Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/30/1996CITY COUNCIL 30 SEPTEMBER 1996 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, 30 September 1996, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: William Cimonetti, Chair; James Condos, David Austin, Terrence Sheahan Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Peg Strait, Assistant City Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Wallace Possich, Fire Chief; Gary Rounds, Fire Department; Micque Glitman, AOT 1. Further Discussion on Status of Tower Truck & Options: a) Report from Fire Truck Committee b) Consideration of Approval of Warning & Resolution for November Ballot: Mr. Cimonetti noted an error on the Agenda in which an Executive Session was scheduled. Members felt this should not be held. Mr. Hafter noted the Truck Committee had submitted its report. Mr. Cimonetti asked the Fire Chief to discuss the figure of $196,000 for costs on the current tower truck. Chief Possich said the figure is possibly higher as there are 6 years worth of maintenance records he could not find documentation for. The figures include the initial cost of the tower truck and maintenance and repair costs during its service. Mr. Cimonetti asked where the authorization for repairs came from. Firefighter Rounds said the first $80,000 came from Equipment and Repairs budgets. He noted that was the first time those funds had ever been used. Mr. Hafter added that the most recent repairs came from the operating budget. $25,000 was a Council approval for the automatic transmission. Mr. Hafter noted that no funds had come from voter-approved bond issues. Chief Possich then listed 6 tower trucks that he knows of that are or were recently on the market. One has been sold. One is too old. Of the 6, the best option seems to be a 1990 E-1 located in Pennsylvania. The cost would be $425,000. It is fully compliant with regulations and is available immediately. Videos were then shown of 2 of the available vehicles. Chief Possich discussed the differences between the 2 trucks and their potential replacement schedules. The E-1 would cost a total of $578,000 payback, or $8.28 per year per average household. Chief Possich noted that Councilman Chittenden had met with the Truck Committee and was still convinced he would rather fix the old truck than replace it. The Chief then got the lowest possible prices for fixing the truck to run when needed only. For certification only, it would cost a minimum of $4,600 and a maximum of $15,000. Repairs beyond this minimum would cost between $23,000 and $34,000. This would be from a local repair company and would take less time unless new cylinders are needed. Then it would take at least 6 months. Mr. Cimonetti felt the money spent to make the truck certifiable would be recouped in resale value. Chief Possich said he had asked a broker what the city could get today and what it could get if the truck were fixed. If nothing is done, the broker estimated $5- 6,000. If it is in reasonable roadworthy condition, he estimated up to $30,000. Mr. Hafter said this represents another possible option: do fewer repairs, just enough to get the truck in service for a year. That would give a return in resale value. Mr. Sheahan said that is assuming nothing else goes wrong with the truck. Firefighter Rounds noted they have had to alter the way they set the truck up due to corrosion. If the frame is cracked, it could be a danger to persons in it. Mr. Hafter asked what inspecting the truck costs. Chief Possich said $800 if the inspector comes up to do a number of vehicles in the area. More if he just comes up to do one. Mr. Hafter felt if the truck is going to be used, it should be inspected more frequently. Firefighter Rounds then showed the apparatus replacement schedule and a chart of comparative costs of a new vehicle, the 1985 and the 1990 used vehicles. Mr. Austin said it sounded like the 1990 meets most of what the Department is looking for. Firefighters felt the major difference with the 1990 and newer models is the ease of setting up. They are self-leveling, have improved jacking capability, increased water flow and more safety systems. The ease of training people to use the truck is also a very real concern because new people are being brought into the Department all the time. Mr. Cimonetti asked what the Department feels about repairing the present truck and putting it in service. Firefighters felt it would be a lucky thing to break even. They would still have safety concerns because of the truck's age. They wouldn't be sure that the next time they set it up similar defects might occur. Firefighter Rounds added that if the truck is put into service, they would have to train people to use it, so it would not be used only on an "as needed" basis. Mr. Sheahan felt that based on what he had heard, he felt it would be a waste to spend money on the truck. It is 25 years old. He felt a new or used tower truck should be purchased. Mr. Condos quoted from the Minutes of May 15, 1995 regarding the need to replace the tower truck. He agreed with Mr. Sheahan. He noted the city has a prior history of truck collapse with a Firefighter being injured. He felt the issue should go to the voters. Mr. Austin said the 1990 truck sounds like a substantial upgrade from what the city has today. He felt the city should make an attempt to secure this truck if inspection proves it worthy. Chief Possich noted the 1990 is being replaced by 2 vehicles. If they have not sold it by the time bids go out for the new trucks, they will contract it as a trade-in. Regarding a security deposit, it would be up to the Mayor and the Lancaster City Council to decide on that, but the Fire Chief felt it could be worked out. Mr. Austin asked if the Chief felt the 1990 was a good deal. The Chief said based only on fact sheets and the video, he would say it is. Firefighter Rounds felt they had gotten honest information and that it is a nice truck. Chief Possich added that he had no recollection of ever seeing so new a truck being offered for sale. He felt that if the Council agrees to a bond issue for $425,000 with this truck in mind, it should be inspected as soon as possible. Mr. Condos moved that the warning as presented for the City of South Burlington Special Meeting be approved with the accompanying Resolution, filling in the dollar amounts to $425,000.00. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed 3-1 with Mr. Cimonetti opposing. 2. Further Discussion of Proposed Memorandum of Agreement Reference Passenger Rail Project & MPO Meeting of 9/30/96: Mr. Cimonetti said he felt they were spending a lot of time around a lot of words. He also felt the city needs an assurance of safety of crossings in South Burlington and the assurance of the State that at least during the demonstration phase there will be no expense to the city. Mr. Condos said he is more concerned that the AOT is trying to put something over on the city. They say it won't cost a penny, but the city pays $170,000 a year for CCTA. That is the only system in the state that is not covered by state funds. Mr. Condos was also concerned that it took over a year to get a response to a letter he had written to the state, and even that doesn't seem like a sincere response. Mr. Cimonetti asked Ms. Glitman if the city would like a memo saying that there will be created a quiet zone, that safety will be insured, and that there will be absolutely no cost to the city, should such a memo be written. Ms. Glitman said she thought that had been done, that changes had been made based on the community's comments. She said she would be glad to work out a separate agreement with the city that accomplishes those ends. She noted that with regard to safety, they are relying on the FRA to insure safety. She added that they want to engage in discussion with the municipalities on other issues (station design, parking, etc.). Mr. Condos asked why the AOT is so against liability at the crossings. Ms. Glitman said it will involve a change in Legislation and the AOT cannot agree to hold the start of the project based on waiting for the Legislature to move. Members agreed not to accept the current draft for the stated reasons. Mr. Cimonetti noted the Shelburne Selectboard had authorized the signing of this draft and an independent agreement between Shelburne and the State. They did it because they were afraid it would never come to pass and they would not get the crossing improvements and assurances if they didn't sign. Mr. Condos asked the status of the South Burlington station. Mr. Cimonetti said the state agency has said they are not able to site a station and want to do something in the future. Mr. Cimonetti questioned whether the State would sign an agreement that the project won't start without a station in South Burlington. Mr. Condos noted the city had identified a site for a station and the state has done nothing about it. He added that businesses are already going in that area. Mr. Hafter raised the question of the local share after the demo project and whether South Burlington would have to participate then. Mr. Cimonetti said no one can make the city do that. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.