Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/20/1976CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 20, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, December 20, 1976, in the Conference Room, Municipal Office Building, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul A. Farrar, Chairman; John B. Dinklage, Frank H. Armstrong, Michael D. Flaherty, Catherine M. Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Robert E. Babcock, Clark R. Bensen, Mary Barbara Maher, A. C. Audette, Frank McCaffrey, John Dillon, Pat Burgmeier The meeting was called to order by Chairman Farrar at 8:05 p.m. Additions to the Agenda Mr. Dinklage asked to have a discussion of the Recreation Department Survey. Mrs. Neubert suggested further discussion on the Southern Connector. Council agreed to the addition to the Agenda of these two items. Reading of the Minutes of December 6, 1976 It was moved by Mr. Dinklage, seconded by Mrs. Neubert, and voted unanimously to accept the Minutes of December 6, 1976, as printed. Sign disbursement orders Chairman Farrar stated the disbursement orders had been prepared for signatures. Meet with Legislators to discuss pending legislation Representatives Robert Babcock, Mary Barbara Maher, and Clark Bensen were present for a discussion. Chairman Farrar noted the two items South Burlington had hoped to get some action on last year by the Legislature; the question of the City's ability or inability to enforce local ordinances; the question of public utility companies in their relationship to the local zoning ordinance. He explained what is wanted is to have the public utility apply for a local permit before they start digging. Even though the utility could get a certificate saying their proposal is in the public interest, it might not be in the public interest of the local community. It is critical that the public utility be presented with the fact that they have to come in and have to apply for a permit. He said he didn't think they would be unreasonably or capriciously denied a permit just because the City might disagree with the way something was to be built, but once the Public Service Board ruled they had the right to construct they should still have applied for a permit to set their structures because this can be important in the way the community reacts. The ordinance allows certain zones to have substations, for instance, and the utility should have to go through the same procedures that any other applicant would and apply to the Zoning Board for a variance. The Chairman said as he understands the law now, none of this would take place; the local community has no control over what takes place. Mr. Dinklage said if a utility is permitted in a zone and meets all of the zoning requirements, then it is just an administrative matter for the Zoning Administrator. Mrs. Maher referred to the proposed redrafting of last year's H-499 and the fact that the Planning Commission would get a chance to look at a plan. Mr. Farrar commented the bill would go a long way to what the City would like to accomplish, but he asked what would happen if the Planning Commission considers a proposal as contrary to the zoning document. Mrs. Maher said the utility could modify or change their plan — or they could just ignore it completely. Mr. Armstrong asked what would happen if the plan was contrary to both our plan and the Regional Planning Commission's plan. Mrs. Maher said she could see it as being submitted to the Planning Commission; submitting it to the Regional Planning Commission could also be added to the bill. There would be a question of whether or not they needed to go to the Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Farrar felt it would be the same as saying whether or not they have to go through Act 250, and added that the utility had always filed for permits in South Burlington before, until this time Velco decided not to. Mrs. Maher said getting the new bill through would depend on how powerful the utility is in that committee. Mrs. Neubert suggested checking whether or not the Regional Planning Commission wants to review development proposals or whether or not they even have that power. Mr. Dinklage asked, if the bill went through the committee, would it be possible to add amendments to the bill on the floor without it going back to the committee. He suggested trying to get the basic simplest bill through and then amend it on the floor. Mrs. Maher explained this bill is so simple that it is not unreasonable, but any amendments would be used against the bill, especially if it is controversial. If Council wished to amend the bill right here, she would go whatever way Council wanted. Mrs. Neubert asked if public utilities are exempt from Act 250. Mr. Szymanski said if the land involved is less than 10 acres, they don't; if it is more, they have to. Mrs. Maher said when she goes to the committee she will tell them Council's feeling and she will also research the question about the Regional Planning Commission. Mrs. Maher then referred to the streamlining this year of the bill regarding municipal ordinances and violations. Mr. Dinklage commented the bill would not help the problem of getting the court to hear the cases. Mr. Farrar said justices of the peace can no longer try local cases and Mrs. Maher said the sentiment is so strong about that, it will never be brought back. Mr. Babcock said there is a strong sentiment to institute a small claims court. Mrs. Maher said that except for South Burlington there really is not a great interest in this bill. She asked if this was really a big problem that still exists, and if so, she would go with the bill. She asked how Council would like to have it modified, saying they had tried to make it reasonable. Mrs. Neubert referred to the various ordinances the City of South Burlington has, and asked why have the ordinances to begin with if they can't be enforced. Mrs. Maher said a lot of people would agree that the course of action should not be to have another layer of bureaucracy, but to go the way we always have. Chairman Farrar said the solution is to get the action a little faster. Mr. Dinklage asked in what way does the bill speed it up if the court calendar is still clogged and it is the disposition of the court to deal with more serious matters than local ordinance violations. He said he could not perceive what this bill would do with that situation. Mrs. Neubert said she thought it made it harder. Mrs. Maher said she worked with Dick Spokes on this last year but didn't have any luck with it. Mrs. Neubert said it could be simplified, for one thing. If it is going to mean a small claims court, that is the bill that is wanted. Mr. Babcock explained the former procedure with the justices of the peace and the city district courts. Everybody agrees now about the need for small claims courts but nobody knows how to establish them. He suggested going back to the justices of the peace and setting a limit of $250. Chairman Farrar referred to the bill creating the uniform court system and said the way that bill was drafted gave him the impression it would be impossible to re- establish the justices of the peace. He commented that justice has been made so complicated that justice is impossible to get any more. Mr. Dinklage said he would favor trying to get a movement under way to re-alter the JP's to give them back their power even if it requires a constitutional amendment. Referring to the juvenile problem, he said he could see many cases of acts of vandalism being handled by JP's to force parents to compensate for the vandalism. Mr. Babcock said he would be worried about trying to reopen this because of the problems of traffic and speed traps formerly in some communities. Mrs. Neubert suggested consulting with Burlington and Colchester to see if they have the same problems in enforcing ordinances. Mr. Dinklage said he would be surprised if other communities don't have the same problems with violations that South Burlington has, and even if it takes a constitutional amendment it would be worthwhile to get it. Mrs. Neubert said that would be the end of the bill. She would like to have some more research as to whether or not there is a problem in the rest of Chittenden County. Mr. Flaherty asked who would preside at a small claims court. Mr. Babcock said the Attorney General is going to draw up something on that. There is sone talk about having a lay person. Mr. Flaherty said by appointing people at a different level it might do away with the bad feeling about JP's. The Chairman said traffic cases could be excluded completely now because there is a statewide system for this. The concern now is the citizens' violations of the town's own ordinances. Mr. Dinklage suggested enforcement of State health laws, that the City would want to represent the State in enforcing the minimum health standards, that this is probably very serious in some of the outlying areas and nobody can do anything about it. Mr. Armstrong said if the City Attorney goes along with this, the emphasis should be put on the small claims courts and to try to steer that bill the way we want it to go. Mrs. Maher agreed to get up to date on the small claims courts; find out about the ordinance problems in Chittenden County; talk with Dick Spokes to check on what the chances might be of bring justices of the peace back into play here and up the limit. The Chairman said even the $100 limit would be fine. That would cover any ordinance violation except for repeated violations. Mrs. Maher then gave a brief explanation of the proposed amendment to the Municipal Water Systems bill. Mr. Babcock explained the two major bills likely to come up which might affect South Burlington considerably; the bill to abolish the poll tax and old age assistance tax as being generally regressive taxes and in some towns difficult to collect; the other bill is the possible revision of the Miller Formula. The poll tax abolishment bill might not pass, he said, because it means a loss of revenue, but the general philosophy is that it is regressive and should be added on to the commercial and industrial property taxes rather than residential. The old age assistance, he said, is a misnomer dating back to the 30's when the states then had to take care of people over 65 who were not covered by Social Security. This was originally $3 and is now $5 and would mean a substantial loss in State revenue. Regarding the Miller Formula, everyone is dissatisfied with it for various reasons, and it will probably shift to some measurement of the wealth of the community not based solely on the grand list but probably based on the gross income. Chairman Farrar felt that would penalize the poor person living in a rich community, and he thought they should increase the State income tax and leave the Miller Formula as it is. Mr. Babcock said one solution would be take into account personal income by individuals; others are suggesting towns should enact their own income tax. The Chairman said the Legislature is not doing its job; they don't have the guts to raise the income tax to fund the Miller Formula. There is nothing wrong with the basic formula. Mr. Babcock said Mr. Farrar may be right but he thought he was wrong. He would disagree with him. Mr. Farrar said taxing land is beneficial to the community up to a certain degree. A person owning land and not making much money deserves consideration and is getting that consideration now because of the property tax refund, but he had no concern for the person owning a large piece of property who is only holding it until he can sell later at a good price. Mr. Babcock felt land can be worth a lot for development purposes but not bringing any income now. Mr. Armstrong said much of the open space, timber land especially, is being taxed in excess of its gross revenue producing ability, and in reference to development rights he felt most towns are not equipped to deal with that. Mr. Dinklage said he supported development rights but South Burlington had not yet been approached by any owner for such tax relief. Mr. Flaherty felt this was because most of the appraisals for the large landowners had been cut drastically. Mr. Babcock explained a bill which might pass would redefine a fair market value of land, agricultural land and timber land, which is almost invariably going to increase the amount of State Aid going to more rural and agricultural communities and hurt the cities. South Burlington would not be affected as much as other big cities because its appraisal is fairer. Mr. Babcock admitted he couldn't see his way clear through any of this complex problem. Mr. Flaherty said South Burlington is third or fourth in the State in income and going to an income formula would hurt, obviously. It would be to the City's benefit to try to work out a transition period so a community which was going to lose could adjust to it. Mr. Farrar felt the only realistic method a community has is to collect property taxes, and a change could mean penalizing the poorer people in all the supposedly rich communities and help the rich people in all the communities which are supposedly poor. It would be discriminatory. Mr. Dinklage felt the only way is to increase the income tax; he had detected no opposition to that. Mr. Babcock explained the Legislature will be adjourned before Congress sets a tax cut, and if the Legislature doesn't know what Congress is going to do it cannot delegate that authority to the Governor or to the Emergency Board. Mr. Dinklage asked if the Legislature could direct the State Tax Commissioner to assess Vermont's citizens a certain percentage of their Federal income tax instead of trying to set a certain amount of money. Mr. Babcock said he didn't think so. The authority cannot be delegated and also it involves predictions 18 months in advance concerning what that revenue should be. Mr. Farrar suggested tying it directly to the action of the Federal government. Mr. Armstrong raised the objection of forcing people to move their legal residence to Florida and still spend part of the year here, if their taxes are increased. They feel their taxes are already high enough. Mr. Babcock there is strong evidence already of people moving to Florida and spending six months and one day there. Mr. Babcock then referred to a report showing in-town and out-of-town ownership and out-of-state and total corporation ownership in a particular town. This was prepared by a special task force from the Department of Education and shows some variations from what the towns are reporting to the State Tax Department. In the case of South Burlington there is a variation of 10%. Mr. Szymanski said Dick Underwood, the Assessor, would be the one to talk to about this, and Chairman Farrar assured Mr. Babcock this would be looked into. Mr. Flaherty asked about the cost per pupil standard, and Mr. Babcock said this would be augmenting the inequality of educational assistance by giving the same amount to each town. Mr. Farrar felt the Miller Formula is not the wealth of the community but the ability of the community to tax. The State can get at other forms of wealth and the community cannot. It is not detrimental to the community as long as the property taxes are reasonable and there is the property tax refund. The problems involved in encouraging landowners to preserve their land as open space were discussed with everyone agreeing some way to do this must be found. Mrs. Maher said it was very complicated and in trying to have a new infusion of money for State Aid to education we have to be sure it will not mean less money. Mr. Armstrong recommended keeping the poll tax until there is assurance of some alternative. The Chairman said he would like to see the tax abolished in the right year at the right time when the City would have some other source of revenue to replace it. There is a tax burden on the community whether it comes from poll tax or by property tax. He objected to the philosophy of saying we would increase taxes on business which is then passed along to the consumer. Mr. Flaherty brought up the subject of South Burlington's charter restriction on increasing of the tax rate; this can be raised only by basing it upon the increases in the grandlist. Mr. Szymanski asked if it would be local option, and Mr. Babcock replied No. although that could be a possibility. The problem would be that no town would abolish the poll tax and still have to collect the Old Age Assistance tax, so that would probably defeat any local option. If anything was passed, it would probably do away with the whole thing. However, he could see special problems with South Burlington's charter. Mr. Dinklage recommended substituting the poll tax with a progressive tax, put it onto real estate or increase the income tax. Mr. Babcock said any tax increase is unpopular. Mrs. Maher said there is a very strong sentiment that the easiest way to raise money is to raise the sales tax and not to talk about income tax, but people don't realize the sales tax is really anti-poor-people. The recommendations for changes in Juvenile Statutes by Chief Carter were discussed next with the legislators. Chairman Farrar explained how Council had learned about the cloak of secrecy surrounding the juvenile procedure and said he felt social pressure to be a very important point in keeping young people from doing the things they are doing and this social pressure is not being used. Mr. Babcock asked if the proposed recommendations were a collective action, and Mr. Dinklage said this was independent although others may be thinking along the same lines. Mrs. Neubert felt publicity had hurt some people but now it is going too far the other way and this feeling is coming from many sources in the State. Mr. Dinklage said adults are using kids for crimes, knowing full well the law can't touch these kids. The public by not having access to records has no way of gauging how effective our police are in dealing with these problems. Even the Chief does not have access to any juvenile records. The public would be appalled at how much of the vandalism is created by children whose parents who could pay for the damage. Mr. Babcock asked if anybody was drawing up statutes to this effect, because it would cut across a lot of criminal law and would be a complicated thing to do. Mrs. Maher recommended care in protecting the first, offender. Mrs. Armstrong felt a first offender should pay for the damage. Mr. Flaherty felt that a lot of authority was being put into the hands of one person by not allowing the Chief to become involved in it. Mr. Farrar felt the young person was the one to be exposed the most. Mr. Dinklage added, but not necessarily prosecuted to the fullest. Mrs. Neubert felt having the parents' names getting out was even more important than the kids' names being published. Mr. Dinklage felt there is a very strong sentiment that these would be steps taken in the right direction and in addition to checking with Francis Murray and others, if the legislators could communicate with the Attorney General or any other groups who might be beginning to put together, saying they would support these conceptions and would be glad to co-sponsor any legislation to bring this about, to get themselves on the record as backing changes like this, whichever ones they would feel comfortable in supporting. Mr. Babcock said he would like to have Chief Carter talk with Murray on this. It would be tough drafting. Mr. Flaherty said there is concern all over town, faith Mrs. Neubert adding that one concern is vandalism to public property. Mr. Farrar said the minimum wanted would be that those people who are dealing with the offender should have access to all the information. Some offenders feel that nothing they do matters before they come of age because it won't count. He said he assumed Vermont law is similar to that of New York where if an offender is making his 15th trip into court, there is nothing to indicate that it is his 15th trip. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Babcock why he was opposed to the minimum sentence. He replied he was in favor of wide discretionary powers of a judge when there are circumstances to be taken into account. A certain minimum might not be warranted under certain circumstances; he would distrust a mandatory minimum. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Babcock if public officials could take a position on something like Pyramid Mall. Vermont doesn't have a definition of conflict of interest. Mr. Babcock said his view was that if a strict rule was followed in the Legislature, no farmer could vote on any agricultural bill, and they are the only experts the Legislature has. Much more important than not voting is that a person have a knowledge and interest in it. The problem is full revelation of a person's interest. Someone voting without revealing his interest is more damaging than if his background was known. Mr. Flaherty asked if there could be some kind of statement for people to go by, because he thought there was a problem. Mr. Farrar felt full disclosure was the first thing that was important. Some of this has to be left to the discretion of the individual, but there are cases where 2 or 3 members of a board might have a special interest and make it difficult for the board to operate as in the case of South Burlington's Zoning Board. He felt the question was of substantial interest. Mrs. Maher said she would ask the Legislative Draftsman if anything had ever been brought up about this. Mr. Flaherty said it would have to have some basic standards that could be used. Mr. Babcock stated he had found this evening's discussion very helpful indeed, and Mrs. Maher and Mr. Bensen, the new representative, both concurred. The City Manager referred to a list of legislative recommendations prepared by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns and told the legislators he would have copies mailed to them. Discuss procedure for implementing Zoning and Master Plan amendments Chairman Farrar said it was safest for Council only to act on those specific items before them. However, if Council wanted to add "hotel, motel, and restaurant" that would probably be very clear. Council has the right at any public meeting at which it is a warned item of business to discuss this and to modify this and refer it back to the Planning Commission. It is purely a matter of philosophical approach whether Council wishes to warn it at that point or wait until it has formulated the position it wishes to present to the public. Either way is legal. He said his recommendation would be that Council reconsider at this meeting the action taken previously and then vote to strike some of these and to modify the others, or to approve it as it is and go back to the Planning Commission with a request that they include other items — a longer way but certainly correct. Chairman Farrar outlined the procedure required: a motion to reconsider the action taken previously (referring to a motion by Mr. Dinklage on page 2 of the Minutes of December 6th) after this motion was passed there should be a motion to rescind the motion; then Council would vote the warning of the document as received from the Planning Commission within the period of the warning time which extends until February. If additional changes are received from the Planning Commission prior to that date, these could be warned at the same time. Council cannot initiate a change in the document. Mrs. Neubert said she remembered instructing the Planning Commission to come before Council and consult with Council so Council wouldn't be going through this over and over. She would prefer before they send anything to Council that they go over it with us first. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council reconsider his motion shown at the bottom of page 2 of the Minutes of December 6, 1976. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. The Chairman stated the motion was now back on the floor. Mr. Dinklage recommended that in view of the information given by the Chairman that the motion now being considered should be defeated. The motion was declared defeated. The Chairman said if there were no changes Council wished to make in the language before them, the City Manager should be instructed to warn this. A question was raised as to whether Council would meet on February 21 or 22. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council ask the City Manager to warn for public hearing the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance submitted by the Planning Commission, and the date to be either February 21st or 22nd, whichever is to be the regular meeting date of the Council. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. An amendment was suggested that this be warned as received from the Planning Commission. This was accepted by Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Dinklage. Mrs. Neubert asked if it would be possible to add on a new language such as sales of dry goods and variety merchandise something along the lines of a discount house and supermarket. Mr. Farrar said it could say the sale of dry goods and other things in that category not specifically mentioned in any other section. Mrs. Neubert explained her problem, that she wouldn't mind a bakery opening up but if there was a small supermarket operation there would be a problem. Mr. Farrar pointed out that once it is warned Council has to vote either Yes or No at that point after the public hearing. The point where it can be amended is prior to the public hearing and then it still has to go back to the Planning Commission for its comments. A discussion of procedure took place with Mr. Armstrong asking if it wouldn't be better to reject it now and send it back to the Planning Commission now. Mr. Flaherty's motion was passed unanimously. Mrs. Neubert recommended again that Council communicate to the Planning Commission that they consult with us before making amendments. Authorize City Manager to rehire former CETA employee to assist in recreation and street departments, utilizing Title II Funds Mr. Szymanski said the amount received was $16,000 under CETA funds which is to help cities maintain the level of services they required before the economic decline. One of the things done by this particular former employee was setting up equipment for sports and taking it down next morning before school activities begin. Getting someone to do this had been a real problem. The City would like to hire this man back for at least six months. Chairman Farrar said this sum was a legitimate use under the enabling legislation and would also come under the terms of the Charter. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council authorize the City Manager to increase the budgets for the Highway and Recreation Departments for a total increase of $4,500 for the purpose as outlined by the City Manager, this increase to be funded from money received from CETA. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Szymanski read aloud from the provisions for the use of CETA funds, one being that payment may not be used to initiate a service not provided during the last two fiscal years. Chairman Farrar said they will try to work this out with the City Attorney. The motion was passed unanimously. Review Planning Commission and Zoning Board agendas The City Manager said the Planning Commission would not meet this week. Regarding the one item on the Zoning Board agenda, he said he understood it was a temporary request. Mr. Farrar said he objected to increasing the residential density in an industrial zone, but if the trailer was to be just a temporary arrangement that would reduce somewhat that specific objection. Mr. Dinklage said the Zoning Board has the authority to put a time limit on it. He asked Mrs. Neubert if she would like to represent Council at that meeting. Mrs. Neubert replied she didn't think there was any reason to go. The Chairman suggested a motion that the Zoning Board consider in its deliberations a period of time not to exceed 4 years. Mrs. Neubert felt that was too long and suggested 2 years. Mr. Szymanski said it does not affect the character of the neighborhood as there are trailers now across the street, and he, as a neighbor, would have no objection. He suggested 3 years. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council send a recommendation to the Zoning Board that they consider limiting this variance not to exceed two years for the reason that Council feels that increasing the permanent residential population in an industrial zone is bad public policy. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. It was noted the next meeting of the Zoning Board is January 3rd. Chairman Farrar reported on the variance given for the housing for the elderly project with conditions which limit the concern expressed over the density increase but not to completely foreclose the consequences that the uses in the future could be for housing other than for the elderly. The Zoning Board appreciated the dilemma Council was in, that Council wished to further the legitimate housing for the elderly in this area without establishing a precedent for other density increases. Mr. Dinklage said his problem was that the developer can't lose; he has a good thing even if HUD folds. Mrs. Neubert objected, that the way it is set up, the owner has all the control. Mr. Dinklage expressed a hope that the administrative staff would keep close track of the development to be sure the developer didn't deviate in any way. Mr. Farrar said Council might want to go back to the Planning Commission and further define a dwelling unit. Mr. Dinklage said Chairman Farrar presented Council's position very well at the Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Farrar said if the conditions to the variance can be enforced by the City, the City is in a much stronger position than if it had been granted without these conditions. Recreation Department Survey Mr. Dinklage said the survey is in many ways a reflection of the City government and it is possible that it be interpreted as such by the citizens and he would like the opportunity to see it and review it before it goes out. He asked if that could be arranged. The Chairman agreed this could be done when the survey is ready. Southern Connector discussion Mrs. Neubert said Burlington feels South Burlington's southern connector has absolutely nothing to do with their project; they said our connector connects to Queen City Park and their interchange does not connect to Queen City Park, and if there ever was an agreement it was on a Pine Street extension. She said she was told there are procedures South Burlington must institute to get ourselves back on the track. She was very unhappy, she said, with the way the interchange dumps all the traffic onto Shelburne Road. Chairman Farrar asked about Minutes of these meetings, and Mrs. Neubert said their tape recorder never seems to be working and there are no Minutes transcribed. The group has a secretary who refuses to take Minutes. Mr. Szymanski said he never knew just what the geometrics of the interchange were. Mr. Szymanski said he didn't think there was anyone's fault about the Urban Systems; it was always South Burlington's intent to extend Pine Street. We have got to connect somewhere if it isn't going to connect at Pine Street. He said he talked with the Highway Department after the last meeting and told them South Burlington wanted to be considered in the planning. Going back to about 1970 the City did work out a transportation plan and it was on it at that time, and he has to go through this again. Mr. Farrar said Chairman Wessel said this has to be done; planning must be done for a limited access bypass paralleling Shelburne Road. The concern is that it be planned in such a way that it just doesn't turn into another Shelburne Road, planned so that it is a "through road" and not a "to road." Mrs. Neubert said there could be one exit for all the properties along it. She wouldn't want to penalize the properties involved. There could be another road they could all use. Possibly a two-lane traffic mover with two extra lanes. Mr. Dinlage suggested laying it out the best way and give that input to the Traffic Department of the State and the Burlington Planning Commission and wherever possible use our influence to see that is what happens. An Official Map would be the answer. Chairman Farrar suggested getting in touch with Bruce Houghton, and Mr. Szymanski said the Highway Department will help. Mrs. Neubert explained the interchange has been approved by that committee and it is up to South Burlington to influence them and the Highway Department to take back that vote — this has to be done by the end of January. The Chairman is to contact the Regional Planning Commission and also the State, if necessary. Mr. Dinklage suggested a sketch of what South Burlington feels would be the best interchange. It is necessary to come forth with some recommendations. The Chairman said Mrs. Neubert had done a good job on that committee. It was noted there will be a joint meeting with the School Board for December 29th. The next meeting for the Council will be January 3rd. It was moved by Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Mr. Armstrong that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.