do no more business. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and approved unanimously. The regular meeting was declared adjourned at 9:40 p.m. A motion was voted for approval at the Meeting of December 16, 1974, to correct the Minutes of December 2, 1974, as follows: first paragraph on page 4, Mr. Valine's statement "recommendations have been made in the past for increases" should be made clearer by adding the words "increases in coverage". Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.