Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - City Council - 04/19/1976
CORRECTION TO MINUTES CITY COUNCIL April 19, 1976 At the May 3rd meeting of the City Council it was voted to accept the Minutes of April 19, 1976, with the following changes: Page 10, line 12 from the bottom of the page, the vote was 4 to 1, not 5 to 1. On page 7, the public hearing on the proposed zone change for the Triangle is to be held in the Central School Gymnasium and not in the Middle School. CITY COUNCIL APRIL 19, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, April 19, 1976, in the Conference ROOM, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman; John Dinklage, Michael Flaherty, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager: Art Dorey, Dick Shell, A. C. Audette, Peter Welch, William J. Schuele, Paul Graves, Ann B. Wetzel, Martin Paulson, Charlotte C. Marsh, Wilbur Bull, David C. Morenoy, Mike Pooler, William Wessel, Stephen Page, Richard Ward, Debra Weiner The meeting was opened at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Farrar. Interview applicants for Fire Department Advisory Committee Mr. Flaherty gave a brief outline of the reasons for setting up this new Fire Department Advisory Committee and the purpose of the committee in serving as a sort of public relations function between the Fire Department and the community and to make recommendations to the Council concerning the department. By Charter, such a committee would have little actual authority. The following persons were interviewed; Mr. Martin Paulson; Mr. Arthur Dorey; Richard D. Sheil. Additions to the Agenda Mr. Merrill asked for time to present a brief report on the Chittenden County Correctional Center. He also recommended a replacement for himself be considered to serve on the Economic Development Committee which meets on Tuesday, April 20th. Minutes of April 5, 1976 On page 5, it was noted that Phase III should read Phase IV, at the end of the 5th line under the sewer bond issue. It was moved by Mr. Dinklage and seconded by Mr. Flaherty to accept the Minutes of April 5, 1976, with the above-noted correction. Voted unanimously. Minutes of April 5, 1976. Executive Session On page 3, the word misleading at the end of line 17 should read misled. It was moved by Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Mr. Dinklage to accept the Minutes of April 5, 1976 Executive Session with the above noted correction. This was voted unanimously. Adopt City Budget, City Tax Rate, and Area Sewer Charge Mr. Dinklage moved that Council adopt the City Operating Budget of $1,355.395 to be supported by a City Tax Rate of $1.44 and a bonded Indebtedness Tax rate of 23¢, as presented at the Public Hearing of the Steering Committee on April 8, 1976. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Charlotte Marsh reminded the Council that $1,200 more was needed for the cemeteries. She was told it was too late now. There was considerable discussion regarding the sewer tax. Mr. Szymanski said it was the first year there had been any kind of deficit in the Shelburne Road area and he suggested a rate of 32½¢ Mr. Farrar suggested lowering that to 30¢ and increasing the user charge from the present $3.50 to $4.00 beginning next January. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council set the sewer area list charge for the Williston Road area at 30¢ and for the Shelburne Road area zero. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Asked why the Shelburne Road area would have a zero charge. Chairman Farrar explained the two sewer districts were created and financed as two separate financial obligations with each of the two districts being responsible for the costs incurred in each district. This was a bookkeeping procedure which was established before any of the present members were on the Council. Charlotte Marsh said the Town paid for the Williston Road sewer whereas the Shelburne Road area residents paid for their own sewer. Mrs. Neubert said the residents were told the sewer would be paid off in eight years and after ten years the charge is still 30¢. Mr. Szymanski explained one of the reasons was that it was assumed that nothing would be done in the south and but now a brand new sewer is being planned for down there and it is necessary to keep paying on that. That is paid for out of the 23¢ the people were paying down there. Also it had been assumed that the growth would be a lot faster than it has been; it was assumed it would be 10% a year. Mr. Schuele asked if when new things are added if they wouldn't become a City responsibility rather than the Williston Road area. He objected to the houses in the industrial park having to pay for the sewers, that the City is going to have a big thing like the industrial park and say that only a portion of the Town is going to have to pay for the sewer. Mr. Szymanski explained the City isn't going to pay for any of that other than the sewer on the line it will build. The sewer is going to be built by GBIC. Mrs. Marsh said she didn't see why Shelburne Road which has already paid for the sewer in its district has to pay for Bartlett's Bay, and she thought a tax should be put on those people for what it costs. Mr. Dorey suggested eliminating the zero and give them a portion of it, 15 or 20¢. Mr. Dinklage suggested a reduction in the list charge for this side of town and say from a certain point on to spread the cost of any new projects. He would like to give the City Manager an opportunity to look at that some more. It is pretty complex. Mr. Dorey said there was something wrong if the City is going to go to zero in new areas like Laurel Hill North and South. Mr. Flaherty said he would like a study based on one sewer charge, to see how it would look; plug in separate things like Bartlett's Bay on to a City-wide charge. Mr. Szymanski said about $98,000 is needed. Mr. Dorey said the per capita income of Williston Road area is far lower; it would be taxing people who really can't afford it. Mr. Flaherty said it is based on the assessed valuation of homes, not on income. Mr. Szymanski explained the 23¢ pays for the large pipe, the interceptors and also the sewer plant — everybody uses that. The area sewer charge was intended to pay for the 8" line. Mr. Schuele objected again that it was supposed to be paid in eight years. He said he would like the City Council to support the concept that it is really all one town; any effort that breaks it up again is detrimental to the City. Mr. Merrill explained to Mr. Dorey that in the case of the biggest new development in the last eleven years the developer had paid for the cost of those lines, passing this on to the purchasers of the lots, so the City didn't incur any cost there. Mrs. Neubert commented that they expected this also to happen in the southeast quadrant. Mr. Dinklage's motion was voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Dinklage's then moved that Council increase the sewer charge beginning in January, 1977, from the current $3.50 to the proposed $4.00. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Farrar said this would keep the revenue slightly above the operating cost. Mrs. Neubert suggested increasing it to $4.50. Mr. Farrar said we could break out the cost of the interceptor lines and everything else at that point could be carried on the general City tax rate. Mrs. Neubert suggested studying that before Council gets into the budget preparation next year. The motion was voted unanimously for approval. Consider request to close portions of Swift, Dorset and Spear Streets during a Bike-a-Thon on May 16, 1976 The City Manager this was requested by Bob Stafford (not the U.S. Senator) and is to be a benefit for the Cancer Fund. It would originate at the University, go down Spear Street, east on Swift Street, south on Dorset Street and going into Shelburne, then over to Spear Street and north back to the University. They are going to handle everything, will man the barricades and will have deputy sheriffs there. The barricades will be at each section just during the time when the first ones and the last ones get through. The route would be open for emergency vehicles and for anyone living there. Chief Carter said he had no objections. Mrs. Neubert moved that Council approve the Spear Street Bike-a-Thon on May 16, 1976, and allow the streets to be closed by the people sponsoring it. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Council then took a brief recess to partake of refreshments prepared by Charlotte Marsh in honor of the birthdays of Duane Merrill and the City Manager. The meeting was reconvened at 9:15 p.m. Review of proposed Zoning Amendments affecting the Triangle Area Mr. Page made a presentation explaining the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance prepared by the Planning Commission as a result of a public hearing. Chairman Farrar said the procedure would be for Council to discuss them tonight and would have the option to reject them and send them back to the Planning Commission. If Council wishes to consider them in a positive light it will then schedule one or more public hearings on the proposed amendments. Mr. Page indicated the boundaries of the Triangle area on the map and said the existing zone of R-4 PUD covers the entire Triangle with the exception of Jay-Cee Park and the existing Business Retail District which goes to a depth of 200 feet from the Interstate and parallels Williston Road to a point somewhat south of the corner of Jay-Cee Park. There would be limited commercial uses allowed in an R-4 PUD project. Mr. Page said a number of things were taken into consideration by the Planning Commission, looking at the Comprehensive Plan and the goal of protecting existing residential neighborhoods. They went from 4 units per acre to 7 primarily because of the site location. There should be nothing like a warehouse or heavy equipment because of the visibility from the Interstate. Planned unit development is encouraged with a mixture of uses which would complement each other in terms of traffic. He described these uses, saying they tried to get away from small lots and fast food places. The Business Retail line was extended from 200 to 500 feet to make those existing businesses conform and to encourage more in-depth development. Chairman Farrar asked if this Planned Development District would allow all residential on one lot and all commercial on the next lot. Mr. Page explained the line was drawn to provide a buffer and also to allow properties to have an acreage for development. They tried to draw a line which was easy to administer and to make present businesses conforming. Mrs. Neubert asked how the owners could get what they wanted, and Mr. Dinklage answered that they could get a variance on a pre-existing lot. He gave as an example two lots of the same size, one with a filling station on it, and the owner of the next lot wanted to put in a station — he would have to get a variance. Mr. Flaherty said he was asked to talk with a group of residents of the area who were concerned about the zone change and he went through it with them. They felt they would be most affected, that development would come close and would eventually reach Patchen Road with a feeder road being built, and they felt it would generally cause the deterioration of their neighborhood. They seemed to feel there was no major reason for a zone change. He said he had agreed to let them know the date of the public hearing. Mrs. Neubert said these people have a petition. Mr. Dinklage asked Mr. Page what the density of housing is now along Patchen Road: if it approximates R-4 with some of them being pre-existing lots from the present zone. Mr. Page said it would be pretty close to R-4. Mr. Dinklage said this would represent a substantial change from what exists. Mrs. Neubert asked about the larger lots, if they have houses, and Mr. Page said most of the houses are on the smaller lots. Mr. Dinklage referred to the overlay zone, the Conservation Open Space zone, saying that hasn't changed. Mrs. Neubert asked what the potential would be of R-7, how many housing units, what might be expected from R-7 in that area. Mr. Page explained the intent is to allow clustering; he couldn't tell how many units. Mr. Merrill asked Mr. Page to have this broken down and also the stream setbacks. Mr. Schuele said the fact has to be hammered home that the density is incompatible with the existing neighborhood. Mrs. Neubert said she didn't like 7. Mr. Wessel explained the Planning Commission was working for a transition zone between the existing residential and the relatively new planned development area. Clustered apartments would be better than single family homes. They wanted to phase out the commercial things in that area. It would improved the appearance of the neighborhood to have the residential there which reinforces Chamberlin School. The increased traffic would be traffic terminating in that neighborhood and not traffic going through. The commercial uses there now are not high traffic generators, but it could be turned into that. Mrs. Neubert asked why there couldn't be 4 per acre residential type of clustering. Mr. Wessel said this question was brought up as to whether or not it was practical. Mr. Dinklage asked Mr. Wessel if they had received any input from the property owners in the Triangle. Mr. Wessel replied they heard from the Munson people and Paul Graves. Mr. Page said they had a list of all the property owners in the Triangle and expected to send out a notification for the public hearing. Mr. Dinklage asked about specific suggestions as to how to rezone or if it needs rezoning, from property owners. Mrs. Neubert said the highest density planned is only 7 per acre and that is all going on good land, crowded in. She said in her opinion a buffer doesn't have to jump from 4 per acre to 20 per acre, if it means high-rise. Mr. Wessel explained they have a limit of 2½ stories. Mr. Flaherty said the residents felt that rather than creating a buffer this was just opening up more ways for a commercial use; the pressure would become very great for more commercial use. Mr. Dinklage said that was one of the arguments used in the discussion on the Lamplough property, that the property adjacent to it on both sides was Business Retail being used in a manner consistent with the proposed use. Mr. Flaherty commented that was a good point. Where there is commercial, very likely it wouldn't disappear, and there would be pressure to extend it, to expand the commercial activity already there. Mr. Wessel said they wanted limited commercial, a very minimum. A question was asked as to whether R-7 was based on the gross acreage or the net acreage. Mrs. Neubert replied it was on the gross, and Mr. Farrar said it depends on the use. Mr. Page said 7 is the ceiling: it is not a guarantee of 7. Mr. Schuele commented you can't say No. Mr. Page said there are provisions for specific standards in the residential district; the Planning Commission is allowed to grant up to 7 per acre according to certain criteria. Mr. Schuele said things would be jammed up very tightly, more than anything the City has now. Mr. Dinklage said it is not realistic to focus just on the structure itself. Seven per acre works out to a development something like what is along Kennedy Drive; it is no worse than something we already have in town. Mr. Schuele objected that it was not consistent with the existing neighborhood. The residents were also worried about where the access to the Triangle would eventually push out, whether it would be on Patchen Road. Mr. Dinklage said he felt the General Standards section implies that consideration of off-site traffic is possible, and this always comes up for argument, the impact of traffic outside the site. Mrs. Neubert asked if the zoning regulations are exactly like the enabling legislation, if we were going to be hit with that again. If other parts of the ordinance are going to be challenged legally, then she would like to have that addressed also as long as we are going through the process. Mr. Dinklage said his question was whether or not this would apply to site plan review. Mrs. Neubert said they are talking about the illegality of site plan review as outlined in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Wessel said that as far as he knew the City Attorney had said it was legal. Mr. Merrill asked how far could we go in saying that traffic congestion is unreasonable. If someone causes a traffic problem at White Street and Patchen Road, for instance, can the City legally contest that and ask the developer to correct that. Mr. Dinklage said that has never been tested, to his knowledge. Mrs. Neubert said at the time of the public hearing she doesn't want someone saying this is unconstitutional and illegal. She wants those questions answered. If the City Attorney doesn't uphold site plan review, then there is a problem with the other things too. Mr. Dinklage asked Mr. Wessel about conformance with the duly adopted Master Plan which in many places refers to concentrating major commercial developments in the superblock. It is quite clear from the map and the language that is used in many places that it is the intent to control the development north of Williston Road. He said this was the concern he raised about the proposed zone change. One of his concerns which he feels is still valid is that we would be significantly increasing the amount of land in the City which will be zoned for commercial development when the City already has a large acreage already zoned for commercial development which is not yet developed. He said one of the principles of zoning in his opinion was through the legal processes that are granted us to control where and what type of growth we want to occur in the City so certain balances can be maintained between residential and commercial and to allow for planning for the necessary City services. In that sense the proposed zone change, as well as the former one we dealt with, is in disagreement with the spirit of the Master Plan and is opening up a significant commercial development north of Williston Road, and would be done, in fact, only in response to a developer, and that is not necessarily the way zoning should proceed. He asked Mr. Wessel if they planned any modifications to the Master Plan. Mrs. Neubert said they could even anticipate this could be accomplished prior to the time the southeast quadrant would be opened up. Chairman Farrar said that if everyone has a reasonable understanding of the changes proposed, he would suggest terminating the discussion at this point and set a date for the formal public hearing. He requested that prior to the hearing the Council should have information on the relative amounts of developed and undeveloped commercial property and the developed and undeveloped residential property. Mrs. Neubert asked to have the opinion on the legality also. Mr. Page explained the time table involved. Mr. Farrar said they could delay this until after the election so that the person taking Mr. Merrill's place would be here, or Council could try to dispose of the item before that. Mr. Merrill asked Mr. Page if any of the commercial property owners on Patchen Road had been in at all, and Mr. Page said No, but they do have a list of them. Mrs. Neubert moved that the City Council hold the first warned public hearing on the proposed zone change on the Triangle on May 10, 1976, at 8:00 p.m. in the Middle School auditorium. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Mr. Dinklage asked if a work session was planned before the public hearing and Mr. Farrar said not unless somebody had some specific questions other than the ones discussed. Mr. Farrar said the final public hearing could be May 17th, 30 days from now. If Council wishes to change or amend it, it would have to be referred to the Planning Commission and anything changed very much would have to be passed by the new Council. Mr. Wessel suggested passing it knowing that there were some very minor changes to be made later. Authorize City Manager to sign deed for property transfer of City land to the School District Mr. Szymanski explained the transfer of this land, approximately 10½ acres, along Kennedy Drive was approved at a Steering Committee meeting. The City reserved the right of way for a sewer line and also a condition that a portion of the land be conveyed back to the City when a pumping station is planned, giving the City the chance to have the pumping station where it wants it. Mrs. Neubert asked why it had taken so long and Mr. Szymanski replied it had been with the lawyers all this time. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council authorize the City Manager to sign the deed for the property transfer of City land to the School District. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. For the benefit of the audience Chairman Farrar explained this is the land lying along the northerly side of Kennedy Drive adjacent to the land already owned by the School District. The land was being used by the School and most people would have thought it already belonged to them. The City has retained certain rights in the transfer. Meeting with the Highway Department Union Gary Rounds and Bill Simmons represented the Highway Department Union and presented three requests. The first was a floating holiday to be taken when the employee wished, subject to the approval of Supt. Audette. Mr. Dinklage asked how many paid holidays they had now and Mr. Simmons replied twelve. This would be an additional day. Their second request was for coveralls, mainly for their winter work, to go over their uniforms for warmth. Mr. Rounds explained their jackets are not heavy enough for cold weather and it would be good to have the coveralls which are similar to a jumpsuit when working on the trucks in the cold garage, also would be easier on their uniforms. Their third request was for work boots which could be worn both winter and summer. The rubber boots they have are ideal for what they use them for but can't be worn all the time. Chairman Farrar thanked the men for coming and said he would convene an Executive Session to consider these proposals. Accept deeds for portion of Oakwood Drive, Cedar Glen Drive, and Cedar Glen open space land Mr. Szymanski said these deeds had been reviewed by the City Attorney. There is a restriction on the open land that permission must be obtained from the developer or his assignees in order to develop the land for any other use than open space. It is a park open to public access but the City couldn't put in a Little League ballfield, for example, anything that would require construction. Asked by Mrs. Neubert about having a trail through there, or kids playing ball, etc., Mr. Szymanski said it will be usable for such purposes but they don't plan on constructing playing fields, etc. Mr. Schuele said he was concerned that it would be used for these things without construction; he was concerned about preserving the open space. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council accept the deed for Cedar Glen Open Space land. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. Regarding the deed for Cedar Glen Drive, Mr. Szymanski said this was for about 1923 feet of road built to City standards. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council accept the warranty deed for Cedar Glen Drive. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mr. Szymanski explained that the deed for Oakwood Drive was for a southerly extension last fall of this street, about 200 feet, and built to City standards. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council accept the warranty deed for the Oakwood Drive extension. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Discussion of VELCO with Attorney Michael Clapp Attorney Michael Clapp reviewed the history of the Queen City Tap. VELCO had petitioned the Public Service Board to construct a 115 KV power line along the Interstate to Queen City Park, with the primary issue being whether or not it should be underground. The landowners appealed the decision. The City of South Burlington had taken a position with regard to underground and thought it was going to be given an opportunity to comment. The City never did comment on the various possibilities of overhead use. Attorney Clapp said he represents the landowners. At the October hearing the issues were whether or not the lines are necessary for adequate service and whether or not they would have an undue effect on the scenic value of the area. It is most important, he said, to consider whether the line should be underground. The City's position is that it should be underground. What he would like is to have the Council let the Public Service Board know how the City feels, to take a position about scenic preservation within the City limits and to protect the orderly development of the southeast quadrant because that is the area where the power line would be. Mrs. Neubert said depositions were made by a vast number of people including the Natural Resources Committee, the Council, and the Planning Commission. They were made by people in the community. Attorney Clapp said the City felt it had not been allowed an adequate opportunity to comment regarding the overhead lines. Mrs. Neubert said the route was chosen with much deliberation by various groups in the community. Mr. Flaherty said they had first said they preferred underground but if it had to go everground we felt the southern route would be better than the northerly route. It would cost between nine and twenty times more for the underground. Mr. Clapp said the important thing is that the landowners down in that area have carried the ball. The Board is now in a position to consider underground and because the hearing starts the next day it is important that the City take a position. There are several ways. One would be a resolution adopted by Council and second, it would be most desirable to have a representative at the hearing. Mrs. Neubert said she would feel in conflict if she got involved in the routes again. Mr. Clapp said the purpose of the hearing is to consider evidence on underground; it is conceivable that they could also consider underground for the line along the Interstate. Mr. Szymanski said that was the original recommendation. Mr. Farrar referred to the Master Plan, saying all Council is being asked to do is to reaffirm what is in the Master Plan. Mr. Clapp said an important issue in this case has been the impact of the line on the scenic preservation; the view of Lake Champlain and the Adirondacks is an asset, a unique asset to South Burlington. The point you want the Board to consider is that you believe this area is unique and valuable and therefore an overhead line would have an adverse effect. Mr. Clapp said it was anticipated that VELCO was going to hire a new consultant from Boston. Mrs. Neubert said she didn't feel qualified to make a decision if he was asking to have the route changed; she would only go so far as to say that the City wants the lines underground because that is what is said in the Master Plan. Mr. Szymanski asked why that would have an adverse effect; it is going to be up 75 feet in the air. It is worse down along the track because you are looking at the lake. Mrs. Neubert asked if the City takes a position and the Public Service Board says No, they will not force underground, is that line going to come back swinging across South Burlington the way it did. Mr. Clapp said the Board has already decided that route has an adverse effect. He said his first objective is that there is no necessity for the line anywhere. The statutes provide that the land can be condemned. There has to be a public necessity for the project in order to cause condemnation. There was a great deal of evidence regarding necessity and the examiner found there was no necessity for the line. VELCO has projected a necessity. The Board said it wanted evidence on the demands to 1980. The issue to be decided now is if the Board should determine on the basis of projected demands that it should be built, should it be put underground on Spear Street. Mr. Dinklage moved that the City Council pass a resolution requesting that the Public Service Board require the Queen City Tap, if it is to be built, be run underground in order to preserve the unique scenic areas in the vicinity of Spear Street and to preserve the orderly development in the southeast quadrant of the town and in order to be consistent with the City's Master Plan and City policy which requires that all new lines be underground and run in common corridors if possible. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty Mr. Merrill said he would not go along with Mr. Dinklage's motion because Council doesn't have a legal opinion from the City Attorney. There is considerable evidence around indicating the City's position strongly. Also it is stated in the Master Plan that we would prefer underground lines. Also there is a possibility of it being changed to another route; there may be another attorney sometime representing another view. He would, prefer not to become a party to this at this time. Our past record could be stated, also the Master Plan. Attorney Clapp said the Board says past positions are out of date; it is past evidence. Mr. Merrill said they can't object to the Master Plan. Mr. Farrar suggesting saying that we still stand by what we said two years ago. Mr. Dinklage withdrew his motion. Mr. Flaherty moved that the City Council reaffirm the position taken in its recent Master Plan, that, it prefers all utility lines in South Burlington to be built underground; should the Queen City Tap come through South Burlington it should also be underground. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Wessel stated the underground issue is not now. His general feeling is that the City has very small chance of getting it underground. The problem is will they allow it to overground in that area. If they say they will look at new routes, we are back in that again and he was not sure this is what we really want, That should be looked at carefully. Mr. Flaherty said the Council is on prior record to it and he didn't see they were really getting involved. Mr. Wessel said it crosses two other streets. Dorset and Hinesburg, and those people are not represented in this particular case. He thought there was a problem there. The vote on the motion was 5 to 1, with Mr. Merrill voting against it. Mr. Merrill stated he would have supported a general motion, keeping Queen City Tap out of it. Attorney Clapp said Council does have a chance to force the line underground and he would hate to see them let that opportunity pass by. Mr. Merrill said he fell the City should initiate its own action and not join a group. Economic Development Committee of the Regional Planning Commission Mr. Merrill stated this committee will hold its first meeting on April 20th. Because he is not planning on running for office again, someone else should attend that meeting which is at 4:30 p.m. He said everybody is making their proposals. The Airport proposal is for a Foreign Trade Zone which would be tied to development of a regional industrial park on the Airport on a 50-acre tract. That is an issue which should be pursued and cleared up. Chairman Farrar appointed Mr. Flaherty to attend the meeting. Chittenden County Correctional Center Mr. Merrill reported he talked with George Africa on the Tuesday morning that the article came out in the paper and was told by him there were 136 inmates that day. According to Al Guyette it becomes a numbers game. However, a new superintendent has been appointed who proposes to work directly to lower the number and try to correct the situation. Mr. Merrill said he had asked Al Guyette to send Council a letter indicating the proposals and also to indicate the classification system they are using. The committee has been trying to work hard but it is his impression that the communication lines were a problem. However, he said he was satisfied with what had happened, that it had done some good. Mrs. Neubert suggested some people are in there for arraignment but when they go into court they are freed and don't go back. Mr. Merrill said in some cases there are mental cases who should be in Waterbury and they are saying that had not expected that problem. He felt a little Mt of pressure should be put on the Liaison Committee to see that the facility is being used in the best way. The new superintendent will be available any time Council wants to call him in; also George Africa would be happy to come in. No action was taken at this time. Meet as Liquor Control Board to consider liquor license renewals Mrs. Neubert moved that Council adjourn the regular session and reconvene as the Liquor Control Board. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. The City Manager presented applications for first class licenses from eight establishments, saying all were renewals and had been reviewed and approved by Chief Carter. Also he presented applications from nine establishments for second class licenses, also renewals and approved by Chief Carter. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council sign the liquor license renewals as recommended by the Chief of Police in his memorandum dated April 19, 1976. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. List of applications is included with the Minutes. The Liquor Control Board meeting was adjourned upon a motion by Mr. Dinklage and seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council go into Executive Session to discuss the Highway Department requests and also to discuss possible appointments to the Fire Department Advisory Board. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Regular Council meeting was ended at 11:10 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.