Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/18/1983CITY COUNCIL JULY 18, 1983 AMENDMENTS TO MINUTES On p. 5, paragraph 3, the word “solvents should read solids.” On p. 7, in the discussion of tax stabilization, the City Manager was asked to pursue the discussion with the City of Burlington. The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, July 18, 1983, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Hugh Marvin, Chairman; Leona Lansing, Paul Farrar, William Peters Member Absent Michael Flaherty Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Col. Jack Leonard, Vt. Air Guard; Tom O'Donovan, Vt. National Guard; Walter E. Houghton, Director of Aviation, Burlington International Airport; Margaret Picard, City Clerk; Albert C. Audette, S. Burlington Street Department; Donald Whittea, Water Pollution Control Department; Robert Chittenden, S. Burlington Representative; Don Melvin, Burlington Free Press; Jilly Gazda, Robert Leuang, Carl Lavallee, Ann Emery, Howard Kretzer, Jeanne Kennedy, Vincent D'Acuti, Will Barrett, Myles Cahoon, Susan Senger, Tim McCrea, Kenneth Patnaude, Elizabeth Downer, Mabel Hills, Valerie Jerry, Catherine Kashanski, Ann Kirss, Kathy Ploof, Edward Ploof, Jr., John Gray, N. Jean Kenyon, Daniel Kenyon, Jane Bechtel, Patricia Cameron, John Cameron, Phillip Larocque, Louise Larocque, William Schuele, Ethel Schuele, J. Leddy, Richard Fona, J. Daniel Mahoney, William Buleyy, Kathryn Buley, Stan Wilbur, Webster-Martin; Paul Gormsen, State Water Resources Dept.; Steve Stitzel, City Attorney; Lowell Krassner. Read Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 22, 1983 and Special Meeting of July 11, 1983 Mr. Marvin noted that in the discussion of health insurance, it was the opinion of the Council that it was the City Manager's decision as to which company would be chosen. Ms. Lansing moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of June 22, 1983 be approved as amended and that the minutes of the special meeting of July 11, 1983 be approved as written. Mr. Farrar seconded with unanimous approval. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were signed. Meet with representatives of Air National Guard to discuss F-4 flights Ms. Lansing indicated she had had several calls in the past 2 months regarding noise and increased frequency of flights. A letter from Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Dorey of 17 Richard Terrace, So. Burlington (attached) was read into the record. A number of citizens then voiced their concerns. John Cameron indicated that the problem has increased significantly in the last 4 months. Howard Kretzner, a Williston resident, noted that with the warmer weather, the air becomes thicker and this amplifies noise. He said he had tried to get in touch with the Guard but had not been able to find anyone who would listen to his complaints. He said that what bothers him the most is the 360° banking when the planes land. He felt if the planes came in straight there would be less noise. Louise Larocque of Country Club Estates added her feelings that the noise had increased in the summer; Jilly Gazda of Pinetree Terrace expressed concern with formation flying which prolongs the duration of the noise. She said her children are terrified of the planes. She had also been told the planes wouldn't fly on Sundays but have been doing so. Ehtel Schuele of Clover Street indicated they had put in a screened porch but had been unable to use it and had to buy an air conditioner. She added that they cannot hear phone conversations. Ken Patnaude, a Guard member, said the F-89s of several years ago were louder and that the inconvenience is small and people are going overboard. John Gray, who lives at the end of Airport Drive, noted that even before the F- 4' they were told something would be done about the noise. Trees were to be planted and mounds built, but nothing had been done. He noted that the F-4's were taking off at 9:50 Sunday morning. Lowell Krassner of Mayfair Park indicated that had they known about the F-4's they would not have bought their home. The overflight noise is terrible. He said that whatever tests were conducted earlier were not an accurate gauge of what is going on now. He felt the people had been fooled. Will Barrett of Logwood Street said he thought the Guard helicopters were worse than the F-4's since they hover for long periods of time and the F-4's don't. Another citizen addressed the question of formation flying and said that at the initial meeting there was an agreement there would be no formation flying. He noted that planes were flying 300-500 feet apart and asked what the Guard's definition of formation flying was. Vincent D'Acuti of the Airport Commission noted there have been more complaints on helicopters, particularly from people at the north end who say the choppers are "maneuvering" around their homes. Pat Brennan noted that the initial measurements of noise were done with only one F-4, and that there are significantly more of them now, increasing the noise volume. He felt figures should be obtained for multiple events. Tim McCrea a recent newcomer to Airport Drive, noted the planes are taking off 2 to 3 seconds apart. Speaking for the Guard, Tom O'Dnovan answered the objections. He said he found the complaint that "no one would listen" very discouraging since they have made a great effort to try to follow up all complaints. Regarding the planting of trees and other noise deflectors, he said progress has been made and they have done almost all that was required. Work should be finished by mid-summer. He noted they have received only one helicopter complaint for every 10 F-4 complaint. He said there is much more that can be done in the case of helicopters since they have a choice of where they will fly. In answer to Mr. Brennan's point, Mr. O'Donovan noted that they had only one F-4 when the tests were made. Also speaking for the Guard, Col. Leonard said it is probably true there are more flights than usual. They now average 10-12 flights a day and one weekend a month. Regarding formation flying, he said they had agreed not to have formation take-offs and landings, and that their planes take off 10 seconds apart. He added that it is their practice to join up over the lake. It is necessary as part of their training to fly in a buddy system for safety of the pilots. He noted that in the summer it is warmer and people have windows open. He said that increased noise in the last few months is more due to temperature than to increased flights. Regarding the 3600 overheads, he noted that there is no maneuvering during this procedure. The planes just peel off and land. He claimed it would be noisier if they came straight in from the lake. He said at landing they are at about 82% of maximum power and the noise is nothing like the takeoff noise. Regarding Sunday flying, he said they usually don't take off until 1 PM. He added that no more than 10% of routine departures are before 8 AM or after 8 PM. He acknowledged that the initial noise survey had been done with one aircraft. Regarding noise abatement projects, he noted that the hush house is complete and is being tested. It should be operational this week; however, you can't take off with it. The blast fence is 80% complete and should be finished later in the year. He noted that 340-350 trees had been planted mostly on the Country Club side of the airport. In answer to a question of what had been done on the north side of the airport, Mr. O'Donovan said nothing had since they do not own the other side. A resident asked if testing was done at 2AM? Since they had heard enging revving at that hour. Col. Leonard said they don't have enough people on the base for that time period and they never take off before 8 AM. Mr. Marvin asked if there is anything we can hope to improve. The Colonel replied they have done everything in their power to change flight patterns and aid in noise abatement. Mr. O'Donovan added they will try to deal with the helicopter problem. Ms. Lansing then asked for a log of the past years take offs and landings. Mr. Marvin advised residents that when they have a specific complaint, such as 2 AM noises, they should make themselves heard immediately to airport or Guard officials. Mr. D'Acuti noted that there are now 11 airlines at the airport. Much maintenance work is done between midnight and 6 AM. They are not supposed to rev engines then, but an occasional "hot shot" may be breaking this rule. This should be reported to the airport the next day so the culprit can be tracked down. Mr. Schuele addressed the Council, summing up the issues. He said tests were done with a single plane and there are now 14 planes; citizens were led to expect noise abatement now, not in 25 years when the trees have grown; there is definitely more noise in recent months, regardless of the source. He said their concerns were "piddled off" at the initial hearing, but that the impact on South Burlington has been greater than what was indicated. Mr. Marvin suggested that Ms. Lansing, Mr. Schuele, the Colonel and the Assistant Adjutant General sit down and see what can be done about the problems. Colonel Leonard stressed that there is one flying unit of the Guard per state, by law. This is the only airport in Vermont big enough for the operation. He noted they fit in directly with the regular Air Force, only they are cheaper and better. They have at least 25 years experience on the flight line. Mr. Peters asked to go on record as supporting the effort and mission of the plan. Mr. Krassner stated that the true test of the operation has been going on for over a year now. The community has found it very inconvenient and disturbing. He added that if there is no way found to solve the problems, it should be requested that the operation be terminated. Mr. Marvin asked the Guard representatives to come back the third week in August and let the Council know if anything can be done about the citizens' concerns. Continue review of Agreement for upgrading Airport Parkway Sewage Treatment Plant Stan Wilbur, the City Consulting Engineer, and Paul Gormsen of the State Water Resources Department were introduced. Mr. Marvin first posed the question of what would happen if the voters were to turn down a bond issue for the project. Would the City be liable for what has been paid out till now and would we lose the 75-15% with the State. Mr. Gormsen said that additional bond votes can be held and the project could be modified, if necessary. The State would wait till a third vote before taking any action. He noted that on occasion, the EPA has forced municipalities to comply. He added that funds are being reduced, and that if construction were to begin in October '84, as now indicated, the Federal share would be only 55%. It is anticipated that the State share will then be 25% which will leave the City with a 20% share. He added that if one of the other scheduled projects were to be delayed and South Burlington could get its bond issue approved in time, the City might have a chance to get in under the 75% Federal share. Mr. Farrar asked if there were a possibility of mixed funding. Mr. Gormsen said it could be done but you have to have an identifiable segmenting scheme. Mr. Peters asked what the $2,697,000 represented on the tax dollar. Mr. Minnich estimated a 14¢ change, which Mr. Farrar estimated at $100 on the average assessed house. Mr. Farrar asked when the bond issue would have to be passed to get in under the 75%. Mr. Gormsen said before October '84. Mr. Farrar said that would mean the election of May, 1984. Mr. Marvin asked if the design could be completed by October, '84. Mr. Wilbur said they can have the design complete as soon as needed, provided the contract is signed to go ahead. Mr. Gormsen indicated the design must be complete in order to get the grant. Mr. Farrar then moved that the City Council sign the agreement with the contractor. Mr. Peters seconded for purposes of discussion. Mr. Peters asked how much the design work will cost the City. Mr. Szymanski estimated about $100,000. Mr. Marvin noted that if the City does not sign the contract they are giving up the chance for the design to go forward and there may be difficulty making the October, 1984 date. Our permit may also be in jeopardy. Mr. Szymanski noted that the City's landfill certification is also contingent upon this, and that projects are now being held back because of inadequate sewer space. Ms. Lansing expressed concern about burdening tax payers with the cost of future development. Mr. Krassner asked whether it would be possible to pay the cost from user fees rather than by a bond issue. Mr. Farrar said it would but the Federal Government would then not participate and it would cost twice as much. Mr. Peters asked why an $8,000,000 facelift is needed. Mr. Whitten explained that they are now doing only primary treatment and the federal requirements now are for secondary treatment. He added that they have only a temporary permit to discharge into the Winooski River. They are now just removing 30% bod and 50% solvents. The new plant would achieve 90% removal. Mr. Farrar said the city really had no choice but to sign the agreement. In the vote which followed Mr. Farrar and Mr. Marvin in favor of signing the agreement, Mr. Peters and Ms. Lansing against. Mr. Marvin expressed the feeling that they had been elected for the good of the people. He said that if they delay, they may be costing the tax payers money that could be avoided if we can come in under the 75% federal share. Mr. Krassner indicated he had no objection to paying for the upgrading, but he felt the increased capacity cost should be borne by the people who build new projects. Mr. Farrar noted that the cost of expansion was minimal compared to the upgrading cost. Mr. Peters moved to table discussion until the next meeting. Ms. Lansing seconded and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Peters said he was not against the project but needed time to talk with those concerned. Final Reading of Peddlers Ordinance Mr. Farrar moved that the Council waive reading of the Peddlers Ordinance in its entirety. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Krassner raised the question of ice cream trucks with amplified chimes. Mr. Szymanski noted that "loud noises" which create a public nuisance were prohibited. Mr. Stitzel indicated that such cases can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He also advised that upon adoption of the ordinance the Council might wish to suspend the starting date in order to set up a fee schedule. It was noted that Burlington's fee schedule had been obtained and was attached for members consideration. Mr. Farrar then moved the City Council approve the Peddlers Ordinance as drafted. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Farrar then further moved that the Council adopt the fee schedule as outlined in Mr. Ward's memo of June 1, 1983. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Complete appointments to Boards & Commissions Mr. Szymanski noted that Mrs. Perkett had been appointed to the Library Commission instead of the Fine Arts. Mr. Farrar moved that Mrs. Emery be appointed to the Library Commission and Mrs. Perkett to the Fine Arts Commission. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Szymanski advised that Fred Blais and Rep. David Kaufman had asked to serve on the Corrections Liaison Committee. He noted that Mr. Blass had served on the original committee. Mr. Farrar moved that Fred Blais and David Kaufman be appointed to the Corrections Committee. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Vincent D'Acuti, whose name had been omitted earlier, also was appointed to the Corrections Committee. Review Charges to Correctional Liaison Committee Mr. Marvin presented a suggested list of duties for the Correctional Liaison Committee (attached). After some discussion, item 2 was changed to read: "Meet with members of prior Committee to obtain their input." Mr. Farrar then moved that Mr. Marvin's suggestions of July 18, 1983 be accepted with the modification of section 2. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Sign Renewal Note for Landfill Compactor Mr. Szymanski explained the note was for $23,187, representing the balance owed. The note is for one year at 7.35% interest and is with the Chittenden. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council sign the note as presented by the City Manager. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Farrar then suggested it would aid the Council if they could have a list of all outstanding notes. The City Manager said he would provide one. Consider Freeze on City Employee Hiring Mr. Farrar moved the City Council request the City Manager to place a two month freeze on hiring, or until such time earlier than that he recommends the freeze be lifted. Mr. Peters seconded. Mr. Chittenden questioned whether this would affect part time summer help. Mr. Farrar said it was an across the board freeze but that summer temps were already hired and fall temps would come after the two months. Mr. Ward asked whether it was the intention not to replace the City Planner. He said this would put an undue burden on his office. Mr. Audette noted that he has a man retiring in August and would have to pay time and a half if he were not replaced. He noted that he has a union contract to abide by and can't just move people around at will. Mr. Farrar said that they would hope to have an idea of how to proceed before the two month freeze period is up. This might mean increasing the budget, transferring personnel, or changing budget allocations, or some combination of these. Ms. Lansing said she felt it was a mistake to go without a Planner for even two weeks. Mr. Farrar said that if there was a proposal in 2 weeks, they could act on it. Mr. Audette said he hoped each department was consulted as to where money could be saved other than eliminating people. In the vote which followed, the motion passed 3-1 with Ms. Lansing voting no. Ambulance Response Mr. Marvin brought to the Council's attention a letter from UVM rescue noting changes in boundaries for UVM and Burlington ambulances. He said the letter indicated there might be a 3 or 4 minute slower response to South Burlington because of this. It was suggested that the City Manager look into the situation. Tax Stabilization Mr. Farrar noted that as part of the settlement with Burlington they asked if we would discuss a tax stabilization agreement. We had agreed. He suggested we should call them to see where the matter stands. Mr. Szymanski said they should take the initiative if they want a break. Mr. Minnich indicated the City Attorney has thoughts of his own and they are in the process of getting proposals together. They should have something concrete in the fall. Executive Session Mr. Farrar then moved that the Council go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing union negotiations and to return to regular session only for adjournment. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Chittenden then asked if the Council had a guideline as to what can be discussed in Executive Session as the legislature is discussing limiting the uses of such sessions. Mr. Szymanski said there are specific instances in which the Council goes into Executive Session, including union/labor contracts, personnel matters, purchase of land. The City Council came out of Executive Session at 10:30 PM and by motion of Mr. Farrar and seconded by Ms. Lansing adjourned immediately. All were in favor. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. RECEIVED / '7 1.. JUL 1 8 1983 .A.& MEMORANDUM ---------- To: South Bur lington City Council From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re : Suggested chavges to Correctional Liaison Cormhi ttee Date: 7/14/83 1) Investigate the compelling reasons the State wants to expand the facility since it appears that it is not a long term solution to the overcrowding conditions. 2) If expansion occurs, how will it be accomplished and what are the projections at which time the facilitites will again need expansion. 3) Review the overcrowding conditions. 4) Review the staffing guard-prisoner ratio. 5) Review policy on work release, parole, and duration of confinement. 6) Review prisoner confinement activities, education, work within facilities, and recreation. 7) Review physical conditions of the facilities especially maintenance and security . 8) Is State funding sufficient to properly operate and maintain the facilities. 9) Any others. 10) Report to Council within a reasonable time say 6 mnths. Correctional Liaison Committee The Suggested Duties of the Committee 1. Review tkle conditions under which the present Correctional Center was originally built. a. Its capacity as built. b. The total housed at different times during the last twelve months. c. The type of inmate that was to be sent there at that time, d. The actual type served as to crime, length of sentence, I and location of his home. v>~eet with members of Committee to obtain their input. - -- .- - 3. Review resent oractices. - - --.",*..- --,'-#.----+ a. staffing guard-prisoner ratio. b. Work release yolicy. c. Prisoner confinement activithties, work required of in- mates, educational and recreation opertunities. d. Maintenance & security of the present facility. e. Is the state fund.ing sufficient to properly operate and maintain the facility? 4. Review if land use is satisfactory to our present Zoning regulations. a. Effect the overcrowd.ing has had. on the Bartlet Bay Sewer Plant. Check our 3lant Manager. b. What vrouli: T~).ri;:lz.r expansion d.o to this plant? 5. Investigate the compelling reasons why the state wishes to expand the facility. a. How long would such an expansion take care of the need? b. Is the Correctional CenkBr aware of the twenty and thirty year forcasts of yopulation growth in Chittend.en Count&? c. Is this a short term solution as proposed. by the state? d. What is a long term solution of say twenty years? 6. Develope a decision on the part of the committee as to what is best for the city of' South Burlington and the County.with reasons to back yolxr decision. 7. Report to the Cou11ci.l by December 1, 1983 the recornmend.atio:ll of the committee as to the proposed expansion of the Corectional Center. 8. Have an organization meeting within seven d.ays of the date a of this charge. Furnish period.2~ reports to the council as to progress.