Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/05/1981CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 5, 1981 ADDITIONS On page 2, at the end of the discussion on the minibus, it should be recorded that the motion carried unanimously. On page 7, the motion to go into executive session was seconded by Mr. Burgess and carried unanimously. The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, October 5, 1981 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Martin Paulsen, William Burgess Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk; Albert Audette, Street Department; William Wessel, CCTA board; Richard Carter, Police Chief; William Stone, William Reedy, Shirley Moulton, Mary Thompson, Mildred Arnold, Jean Lincoln, Gail Feitelburg, Anna Wood, Katharine Sheltry, Frederick Webster, Sandra Dooley, Pat Pizzagalli, Lucien & Juliette Lacharité, James Thibault, Jr., Lowell Krassner, Lansing Reinholz, Kevin Hayes, Jane Kaufman, Hugh Marvin, Douglas Schner, Gary Farrell, Thomas Fraga, Robert Nowak, Robert Watson, Brian Searles, Wayne Jameson, Pat Burgmeier, The Other Paper; Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Director Minutes of September 21, 1981 The September 21, 1981 minutes were approved on a motion by Mr. Paulsen, a second by Mr. Burgess, and a unanimous vote. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. Discuss the Reserve Seat Transit Minibus Service for Senior Citizens and the Area Handicapped Ms. Jane Kaufman said she was present tonight to present the concerns of the elderly and of disabled persons over the planned discontinuation of the special service. She asked the Council to accept a proposal to continue the service for 6 months, ending April 30, 1982. This would give the new CCTA general manager time to look at the service and it would also allow time for a task force to be formed to look at the issue. She said many people in the area had not known of the existence of the bus until recently and she wanted to see whether ridership would increase now that people knew of it. Ms. Kaufman said the bus operated on a 24 hour notice system, and would transport people back and forth to their destinations for $1.00 per trip. With the new busses coming in November, the CCTA plans to discontinue the minibus service because the new busses have lifts. She noted that many of the people who use the minibus cannot use the new busses because they cannot get to the bus stops, especially in the winter. Disabled people do not dare use a full bus at rush hour, either. There is only one spot for wheelchairs, and the disabled cannot get groceries on the busses. Ms. Kaufman passed out copies of her proposal (copy attached to minutes). Mr. Wessel said that in fiscal year 1981, 185 people from South Burlington used the bus. This figure is trips, not individuals. Mr. Wessel felt there might be 30- 40 people in the system who used the bus. Mr. Flaherty noted that the Foster Grandparent and RSVP groups had only recently heard of the service, and he felt the figure cited by Mr. Wessel might be low. Cost to extend the service 6 months would be about $13,000, and based on South Burlington's share of the regular subsidy, it might cost the city $2,000, although Mr. Wessel pointed out that the CCTA board had not yet made a policy on the bus and the cost could be more or less than that. CCTA would expect some funding from the communities were this to continue. The cost is now coming out of general overhead. Ms. Gail Feitelburg noted that RSVP had only started to use the bus last March, and she felt it had not been given a fair chance to prove itself. Mr. Wessel said that most of the costs of the minibus were fixed rather than variable, but he did not think the service would ever pay for itself. The capacity of the bus is 14, but it was noted that wheelchairs took up more room than regular seats. Ms. Mary Thompson noted that some of the busses now on the roads had lifts, but she said that drivers had told her that Vermont winters were hard on the lifts, and she was afraid the same thing would happen with the new ones. Mr. Wessel acknowledged that there might be some problems in this area. Mr. Wessel told the Council that the CCTA faced the possibility of a total loss of federal funding because of a change in the way the area is classified. He told the board they were looking at a possible increase in the South Burlington subsidy of $34-54,000, which is above the $80,000 the city is now paying. Mr. Lacharité said he had used the bus for 2 1/2 years. He said he would not be able to get to a regular bus stop to use the new busses. He said he was usually the only passenger on the minibus when he used it, but he agreed there was room for expansion of the service with careful scheduling. Mr. Flaherty moved to accept the resolution with a change in the wording of the fifth paragraph to make the word "will" in the second line "may" and with the addition of a paragraph at the bottom to state that the City of South Burlington will be agreeable to increasing its contemplated subsidy for the year by up to $2,000. provided that the other member communities in the area make appropriate increases in their subsidies for this particular service. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion. The changes to the resolution were made because Mr. Burgess did not like the wording of the fifth paragraph as it was, and Mr. Farrar felt a price should be affixed to continuation of the service. If the cost is going to be more than $2,000, someone will have to come back before the board to explain it. Mr. Farrar asked people attending the hearing to promote the service. Sign Resolution for City Highway Improvement Need as Requested by the Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Gary Farrell said it had come to his attention that the state was going to look at capital projects for highway improvements. He noted that one project which had been discussed before and which was in the 10 Year Capital Budget plan of the city was the widening of Williston Road from the Jughandle to the Interstate. He submitted a letter requesting that this project be number 1 (copy attached). He noted that there were over 30,000 vehicles per day on the road, which is the highest in the city and which he suspected was also the highest in the state. The number of accidents in that area is very high. Since January 1980, he said, 10% of all accidents in the city occurred in the area. He noted that during peak hours there were many left turns, which caused severe problems by backing cars up. He felt the only solution to the problem was to add a fifth lane for stacking care, as was discussed 9-10 years ago when the jughandle was added. Mr. Farrell also felt that a problem was that curb cuts on the road were not lined up opposite one another, nor were the lights lined up. Mr. Farrell noted that the cost of the project was small compared to other projects in the budget. The Council looked at a list of South Burlington projects, dated October 5, 1981. It was noted that the Southern Connector was not shown on the list. Mr. Szymanski said he had been in touch with the state last week about it, so he knew they were still working on it, but the Council did not want to leave the Connector off the list. Mr. Farrar felt it was very important to acquire the right of way for that road so it would not disappear, leaving the city with the same problem on Shelburne Road in the future that it has on Williston Road now. Mr. Farrell asked what would happen if the city found that there was not going to be any state money for these road projects. Mr. Farrar replied that the city would have to make some decisions on which projects to delay and which to fund with city money. Mr. Krassner noted that the Dorset St. stacking lane had helped traffic for a while, but then the lane had filled with traffic. He wondered if one stacking lane here would be enough. He requested information on the commercial potential of the Gaynes site and what kind of traffic it might generate and how much of a stacking lane would be needed to accomodate traffic at peak hours. Mr. Paulsen moved to adopt the Resolution dated October 5, 1981 with the following changes: Add #1 - Acquisition of the right of way for the Southern Connector, add Construction of the South Burlington portion of the Southern Connector between #3 and #4 as the resolution is currently written, and change the numbering on the current resolution appropriately. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Continue discussion on construction of municipal hockey rink Recreation Director O'Neill had given the Council a memo dated October 5, 1981 regarding the possible cost of lights for the rink. Street Department head Audette noted that his department was about 3 months behind in the work it had to do this year. Mr. Nowak said the Kiwanis were asking the city to stump the treed area and do some minor grading so they could put the liner material down. They would need to have the stumps hauled away, but Mr. Nowak felt the Kiwanis could handle taking away the brush. He noted, however, that if they could not get the Street Department's help until after Thanksgiving, as Mr. Audette had said might be possible, that would put the project off until next year. Mr. Szymanski said the Planner felt the rink should have site-plan approval from the Planning Commission. Mr. Paulsen wondered about asking some volunteers to do the stumping, and Mr. Farrar asked him to explore that. Mr. Nowak felt there were 4 days of work with a backhoe plus a day with a grader. Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Szymanski to see about getting the project on the Planning Commission agenda, perhaps with a special session. The School Board decision on the rink is expected on October 14. Mr. Nowak wanted to explore the initial question to the city and that is whether the city is in the position to accept and maintain the facility once it is built. The Council noted that the School Board had not yet decided whether to participate financially or at all. If the city funds the rink and the school ends up using it a lot, perhaps a cost-sharing plan can be worked out in the future. Mr. Farrar saw no problem with accepting and operating the facility after its construction. Mr. O'Neill noted that if there were a control on the light box, the rink lighting could be handled the same way JC Park lighting is now, so it might cost the city little or nothing to light the rink. Mr. Farrar felt the city would accept and operate the facility with the proviso that the Council would like the Recreation Director to know exactly what is proposed in detail, especially in terms of lighting. The Kiwanis will receive official word on acceptance of the facility after Mr. O'Neill's review and approval. Final action on police grievance The City Attorney had submitted a memo on this item, and Mr. Reinholz was given a copy. Chief Carter said the grievance dealt with the assignment of patrolmen and corporals, outside the normal overtime rotation, as supervisory personnel. He said that how the assignment was handled depended on the situation. In the past, the senior man was assigned because the vacancies occurred 2-3 hours in advance. In the event of scheduled overtime, a temporary shift commander would be used. Mr. Farrar asked if there had been two incidents in which there were no sergeants or lieutenants available and a corporal was selected to fill in. He was told that was correct, on an emergency basis. Mr. Reinholz said he had looked at the scheduling since January and had found 18 occasions on which a patrolman was used as a temporary shift commander, and those occasions involved 4 different patrolmen. These were, he said, with 3 or 4 exceptions, planned for in advance, not emergencies. They were posted schedules. Mr. Reinholz said the first argument was that corporals were, or should be, supervisory personnel. The other argument was that, at the initial hearing, Mr. Hayes was asked about assigning temporary shift commanders and he said that they were chosen on the basis of rank and then seniority. As one looked at the overtime list for that evening, however, Mr. Reinholz wondered, if rank and seniority were the basis for the selection, why was Corporal Mitchell not chosen? He felt the administration was saying that they could put in anyone at any time for any reason to serve as temporary shift commander. He noted that the administration had not even used the senior corporal in the incident. Mr. Reinholz read the fourth full paragraph in the City Attorney's memo, pg. 2, and stated that he would like a copy of Lt. Searles' August 27, 1981 memo. He noted that the phrase in the paragraph of "planned situations" contradicted the Chief's earlier comment about 2-3 hours notice. He also pointed to the phrase "always been made with a careful consideration of the patrolman's experience, maturity, responsibility and working relationship with others on the shift" and said he could point out 4 times when the member of the bargaining unit who has most frequently been reprimanded and who was suspended for 5 days was used as the shift commander. Mr. Farrar noted that at the meeting two weeks ago he had asked if this situation had come up before and he had been told that it had only happened once. He said that what he was hearing now indicated that the facts presented at that time had been incomplete. He said he had asked whether the shift commander was always the most senior person available and the answer he had received was yes. Mr. Reinholz said that to the best of Mr. Hayes's knowledge it had been. Mr. Farrar stated that when he had asked the question at the last meeting, he was told by Mr. Hayes that if only patrolmen were available, the most senior of them would be assigned. With a patrolman and a corporal, the corporal would be assigned, and with two corporals, the most senior one would be assigned. He asked if that were the general practice. Mr. Searles said that since January 1, 1981 there had been 19 times that a patrolman was made shift commander. (In 1980 there were 28 times.) Two of these have been since July 1, and the department has only had the required number of corporals since then. Nine of them were unplanned and 10 were scheduled. The unplanned incidents meant that there was one shift commander scheduled and he called in sick, or another emergency arose. Considerations stated in his memo were used to assign people. Mr. Searles noted that with regard to the incident in question, the supervisor assigned did overtime work, and he said that had never happened before. On this particular occasion, the administration did not want to assign anyone working that shift to be the supervisor. He noted that there were times when the administration did not feel that senior men were the most capable of being shift commander. Mr. Farrar asked whether there had only been two times in the last 2-3 years where someone was added to a shift because it was short and at the same time had made them shift commander. Mr. Searles agreed it had only happened twice and those were the two times in question. He added that, looking ahead to next year, he expected to have close to 200 times when there would be no lieutenant or sergeant. In most of those times, he said the plan was to use a corporal if one were available. Mr. Farrar asked if there were agreement on the fact that there had only been two times when someone had been brought in and that both times it had been a corporal. That was agreed. Mr. Reinholz said that with regard to next year, Mr. Searles had stated that corporals were second level supervisors. He said they were members of the bargaining unit, and nowhere are they viewed as supervisors. The union does not feel they are second line supervisors except temporarily, and it would be very reluctant as to whether corporals could be used as supervisors 200 times in the next year. The other point Mr. Reinholz wanted to make was that when bargaining was going on between the city and the union, the term "bargaining unit work" was put in the contract for the first time, but there was not much debate about it. He believed that everyone had felt at the time that bargaining unit work was work done by bargaining group members, and at this point, he saw any change in that as a unilateral change on the part of the Council. He said that if the Council wanted to use corporals as shift commanders on a temporary basis, the union would be happy to bargain that point. He felt the issue of overtime in the department was being pushed, noting that this was the fourth grievence regarding it. Mr. Farrar stated that bargaining unit work was discussed during contract negotiations. As he recalled, however, the discussion that lead to its inclusion in the contract dealt with the subject of work normally done by the union being done by other employees who were not members of the union. He did not feel that what was being discussed here was non-union members doing union work. He said "bargaining unit work" was the term coined to protect union members from outside persons being assigned to do their work. Mr. Farrar asked, in the two cases where a person was picked as shift commander outside the normal seniority list, what happened to him in terms of his position on the list. Mr. Reinholz said that was an interesting point, since a grievance recently had been filed over the seniority list not being changed. Mr. Searles said the seniority list was not affected because the work was supervisory. In the other case, he noted that if no one on the list wanted the overtime and someone had to be told to do it, the list was not changed after that either. Mr. Farrar felt that perhaps the issue under discussion tonight should be handled through negotiations instead of the grievance procedure and Mr. Reinholz said the union would be happy to postpone the grievance and meet with the Council at its pleasure. It was agreed to do this. The grievance will be put in abeyance subject to negotiating an agreement. Interview candidates for appointment to vacancy on City Council Doug Schner - Mr. Schner outlined his previous community involvements. He has been on the Board of Selectmen in Manchester, a Trustee of the Village of Manchester, Chairman of the Design Review Board, member of the Zoning Board in Manchester, member of the District Environmental Commission, etc. He noted that he had been involved in community affairs since 1969 and wants to continue that involvement. He felt he could offer valuable experience from outside this city. He has worked closely with people in city government here and so he is familiar with city workings. Mr. Farrar noted that the Council would be dealing with major revisions to the zoning documents in the city in the next few months. Given Mr. Schner's occupation and the fact that the ordinances might materially affect his employer's projects, he wondered if that would be a problem. Mr. Schner said he would make no decisions on items which might affect his employer. He did not see a major conflict there. James Thibault - Mr. Thibault said he had not had a lot of experience in municipal posts. He has worked with state, federal and local governments in his job with New England Telephone Co. He has lived in the city for 10 years and wants to serve the city. He saw no business relationship which might be a problem except where a utility presents a petition to a city for extension of its lines. He noted that he had never before served on a city board, but said that if not appointed to the Council, he would be interested in another board. Hugh Marvin - Mr. Marvin said he had moved to the city in 1955 and had been on various city boards in the past. He was Chairman of the Fire District Board on Shelburne Road, a member of the School Board, Planning Commission, Chairman of the Industrial Committee, served on the Regional Planning Commission, and was Chairman of the Southern Connector Citizens Committee. He felt he had the time and experience to be on the Council. Mr. Marvin noted that in the middle of March and April he took a yearly vacation. He is presently retired. Mr. Marvin felt that for a long time now the schools had received the great support of the city but that it was now time for the city to consider doing something about its road system. He felt a high priority would be a road to connect Dorset St. and Hinesburg Road to relieve Williston Road traffic. After that he felt that Williston and Shelburne Roads should be improved, and then Dorset St. should have some work done. He said his list was based on traffic, not the physical condition of the road. Mr. Farrar thanked the applicants and said a decision would be made as soon as possible. Public hearing to amend parking ordinance to increase illegal parking fees Mr. Farrar read the legal notice as it appeared in the Burlington Free Press on September 26. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the ordinance as read. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted aye. Sign short term renewal notes Mr. Szymanski said the notes were for construction of the new City Hall. The first one is for $190,000 and the other is for $1,140,000. The interest rate has been 7.65%, but Mr. Szymanski thought the rate would probably go to about 11.75%. Mr. Flaherty moved to sign the notes. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and it carried without dissent. Review Planning and Zoning agendas There were no comments. Old business There was none. Consider going into executive session to discuss personnel for appointment to City Council and acquisition of the Lakeland property Mr. Flaherty moved to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing appointments to the City Council and possibly to discuss a contract. The Council will then reconvene for the possible purpose of acting on the two subjects which will be discussed in executive session and will then adjourn without taking any other action. At 10:10 Mr. Flaherty moved to reconvene in regular session. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it carried without dissent. Mr. Burgess moved to appoint Hugh Marvin to fill the unexpired term of John Towne, to serve until the city elections in May of 1982. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and it carried without dissent. Mr. Farrar thanked Messrs. Schner and Thibault for applying for the post. He felt the Council had had three excellent candidates. Mr. Paulsen endorsed the comment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. Mr. Will iam Szymanski City Manager 575 Dorset Street South Burl ington. VT 05401 September 30, 1981 MANABEB* OFFICE em oa BURLINGTON Dear Mr. Szymanski, We the undersigned as providers of services to elderly and/or handicapped persons wish to respectfully inform you that as of November first, the Reserved Seat Transit minibus will go off line and will no longer be available to furnish demand transportation service to elderly and handicapped individuals who cannot use fixed route bus transportation. Many, many issues of concern to the elderly revolved around the need for transportation and the tremendous ,sense of isolation felt when there is a lack of adequate service for all members of the population. Although some of the Grumnan busses currently on order, will be equipped with hydraulic lift, they cannot accomodate more than one wheelchair at a time. In addition. individuals who cannot travel to a bus stop, will virtually be denied access to public transportation. We therefore ask your support in our efforts to delay for six months the termination of the reserved seat transit CCTA minibus. We believe that a coordinated transportation plan is imperative to answer the total transportation needs of our community and that there is no quick or easy solution to this situation. The minibus may be one very vital part of this transportation plan and if this service is terminated before development of an adequate solution, then the possibility of ever using it in a coordinated system may be irrevocably lost. A six month delay would a1 low a new general manager of the CCTA to study the present elderly and handicapped service to determine how it might be more economically managed and how it might combine with regular transit service to supply transportation assistance to all segments of the population. There are some individuals now using the minibus who cannot be transported any other way than by hydralic-lift equipped van. Should we deny them the right to mobility? Again, we respectfully urge you to support our efforts to delay termination of the minibus for six months to allow development of a coordinated transportation plan drawing upon the expertise of many individuals and which will answer the needs of all members of the community. Please contact your CCTA Comnissioner and Mr. Frank Mazur, CCTA Board Chairman with your opinions. Sincerely, / Mara Coven,Di rector Betsy Davis, Director Champlain Valley Area Agency on Aging Visiting Nurse Association ~ichdrd Renaud, Distrlict Director Sally Y .vtonrad, Director Soci a1 Securi ty Admi n . Retired Senior Volunteer Program BACKGROUND INFORMATION Oil THE NEED FOR CCTA'S RESERVDI SEAT TRANSIT (MINIBUS SERVICE have minibus service continued: , round trip. e. tari from Shelburne p $10.70 round trip. f. Metrovan service ( -2- towns and cities. Their onerating budget for ~~82 is $1,500,000 . includina $15h.000 5n citv-and town contributions and the s& federal ~ ~- - . ~- ~ ,--- -- --- " subsidy. We believe that if CgA could use fe the contributions- the cid much could be done to decrease the cost of providing this valuable service. 5. What ie CCTA required to do for the elderly and handicap~ed & return --- ---A the federal hndings receives? - CCTA receives what are called "Section 18" federal operating subsidies. Federal law requires recipients of these funds to do the following: "Recipients of funds under Section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act shall certify thst special efforts are being made in their service area to provide transportation that handicapped persons, including wheelchair users and semiambulatory persons, can use. This transportation shall be reasonable in comparison to the transportation provided to the general public and shall meet a significant fraction of the actual transportation needs of such persons within a reasonable time. (h9CFR 27.77 (a)(2)) 6. Why do believe that putting lifts on big buses that provide regular - service fails to meet this requirement7 &om our knowledge of the people who use the minibus, we believe that the vast majority vill not be able to use the new lift-equipped busea. In addition, each lift-equipped bus can accomodate only %wheelchair traveler at a time. Thus, we cannot reasonably conclude that this approach to serving the elderly and handicapped vill meet a significant fraction of their actual transportation needs. 7. Why are we asking for =s&months continuation of the minibus service? We believe CCTA has an obligation to serve as many of the elderly and handicappea citizens of the member municipalities as possible. In order to find the best way to do this, we are asking CCTA, the towns and other interested parties to examine this problem c&fully, but we need time. Nearly ten years ago, public transportation in the Burlington area ma in trouble. In February, 1972, Burlington Rapid Transit (BRT) petitioned the Public Service Board (PSB) to end all bus service by June 16. 1972- The PSB held hearings aad ordered BRT to continue service until a ~01uttion could be found. Meanwhile, the toms agreed to begin subsidizins BRf Services. It WEIS not until a year later on July 1, 1973, that CCTA began pmviding bus service--on the day after BRT service ended. Ue believe CCTA has a responsibility to nrk vith the member muniCi~ditie6 and affected consumers toward findinp: e solution to this vrobla. 8. Why can't human services agencies provide thie service, if the minibe service is stopwd'l First of all, no human service agency in Chittenden County operates a lift-equipped vehicle. Consequently, there would be no service for wheelchai%bound persons. Secondly, humsn services ~gencies provide transportation for odly specified purposes. The Area Agency on Aging uses its vans most of the time to serve senior citizens' lunch programs outside of the CCTA semice area. Howard Mental Health Senice transports clients only to their day treatment programs. There is no ongoing transportation service of any kind funded by a human services agency which serves the physically handicapped. Finally, human services agencies are facing funding cuts which m&e it difficult for them to maintain their current levels of service. The money simply isn't there to fill the gap that dll &st if minibus service ends. For example, Champlain Industries (formerly Champlain Sheltered Workshop) may be forced to stop transporting their workers as a result of funding cuts. This may mean some will have to quit their jobs. Prepared on 10/1/81 PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING CCTA RESERVED SEAT TRANSIT SERVICE WHEREAS the town/city of is a member municipality of the Chittenden County ~ransportati'); and WHEREAS the Chittenden County Transportation Authority has provided an acces- si ble (1 i ft-equipped) , door-to-door mini bus service called the Reserved Seat Transit to the elderly and handicapped residents of its member municipalities since November, 1977; and WHEREAS the Board of Connissioners of CCTA has stated its intent to terminate the Reserved Seat Transit special transportation service as soon as lift-equipped buses for its regular service routes are delivered and on the road (the termi- nation date is now predicted to be about November 1, 1981); and WHEREAS federal Department of Transportation -regulations (49 CFR 3 27.77(a)(2)) require that CCTA make "special efforts" in their service area "to provide trans- portation that handicapped persons, including wheelchair users and semiambulatory persons, can use. This transportation shall be reasonable in comparison to the transportation provided to the general public and shall meet a significant frac- tion of the actual transportation needs of such persons within a reasonable time"; and .- WHEREAS the citizens of w g. are concerned that 1Sft- equipped bus service on meet a "significant fraction of the actual whose mobility is BE IT RESOLVED that the board of aldermen/selectman or citv council of the cit.y/ -. town of requests &at f ts CCTA connis- sioners act to bring about: 1. continuation of the Reserved Seat Transit service through April 30, 1982; and 2. establishment of a Task Force whose missjon would be to do the following: -- assess the need for door-to-door transportation service among elderly and handicapped persons in the five CCTA municipalities; -- evaluate the service- and cost-effectiveness of the Reserved Seat Tran- sit service and the lift-equipped buses on the regular service routes in responding to the needs identified; -- seek resources in the member municipalities which could be utilized to support transportation services needed by their elderly and handicapped citizens; and -- make recommendations to the CCTA board of commissioners and the govern- ing bodies of the five member municipalities regarding further continu- a PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING CCTA RESERVED SEAT TRANSIT SERVICE continued ation of the Reserved Seat Transit service by March 15, 1982. This Task Force would have the following composition: one representative for each CCTA member municipality to be appointed by the governing body of the municipality; any resident of the municipality would be eligible to serve in this capacity. one representative of the CCTA board of comnissioners to be appointed by the board. one representative of the Chi ttenden County Regional Planning Comnission board of comnissioners to be appointed by the board. one representative for the elderly community in the five CCTA municipalities to be appointed by the Champlain Valley Area Agency on Aging. one representative for the disabled comnunity in the five .CCTA municipalities to be appointed by the Consumer/Provider Advisory Committee to the Burlington Regional Vocational Rehabi 1 i tation Division office. Nominees shall be sought from the handicapped persons' advocacy groups in the Burlington area. one representative of the general public to be appointed by the United May Planning Committee from among persons expressing an interest in fulfilling this role following public advertisement of the need for an individual willing to serve in this capacity. the CCTA General Manager (non-voting member). RESOLUTION ---------- BE IT RESOLVED, that the South Burlington City Council determines that the following highway improvements are necessary for the City's well-being: (In order of priority) 1. Proposed South Burlington Southern Connector - Acquire all rights-of-way required for construction of this road. 2. Dorset Street - Widen to four lanes and reconstruct from Williston Road to Kennedy Drive. 3. Williston Road - Widen to five lanes, East Avenue to F.A. 1-89. 4. Williston Road - Widen to five lanes, Dorset Street to' Hinesburg Road. 5. Proposed South Burlington Southern Connector - Construct this road. 6. Dorset Street & Kennedy Drive Intersection - A ramp for northbound traffic on to F.A.1-89. 7. Hinesburg Road - A full interchange at F.A.1-89. 8. Kimball Avenue - Extend easterly to Town of Williston. Approved at South Burlington: October 7, 1981 Paul A. Faf-rar, Chairman Michael D. Flaherty / /7 (y./t I,< r~:< 'J q/UrAA William L. Burgess 5 South Burlington City Council Sheraton- Burlington Inn SHERATON HOTELS L M. WORLMMM 470 WILLISTON ROAD (1-88 LL U.S. 2) BURLMGTON. VERMONT 05401 TELEPHONE (802) W2-8576 October 5, 1981 South Burlington City Council 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Gentlemen: I am writing you regarding the city project number 7 "Williston Road Widening at Gaynes" found in the - Ten Year City Capital Budget. - -- - -- e We understand that the State of Vermont, Department of Transportation is now re-assessing all state highway "Capital Projects" and they are interested in priorities of local governments. I would like to plead with the City Council to make project number 7 "Williston Road Widening at Gaynes" as the highest priority in the City. The project, as I understand it, includes adding a fifth lane for left turns from the Interstate 89 bridge, west to the "jughandle" at U.S. 2 and Spear Street This highway improvement should be top priority for the following reasons: 1. This section of highway generates the highest volume of traffic in the City, 30.000 + cars per day. Probably the highest in the entire state. 2. Hazardous driving conditions, especially during peak hours. A. Volume of accidents is highest in the City. In the past two years 10 percent of all recorded accidents in the City occurred on this section of road. South Burlington City Council October 5, 1981 Page 2 B. Entrance onto highway during early morning hours when traffic lights are blinking yellow is very dangerous. Many customers departing on this stretch of highway take left turns into traffic with no operating r light. This movement is dangerous, causing many accidents, and also delays through traffic. C. Congestion and delays at curb cuts are a prevalent condition especially during morning, noon and evening peak hours. D. Left and right turning vehicles severely reduce the capacity of the street. E. Unaligned curb cuts cause conflicting turning movements. 3. U.S. 2 (Williston Road) is the only major suburban East-West artery. 4. Dorset Street development has caused and will cause additional traffic load to the Gaynes area section of road. 5. Cost of Construction ($210,000) compared to other projects is very small, particularly in relation to its need and importance. 6. The State of Vermont mandated that this project be completed in 1971 or 1972 when the "jughandle" was installed. The need was well established at that time. 7. "Williston Road Task Force" recommended this project be completed by 1978 and it was approved by the Planning Commisssion at its Public Hearing Oct. 26, 1976. South Burlington City Council October 5, 1981 Page 3 We would appreciate your attention to this Project and encourage you to testify at the State Public Hearings to the importance of this Project to the entire area. president Copy: Mr. Wayne Jameson - - South Burlington Representative Regional Planning Commission Mr. Arthur Rock, Director Transportation Department of Vermont Senator Thomas Crowley, Chairman Special Legislative Transportation Study Committee SPOKES. FOLEY & OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW bou~u WIN00SX1 AVENUC P. 0. Llox 00d mUmLINOTOLI, WClMONT 06.0. October 5, 1981 Mr. William J. Szymanski South Burlington City Manager South Burlington City Offices Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Police Grievance No. 811 Dear Bill: You have today requested our opinion concerning the subject matter of Police Grievance No. 811. My views are as follow. As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that the union grievance dated August 17, 1981, again raises the issue of bargaining unit work. The exact meaning of this term which is not spelled out in the contract, has been and remains the subject of a previous grievance. Turning first to the sections cited in the union griev- ance Article 1, Section 1, refers to wages, hours and other conditions of employment. Article 1, Section 2, does not appear to apply. Article 4 and Article 5, Section 1, basically state that the rights and privileges the employees previously enjoyed remain in effect and that there will be no amendment or alteration ofqthe agreement unless made in writing. Article 9, Sections 10, 13 and 14, deal with the "seniority list" bargaining unit work and scheduled overtime. Article 12, Section 2, does contain relevant provisions. In part, it states: "Seniority shall prevail with regard to holi- days, overtime and off-duty work ... Seniority shall be considered as an important factor with regard to duty assign- ments, days off and other aspects of the work." ~efererice should also be made to the controlling statutes. Specifically the definitions contained in 21 V.S.A. §1722(11) and (17). These are as follow: , 1 !, I Mr. William J. Szymanski -2- October 5, 1981 a "(11) 'Managerial perogative' means any non- bargainable matters of inherent managerial policy." "(17) 'Wages, hours and other conditions of em- ployment' means any condition of employment directly affecting the economic circumstances, health, safety or convenience of employees but excluding matters of managerial perogative as defined in this section." After review of all of the above, my view is that there was no violation of the agreement and that the grievance is not well-founded. While the grievance would have the council focus on wages, hours, conditions of employment and the seniority list, these are not the deciding factors. The union correctly states that the conditions of employment cannot be unilaterally changed. However, what is at issue here is a definition of bargaining unit work and administrative discretion to make duty assignments and arrange for supervision of a particular shift. The temporary placing of an employee in a "supervisory" position, like that of a permanent promotion, involves the a inherent exercise of management discretion. Article 9, Section 14, is addressed to a lack of man power which'was not the case in the grievance situation. Rather, what was an issue was the availability of a "super- visory person." -$ The placement of a "supervisory person" cannot effectively be left to the random exercise of the next name on the seniority list. To do so, might in certain situations leave the most senior individual being supervised by the most inexperienced individual. Clearly, this is not a situation conducive to the-effective on-going operation of the Depart- ment. As nbted in Lt. Searles memo of August 27, 1981, to Mr. Szymanski, previous utilization of patrolmen in super- visory capacity, when these have been planned situations, has "... always been made with a careful consideration of the patrolmdn's experience, maturity, responsibility and working relationship with others on the shift." Further, the grievance raises the issue of bargaining unit work and would appear to be in conflict with the union's position in a prior grievance (809). The union appears to be asking for two inconsistent results, namely, the preser- vation of the previous status quo and the utilization of the overtime list. Mr. William J. Szymanski October 5, 1981 Thus, although I do not see that the agreement has been violated by the Department's actions, based upon the sound exercise of management discretion, the exact language of the agreement, and prior precedent, the repetition of this type of situation could be avoided by no longer assigning corporals to "supervisory" status. Perhaps this step would be more in keeping with the Vermont Labor Board's certification order and the union's apparent interpretation of the agreement. If you have any questions, or if I may provide any information, please let me know. ~ox&ph F: Obuchowski