Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/19/1975CITY COUNCIL MAY 19, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, May 19, 1975, 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 Ray Unsworth, Charlotte C. Marsh, Richard A. Spokes, John C. Brown, Frank H. Armstrong, Gary Rounds, Jack Tabaka, Paul Graves, Albert Audette, Frank McCaffrey, Leonard Brown and Officer Mitchell. The meeting was opened by the Chairman at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Farrar asked Jack Tabaka of the Free Press if it would be possible to get in the next day's paper a copy of the motion that was made at the last Council meeting in regard to the funding of the Lakelands purchase. Minutes of May 5, 1975 Mrs. Neubert moved that the Minutes of May 5, 1975, be accepted. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. Disbursement orders The City Manager presented the disbursement orders which had been prepared for signatures of the Council. Discussion of the dog ordinance Mr. Dinklage opened the discussion by remarking that while out "pounding the pavements" he had become well aware of the dog problem in the City. He felt the dog that is bothering the neighborhood is not covered by the ordinance, and asked if the dog catcher has the right to take under custody a dog that is running loose. Attorney Spokes, who had been asked to attend the meeting, said the officer would have the right to go on private property but the situation could arise where the officer would be asked to get off the property and, to avoid further problems, he is going to have to leave. He said he would have severe reservations about taking the dog off the owner's property or taking it from someone else's property. Officer Mitchell of the Police Department said a police officer always tries to talk to the owner if possible, explains the leash law to him, and tries to get his cooperation. John Brown of Canine Control explained they had been overly cautious when they first started, would knock on the door to ask the property owner if the dog was his. Mrs. Neubert commented she had heard many good reports about the work of Canine Control. Discussion centered around the problem of the dog which runs loose all day but is on his property when the owner leaves in the morning and back on his property when the owner returns, and the right of a police officer or the dog catcher to go on the owner's property to pick up the dog. Attorney Spokes suggested setting up some sort of a hearing process for a City Council meeting, and then picking up the dog the next time a complaint is received. Officer Mitchell asked that the complaints be put in writing and signed, saying a verbal complaint is too vague. Regarding dog bites, the Police Department investigates and if the dog can be properly identified, talks with the owner. If the owner seems responsible, they ask him to confine the dog for the ten days observation period (rabies) but if the owner does not appear to be a reliable or responsible person, then they require that the dog be impounded for the ten days at the expense of the owner. If the dog continues to bite, then there is a safety hazard, Officer Mitchell said, and the owner is given a citation to appear in court to answer the charge which has to be supported by written statements. He recommended a progressive fine system such as $10 - $25 - $35 - $50. Attorney Spokes explained the problem of trying to get court action on anything like a dog complaint, saying it was virtually impossible, that the State's Attorney's office has flatly refused to prosecute any ordinance violation. He mentioned a sign ordinance violation which had been in the court for several months with no action. The court will bother with the traffic violations, but with other violations the City seems to be helpless. The jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace court has essentially been abolished for all practical purposes. There seemed to be agreement that while the vicious dog is covered by State statutes, the problem of the chronic nuisance dog is inadequately covered by the City ordinance, and Mr. Merrill recommended that some more time be spent on the ordinance. Mr. Dinklage said there was a need for specific language which would empower the police officer or dog catcher to pursue the dog onto the owner's property and remove the dog. Also a provision that upon receipt of a signed statement by two citizens stating a dog has been running at large and identifying the dog and the dog's owner, the police officer or dog catcher would be empowered to go onto the owner's property and pick up the dog. Mrs. Neubert asked about the dog that is tied up and left alone all day — and barks all day. Mr. Spokes said if two citizens sign a complaint, then it could be considered a noise violation. The problem of an impounded dog infecting other dogs at the pound with distemper was brought up. Mr. Brown said this would rarely happen but could be possible as some dogs are not inoculated against distemper. Chairman Flaherty asked Mr. Spokes to check and determine if this requirement for a distemper shot could be written into the ordinance. It was agreed that more work needed to be done on the proposed ordinance. Review of proposed ordinance for installation and use of private burglary alarm systems Mr. Spokes said the proposed ordinance was mostly taken from the Seattle ordinance and seemed to leave a great deal of work in the hands of the police department. The problem of answering false alarms was discussed along with the fines to be levied after a certain number of false alarms. It was recognized that false alarms can be triggered inadvertently by employees or repairmen, or even by a jet aircraft, but could also be caused by mechanical failure, and it was suggested that the Chief of Police be allowed to call in a specialist to inspect the system at a cost to the owner after two false alarms had occurred. Mr. Farrar felt it should be considered a false alarm if there was no sign of entrance or attempted entrance. Mr. Merrill said he thought the second offense was too soon to have the system inspected as there might be problems with any new system. He suggested having a stipulated period of time, such as two weeks, for a new system to be put in working order and false alarms might occur. Mr. Dinklage felt the responsibility resting on the City is just the same, with police officers speeding to answer the alarm. He suggested strong pressure on the owners to train their employees. Mr. Merrill said he was looking at it realistically and felt a two week period should be acceptable. Asked about the $25 fee, Mr. Spokes said that had been taken from the Seattle ordinance which is relatively new; there was no particular basis for it. It was recommended that Chief Carter be asked to look into this. Mr. Farrar felt it should be high enough to make the owner want to have the system fixed, that $25 was probably in the range of what a service man would charge. The City Attorney cautioned that with this ordinance the City must again make the attempt to avoid the court system, for the same reasons he had stated in regard to the dog ordinance. It was stated that Chief Carter is getting some more input and will come in with his information. Flood insurance Mr. Farrar asked if this matter had been followed up so that the people would be eligible for flood insurance. Mr. Szymanski said the first map was quite eroneous concerning the flood plain areas; it is being redone and a new map will be sent to South Burlington at which time the process begins all over again. Contract with the Visiting Nurse Association The City Manager said the contract with VNA is for the amount budgeted which is $5,500, calling for a monthly payment of $458.33. Mr. Farrar moved that the City Council authorize the Chairman to sign the contract with the Visiting Nurse Association in the amount of $5,500. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. Discussion regarding Chittenden County Transit Authority subsidy Mr. Szymanski said $9,000 was budgeted for CCTA, but the cost to the City will be $15,000 if anticipated federal funding is not received. He said the director is still very optimistic they will get the federal money but the legislation has not yet been passed. Mayor Paquette of Burlington plans to go to Washington to lobby for the bill and is interested in having representatives from other communities go with him. The estimated cost of the trip is $150. Mrs. Neubert said she was not asking to go but would be available to go if Council wished to send someone. Mr. Farrar suggested taking this up at the organizational meeting on Wednesday, but he felt it best to make the following motion: that if the plan should be to go to Washington before the Wednesday meeting, the Council allow the City Manager to either go to Washington himself or select someone else to go. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Sign short term note for the Water Department The City Manager explained this note in the amount of $25,000 was to enable the Water Department to carry through the next sixty days and pay its bills. They are not authorized to borrow money themselves and must have approval of the Council. They have outstanding bills now of about $12,000. Mr. Szymanski said he had checked the banks for the lowest interest rate and the Merchants Bank offered the lowest which is 4.05%. The raise in water rates, the first in 15 or 20 years, was simply not a high enough raise to cover the costs, and should be raised again. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council upon the recommendation of the Water Commissioners, authorize the City Manager to negotiate a loan in the amount of $25,000 for sixty days. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Merrill asked about the possibility of the City having $25,000 in cash to loan to the Water Department. Mr. Szymanski felt this would mean the City Treasurer would have to take it out of other notes. The motion was voted unanimously for approval. Reorganizational meeting time and date Traditionally, this meeting is for the purpose of electing officers, making some appointments, and setting time and dates for Council meetings. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council set the reorganizational meeting for Wednesday, May 21, 1975, at 5 o'clock. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. Mrs. Neubert asked the City Manager to include on any future notes the reasons for the necessity of borrowing the money. Executive session Mr. Farrar moved that the Council adjourn the regular meeting and go into executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel problems. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. The regular meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.