Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/14/1980CITY COUNCIL JULY 14, 1980 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, July 14, 1980 at 8:00 pm in the Central School Gym at 1181 Williston Road. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; William Burgess, Martin Paulsen, John Towne, Michael Flaherty Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; James Lamphere and Dennis Webster, Architects; Leone Betourney, Lee Chadwick, Marguerite Piche, Betty Wright, Josie Turpin, Roberta Strauss, William and Ethel Schuele, Sylvia Smith, Harry Collins, Bennett Truman, Deirdre Truman, Kenneth Gillies, Charles Church, M. Morrelli, Molly Farrell, Wilbur Newton, Mary Thompson, Betty and William Bailey, Carole Sanders, Lowell Krassner, Diane Geerken, J. Patrick Brennan, R. LaBarya, Ginni Stern, Kal Sanders, Karl Stein, Fred Masterson, Holly Ray, Cheryl Hartman, Dennis Hartman, Helen Richardson, Don and Betty Ann Lockhart, Frank and Anita Sheard, Gloria Yandow, Margaret Picard, Donald Duell, Alyce Piche, Gerald Gallison, James Petri, Evelyn Goldfield, Lee Thompson, Sheila Herberg, Dawn Crognale, Mary Kusiak, Patty Leopold, Richard Picard, Ernest Levesque, Sidney Poger, Kirk Woolery, James Ewing, Albert Audette, Sandy Kleppinger, Richard Ward, Rob Eley, Andy Potter, Richard Carter, Mr. Gregory, Angelo Pizzagalli, Ron Schmucker, Ira Tate, James Godette, Jeanne Kennedy, Gary Rounds, Brian Searles, Vincent Furno, Jack Koshinski, Monica Farrington, Nancy Gershak, Ellen Richardson, Mark Mancuso, Robert Larson, Paul Douglas, Lois Cohen, George Brady, Frank Wyler, Kevin Shay, Judy Stern, Rene and Linda LaBerge, James Petrie, Ony Reiner, Richard Greenberg Minutes of June 30, 1980 Mr. Paulsen moved to approve the June 30, 1980 minutes and Mr. Towne seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Public meeting on revised plan of proposed municipal building Mr. Lamphere, architect of the building, gave some history on the building. A basic program was worked up for the city's needs and from that a budget was adopted. After more work on the building, it was enlarged and when the final dollar figure was set, it was discovered that they were over budget. The building, was then reduced in size and this is what is being presented tonight, Mr. Lamphere said. He then explained the new layout and said that the city offices were to be 4900 sq. ft. at first, which grew to 5400 sq. ft., and now is down to 4700 sq. ft.. There were originally 2 meeting rooms of 1,000 sq. ft. each, and now the meeting room area is down to 1650 sq. ft.. The police station area was originally 7,000 sq. ft., then 6250 and now 6050, not including the firing range. The fire station was 3,000 sq. ft., then 3370 and now is 3100 sq. ft.. The roof on the new building will be flat under the new plan, not pitched. It is a vinyl roof, similar to a swimming pool liner and there are now some similar roofs in New England that have been in place for about 10 years with few problems. The roof has a 5 year guarantee and for a fee a 10 year guarantee can be obtained. It is a full guarantee against leakage. Regarding storage, at the present rate, the storage in the new building should last through 1990 and with microfilm it can go beyond that. The building will have an R factor of 40 throughout. Heat generated by employees and lights will be all that is required until the outside temperature drops below 15º, at which point heat will be added. Above 55º there will be mechanical cooling. The total square footage originally was 22,700, which increased to 25,125, and it is now down to 21,500. Cost of the space is about $46-47 per square foot, including site work. Ms. Geerken asked why the decision had been made to design the building so it did not need heat added, but would require electricity to be used to cool it. Mr. Lamphere said a number of systems had been studied and in his opinion it was better to retain existing heat than to design for solar gain, which would also mean increased heat loss. Mr. Vince Furno also felt that southern windows provided for more heat gain than loss overall. Mr. Lamphere noted that all that gain came at one time, building up more heat than needed. Mr. Dennis Webster felt that southern windows might work as Mr. Furno said in homes, but that would not apply to a public building. Mr. Lamphere estimated a cost of $6,000 to heat and cool the new building, whereas the city is paying $12,000 per year in the existing structure. Those figures are before the recent electric rate increase. The question of the flat roof was raised. Mr. Jack Koshinski, who represented the manufacturer, said it should last 30 years. He told the board some users of the material in New England. Mr. Towne asked the cost of replacing the roof in 10-15 years and was told that they were equivalent to or below the cost of a pitched roof, and they offer a better guarantee. Mr. Rounds asked the difference in cost between a pitched and flat roof on the building but Mr. Lamphere did not have those figures, but said a flat roof would be necessary on this building. Mr. Flaherty asked the lifespan of a metal roof and was told it would outlast an asphalt roof by 20-25 years. Ms. Kleppinger asked why the new plan was under consideration and was told that as work was done, they ran into conditions which increased the cost of the building. Mr. Lamphere added that if a complete set of documents was put out to contract, the figures could vary as much as 30%. In these changes they have tried to retain everything in the original plan and have done so, with the exception of the firing range. Mr. Poger asked about the flat roof and Mr. Lamphere replied that he felt a metal roof would be better, but that this roof was as good as an asphalt and shingle roof. Ms. Nancy Gershack asked if the Council was considering resubmitting the plan to the voters. Mr. Farrar replied that the city could build the best structure for the amount available from the bond issue, it could ask for more money and build the original building, or it could go ahead with this revised plan and ask the voters for more money to add the carports and firing range later. If the plan goes to the voters, it will delay construction and the cost will be increased because of winter construction costs, or because of inflation next year. Mr. Mark Mancuso asked why competitive bids had not been obtained and was told that it was felt the cost would be lower with an accelerated building schedule. Mr. Bob Larson noted that he did not like the idea of a flat roof and he hoped that someone would check the durability of the material in question, feeling that it might be vulnerable to vandalism, or other damage. In response to a question about what had been eliminated from the plan, Mr. Lamphere said the firing range and carports were gone. Mr. Schuele asked how long it would be before the city offices had to be expanded. Mr. Lamphere said 10 years at least and perhaps 20. Mr. Bob Larson felt that someone should check the plan very carefully to be sure it was accessible to the handicapped. He was concerned about details and said he could give the city the name of a person who could check into it. Mr. Levesque expressed doubts about the roof not leaking and he felt that he had voted for a plan with a pitched roof. Mr. Poger asked whether the building could be started this building season if a new vote were held in September but it was felt that if there were another vote they would not be able to build this fall, and about 10% would have to be added to the cost for inflation next year. Mr. Schuele asked about drainage and was told that there was enough grade to take care of the water on the site. Ms. Betty Bailey noted that there was still only one toilet on the second floor. Mr. Flaherty felt that people had voted on one particular building and that this was not that building. He felt the decision should be up to the voters as to which they wanted. Mr. Paulsen felt the city had the 3 choices outlined by Mr. Farrar earlier. Mr. Burgess felt the residents could stay with the dollar figure and get less, pay more for the original building, or do nothing and have no new city hall. Mr. Towne was not convinced that all the alternatives had been discussed and he was not happy with the flat roof. Mr. Farrar asked where the city would stand if the building were not constructed now. Mr. Lamphere said that if it were not started until October the cost would be $100,000, including 5% for inflation and $50,000 for temporary heat and enclosures. That amount would also be added, he felt, if building was delayed until next summer. City Clerk Picard noted that if there were a fire in the existing building, many records would be lost. With the cost overrun of $300,000 plus this new $100,000 cost to wait, the building will cost almost $1/2 million more than expected. Mr. Farrar said he personally liked the original layout, but he did not feel that spending the extra money made good economic sense and he felt it would be better to go with this new plan and ask for the money later to add the carports and firing range. The cost to add the range is much the same whether it is constructed now or added later. It was decided that the Council would think about the alternatives it had for a week and make a decision next Monday at a meeting at 8:00 pm. Hear complaint on Goldset Kennels Ms. Holly Ray presented the Council with a jar containing a sample from a swamp behind Goldset Kennels. She said the kennel was allowing untreated waste to be discharged into the swamp. She also stated that the kennel did not treat sick puppies although there was medicine on the premises. Ms. Ray said the kennel owner, Ira Tate, had 3 employees living in a trailer without running water and that the trailer had no permit to be where it was. She also stated that the employees in question were paid less than minimum wage and she felt that Mr. Tate had questionable business ethics. She felt Mr. Tate should not be allowed to exploit animals and employees and she suggested that the communities which now pay Goldset a fee for dogcatcher services pool those funds and provide their own facility and employees to take care of the stray dog problem. Ms. Ray then read some letters from Shirley Roberts and Mrs. Pearl Bittner. Ms. Roberts stated that Goldset had been on her property to pick up her dog and that after having boarded her dog with the kennel, the dog lost weight. Mrs. Bittner said her dog, which was old and had arthritis, had been picked up and held at the kennel for 4 days, during which time several contacts were made by the Bittners to the kennel, which denied that it had the dog. When the Bittners went to the kennel their dog was there, she said, but they had never been told by the kennel that it was. Ms. Betty Ann Lockhart said she had taken the family dog to the kennel to be groomed and that when he returned he was groggy and bleeding. He became ill and was taken to the hospital, where he died. An autopsy revealed massive kidney damage. The Lockharts searched their property but found nothing and they do not believe that the poison was ingested on their premises. Mr. Masterson stated that dogs were groomed on the same table at which they were put to sleep and he believed they could be poisoned this way. He also stated that he had bought from Mr. Tate a dog which, unknown to Mr. Masterson, was supposed to have been put away for biting a child. Mr. Masterson stated that water used to wash dog pens was allowed to run across the public walkway and that 2-3 dogs were put in the same pens. Ms. Judy Stern said her dog, an obvious pet, had been picked up several times and that once, when she left the dog outside an establishment, when she returned the dog was gone but there were obvious stray dogs there. She felt that selective picking up was being done. Ms. Ray read a letter from George Kriner, which stated that he had two dogs. When they were picked up, he checked with Goldset, and was told the dogs were not there. After a week Mr. Kriner went back and found that his dogs had been sold after two days, and he eventually had to purchase them back. Mr. Masterson believed that in some cases when Goldset knew the names and addresses of dog owners, the dogs were put to sleep anyway and he did not think there would be this many complaints if ethical practices were being followed. He also said stray dogs were being sold and he wanted to know how much of that money was being returned to the towns. Mr. Farrar said the Council would have to look into whether the kennel was violating South Burlington ordinances and it would also have to consider whether Goldset was the proper entity to be the dogcatcher. He had never heard any of these charges before, he said. Mr. James Petrie stated that Goldset had tried 4 times to pick up his dog and he said there was an investigation underway by the State's Attorney. Mr. Farrar said the city would look into the situation as a result of what they had heard tonight. Ms. Ony Reiner said that each time her dog was picked up, the fee for recovery was higher. Ms. Linda LaBerge also noted that the price quoted on the phone was lower than what was charged and that a check was not accepted. Mr. Masterson asked how the city intended to get the sewage out of the swamp. He felt this was a health problem. Ms. Ray said the people here agreed that if their dogs were not on their property, they should be picked up. She felt the issue was the care of the animals, the sewage problem, picking up expensive-looking dogs, and harassment of dog owners. Mr. Ron Schmucker represented Goldset and said they would submit a written response. Mr. Richard Greenberg said his dog had become ill after being at Goldset, and had died. Mr. Szymanski said the trailer was in violation of the ordinance and Mr. Farrar said he would check with the City Attorney on the status of that complaint. He said he would also see that the sewage complaint was investigated and action taken. The Chief of Police will be asked to investigate the allegations of violations of the city ordinances and State law. Mr. Farrar expected a report from the City Manager at next Monday's meeting. Mr. Rene LaBerge asked that Goldset be prohibited from killing any dogs until the matter is cleared up. It was also suggested that someone be posted in the kennel to monitor its operations, but it was felt that that presented legal problems. Mr. Burgess moved to request that Goldset Kennels suspend destroying dogs which are picked up in South Burlington or which are now in captivity for a period not to exceed two weeks, pending investigation of the allegations made this evening. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. Mr. Schmucker said the motion was all right with the kennel. The motion carried without dissent. Mr. Masterson asked that the following questions be answered: 1) were Mr. Tate and the landlord of the building cited jointly on the health problem and the trailer, 2) what is the zoning in that area, and 3) what will be done about the waste in the swamp? Discuss with Fire Chief purchase of new equipment This item will be discussed next Monday. Review Manager's recommended employee pay grade changes This item was delayed to another meeting. Review draft of ordinance regulating peddlers and consider for first reading This item will be discussed at a later date. Accept bus petition The petition concerns the new bus route. The Council received the petition and Mr. Farrar suggested asking the two South Burlington CCTA representatives to respond to it at the next regularly scheduled meeting, Consider making appointments to Commissions, Committees and Boards This item was postponed. Old business Mr. Szymanski said he had a note to be signed for the landfill machine. Mr. Flaherty moved to sign the note and Mr. Burgess seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. At 11:45 pm Mr. Burgess moved to adjourn at the call of the Chairman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Flaherty and all voted aye. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.