Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/17/1974SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 17, 1974 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting in the City Hall Conference Room, Williston Road, on Monday, June 17, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. Chairman Flaherty opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Michael Flaherty, Catherine Neubert, Paul Farrar, William Cimonetti and Duane Merrill MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator, Frank Breen, Daniel J. O'Brien, Fred Calcagni, Paul Graves, Donald Marriott, Kathleen Kelleher, David M. Ellis, Nancy Grucza, Lee Maynard, Jack Tabaka, Frank McCaffrey, Jim Maynard, Keith Toutant, Paul Zerr, Bob Cohn, Sonny Audette, Ray Unsworth SIGN DISBURSEMENT ORDERS Chairman Flaherty reminded the Council members that there were disbursement orders on the table to be signed. READING OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 3, 1974 MEETING It was stated that there was a correction in the minutes of the June 3, 1974 meeting as follows: on the first page under 16. "a resolution commending high school students who have helped to clean up Red Rocks", and then the resolution on Page 7 should read: "Mrs. Neubert made a motion to approve the resolution commending Mr. Pickard and Mr. LaTulippe and the middle school students who worked at Red Rocks." Mr. Farrar made a motion to accept the minutes of the meeting of June 3, 1974 with the corrections noted. Mr. Cimonetti seconded said motion which passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONE CHANGE REQUEST, PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUMS Mr. Flaherty read the notice of the proposed zone change that is proposing a change from BPD to R4. It was stated that the Planning Commission has passed this proposal. Mr. Flaherty asked for any discussion. Mr. Farrar made a motion to accept the proposed zone change from BPD to R4. Mr. Merrill seconded said motion. Mr. Cimonetti stated that the City Council members had toured the site. He stated he is interested in learning where the building would take place with respect to existing residential buildings. He also stated the land abuts land presently zoned R4, most of which is Rice High School property. It was stated that public lands such as high schools are zoned residential. Mr. Calcagni stated the R4 extension is all of the area including Hadley Road, last two houses on White place. It was stated the land is not continuous. Daniel O'Brien stated the area is surrounded by R4 – Agr, which lends itself to residential development. The adjoining property is now undeveloped but is zoned residential and could be developed residential under our existing Ordinance. He stated the greatest part of the perimeter is contiguous with Rice High School, the Interstate and University property, Mr. O'Brien stated that the University may use their property for residential development in the future. Mr. Farrar stated that on visiting the site he was impressed with the amount of noise from the Interstate and he wondered about constructing dwellings that close to the Interstate. Mr. O'Brien stated there is no question about noise from the Interstate and stated there was noise from the Airport. He stated that if the developer complies with all of the requirements, they are doing everything possible. Mr. Calcagni stated that he has been involved with other developments close to noise factors. There was discussion, re: 40 foot right of way to Rice High School. There was also discussion, re: fence along the road and such is in the deed registered at City Hall. Mr. Calcagni stated the fence will be on the north and northwest. The road will go between the Guide lines and Rice High School. There was discussion, re: a 30 foot street. Sidewalks have been recommended by Mr. Szymanski - possibly asphalt on the north side of the road that would be following the right of way from the cul de sac to the property. There was more discussion about the location of the sidewalks. Mr. Ward stated that if the zone change is approved on this date, it will take effect in 21 days. There was discussion, re: children in the area which is a business district, sidewalks from the cul de sac to Farrell St. Mr. Cimonetti asked if there was a likelihood of running Joy Drive to Spear Street. Mr. Farrar stated that if this is residential, it should not be a through street. Mr. Farrar stated that the real question is, the land better used for residential or business. He stated he had some questions re: noise and location. It has good things to offer as a residential neighborhood, and he stated he thinks that it is better suited for residential. Mrs. Neubert stated that if she had an area such as this, given the lay out, she would see it developed along the line, re: corporate business structures. She would much prefer to see it developed the way it has been developed such as Allard Associates, Prouty Bldg. etc. She is disappointed in the planning in that respect. Mr. Merrill stated he is concerned with the economic effect on the community in going for residential but they do not have information, re: economic effect of this complex on the town. He stated there will be children and this is something that should have been received (information, that is) from the Planning Commission. Mrs. Neubert stated it was not the perrogative of the Planning Commission to supply such information. Mr. Farrar stated before the City Council is the perfectly proper place to answer those questions. There was discussion, re: proposed development effect on taxes, etc. Mr. Cimonetti asked if there was a way this could be developed for the Council before the zone change is approved. Mr. Flaherty stated the Council can only do it on it own basis. It was stated the Council could get figures from Prof. Nadworny, etc. Mr. Cimonetti asked if we could table this until information could be obtained. Mr. Ward stated there could be other hearings. Mr. Flaherty stated that the reasons the Planning Commission approved this zone change were very good. He discussed traffic control, if business area, need of dwellings in the City and the problem of traffic. Mrs. Neubert stated there isn't anyone to give information, re: tax basis. Mr. O'Brien stated that the higher cost of apartments, the lesser number of children of school age. These condominiums will be higher than apartments and assessed higher than apartments. He stated there will be tax returns on file in the Clerk's office to document sales. He stated that quality apartment houses and to a greater degree condominiums do better for the community. This particular project should be an economic plus for the City. Mr. O'Brien stated he would bring to the City Council's attention that Mr. Haas has had governmental approval since January and approved twice by the Planning Commission, and was passed on sound planning principles. It was again stated that the Planning Commission recommended the zone change. Questions have been asked and the developer has to the best of its ability answered all the questions. Mr. O'Brien stated he would respectfully request that this project not get hung up until there is something serious in contention. Mr. Cimonetti stated that what Mr. O'Brien said makes sense. He doesn't feel it is the job of the City Council to pass judgment on the development - their task is to decide the best use of the land - residential or BPD. And, Mr. Cimonetti stated he is not yet convinced residential is to the best interest of the City. Mr. Flaherty asked for a vote on the motion by Mr. Farrar. Mr. Cimonetti and Mrs. Neubert voted against the motion. Mr. Farrar and Mr. Merrill voted for the motion. Mr. Flaherty voted for the motion. Thus, the motion passed for the proposed zone change. Mr. Flaherty stated there was a petition, re: a vicious dog, which he wanted to add to the agenda. Mr. Szymanski told about the dog who had bitten two children. He stated the dog has been sent to Richmond. It was stated that the dog in question has left the City and there is no use for the petition at this time. It was stated, however, that Mr. Marriott asked that the petition be presented before the Council. It was stated that the Veteranarian who took care of the dog wanted to be present at the hearing. Mr. Szymanski stated he has checked with the hospital and the dog has left the City. Mr. Marriott stated he believes that on the Monday of the last City Council meeting he had asked what could be done and he was told to petition. He stated he completed the petition on June 4th and called Mr. Flaherty and he said he would deliver it to Mr. Szymanski. He was informed at that time that three days later the Council was to take action and they had to take action within three days of submission of the petition. Tonight, is the first time the Council has been exposed to the petition. It was stated that the petition means nothing if the dog is gone and Mrs. Neubert stated that we are remiss on this. Mrs. Neubert stated she doesn't like the idea of a dog having bitten children and then released to another community. We have an obligation to protect people from a vicious dog. Mr. Maynard, owner of the dog, stated that at no time did he try to change any form of law in the town. He stated he consulted with his attorney and he stated that the City had no jurisdiction over the dog. He felt he had an obligation to follow this through and his Veteranarian had nothing to gain and still emphasized this is not a vicious dog. Mr. Maynard stated that the nurse involved was just as willing to testify to that fact. Mr. Maynard stated the Vet was willing to come before the Council to discuss this. He stated he discussed it with both parties - he had a legal right to keep the dog, but being a responsible citizen he stated many do not feel the dog is vicious, and to be fair he was willing to give the dog away. He stated he was subjected to very strong abuse by one party. He wanted to effect a compromise which was rejected. He stated he suspects the dog was provoked. He also stated he had talked to the City Manager - there was no problem if the dog was moved. Mrs. Neubert asked where the biting took place. She read that the last bite was on June 2nd. The dog was loose at both times. Mrs. Neubert stated that if the dog was loose, the Council can take action. There was discussion, re: Veteranarian involved and his professional opinion. Mrs. Neubert stated that a dog who bites children should not be released to another community. Mr. Flaherty stated that this report should be sent to the people in Richmond. Mr. Marriott stated his daughter is 4 years old and small - the dog was in his yard and there are five stitches in the hand and 4 puncture wounds on the back of the hand. He stated he would be hard placed to define if the dog was not vicious. Mr. Marriott stated he wanted a copy of the petition to be a part of this record. He would request that tighter laws in this area should be established - the laws are now loose and the way it is handled is loose. He would also like this report filed in the House of Representatives of Vermont. He thinks such legislation should be enacted in the future to avoid such things. Mr. Maynard stated that after the dog bit the child he was taken to the Animal Hospital. There was discussion, re: dog biting twice and then taken away. Mr. Flaherty stated that there is nothing the Council can do except to pass on the information to the Richmond police and the new owner of the dog. Mrs. Neubert stated she would like emergency measures taken about dogs biting people. There was discussion, re: dogs being confined immediately after it has bitten someone; it has to be confined immediately. Mr. Marriott stated that legislation is inadequate. He stated it should be confined in a hospital. Mr. Maynard stated he resents the insinuation he didn't act promptly in this case. He stated he certainly did not want this to happen. There was discussion, re: killing an animal when it attacks domestic animals but not people. DISCUSSION ON FREE BUS SERVICE PROPOSAL FOR SENIOR CITIZENS Mr. John Dooley was present and is a member of the Mayor's Committee in Burlington. He stated the purpose of the Mayor's Committee is to improve services in the City of Burlington; they want to improve transportation services available. They are particularly interested in the number of elderly and disabled individuals with the need for public transportation. He stated they looked for funding and came up with Federal money under the Social Security Act. He stated people under Medicaid are eligible. He also stated the income standards are outlined under Section III. The CCTA would sell to the Dept. of Social and Rehabilitative Services tokens to be used by these eligible people. They would sell these to the State and the State would distribute these to eligible people. In order to get this money, it is a 3/4 – 1/4 program. They need 25% of the cost. A cost of $40,000.00 was put on the program. They need about $5,000.00. They want to ask cities and towns who are members of the CCTA to contribute. Burlington has 71%, So. Burlington has 3% and they believe the total cost for So. Burlington would be $150.00 per year. They cannot give good hard figures. There was discussion, re: decline of subsidy from the towns with so many extra riders. Mrs. Neubert asked how our local people would get the tokens. It was stated they would call the Dept. of Social and Rehabilitative Services. It was stated this is only for Medicaid people. Mr. Farrar asked about the administrative costs relative to the benefits that are going to be given. There was discussion, re: Medicaid. Mr. Cimonetti stated that they have probably looked to many other mechanizations to provide this service. He asked if that would have turned out to be a more costly program without being tied up in the bureacracy. It was stated that they chose this way because it was the best way to get Federal funding. Mr. Farrar stated he has no objection but the method is so cumbersome. There was discussion, re: giving a person a badge which would be good for the rest of his life instead of shuffling tokens. There was discussion, re: rejection of just using a Medicaid Card. The bus company did not want to get into the position where their drivers had to write down Medicaid numbers. Mr. Flaherty asked when the $150.00 was due. It was stated it would probably be in the middle of July before it can be started. Mr. Farrar made a motion to fund the Proposal for Free Transportation to the Aged, Blind and Disabled in the Burlington area on Chittenden County Transportation Authority busses with an appropriation of not more than $200.00 for the present fiscal year. Mrs. Neubert seconded said motion which passed unanimously. CONSIDER REQUEST OF JAYCEES TO HOLD A CARNIVAL AT ZAYRE'S Mr. Paul Zerr and Mr. Robert Cohn were in attendance. Mr. Zerr read the proposal to hold a carnival at Zayre's and also had the site plan. The carnival would run from August 12, 1974 to August 18, 1974 and is promoted by Amusements of America. There was some discussion, re: site plan. It was stated that the Burlington, Montpelier and So. Burlington Jaycees are going together on this carnival. The site proposed is the damp property adjacent to Zayre's parking lot. Mr. Szymanski stated that in the past there were problems because of lights and there is now a requirement to post bonds, etc. Also before, Mr. Szymanski stated there was a problem of clean up. Mr. Ward stated that the site is going to be a problem. He stated that the Rand Corp. is going to till the land and seed it. The wet area is going to be re-seeded. Mr. Zerr stated that Zayre has been contacted. Mr. Cohn stated they are going to put the carnival all on the unpaved area. They are going to grade the little lake. This will allow for parking cars on the parking area. Mr. Ward was asked if there was a deadline on the grading by Rand Corp. The deadline was May 23, 1974. Mr. Cimonetti wanted to know more about the proposed operation. Mr. Cohn explained about Amusements of America and stated it was rated as one of the top ten carnivals in the U. S. He stated they are just beginning to come up north. Mr. Cimonetti asked if any requests will be made for alcoholic beverages. There will be none. Mr. Cohn stated TV spots and radio time has been purchased tentatively. Mr. Cimonetti asked if they would be hiring special police protection. It was stated that they would consult with the Chief of Police. It was stated they will hire extra police, if necessary, and he, Mr. Cohn, would assign extra police at their expense. Mr. Farrar moved to approve the request of the Jaycees to hold a carnival at Zayre's, contingent that the site is available. Mr. Cimonetti seconded said motion which passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ON SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS Mr. Merrill disqualified himself in this matter. Mr. Flaherty read Section 5 (i) which will read as follows: Section 5 (i) of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of So. Burlington is changed so that the first sentence of the third paragraph thereof shall read: "Every application for a sign permit, not rejected by the Code Officer shall be reviewed by the Sign Review Board which shall meet at least monthly with public announcement 4 days before the meeting." Mr. Farrar made a motion to approve the first reading of the modification of Section 5 (i). Mrs. Neubert seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty read Section 9 (k). Mr. Graves stated that the Board had very little discussion of this section. There was discussion, re: applications in writing, removal and violations. There was discussion, re: present Ordinance and nothing that can be done for violations. Mrs. Neubert asked who is going to keep track of the signs. There was discussion, re: abuse of the signs, sale signs, signs needed longer than seven days, etc. There was discussion, re: sale signs and ad signs. Mr. Unsworth stated that for example, Gaynes would need more than a 40 sq. ft. sign. Mr. Farrar stated that what they are doing is an attempt to get control of this. Mr. Cimonetti stated that the 25% of each window to which it is attached is acceptable. Mr. Cimonetti stated that 25% of the total window area should be sufficient. Section 9 (k) of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of So. Burlington is amended to read as follows: "Temporary and Paper Signs. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, signs of paper, cardboard or similar material or signs which are temporary or non-permanent are hereby prohibited. Interior temporary wall signs attached to a window in view of the general public from outside the building or structure, consisting of paper, cardboard or similar material are not prohibited if said temporary sign: (1) Is approved in writing by the Code Officer. (2) Does not exceed in size 25% of the total window area to which it is attached, in no case to exceed 40 sq. ft. on the premises. (3) Is not maintained for more than seven consecutive days or more than 7 days within a 30 day period. Mr. Cimonetti made a motion to approve the above changes to Section 9 (k). Mr. Farrar seconded said motion which passed. Mrs. Neubert opposed. Mrs. Neubert stated she opposed because she wants the stores to have sales. Mr. Ward stated he questioned the 7 days and 30 days. Mr. Flaherty read the proposed Section 10 of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of So. Burlington. Mr. Graves spoke of the riding stable. Mr. Unsworth is still stuck with using a 2 ft. sign. Mrs. Neubert stated she sympathized with Mr. Unsworth. There was discussion, re: non-residential use variance. There was discussion, re: appeal problems going to the Planning Commission or the Sign Review Board. Mrs. Neubert stated all the uses on Hinesburg Road or other streets such as the florists should be special treatment. There was discussion, re: different sized signs for different zoned areas. Mrs. Neubert asked if directional signs could be on a multi-development. It was stated they are discussing form of directional sign. Mr. Ward stated that this is an advertisement. There was discussion, re: R7 – condominiums. Mr. Flaherty asked if this could be rewritten. Mr. Cimonetti stated he had an idea - the problem of visability of sign. The size of the sign might go along according to the speed limit. The sign should be large enough to be seen. He stated they are talking about directional sign, re: Mr. Unsworth's property. Then there was discussion, re: signs modified for apartment complexes. Mr. Ward was asked to come up with a new multi-use sign section. Section 14 (e) - there was discussion, re: what this change means; breakfast and lunch, combination of motel names, etc. Mr. Wessel asked about the change of name on the signs. There was discussion, re: change of neon signs. Mr. Cimonetti asked if this did not extend the life of non-conforming signs. He asked Mr. Graves if it would be necessary to add this language. Section 14 (e) will read as follows: "Provided further however that this section shall not be construed to prohibit character alterations of signs lawfully in existence on the date of the original adoption of this Ordinance if said alterations: (1) Are duly approved by the Sign Review Board. (2) Do not include the use of exposed neon and bulbs for illumination. (3) Do not include an increase in size to the existing sign or in any other fashion would increase the non-conformity characteristics nor the non-conforming life of the existing sign." Mr. Cimonetti made a motion that Section 14 (e) be added to the warning as above amended. Mr. Farrar seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Sections 18 and 19. Mr. Ward stated that he thinks this is administratively impossible to accomplish. Mrs. Neubert asked about a form letter being sent out. Mr. Ward stated it was a form letter. He stated it is easier to send it out once that they have a conforming sign. Mr. Farrar stated that he remembers that it was every 2 years and then changed to every 3 years. Mr. Ward stated that this section is to take care of those people who have conforming signs. Mrs. Neubert made a motion to delete Section 18 and 19. Mr. Cimonetti seconded said motion. Mrs. Neubert then withdrew her motion. Mr. Ward will talk to Mr. Spokes, re: Section 18 and 19. There was discussion, re: letter from Mr. Albert L. Beaudoin, Clerk of the Sign Review Board of So. Burlington. This letter recommended two changes, a copy of the letter is made a part of these minutes. There was discussion of conforming and non-conforming signs and the fact there are 121 non-conforming signs in the City of So. Burlington. Mr. Cimonetti asked - if we were to change the Ordinance, could we define what the amount of compensation will be unilaterally as opposed to 121 settlements. There was discussion, re: just compensation. Mrs. Neubert asked if the City agreed to compensate, would the non-conforming signs come down this year. Mr. Graves stated he did not know. There was discussion, re: time in which to take down signs. Mr. Cimonetti stated he would like to see a way for a dialogue with the business community. There was discussion, re: mechanism for the Sign Review Board to give encouragement for those to come in with a proposal for compensation. Mr. Cimonetti stated we are at an impasse and the only thing that is happening is that we are getting close to 1974. Mrs. Neubert stated there is no penalty involved until 1974. Mr. Flaherty stated that the Sign Review Board should come up with a concrete proposal, re: non-conforming signs. There was discussion, re: worth of signs and who can get the facts as to what the non-conforming signs are worth. Mr. Farrar wants to separate this problem from the others. MEET WITH MR. RAY UNSWORTH REGARDING CHARGE TO GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Mr. Unsworth stated there are seven members on the committee. He said two members do not want re-appointment, two members want to be re-appointed and he could not contact two members. The two members he could not contact are Ray Stearns and Les Graffam. Robert Martineau and Thomas Schmidt are willing to serve again. Fred Smith and Hal Bensen do not want to be re-appointed. Mr. Unsworth suggested that Robert Martineau be chairman. He stated he would serve another year to provide continuity. There was discussion, re: what the charge to the Growth and Development Committee was and what they could do after the Ordinance was passed. Mr. Unsworth stated that they were active recently at a luncheon meeting with Harry Behney - they discussed buying land and finding a tenant. Mr. Behney stated the negotiations are progressing but wants no publicity at this time. He would prefer no open meetings on this negotiation. Mr. Unsworth stated there are several new concepts: exchangeable development rights; a neighborhood agrees it would be a good idea for an industry located in their immediate neighborhood; the neighborhood would share in the profits and benefits of the industry. Mr. Flaherty would like Mr. Unsworth to take these two charges and the two previous charges back to the Growth and Development Committee. Mr. Cimonetti stated that he would like recommendations or comments. He also stated they should not just concentrate on industry but growth and development. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council go into Executive Session at this time to review applicants for vacancies on Boards, and following this they will re-convene for their regular session. It was at this time 10:20 P.M. Mr. Cimonetti seconded said motion which passed unanimously. The Executive Session was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. and the regular session reconvened. CONSIDER REQUEST TO SHOOT PIGEONS AT THE UVM FARM PROJECT ON SPEAR ST. Mrs. Neubert stated she consulted with UVM officials regarding the pigeon problem and she was given the impression that they felt the shooting might result in adverse criticism of the University. Mr. Cimonetti felt the request and the liability of the operation should be UVM's responsibility and not that of a private party. Mr. Cimonetti made a motion denying the request to shoot pigeons at the UVM farm project on Spear Street. Mr. Farrar seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Dr. Farrar made a motion to approve signing the warrant for action against unlicensed dogs. Mr. Cimonetti seconded said motion which passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF MEMO FROM CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ON REQUEST FOR USE OF FEDERAL AID URBAN D FUNDS City Manager Szymanski explained that this is a request from the State Highway Department via the Regional Planning Commission for diverting Highway Federal Aid Urban D funds in the amount of $63,000 to promote car pools throughout the state. This diverting of funds requires concurrence of the communities eligible for these funds. Dr. Farrar stated the car pools were a personal matter and a campaign to promote them was a waste of funds that could be better utilized for highway improvements. All agreed. Dr. Farrar then made a motion to deny the request. Motion seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. DISCUSS PROCEDURES FOR INVITING BOARDS FOR INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS It was agreed that Chairman Flaherty would prepare a schedule of dates for meetings with city boards and commissions and the council, and forward it to Mr. Szymanski for inclusion in these minutes. The schedule is as follows: Planning Commission Second meeting in August and November, 1974 Second meeting in February and May, 1975 Zoning Board of Adjustment First meeting in August and November, 1974 First meeting in February and May, 1975 Recreation Committee First meeting in October, 1974 and March, 1975 Natural Resources Committee Second meeting in September, 1974 and February, 1975 Fine Arts Committee First meeting in September, 1974 and February, 1975 Growth and Development Committee Second meeting in August, 1974 and January, 1975 City Charter Committee First meeting in July, 1974 Second meeting in January, 1975 Airport Commissioner Second meeting in July, 1974 and February, 1975 Regional Planning Commissioner Second meeting in July and October, 1974 Second meeting in January and April, 1975 APPOINT A SOUTH BURLINGTON REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CHITTENDEN COUNTY BICENTENNIAL COMMITTEE Mr. Cimonetti made a motion to appoint Mrs. Lois Graffam as Chairman for the Bicentennial. Motion was seconded by Dr. Farrar and passed unanimously. CONSIDER CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER LINE ON SWIFT STREET IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CORRECTION CENTER SEWER CONSTRUCTION City Manager Szymanski stated that it would be advantageous to the city to install a gravity sewer line on Swift Street near the Corrections Center simultaneously with the installation of a sewer force main. This line would start at the intersection of Swift and Farrell Streets and continue westerly to the top of the hill just east of the Telephone Company garage on Swift Street. The contractor would be willing to lay the line at no extra cost. The city would furnish all the material, the road gravel and repave the street. Mr. Szymanski did not expect the cost to exceed $10,000. Three or four residents in the area would be served by the installation. Dr. Farrar made a motion to proceed with the installation provided the cost did not exceed $12,000. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. REVIEW HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT TRUCK BIDS The city requested bids for 2 plow trucks and one maintenance truck from 6 distributors and received only one from International Harvester of Burlington. The delivery date was June 1975. The others refused to bid due to the uncertainty of delivery and the guarantee of a price upon delivery. The trucks were replacements for the present fleet which were budgeted in the 73-74 and 74-75 fiscal years. The Council unanimously refused to accept the single bid and requested that additional bids be solicited outside the area if necessary, and if possible, presented at the next council meeting. CITY EMPLOYEE RAISES Mr. Cimonetti made a motion that the city employees be granted the raises agreed upon during negotiations, except the Police Union personnel who did not accept the settlement. However, if the Police Union personnel accept before July 1, 1974, their raises will be effective at the same time. Motion seconded by Dr. Farrar and passed unanimously. On motion made, seconded and passed the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight. William J. Cimonetti, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.