Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/21/1981CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 21, 1981 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, September 21, 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; Albert Audette, Street Department; Michael Klavan, Carol & David Parot, Jamie Thibeaut, Norman Reuss, Norman Reuss and Mary Milkey-Reuss, Bill Dorf, Gerald Milot, Vernon Wamsganz, Bob Nowak, Bob Watson, Nancy, Jack, Sara and Jack Provencher, Peter Lavallee, Kevin Hayes, Lansing Reinholz, Ray Unsworth Minutes of September 7, 1981 The September 7, 1981 minutes were approved on a motion by Mr. Burgess, a second by Mr. Flaherty, and a unanimous vote. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Continue hearing on vicious dog complaint Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Wamsganz about the incident in question. Mr. Wamsganz said he was in his yard when he saw David Parot come out with a snow shovel, cross the fence of his property into the neighboring property, and swing the shovel at the Provencher dog. The Provencher children were there with the dog, in the Reuss yard. David Parot took 4 or 5 swings at the dog with the shovel and when he turned around, the dog followed him. Mr. Wamsganz said he did not see whether the dog bit or nipped the boy. He said the boy had antagonized the dog, not the other way around. He could not tell whether the boy actually hit or just swung at the dog. Sara Provencher said David swung the shovel at the dog before the dog bit him in the heel. This happened in the Reuss yard, she said. She said David actually hit Hobo once but the rest of the time he just swung the shovel. Mr. Farrar asked whether he was trying to hit the dog or just playing with him, but she did not know. Sara is 10. Mike Klavan said he and David Parot were seated on the porch when the dog came into the yard. He started to play with Sara and the dog came over and bit David. After that, David got the shovel and swung at the dog and chased it off the yard. This happened in the Parot yard, he said. He said that Sara lost her shoe and David went to get it and then the dog bit him. Jamie Thibeault said that Jack and Sara Provencher were fighting and that Jack threw Sara's shoe onto the Parot land. David Parot got the shoe for Sara, at which point the dog bit him and he then got the shovel. Ms. Mary Milkey-Reuss said she was in her house and heard yelling outside about a shoe. She looked out and saw David heading toward the porch to get the shovel and when he came back he looked like he was limping. He said Hobo had bitten him. She did not see the dog bite the boy and she did not know which side of the fence he was on. Sara Provencher said she took off her shoe and David Parot west to get it. Hobo ran after him and David got the shovel and swung at the dog. Mr. Farrar asked whether it was before or after David swung at the dog that her shoe was thrown and she said it was before. Jamie Thibeault said Jack and Sara were fighting and that Jack threw the shoe onto Parot land. When David went to get it, Hobo bit him and David then chased him out of the yard with the shovel, but not before Jack told Hobo to bite David again. Mike Klavan said the "shovel" was actually a snow brush, but Sara said it was a red plastic shovel and Mr. Wamsganz agreed. David Parot said that after Jack threw the shoe, he got on his bike and just as he was about to get the shoe, Hobo came running across the yard, so he jumped off the bike and the dog bit him. Jack told Hobo to bite him again, so he got the shovel and chased Hobo out of the yard. Mr. Flaherty noted that under state statute, the Council had to find that the dog bit without provocation, on a vicious dog complaint. If it is found that there was provocation, the Council cannot find that the dog is vicious. Mr. Farrar asked David if he and the dog were friends. He was told they were not. He has chased the dog before and the dog has chased him before. Mr. Burgess asked David if the kids in the neighborhood teased the dog when he is tied. David said that at the beginning of the summer they squirted the dog with water. They never hit him with a stick or threw sticks at him when he was tied. Mrs. Provencher said she had seen kids throw sticks at the dog when he was tied, but that she had not said anything about it. Mr. Farrar noted that the Council had to understand why the dog bit David. Ms. Milkey-Reuss said she and her husband jogged and that sometimes the dog has come toward them. She is afraid of it. Ms. Provencher said that the only time the dog had been loose recently was when he bit David. Since then he has not been out and he won't be, but she said she needed a dog for protection. Mr. Provencher repeated what he had said at the last meeting about the dog chasing people, but he stated that the dog had been harassed by kids for over a year. Ms. Parot repeated that the dog was not licensed, had not had shots and was loose when it bit David. She said she would pursue the matter. Mr. Farrar said the Council had asked the city attorney to prepare revisions to the dog ordinance to allow the police to impound a dog under circumstances similar to this. He said the question the Council was trying to deal with here was only whether the dog was vicious. They are not dealing now with ordinance violations. Mr. Farrar said the Council had to decide whether the attack was provoked or not. Mr. Paulsen said it could go either direction. Mr. Burgess noted that there was a lot of conflicting opinion on what happened. He felt there was enough information in conflict that the Council would not be able to determine what happened. In light of the information given, Mr. Burgess did not feel he was ready to vote that it was a provoked attack. Mr. Flaherty felt that the information was so unclear that the Council could not make a decision as to who is telling the truth. He felt there was enough doubt that he could not make a motion for a vicious dog, although he felt the dog had been a nuisance to the neighborhood. No motion was made on the issue, and Mr. Farrar noted that without one, the Council could not proceed. He did, however, want to make a few comments to the dog owners. He noted that the dog was not licensed, had not had its shots and was loose. He said that could not continue. He noted that the dog had been loose on the streets a number of times and that could not continue either. He noted that although there had been a lot of conflicting testimony, there had been no conflict about the fact that someone was bitten. He felt that if this happened again and the dog question were brought before the Council again, he did not think the Council would take the same attitude they have taken tonight. Mr. Flaherty moved that the vicious dog hearing be closed. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted for it. Mr. Burgess stated that the dog had not been licensed, had not had shots and had been loose, all of which are violations of the ordinances. He noted that it was unusual for the Council to prosecute cases like this, partly because they were not called to Council's attention and partly because they were not as flagrant as this. Mr. Burgess moved to refer the minutes of this meeting to the city attorney to find out if in his opinion the information presented indicates that there were violations of the ordinances of the city, and if there were, to ask him to take the appropriate action to enforce the ordinances. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion. Mr. Burgess did not feel this action was totally uncalled for, and he tended to agree with the attorney that sometimes these cases had to be pursued to remind people that there were ordinances in the city. He told the Provenchers that if the attorney felt the city had a case against them, they would be notified that a complaint had been filed. Meet with representative of Kiwanis Club to discuss construction and operation of outdoor hockey rink Messrs. Bob Nowak and Bob Watson represented the Kiwanis. Mr. Nowak noted that it was a shame a city the size of South Burlington had no natural ice facility. The Kiwanis has voted to put forth $10,000 in seed money for the initial construction of the facility. Much of the labor will be done by volunteers. The proposed site is in the Central School area and Mr. Nowak showed the Council where it was. He said that the initial facility might be expanded at a later date. What is proposed now is an outdoor facility with natural ice. Later a roof could be added, as well as parking facilities and ice equipment. The rink will be regulation size. The site would be fenced. Mr. Nowak said the Kiwanis were not in a position to own and maintain the facility and he mentioned the city accepting it when it is completed (the initial phase) and operating it. In addition to the city owning and maintaining it, the Kiwanis would look for some help from the city in a couple of areas. They would need help in clearing the site. The city could provide heavy equipment for that and they would need help grading the site. They might also request help in extension of water lines. Mr. Nowak hoped to have the facility for this winter. He felt it was less than 1 acre which would have to be stumped and graded. Mr. Szymanski said he had talked with the recreation director, and if no one from the street or water departments was relied upon to help, it would cost about $3500 per year to run the facility. There is no money in the budget for the cost. Mr. Farrar suggested that Messrs. Audette and O'Neill be at the next meeting to discuss, with Mr. Audette, whether his men could spend the time on the construction work and what street projects might not be done if they did. They could discuss the costs of operation with Recreation Director Bruce O'Neill. Mr. Audette noted that it would be primarily for the hockey team and he wondered why the school did not take it over. Mr. Nowak said it was the intent of the Kiwanis that this not be just a hockey facility. They intend it for general use. Mr. Farrar mentioned shared costs with the schools. Mr. Flaherty asked that costs be broken down on paper for the next meeting and he requested a time schedule. Mr. Watson noted that a broad number of groups were involved in the project. The Council requested the information by October 1. Discuss with area resident funding CCTA to serve area handicapped Mr. Szymanski said that he had received a call before Labor Day on this item, but that the next meeting had been full, so he told the resident the hearing would be today. He was told that was all right and that the resident would confirm the time and date of this meeting. That was not done, and no one was present at this meeting to discuss this issue. Hear police grievance Mr. Reinholz said this hearing was in regard to grievance #811, dated August 17, 1981. He passed out a review of the grievance and pertinent facts (dated Sept. 21, 1981). Mr. Reinholz said the question was, when overtime is assigned to bargaining unit members covered by the Master Agreement, does not the city have to go to the overtime seniority list. The union feels it does. The union feels that if a management person is absent and his job is filled with another management person, that is fine. If, however, a shift commander is absent and management wants to fill the job with a bargaining unit member, the union feels they have to go to the overtime list. Mr. Reinholz said that past practice until the grievance had been to use both patrolmen and corporals as temporary shift commanders in the absence of a management person. Mr. Lavallee said that on August 13 he had seen a notice that certain people would be covering as shift commanders for the coming weekend. Two of the people were corporals who would serve as supervisors Mr. Lavallee told Lt. Searles that corporals were not supervisors and could not serve that way, but was told that Lt. Searles felt they were and would treat them as such. The corporals in question were taken out of the normal seniority list and put ahead of other people and Mr. Lavallee felt the practice was different from what had been done in the past. He said that in the 6 1/2 years he had been in the department he had seen both corporals and patrolmen fill in as shift commanders and Mr. Hayes agreed. Mr. Hayes noted that the senior patrolman was sometimes asked to do it, but if it were a choice between a corporal and a patrolman, the corporal would be asked to do it. If no corporal was working the shift, the senior patrolman man who was assigned to the shift would be the temporary commander. Management does not go through the entire group of employees. Mr. Farrar asked whether the union felt that the senior person on the shift would normally be assigned to be temporary shift commander, and therefore, the seniority list should apply to who is assigned to do it. Mr. Reinholz replied that only if there were three people on the shift in addition to the commander, and management still wanted a shift commander as a fourth person. If they are going to have overtime done, it should be off the overtime list. Mr. Burgess asked Mr. Hayes whether, when he had acted as the temporary shift commander, management had filled his job with someone else and was told they had not. Mr. Burgess felt that was different, since this time management had filled out the shift with overtime work instead of leaving the shift short. He asked whether the union could remember another situation where the management elected to call in someone other than a lieutenant or a sergeant to fill in for the shift commander on an overtime basis and the union did not think that had happened before. Mr. Burgess felt this was the first time there had been a chance for this to happen, so it was not a departure from past practice, although it may have been a departure from the Master Agreement. Mr. Hayes felt it was a departure from past practice. Mr. Burgess said that normally no overtime was involved, since the position was filled from people assigned to the shift. He felt there was no deviation from past practice here, since it had not happened before, but Mr. Reinholz disagreed. Mr. Farrar also felt this was a unique situation. He wanted to see if the Council could establish a past practice on this situation. He said the Council would decide on the grievance at its next meeting and get back to the union. It was noted that in filling a shift commander position, a corporal who had been on the force a shorter time than a patrolman would still be chosen over the patrolman. Review list of tax penalty waivers The list was presented to the Council by the City Manager. Mr. Paulsen moved to acknowledge receipt of the tax penalty waivers as submitted by the City Manager, dated 9/21/81. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess and it passed unanimously. Review Planning and Zoning agendas There were no comments. Old business Mr. Burgess said the auditing firm which had just audited the city looked like a different one from the one which the Council chose. Mr. Szymanski said the company chosen had split into two pieces and that the other piece did not do municipal auditing. Mr. Burgess felt that if the firm had split, it should have been brought back to the Council so they could appoint a different firm. He felt it was wrong for the City Manager to unilaterally pick the firm. Mr. Szymanski said he had received a letter notifying him of the split and telling him who would be doing what after it. Mr. Farrar agreed the matter should have been brought back to the Council. Mr. Burgess felt the auditing firm decision was the Council's. Mr. Szymanski reiterated that he had been sent a letter telling him that the one piece was going to be doing the municipal accounting. Mr. Burgess did not like that either, if the firm before it split had told the city that its business was with the one piece. If a similar thing happened again, the Council wanted to have the decision on what to do come to them. Consider going into executive session to discuss the acquisition of a parcel of land (Lakelands) with representatives of owners Mr. Paulsen moved to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing the acquisition of Lakelands with representatives of the owners and to adjourn without taking any action. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and all voted for it. At 9:45 pm the Council came out of executive session and adjourned. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.