Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/18/1982CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 18, 1982 CORRECTION MINUTES Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting of August 18, 1982, amended to read: Diane Geerken interviewed for the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Wednesday, August 18, 1982, at 8:00 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Leona Lansing, Hugh Marvin, William Burgess Member Absent Michael Flaherty Others Present William J. Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Brian R. Searles, South Burlington Police; Richard Carter, South Burlington Police; Thomas Fraga, South Burlington Police; Kevin Hayes, South Burlington Police; Lance Reinholz; Sidney Poger, Planning Commission; Don Melvin, Free Press; Elizabeth K. Edwards, Carolyn W. Butterfield, Harvey D. Butterfield, Ralph B. Goodrich, John H. Belton, David W. Webster, Bruce B. Butterfield, Maureen Henry, Jim Collins, T.R. Irish, Reg & Sue Boucher, Mary Alice Irish, Bob Irish, Mary Silverman, Genevieve Rideout, Jane Compton, F.L. Campbell, Cathy Price, Thomas Price, Bill Shearer, Bob Marcellino, Dick Reed Discuss with Police Association Grievance Regarding Health Insurance Lance Reinholz presented the Police Association’s concerns about the City’s new hospitalization insurance carrier, Connecticut General. The concerns are two-fold: 1) whether the new coverage is identical to former Blue Cross/Blue Shield coveraged, and 2) how the City will deal with doctors who do not accept the new Connecticut General card and demand up-front payment. Reinholz cited two instances of officers being required to pay up-front for medical treatment by doctors who would not honor the Connecticut General card. One of these instances occurred out of state. Reinholz said that since the contract specifically indicates Blue Cross as the insurance carrier, patrolmen should not have to pay for any medical services that Blue Cross would have paid. Mr. Minnich replied that Connecticut General has a simplified process for filing claims, but since this is a new program, with no local agents involved, there has been a delay in notifying doctors of the new procedures. Doctors are now being informed and will be pleased with the new plan because they will be paid sooner. The new plan is endorsed by the Vermont Medical Association. Mr. Reinholz asked if the City would indemnify members of the Police Association for any medical expenses they might incur which would have been covered under the Blue Cross plan but which Connecticut General will not pay. Mr. Farrar said the City will pay the differences in the event that coverages are not equal. Mr. Reinholz requested a copy of both the Blue Cross and Connecticut General coverages. Mr. Minnich said the Blue Cross plan is available, but the Connecticut General plan is still being printed. It will be made available as soon as it is received. Discussion with Police Association Regarding Evaluation Procedures Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Reinholz if he had had a chance to study the document. Mr. Reinholz replied that he had not had time to go over specific points in the procedure. He indicated, however, that the Association does not want to see the physical fitness portion of the procedure implemented. Mr. Searles indicated that the physical fitness program could be part of the total program without being part of the evaluation procedure. Mr. Farrar suggested that the parties try to make quickly on the matter. Discussion with Police Association Regarding the Police Officers Bill of Rights The Association has reviewed and accepted the document. The Council raised a question concerning Section 12: In the unlikely event that a member of the Police Department arrived at work and was considered to be under the influence of alcohol and was asked to return home, this would be recorded as sick time. If, at a disciplinary hearing, the officer was adjudged to have been intoxicated, how would the lost time be handled? Mr. Reinholz indicated that in such an event, the officer would not be entitled to sick time and would be disciplined. Mr. Reinholz recognized the Council for its forward attitude and noted that this is the first such Bill of Rights in the State of Vermont. He asked the Council’s approval to communicate this information to the press, and approval was granted. Read Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 19, 1982: Special Meeting of July 22, 1982: Regular Meeting of August 2, 1982 Mr. Burgess moved to approve the Council Minutes of July 19, 1982, July 22nd, 1982, and August 2nd, 1982. Mr. Marvin seconded the motion with unanimous approval. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were signed. Continue Public Hearing on Proposed Zoning Regulations: Meet with residents of Bartletts Bay area to discuss zoning in their area Tom Price, President of the Lake Shore Owners Association, presented a petition on behalf of land owners in the area. Several parcels of land are up for sale, and existing zoning regulations would allow R-3 cluster development. Price cited the major concerns of the owners: 1) traffic in the area is already a problem 2) soil in the area is heavy and wet, and development could be destructive to ecological balance 3) the neighborhood has a character created by families; any development should be consistent with this character 4) there is already an odor from the sewage plant, and new development would worsen this problem Mr. Farrar asked whether the Owners had discussed these concerns with the Planning Commission. Mr. Price said they had succeeded in having the zoning reduced from R-4 to R-3. Ms. Elizabeth Edwards noted ecological damage since 1965. The area to be developed is heavily treed, with these trees absorbing much moisture. If the trees are removed for development, there will be a drainage problem. Flooding and bank damage has been occurring in the past few years. John Housner, representing developers, indicated they have spoken with the planner and are aware of problems. He said their development plans are very consistent with the area: single family dwellings with frontages larger than at present. He also indicated that most of the treed areas would be protected with an open area to protect the stream. Mary Silverman noted that buildup of sediment in the Bay is not being monitored, and the Bay has become a dumping ground. The long term viability of the Lake is concern. David Webster said that the traffic problem is also not been addressed and the railroad crossing is likely to cause a fatal accident. Mr. Farrar stated that he thought the State planned an overpass at Bartlett Bay Road. Ms. Lansing said this was also her understanding. Concerning drainage, mr. Roger indicated the Planning Commission is aware of the problem. He requested a complete drainage study be done by the City Engineer, since they need to be aware of the problem of developing the whole hillside area. He said that while the zoning may be proper, the Planning Commission is hesitant to act until they are sure what will happen to the water coming down the hill. Mr. Marcellino questioned whether the issue of erosion had anything to do with zoning. Ms. Lansing asked how soon a drainage study could be completed. Mr. Poger said he was uncertain but will check. He agreed that the drainage problem did not affect zoning, but it does affect how things are done on the property. Mr. Marcellino stated that they believe they have a solution to the drainage problem that would improve conditions for present homeowners as well. He said they will also bring City water to the area and current residents will be able to hook up to this. Mr. Marvin moved to rezone the area for R-3 to R-2 and for single home construction only. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Lansing moved to rezone the area form R-3 to R-1. Mr. Burgess seconded. Mr. Farrar then suggested the question be continued until the next meeting when further information would be available. Mr. Burgess so moved with Mr. Marvin seconding and unanimous approval. Consider Appointments to Boards and Commissions Ms. Diane Geerken was interviewed for the Planning Commission. Mr. Marvin moved that Mr. Ernest Leveque be reappointed to the Planning Commission. The motion was withdrawn because of other applicants. Mr. Burgess moved that Ethel Schuele and Jean Menard be reappointed to the Fine arts Committee. Ms. Lansing seconded and approval was unanimous. Mr. Burgess moved that William Schuele and Sylvia Smith be reappointed to the Natural Resources Committee. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Burgess moved that Ethel Schuele and Jean Menard be reappointed to the Community Library Board of Trustees. Ms. Lansing seconded and approval was unanimous Mr. Burgess moved that William Wessel be reappointed to the Chittenden County Transportation Authority. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Burgess moved that Albert Audette be reappointed Tree Warden. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Burgess moved that Harold Nolting, Hon Binklage, Robert Irish, Dale Kleppinger and Frederick Maher be reappointed to the City Charter Committee. Ms. Lansing seconded and approval was unanimous. Mr. Farrar then asked the Manger to contact past City Council members to see if any of them is interested in filling the final position of this Committee. Mr. Burgess moved that William Szymanski and Albert Audette be reappointed to the Cemetery Committee. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Burgess moved that Harry Yawney be reappointed to the Tree Planting Committee. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Regarding the Burlington Airport Committee, the Council will interview Kenneth Jarvis and Charles Bolton. Mr. Burgess moved that George Crooks, Vernon Wamsganz, Robert LeBerge and Edwin Sanborn be reappointed to the Fire Department Advisory Board. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Burgess moved that Richard Carter, Police Chief, and William Szymanski be reappointed to the Corrections Center Liaison Committee; and Barbara Bull, Peter Yankowski, Dr. Charles Houston, and Ethel Schuele be reappointed to the Red Rocks Committee. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Review Zoning Board Agenda There were no comments from the City Council Meet with Bill Peters Regarding Sewer to His Home at Swift Estates Mr. Peters reported that he has checked prices and found that the cost to run a 12-inch line from the manhole behind the Ridgewood Recreation Center onto Swift Street to Meadowood Drive would be $7.50 per foot, plus $350 per manhole, for a total of $7,987 (including labor). Mr. Peters said that if the City will pick up this amount, he will pay for the line from Swift Street and Meadowood Drive to his home (approximately $6,000). Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Peters to get two estimates on the cost of installing a 4-inch line all the way to his home. The City will then pay the difference between that amount and the 12-inch line. Mr. Peters agreed to get these figures. Sign Note for Purchase of New Road Grader Mr. Farrar noted that the $44,000.00 note will have to be paid in a 5-year period. Mr. Burgess moved to sign the note. Mr. Marvin seconded with unanimous approval. Sign Message of Sympathy to the Family of Martin Paulsen Mr. Marvin moved that the message of sympathy to Martin Paulsen’s family be signed. Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous approval. Liquor Control Board Mr. Marvin moved the City Council meet as the Liquor Control Board. Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Burgess moved to grant temporary liquor licenses for two wedding parties to the K of C Hall. Mr. Marvin seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Farrar noted that the next Council meeting will be August 30, 1982. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 pm by motion of Mr. Marvin with Mr. Burgess seconding and approval unanimous. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. v Amendment to the Police Labor Contract dated June 30, 1982 8 Article 111, Section 6 a POLICE OFFICERS BILL OF RIGHTS To insure that internal investigations are conducted in a manner conductive to good order and discipline, meanwhile observing and protecting the individual richts of each em- ployee of the force, the City shall adhere to the following rules: 1. The interrogation of any employee shall be at a reasonable hour, preferably when the employee is on duty and during the daylight hours, unless the exigencies of the investigation dictate otherwise. 2. The interrogation shall take place at a location designated by the investigating officer, usually at the police station. 3. The employee shall be informed of the name and rank of the officer in charge of the investigation, as well as the name and rank of the interrogating officer and the identity of all persons present during the interrogation. 4. The employee shall be informed of the nature of the investigation before any interrogation commences. Suffi- cient information to reasonably apprise the employee of the allegations shall be provided: If it is known that the em- ployee being interrogated is a witness only, he/she shall be so informed. 5. The interrogation shall be completed with reason- able dispatch. Reasonable respites shall be allowed. Time shall be provided also for personal necessities, meals, tele- phone calls, and rest periods as are reasonably necessary. 6, The member shall not be subjected to any offensive language, nor shall he/she be threatened with transfer, dis- missal or other disciplinary punishment. No promise of re- ward shall be made as an inducement to answering questions. Nothing herein is to be construed as to prohibit the investi- gating officer from informing the employee that his/her con- duct can become the subject of disciplinary action resulting in disciplinary punishment. 7. In all cases where an employee is to be interrogated concerning an alleged violation of Police Department operations procedures or rules which, if proven, may result in his/her dismissal from the force or other infliction of disciplinary punishment more severe than an oral reprimand, he/she shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity and facilities to contact and consult privately with an attorney of his/her own choosing. The attorney may be present during the interrogation, but may not participate in the interrogation except to counsel the em- ployee. 8. If an employee is under arrest or under investiga- tion for a prosecutable violation of state or local law or ordinance, he/she shall be given his/her rights under the Miranda decision and all other constitutional guarantees nor- mally due any criminal suspect. However, if the investigation is to be conducted by the State's Attorney or his designee or any other outside agency the City cannot guarantee that other provisions of this document will be upheld. 9. The employee shall be given an exact copy of any written statement he/she may make, or if the questioning is mechanically or stenographically recorded, the employee shall be given a copy of such recording or transcript if requested by him/her. 10. The refusal of an employee to answer pertinent questions concerning any non-criminal matter may result in disciplinary action. 11. No employee shall be ordered to submit to a poly- graph (lie-dectector) test for any reason. Such test may be given if requested by either the employee or employer. 12. No employee shall be unreasonably ordered or asked to submit to a blood test, breath test or any other test to determine the percentage of alcohol in the blood. Such test may be given if requested by the employee. If the employee refused such a test, he/she will be presumed to be under the influence of alcohol, in according with provision F.,5,b. of the South Burlington Police Department Rules and Regula- tions, page 1-17. If the employee refuses a test or is found to be positive on an alco-sensor for alcohol, he/she will be placed on sick leave for that shift, pending further action, if any is to follow. Date: August 18, 1982 Approved by the City Council - David E. Minnich, Assistant City Manager Approved by the South Burlington Bolice Association h A- D. Kevin Hayesupresident South Burington Police @ Association