Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/27/1980CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 27, 1980 The South Burlington City Council held a public information meeting on the proposed municipal complex and then met with the Police Association at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road on Wednesday, February 27, 1980 Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Martin Paulsen (left early), William Burgess, Kenneth Jarvis Member Absent Michael Flaherty Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; James Goddette, Fire Chief; R. Russell Armstrong, Vincent Furno, Kay Neubert, Frank Wilder, Thomas Racine, Monica Boisvert, Joseph Lemay, John Gray, Sandy Kleppinger, Jim Washburn, George Brady, Paul Godard, Lansing Reinholz, Douglas Bouvier, Kevin Hayes, Peter Lavallee, Wayne Parizo, Steve Burke, James Lamphere, Gloria Yandow Public information meeting on proposed municipal complex Mr. James Lamphere explained the proposal using drawings and a model of the building. A brochure showing the layout of the building had been sent to the voters of the city. The existing fire station will be given a new roof and then other rooms and the city offices will be added around the station. Ms. Kay Neubert noted that the secretaries would be working in what she scaled to be an 8' corridor. Mr. Lamphere said the space was actually 12' wide. She felt this to be inadequate room for work, given the fact that people will be walking through that corridor to see the City Manager, Planner, etc. She also felt there was no allowance made in the new building for later expansion. Mr. Lamphere said that each department had included some room for expansion in their requests. In addition, the building can be expanded in several different directions. Mr. Vincent Furno asked about passive solar heat in the building. Mr. Lamphere noted that the site was wooded and would not allow good use of the sun, but that the building would have an envelope of R40 insulation. 60% of the heat will come from lights and people and the rest will be supplied by gas. It will cost $6,000 to heat the building, which will be a $5,000 savings compared to heating the present City Hall, police and fire departments, and there will be more room heated with the new plan. There will be a sand heat storage system in the building. Ms. Kleppinger asked if the bond issue was for construction and equipment and was told it was, but the additional equipment and furniture were needed. A large part of the cost of equipment is the dispatch center, needed because some of the old center is outdated. There are presently two dispatch systems, and they will be combined. Ms. Kleppinger felt that updating equipment should have been a separate item. The Council was asked what would happen to the present City Hall building. Mr. Farrar replied that it was the property of the school department and they had not yet decided. It might be demolished and the land sold or leased. The police station will have to be removed. It was pointed out that it would be more expensive to renovate the existing building to the standards of the proposed one than it would be to construct a new one, and with renovation, the operating costs would be more than in the new building and the services would not be centrallized. Mr. Furno asked that that information be mailed to the voters. Mr. Lamphere was asked about including the police station as part of the new building, but he said that was not practical. This plan separates the public functions of the city from fire and police functions. Ms. Neubert asked why a 4 bay fire station was needed and was told that had been needed 10 years ago. Mr. Goddette added that he had more equipment than the bay was designed to hold. She also asked why this item had suddenly come up for a vote when it was not on the 10 year capital budget for this year. Mr. Farrar said no money was now available from the state for at least 3 1/2 years for roads and they had the same problem with sewer upgrading. The Council wanted to ask for the money for this building now instead of several years later, when other money will be needed for matching funds for roads and sewers. It was also noted that this bond would be totally separate from the 5% allowable increase in taxes. Mr. Furno wanted more information on the value of the existing building, the land, what will happen to both, and where the expenses and savings of the new building will be. Mr. Washburn asked the interest rate to be paid and was told it would probably be a little less than 7%. Some audience members had been unaware of the coming vote until they received the brochures. Mr. Farrar explained the efforts that had been made to make voters aware of the item and noted that this was the third public meeting on the issue. There will be another meeting on Monday, March 3. Meet with Police Association At 9:30, the Council met with the police to work on the contract. Many of the articles had been agreed to already, and no time was spent on them. Article I, section 2 the words "non-probationary" were removed and "patrolmen after 6 months and all" were added in their place. The word "officers" was added after "non-uniformed". Mr. Reinholz said the union would agree to sections 1 and 2 if an agreement were reached. The probationary period during which a man can be fired would remain 1 year, but he can join the union after 6 months. There is no change in the tenure statute negotiated here, Messrs. Reinholz and Farrar agreed. Such language was added to the contract. Section 2 in Article 7 will be deleted when the contract is signed. In Article 10, section 3 will be added to the pay schedule, with language reflecting the current practice. Article 11, section 2 was discussed. The current practice now is, if a holiday falls during the week, a man may only work 4 days and be paid for 5 if he is scheduled to work a 40 hour week and is asked to take the holiday off. This is not a problem for the uniformed men, but it is for the detectives. Schedules are not supposed to be altered to avoid holidays. The question was then raised of when the holiday started. After some discussion it was determined that if a shift were partly on a holiday, the hours worked on the holiday would be paid at the holiday rate and the hours not on the holiday would be paid at the regular rate. The holiday will start at 12:01 a.m. Mr. Farrar felt the practice now was what was stated in section 2, because of section 1c in Article 9, which insures that the police do not work more hours in a year than other city employees, unless they are paid overtime for those extra hours. He felt that the two sections, working together, gave the police double and a half time pay on holidays and that the city was already doing what had been asked. He saw no problem with section 2 if section 3 were omitted. It was decided to remove "TWO AND ONE-HALF" and "Any continuous" from section 2. Hours worked in excess of 8 on a holiday will be paid at three times the regular pay. The following was added to the last sentence of section 2: "with the day as defined in Article VIII section 3". In Article 13, Mr. Farrar asked about helmets. He was told that there had been an order to wear them at all times and now was an order to wear them outside the cruisers. The officers want them available, but want the decision as to when to wear them up to the officers. Mr. Farrar noted that employers were responsible for having employees operate under safe conditions and he was not sure the city could leave it up to the officers. The union was willing to drop the additional language as long as there was no unreasonableness regarding helmets by management. Section 1B of that article was discussed. Sections a., b., c., and d. were replaced by the following: "One complete uniform as described in section 1A except for sections 1Ae., 1Af., (1 shirt each), 1Ao., (1 pair summer and 1 pair winter trousers), 1Ar., (4 patches), 1At., and 1Au." Section 1Ar. was changed to require only 8 patches, for uniformed personnel. In section 1Be., the words "newly appointed and" were added after the word "All". Mr. Farrar told the association that the City Attorney had not yet given the city language on Article 15, but that he felt there was an agreement in principle on that section. In Article 17, section 3, the definition of immediate family has been extended and more time given for attending funerals. Mr. Reinholz said there had been no abuse of the section and the new wording was approved by Council. Article 19 was discussed. In step 1, Mr. Szymanski noted that the personnel rules had a time limit of 5 days, not the 3 in this contract, but this wording was accepted. Section 3C. was removed. The words "(after one year)" were added to Article 20, section 1 after the words "probationary period". Mr. Burgess asked about separate infractions 6 months apart, in section 3B, and was told if that happened management could terminate the man. Mr. Burgess had a concern about the circumstances under which the city might want to suspend someone for something not specified in this section of the contract and he wanted the City Attorney to check into it. He did not want the city locked into anything with this wording on suspensions. In Article 22, Mr. Reinholz said that the union's new position was that they wanted 6 credits per year in section 6. Mr. Farrar felt the city had gone as far as it could go from a dollar point of view with this contract. He saw no problem with assigning work so as to allow people to take courses, though. Sections 1-5, and 7- 17 were all right. Mr. Farrar wanted specific sections of the contract spelled out in section 18. Mr. Reinholz said the union would want to discuss items not in the contract this year, next year. He agreed, however, to itemize by article, noting that some items for consideration next year might not be in the contract as benefits now. If these come under the headings of insurance, salary, etc., that is OK with the union. Mr. Reinholz also wanted to discuss the approach to be taken to binding arbitration. He felt that the "last best offer" was the best approach. Mr. Farrar did not disagree. The union wanted the approach spelled out in the contract and Mr. Farrar said he understood the proposal. The issue of college credits was discussed. Mr. Reinholz felt there would be a minimal cost to the city and it would give people incentive to be better officers Mr. Farrar preferred to find grants for such education. He did not want to set a precedent on education for the other city employees. Where the police are different from other employees they are treated differently, but this is not one of those differences and there is no reason the police should take courses and the bookkeeper, for example, should not. Mr. Reinholz asked about adding a very strict definition of the courses allowed. Mr. Farrar preferred to find LEA funds for education. The police went outside to discuss this item and came back in about 5 minutes. Mr. Reinholz agreed to define the economic issues to be discussed with binding arbitration next year article by article. He said he would write a section 19 defining the appropriate method of arbitration (for example, last best offer). Mr. Reinholz then took up the college credits issue. He said the union would be willing to put a limit on the number of people able to take courses each year and they suggest 3 credits per year per person with a maximum of 3 patrolmen per semester. Mr. Farrar did not think the city could give any more. Mr. Reinholz asked about next year and was told it could be discussed next year, but the city had spent all it could in good conscience and they did not know what next year would be like. He advised the police not to be hopeful for it next year, although it can be discussed. Section 18 was discussed, and to it was added the following, after the first sentence: "1981-82 economic issues shall include Articles 9, 10, 11, 13, sections b. and c., 16, 17, 18, 21, and 22, section 6 (the issue of payment)." The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.