Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/06/1982CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 6, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a Regular Meeting on Monday, December 6, 1982, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; William Burgess, Michael Flaherty, Leona Lansing, Hugh Marvin Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Margaret A. Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; David Spitz, City Planner; David A. Kaufman, State Representative, 6-1; Robert Chittenden, State Representative, 6-2; Robert L. Walsh, State Representative, 6-3; John Wood, Joseph Landry, Arthur J. Rock, Jr., Department of Transportation; Dennis Delaney, State Senator-elect; Gloria Yandow, Bookkeeper; Fred Duplessie, Auditor; Thomas A. Fraga, Kevin Hayes, Charles Balserus, Brian R. Searles, Richard G. Carter, South Burlington Police Department; Richard Ward, Danny Parot, Ken Dattilio, Dick Stevens, Wayne Lavertu Paul Joppe-Mercune, Rich Dana, Rick Wood, George Brady, South Burlington Fire Department; Don Melvin, Burlington Free Press; Pat Burgmeier, The Other Paper; Albert C. Audette, Gary Farrell, Judi Hatin, Susan Carosa, Bryan Minder Read Minutes of November 15, 1982 Ms. Lansing moved that the Minutes of the meeting of November 15, 1982 be approved as submitted. Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous approval. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were signed. Highways: a) Discuss Highway needs with local legislators and Department of Transportation members Joseph Landry of the State Department of Transportation enumerated the projects currently approved for South Burlington. These are, in order of priority: a) widening of Williston Road from the City line to the Interstate, b) widening of Williston Road from the Interstate to Hinesburg Road, and c) widening of Dorset Street from Williston Road to Kennedy Drive. Mr. Rock asked whether there was a priority list from the City, and Mr. Szymanski replied that the Dorset Street project was of top priority, with Williston Road from the City Line to the Interstate second, and from the Interstate to Hinesburg Rd. third. Mr. Farrar noted that the priorities of the State and the City are different. He then cited the poor physical condition of Dorset Street and said that repairs must be done soon. Since it doesn't make sense to repair the street and then have to take it up to widen it later, Dorset Street should be the top priority. Mr. Rock said he would transmit this information to the Transportation Board. Mr. Farrar then asked what the time frame might be for the first project to begin. Mr. Landry replied that the Board would take up the question at its December 7th meeting, after which it would go to the Legislature which must approve it. Then, the projects would have to be coordinated with the Federal Highway program. Seventy percent of the money comes from the Federal government, which is now in the process of a new transportation bill, and it is hard to say what this will mean. Williston Road had been scheduled for 1987, but it's difficult to say whether this is still an accurate estimation. Representative Kaufman then indicated he had met at length with Mr. Evslin and the situation, as they see it, is: Since funding for the Southern Connector was not approved by the voters, the message to the Legislature is that the project is not now viable. The City has already spend $293,000 of the original allocation for the Connector. This means that approximately $4,000,000 is now in the 5-year plan with no provisions for its spending. Mr. Evslin believes that in all likelihood the City can "flip-flop" projects and move the Dorset Street and Williston Road projects into that $4,000,000 allocation. Mr. Kaufman said the best case appears to be that the 5-year plan would be updated to include Dorset Street and Williston Road instead of the Southern Connector. Then, if the city gets lucky, some of money may be available to begin work in 1984, so that preliminaries on these projects could be done this summer. The sacrifice the City would be making in that case is that some time in the future there might be renewed interest in a South End project, and the money would not be there. Mr. Kaufman also emphasized that since the defeat of the Connector, other towns and cities would be after that $4,000,000, so it would be prudent for South Burlington to be prepared to request it immediately for the local projects. Since the total of the three projects is estimated at $3,300,000, there may still be money left for other towns and cities in the State. Mr. Spitz asked whether the remaining $700,000 could be put into the Southern Connector. Mr. Rock replied that he did not think it would be a good idea, since it's been voted down and since other areas in the State can use this money for much needed projects. Mr. Kaufman echoed these sentiments, saying that it may mean sacrificing the Southern Connector for the three projects. Mr. Marvin asked whether the defeat of the Connector might damage the City's credibility with the Transportation Board. Mr. Kaufman did not think this would be the case. Mr. Wood said that one of the arguments against the Southern Connector was that South Burlington would not get immediate benefit from it. If can be shown that these three projects will be very beneficial to the Community and that development in the City will be hampered until the projects can be completed. Ms. Lansing added that all three projects represent upgrading of existing facilities rather than building something new. Gary Farrell then made a plea for the Williston Road project from the City Line to the Interstate. He noted that this work has been discussed since 1971. Major land owners on both sides of the road have agreed that land would be deeded to the City, and the Sheraton was confident it could raise at least 10% of the cost. He said that more than 80 injuries have occurred on that stretch of road in the last 12 months, representing 10% of all accidents in the City. He felt that the City could not afford to wait any longer to correct this dangerous situation. Mr. Farrar indicated that one of the concerns of the opponents of the Southern Connector was that it was overdesigned. He asked if the City would be able to get help from the State Highway Commission. Mr. Landry said he didn't know. There have been a few cases where two lanes of a 4-lane facility have been built first. He suggested this concern be addressed to the Secretary. Mr. Farrar said he felt the Council should make a decision on how it felt the Transportation Board should proceed on its behalf. Mr. Burgess then moved that the Council request the priority listing of the four South Burlington projects be revised as follows: 1) Dorset Street from Williston Road to Kennedy Drive, 2) Williston Road from the City line to the Interstate, 3) Williston Road from the Interstate to Hinesburg Road, 4) Southern Connector. Mr. Marvin seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Farrar thanked the legislators and members of the Transportation Department for attending. Highway: b) Review Planning Commission Dorset Street Improvement Policy Mr. Farrar noted that no provision had been made for a bicycle path. Mr. Audette replied that the bike path was not included in this part of Dorset but would start at Kennedy Drive and go south from there. Mr. Farrar also mentioned that power provisions appeared to be above ground. Mr. Szymanski said that the power company had indicated that whoever wants underground wiring would have to pay for it. Mr. Flaherty then moved to approve the Dorset Street plan as proposed by the Planning Commission in its memo of November 30, 1982. Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous approval. Police Union - Grievance hearing before Council (Step 3) per contract Speaking for the Union, Mr. Fraga explained that on the dates in question neither a lieutenant nor a sergeant was available for duty, and a corporal on the shift was made supervisor. In an attempt to fill the corporal's place on the shift, all members on the seniority list were called but all refused the overtime work. It is the Union's position that the last person on the list should have been ordered in, and since this was not done, those men who were not called in were entitled to be paid for those shifts. Mr. Fraga cited a previous grievance, #811 of September 1, 1981, as a precedent. Discussion arose as to whether or not Section 17 of the contract deviates from the procedures in Section 16 and 19, and whether or not a person has the right to refuse to take the shift when called. The Union's contention is that if there is an opening brought about by elevating a corporal to supervisor (specifically covered in Section 17), the city is required to order someone in when all persons on the seniority list refuse the shift. Speaking for management, Mr. Searles said that Section 17 is only a modification of Section 16, and that the City's obligation was to try to fill the position. Since everyone refused the overtime, the City's obligation was over. Mr. Farrar indicated that at the end of the meeting, the Council would discuss the matter in executive session and try to reach an agreement. Continue discussion on Volunteer Firemen insurance benefits Mr. Minnich said that his information was not yet complete and that input from the Council on the direction it wants to go is now needed. One issue that is still not clear is how benefits for volunteers should relate to benefits for paid full-time firefighters. Currently, full-timers would get $80,000; the request from the volunteers is for $100,000. Mr. Minnich indicated there are three areas of concern when someone is injured: medical benefits, continued income while the person is unable to work, and death benefits. The City currently covers volunteers under Workmen's Compensation, so medical benefits are fully paid from the first day of injury. With regard to continued income, the State Legislature has determined that a person's benefits will be the lesser of 2/3 of all earnings or $243 per week. These benefits are not taxable or subject to Social Security deductions. Benefits can continue for up to 330 weeks. After the fifth month, however, Social Security comes into the picture, and an employee can receive no more from the combined benefits of Workman's Compensation and Social Security than 80% of what he would have received had he not been disabled. The issue becomes whether the benefits of Workman's Compensation, Social Security, and the $100 a week insurance disability payment is fair compensation while a person is unable to work. Mr. Minnich said that it seems that for someone earning $20,000 per year, this is fair; so the question becomes whether the Council wishes to supplement benefits for those earning over $20,000 per year. Regarding death benefits, the question is what level of compensation the City wishes to provide and how the rate would be determined for volunteers, many of whom are students with low or no earnings to use as a base. Finally, with regard to income benefit, firefighters currently get $100 per week. They are asking to raise this to $200. The concern is that many insurance companies may choose not to write insurance in which a person can earn more money by not working than by working. In response to this last concern, Mr. Brady said that there are hidden expenses, such as the inability to bid on future jobs, so that in reality a person is not getting more than his salary. Representatives of the Fire Department indicated that the National Union Fire Insurance Company (Leo Titus, agent) had quoted them $2,245 as a premium for all the coverages they are requesting. Mr. Farrar instructed Mr. Minnich to contact the company for a quote and to find out if there are any exclusions in their policy. Accept resignation of Robert Walsh from Planning Commission Mr. Flaherty moved to accept the resignation of Robert Walsh from the Planning Commission upon appointment of a successor and to send him a letter of appreciation for his service. Mr. Flaherty further moved that letters of appreciation be sent to Mary Barbara and to Jeanne Kennedy Maher and that a letter of best wishes be sent to Everett Reed who has been ill. Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous consent. Auditors review of City 1981-1982 audit Fred Duplessie of Sullivan & Powers summarized the recommendations made in their letter of December 6, 1982. Mr. Minnich said that the City should look into implementing these recommendations. He also praised the excellent work of the auditors. Consider appointment of Auditors for 1982-1983 Mr. Minnich recommended reappointment of Sullivan & Powers for the 1982-1983 audit. Mr. Flaherty thus moved that the City renew the contract with Sullivan & Powers contingent upon the stipulations in Mr. Minnich's memo of December 3, 1982. Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous approval. Sign two notes Mr. Flaherty moved that notes in the amount of $13,000 for the highway truck and $9,620 for the Red Rocks project be signed. Mr. Marvin seconded with unanimous approval. Self-analysis by Council on the failure to pass recent bond issues Mr. Marvin suggested that the Council members think about this problem and discuss it at the next meeting. He said it is important to find out what is being done wrong and also to set future goals. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council adjourn and meet as the Liquor Control Board. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Szymanski presented three permit requests: 1) a catering permit for T. Rugg Tavern for a party on Brewer Parkway at the home of Dr. Bradley on December 11, 1982; 2) a request for a liquor license from the Lakeside Tennis Club on Farrell Street; 3) a liquor license request from 2 Cents Plain, a deli-restaurant going into the Grandway Building. Mr. Szymanski said the with regard to the Lakeside Tennis Club, they are $4,000 in arrears in taxes. He called them on Friday and they indicated they would pay today, but had not done so. Mr. Burgess moved that the catering permit for T. Rugg Tavern for December 11, 1982, be approved. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Flaherty moved that the liquor license for Two Cents Plain be approved. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Burgess moved that the liquor license for Lakeside Tennis Club be approved contingent upon the working out of satisfactory terms for payment of back taxes. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Burgess moved that the Liquor Board be adjourned and that the Council go into Executive Session to discuss union contract negotitations, with the only business to be transacted upon reconvening as the Council to be the vote on the union grievance. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous approval. The City Council returned to regular session. Mr. Burgess moved that the Police Association's remedy #1 they seek in grievance #817 be denied because all SBPOA members refused to work overtime on November 13th and 14th, 1982. Mr Flaherty seconded the motion with unanimous approval. The City Administration was requested to draft a letter informing the Police Association of this decision. Mr. Burgess moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Marvin seconded the motion with unanimous approval at 11:15 PM. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TEL. (802) 863-2892 OFFICE OF ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DAVID E. MlNNlCH TO : South Burlington City Council M-embers FROM : David Minnich, Assistant City Manager DATE : December 3, 1982 SUBJECT: Next Year's Audit Agreement On March 1, 1982 the City Council interviewed six area auditing firms for providing services to our City, School and Water Department. Sullivan, Powers and Company was selected for the calendar year 1982 to prepare the June 30, 1982 audit. They were given two (2) options to renew in 1983 and 1984 conditional to: 1.) an understanding that the same partner would review the workpapers in each of the contract years. 2,) compensation for services would not exceed the amount submitted in their original bid response. (Reference Attachment) 3. the firm submits complete and timely audit reports. The City, School and Water DepartmentAdministrations have been pleased with the prompt and comprehensive audit services provided by Sullivan, Powers and Company this past year. In our Audit Services request for proposals dated December 31, 1981 we stated future City Councils would select an audit firm in the month of December for providing the following June 30th audit. Several months advance notice has been found to be in the best interests of all parties. We recommend that you offer Sullivan, Powers and Company an option to perform our audit services in 1983 subject to their accept- ance of conditions #1 and #2 above. (, ; .-,b David E. hinnich Assistant City Manager (1) enclosure SOUTI{ BURLINGTON COVERNM~NTAL AGENCIES - AUDIT SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHMENT I E1AXIMUt.I FEE SUE.W\RY 1 Comprehensive , Annual Audit For Federal Revenue Sharing