Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/31/1982CITY COUNCIL MARCH 31, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Wednesday, March 31, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. in the Mini-Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Hugh Marvin, William Burgess Member Absent Howard Perkett Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; James Goddette, Fire Chief; Joseph Obuchowski, City Attorney; Pat Bergmeier. The Other Paper; Gary Rounds, Don McKenzie, Gilbert Myers, Street Superintendent Sonny Audette Meet with City Hall Employees Association to continue review of contract Mr. Myers noted that the possibility of a longer term agreement had been discussed. He said the union would be willing to consider that if they could work out other sections of the contract. If such an agreement is made, the union would like to leave open for next year articles X (salary), XII (vacation), XVI (health and welfare), and XVII (retirement). Mr. Marvin asked why vacation had been left in the list and was told that sometimes an out-of-pocket cost could be traded for a cost which was not out-of-pocket. Mr. Burgess did not like that idea - he said he would rather leave the entire contract open, or limit the open issues to money issues. Mr. Myers noted that a longer contract period would hinge on agreement on some of the other issues. Article X was discussed. The union has proposed a 10% increase with a merit raise of 2%. The city proposes 6% and 1 1/2%. Mr. Myers said the union would go with a longer term contract in return for an hour for lunch. They then left the room so the Council could discuss the proposal. When they returned, Mr. Farrar said the city would stick with the 1 year contract - they do not feel that is a good trade. He asked Mr. Myers to explain how the salary and longevity increases the union has proposed would work. He took a hypothetical employee at grade 10, appraisal level 3 who has been in the city for 10 years. The base would be $17,967.60. The union left to figure out the increase under their proposal. When they returned, Mr. Myers said that if the person made $17,967, his/her base would be $15,624. With 10 years with the city they would get a 10% increase on the base, which brings them up to $17,186. Adding the 2% to the delta and then multiplying by 10 years, they come out with $19,649. Taking the difference between what that person would make under the present plan and under the union's proposal, the difference would be $1682, which is overall about a 9.2% increase. Mr. Farrar said another year's longevity would have to be added, so the percentage would be 10.3%, which is the cost to the city. Mr. Farrar said the city had calculated the longevity increase to be $248 and the union had calculated it to be $246 for the person in the example, so that figure is about the same. The city uses an average of 1 1/2% per year for longevity. Mr. Farrar felt the sides were apart by about 3%. The union left the room to discuss this issue. When the union returned, Mr.Farrar noted that the city felt the retirement plan was at 1.3. He said he would call Mr. Ward with the exact references in the minutes. He said the plan was in the process of being corrected. Mr. Farrar said the city would increase their base offer by 1%, bringing it to 7%. He noted that there were increases in the costs of other benefits and that the total cost of the package to the city was significant. The union left to consider this. When they returned, Mr. Myers said it seemed like there had been an administrative error in the retirement plan which meant that this year a significant amount of money had to be made up. In light of that the union will settle for 1.3%. They will also come down to 9% in their salary proposal and leave vacation where it is if they can get the lunch hour. They will leave the longevity figure alone because the two sides are close. Mr. Farrar did not feel this offer was acceptable to the city, and Mr. Myers said that in that case he would like to take up the negotiations again next week. Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. was set as the date. Meet with Fire Chief Goddette to discuss fire trucks Mr. Goddette said that since the last meeting he and a committee had been to New York to look over some fire trucks. One came from Staten Island and was in good shape. He recommends that the city buy it for $25,000 and fix it up, in which case it will last for 20 years, he feels. The cost to buy and fix it would be $53,000, he feels. Mr. Farrar felt a figure of $60,000 should be used in case something unexpected cropped up and he asked if this was the Chief's best estimate of the cost. Mr. Goddette said it was. He said they could get parts for the truck and could do a lot of the work it needed themselves. It is a 1970 truck. Mr. Farrar noted that if the Council was going to make a decision it would have to be at another meeting, which would have to be properly and legally warned. He said that if the Council decided it wanted to buy the truck, it could make an additional appropriation under the Charter limits as of April 1. They can appropriate up to 2% of the budget. If this is done, the ballot question to the voters on fire trucks should be reduced by the amount which would be appropriated. Mr. Szymanski asked how the city would pay for this and Mr. Farrar said they could take it out of the surplus. Mr. Flaherty was concerned about what would happen if the ballot question did not pass - could the appropriation be covered in the regular budget? Mr. Goddette said that if the question did not pass, he could live with the truck with no additional cost in repairs - in other words, just buy it for $25,000. He felt that would be enough to live with for 1 year. Mr. Minnich was not sure the figures the Chief has set out here were correct and was told that the Chief had put down figures he felt sure could be less. Mr. Burgess wanted to be told by both the Chairman and the City Manager that they could find the money needed to buy the truck. He did not think there was disagreement over the need for the truck or over the fact that this was a good deal. It was decided to meet at a legally warned meeting to make a decision on purchase of the truck, and the meeting was set as 8:00 a.m. on Friday. Mr. Goddette was told to call New York and tell them of the meeting tomorrow and that the city would get back to them in 24 hours. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.