Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/06/1984CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 6, 1984 The South Burlington City Council held a Regular Meeting on Monday, February 6, 1984, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, South Burlington, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Hugh Marvin, Chairman; Leona Lansing, Michael Flaherty, Paul Farrar, William Peters Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; State Senators Peter Welch, Douglas Racine, Dennis Delaney, George Little; State Reps. Robert Chittenden, Howard Dean, Robert Walsh; Commissioner James Walton, Dept. of Corrections; J. Patrissi, John Perry, Dept. of Corrections; Irving Bates, Ed Weed, State Building Division; Richard C. Turner, Supt. Chittenden Correction Center; Vincent D'Acuti, Chairman, Clarice Fisher, John Dusten, Wesley Daum, So. Burlington Corrections Center Liaison Committee; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Richard Carter, Police Chief; Sidney Poger, Planning Commission; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; James Cheng, Burlington Free Press; Betty Bailey, William J. Schuele, Ethel Schuele, Bill Wiese, Peter Gutting, Bob Martineau, Joe Hameline, Louis Bresee, Sandra Dooley, John Dooley, Donald Graf, Jean S. Stone, Duncan Case, William Stone, Walter May, Connie Harrington, George Harrington, Jeanne Kennedy, Janice Wilkins, Robert Wilkens, L.L. D'Acuti, Dan King, Judy Fischer, Bill Collins, Peter Taylor, Roger Gibeault Meet with Legislators to discuss the proposed Correctional Center expansion The Chairman introduced Commissioner Walton who updated plans for the Correctional Center. He stressed that they have been operating the facility in excess of its capacity for a number of years. They have reviewed long and short term needs for space in the State and have determined the need for additional bed capacity for the Northwest Region. He then introduced Bill Wiese of Freeman French Freeman to outline the architectural plans. Mr. Wiese illustrated the following changes and additions to the facility: 1. The relocation of the administrative section near the entrance so there will be no need for visitors to that area to go into the secured area of the center 2. The elimination of windows that can be operated by inmates 3. The subdivision of medium security inmates into 3 groups according to behavior with an observation station that can see into every room in the new addition. 4. Expansion of the women's area from 14 to 18, and subdivision according to character and behavior 5. The use of part of the present garage as a booking area, as it has much better visual control. The addition of another holding cell. 6. The use of a circular circulation system within the secured area, so that groups moving through do no meet. 7. The elimination of outdoor storage, area for food. 8. New access to the custodial area so workers no longer have to go into the secured area. 9. Broader disposition of conference spaces for case workers to interview inmates. 10. Expansion of activities spaces and the addition of more multi-purpose space. The present administrative area will be a classroom. Changes which affect security include: 1. Secured windows all the way around the building 2. Fire exit vestibules with double doors 3. Exterior walls in the medium security area lined with steel plate 4. Additional toilets in the medium security area to minimize circulation of inmates 5. The new addition will be poured concrete 6. Rebuilding of Central Security Control area Mr. Walton stressed that these plans had tried to address many of the concerns the neighbors and Liaison Committee had expressed. Rep. Dean of Burlington then spoke. He said he was interested in the project for two reasons: he is Chairman of the Democratic party and he is also concerned that capital projects go to areas of the state where jobs are needed. He said with regard to the latter concern that jobs are not needed in Chittenden County but are needed in Windsor. He cited the good effort on the part of the City's 3 Representatives to unify the Chittenden County legislators, but said this may not be a good idea as much of the State does not view Chittenden County in a favorable light. He said his tactic has been to get this project put somewhere else. He said there will still be a need for a new facility in Southeast Vermont, and the town of Springfield is interested. They want a District Court House first, however. Politically, he felt, the question is whether or not new beds are going to be added to the penal system this year. If it is determined that new beds are needed, he felt they will undoubtedly come to South Burlington. He said the battleground for debate will probably be the Senate, not the House, There will be a study group to decide whether there should be new programs before new beds. There is a lot of public sentiment to put people away so they can't continue to commit crimes. He summed up by saying he felt the political position to take is that there is no need for new beds. Mr. D'Acuti then reviewed the findings of the Liaison Committee. He stressed the need for programs, not additional beds. He also noted that the City has lost credibility with the State, and when the State says only 50 additional beds, the City is skeptical that it might turn out to be more. Mr. Daum of the Committee added that they are puzzled because the original concept of the building was for low risk inmates prior to their release into the community. He said that this has changed and the facility is a prison, not a correctional center. He added that he did not know what prison population figures to believe. Commissioner Walton advised that as of this date, there were 156 prisoners. The operational capacity is 128 plus 10 segregation beds for population management. When there is overflow, inmates sleep on the gym floor. The proposed addition will have 24 double-bunked cells. Mr. Daum noted that the total sq. footage of the addition will be 20,170 and that according to information of the U.S. Prison System, there should be 450 sq. ft. per inmate, so that in the addition the problem is being compounded by being more than 2,000 sq. ft. short of the need. Commissioner Walton said there is no facility that complies with the recommendation either in the state or probably in the country. Mr. Daum then asked whether federal prisoners are ever housed in the facility. The Commissioner said they are but are never a significant portion of the population. Members of the Council then had an opportunity to speak. Mr. Peters questioned how come they had come this far when the City obviously opposes the expansion in full force. The Commissioner said he is aware of the opposition of the people, Council and legislators, but he is charged with the responsibility of planning the correctional system and it was his opinion that they ought to develop the capability to deal with Chittenden County offenders in a safe and responsible manner. Mr. Peters asked about other parts of the County. The Commissioner said that clearly expansion is not the only way to get extra beds and that in truth they moved away from a new facility because of cost factors. Mr. Farrar said it was his understanding that the present site was chosen because inmates near the end of a sentence could be released back to the community. He could not understand why they were talking about a medium security prison. The Commissioner said that detentioners can't be placed in minimum security space. He said statistics show medium space is needed. Mr. Farrar said the City has been lied to before and there is no reason to believe they won't be lied to again. Mr. Szymanski expressed some environmental and site concerns. Regarding expansion to the west, the city requires 50 foot setbacks from a stream. This expansion is within a few feet of a stream. In addition, part of the parking lot will be within the 150 foot conservation zone from the Interstate. Sewer capacity is also an issue. There is approximately 12,000 gal reserve capacity and as of two weeks ago there was a commercial proposal which would require 37,000 gpd. The sewage facility may thus already be up to capacity. He added that this site is a designated flood plain area as of the survey of 1981, and there could be a disaster in the event of a flood. On another subject, he said he had gotten a call from a resident about the drug problem at the facility. The Commissioner said that with respect to the creek, they will have to go through the zoning procedure, and if there is a problem, will leave it to the engineers to solve, or perhaps get a waiver. Regarding parking, this can be moved. He had no answer for the flood plain issue. Regarding drugs, he said any community correctional facility in the country will have a drug problem, since cavity searches are now illegal without cause. Drugs will come in when there is community contact. Mr. Flaherty noted that 40% of the correctional beds in the State will be in South Burlington if expansion goes through. The Commissioner said that the Northwest region generates 40% of the State's offenders. He also noted that there are two programs in this center not offered anywhere else in the State, those being the women's unit and the sex offenders program. The latter is here because of access to professionals who put together the program. Mr. Flaherty said that in the past they had been told the site was too small to expand, and that the real question here was the integrity of State government. He said there is an obligation to try to keep the promises of one's predecessors. Mr. Farrar said that although circumstances may change, one thing that does not change is people's honor. The Commissioner said he felt certain that those people meant to live up to their promises. He said that while he felt South Burlington has a valid point, they have an obligation to present a reasonable approach to the problem. Mr. Flaherty said that if this is so, why did their reports to the Legislature make only one point -- cost, not obligation to the Community. Senator Welch then addressed the issue. He said it is very important how we deal with crime and punishment. He cited the recent debate over a juvenile facility. In that issue, never did they discuss what kind of facility, what kind of programs; all that was discussed was where it would be. They ended up with a 30-bed facility, costing $30,000 per inmate to maintain when there is already a facility in Waterbury which never has more than 6 inmates in it at one time. He acknowledged that overcrowding is a problem, and that one approach is to build to capacity. But, he added, building has gotten to the point where the Dept. of Corrections is like the Dept. of Building. In 1979, there were 449 beds in the state; now there are 603, not including the juvenile facility. When, he asked does it stop? He said he does not blame the Corrections people, but unless we step back and view the whole situation, the only response will be to build and spend, and this is just a bandaid solution. The cost is immense to build and maintain these facilities. He stressed that the State is now spending $19,900 per year to keep one prisoner in a Correctional facility, while it spends only $894 per year on the education of a child. He felt the time has come to re-examine the policies of the state. Programs such as community service, restitution, etc. do not have adequate resources, and they might keep people out of jail. He said South Burlington should try to broaden the debate so that it becomes the problem of the whole State not only this one city. Rep. Walsh said he agreed with Sen. Welch, but that he also had to look from a more parochial point of view. He and the other two city representatives visited the facility and were appalled at what they saw. Supposedly "double-bunked" rooms had three or 4 in them. In 2 1/2 hours they saw little evidence of programs. The gym was empty and only two or three were in the workshop. What prisoners were doing was watching TV. Conditions were also filthy. He said that he believed that there was not enough rehabilitation in the facility and on that basis would oppose expansion. Marcel Trottier of Willison spoke in favor of expansion. He has been a volunteer since the facility opened. He cited the recent religious weekend at Rock Point and said that the three inmates who walked away from that program could not have done so had there been room for the event at the Center. Mr. Poger, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stressed that the State should follow the laws of the State and submit their proposals to the Zoning Board and Planning Commission. There would then be no debate whether promises were broken or not as there would be binding stipulations which, if broken, would lead to legal action. He didn't feel the State should take an easy way out around city laws. Regarding sewer capacity, the City has been developing the area in a reasonable manner, and that the State would be using the remaining sewage capacity for a tax-free facility. He said the State should thus add money for expansion of the sewage capacity. Jean Stone noted that the original plans sounded ideal, but now all they are hearing is cost effectiveness and beds. Mr. Patrissi noted that they are really talking two projects: expansion and improving the existing facility. He said the fact is that one will not occur without the other. He added that a give and take can exist with regard to the sewage problem. Ms. Picard said that her concern is for tax monies. The facility will use City water, fire police and sanitation which her tax dollars pay for while the State pays nothing. Mr. D'Acuti read a partial list of items needed to upgrade security in the existing facility and expressed concern as to what will happen to these items without expansion. Sen. Delaney said improvements can be done without expansion. Supt. Turner said that whether there are additional beds or not the prisoners will be there. They have had as many as 191. Many local offenders are in Woodstock, Rutland and St. Johnsbury because there is no room for them here. He added that it is his feeling that if the expansion is turned down, the money will go to a new facility in Woodstock and there will be no improvements here. He said they are working on a lot of projects including community projects, outward bound, etc. For him, he stressed, it is a matter of survival. John Dusten said that what should be considered is a new self-standing facility that meets all requirements. Mr. Marvin then thanked the legislators and state officials who had attended the meeting. Comments and questions from the public not related to items on the Agenda Mr. Schuele asked why it was possible for Holiday Inn to replace a non-conforming sign with another non-conforming sign and also asked for an update on the status of the Sign Committee's work. Mr. Szymanski explained that when the courts threw out the section on non-conforming signs, the city was left with no policy in that area. Mr. Poger added that since the non-conforming sign was replaced with a "less non-conforming" sign, Holiday Inn was within its rights, as long as the replacement was done within 6 months. Mr. Marvin noted that the Sign Committee's report will be on the Agenda soon. Mr. Farrar asked if the City Manager could schedule for the next meeting a session with the City Attorney in Executive Session to discuss this issue. Interview candidates for appointment to the Zoning Board of Adjustment The Council interviewed the following candidates with respect to their qualifications to serve on the Zoning Board: Joseph Hemeline, Jr., Daniel King, Donald Graf, Peter Taylor, John Dooley III. Mr. Marvin thanked the candidates and advised that they would be notified of the Council's decision. Adopt Resolution of Commendation for Everett Reed Mr. Farrar moved that the Resolution of Commendation for Everett Reed be adopted and entered into the record. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous consent. Review Zoning Board Agenda Ms. Lansing questioned the second item requesting permission to construct 20 residential units at 65 Patchen Road and 1 Executive Drive. Mr. Farrar said he had a problem with this kind of variance which he felt was a zoning change, not a variance. He noted they are not asking for a "conditional use" but for a "permitted use" which should properly go to the Planning Commission. He said that if the request is for permitted use, they should ask the Zoning Board to turn it down. Mr. Farrar then moved that the City Manager inquire as to the type of variance being requested, and if it is a variance from permitted uses for residential construction that the City Council go on record as opposing this use as it is an improper employment of the zoning variance procedure. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Minutes of January 16, 1984 Mr. Peters advised that in the vote on the entertainment permit for Vinnie's Hot Spot, he had voted against. Mr. Farrar then moved that the minutes of January 16, 1984 be approved as amended. Mr. Flaherty seconded and the motion passed 4-0, Ms. Lansing abstaining. Other Business a) Regarding the letter from Duncan Brown, Mr. Szymanski advised it had been forwarded to the attorney. Mr. Ward has taken traffic counts. b) Regarding the State handling of bidding on road projects, a meeting is being set up between Mr. Graham and Mr. Szymanski. c) Mr. Szymanski advised that engineers are working on figures for possible loss of State and/or Federal funding on the sewage plant project. d) Regarding the Airport signs, Mr. Szymanski said he had received a call today and the State will supply and place the signs. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were signed. Liquor Control Board Mr. Farrar moved that the Council meet as the Liquor Control Board. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Szymanski presented a request from City Nights for small nightclub acts (singers and comedians) Thursday through Saturday, 9 to 11:30 pm. He said they have had no problems with the club. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council approve the entertainment permit for City Nights subject to approval of the fire and police departments. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the Liquor Control Board be adjourned and the Council go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing the appointment to the Zoning Board and labor negotiations and that the City Council reconvene only for the purpose of making the appointment to the Zoning Board. Mr. Farrar seconded with unanimous consent. Following the Executive session, Ms. Lansing moved that the Council appoint Donald Graf to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Farrar seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Farrar then said that since all 5 candidates had been so good, that they be sent a letter specially thanking them for their application and asking if their names can be considered for other appointments. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.