Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/15/1976CITY COUNCIL CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 1976 At the April 5th meeting of the City Council it was voted unanimously to accept the Minutes of March 15, 1976, with the following corrections: On page 2, line 18, 19, and 20, should be deleted and the following words substituted: Mrs. Neubert said she wasn't sure where we should be taking this, whether it was to reverse the decision of the Zoning Board or whether we needed to clarify the legality. Page 2, line 25, the words not want to ask were omitted after he would, and should be inserted. Page 3, line 28, change period to a comma at the end of the sentence and add the words: where legality is a question and the appellant has a lawyer and we don't. Page 4, line 8, add another sentence to read: They were hearing what think should be a zone change and with a zone change the question of economic hardship would not arise. Page 4, line 26. It makes a very compelling case should be changed to Attorney Parker makes a very compelling case... Page 6, line 17, change period to comma at the end of the sentence and add; and not allow them to participate and withdraw permission to participate when the Zoning Board doesn't like what is being said. Page 6, line 25, insert the words at first she said she was a member... Page 6, line 26, after the City Council add on the Task Force to carry information back to the Council. Page 5, 4th line from the bottom of the page, eliminate was not something which could be discussed and substitute he did not think needed to be discussed. Page 5, last line, eliminate the period and add that took place after the tentative executive session. CITY COUNCIL MARCH 15, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, March 15, 1976, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman; John Dinklage, Michael Flaherty, Diane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator: Cynthia A. Rubin, Sheri Larsen, Nancy Grucza, William B. Wessel, F. McCaffrey, Russell Chase, Albert Audette The meeting was called to order by Chairman Farrar at 8:00 p.m. Minutes of March 8, 1976, special meeting On page 1, the following should be added at the bottom of the page: Mr. Dinklage called Mr. O'Neill's attention to some hazards on playground areas caused by exposed concrete footings for the playground equipment and asked that a survey of the play areas be made to correct these hazards. It was moved by Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of March 8, 1976, subject to the above addition. Disbursement orders It was noted by the Chairman that Disbursement orders were ready to be signed. Citizens' request to discuss Lamplough use variance Mrs. Rubin asked Chairman Farrar if he had received any letters from citizens regarding the Lamplough property zoning variance and Mr. Farrar replied he had received two letters. Mr. Dinklage noted that the Council's information was not totally complete because the findings of fact had not been received although he had specifically asked for a copy. Mr. Ward said they had been released; it was established that Mrs. Neubert was the only one who had received a copy. The findings of fact were then read aloud by Chairman Farrar. Mrs. Rubin questioned the findings of fact as not being specific enough; she felt the general welfare of the community was not represented in the decision. She asked where to turn to determine the legality, what recourse do citizens have other than litigation. The Chairman said as he understood the law which was changed about a year ago, the appeal procedures from the zoning board start from scratch all over again. The appellant would come in and present his case and anyone else could come in and present opposition. In prior years the appeal to the court would determine the adequacy of the procedure but this is no longer the case. The citizens do have a recourse depending upon what their complaint is. Mrs. Krapcho said if the City Attorney were to look over the decisions and were to make a determination to his own satisfaction that the evidence did not fulfill the requirements and the City decided it was important enough to challenge the proceedings, she was not sure what difference it makes that the court hears the appeal if, in that case, the City chooses to represent itself, which it did not do initially to challenge the presentation of the applicant. Chairman Farrar said that would be possible but would not really be an answer to the question as to whether the proceedings were proper and that, given the information the Board had, did they arrive at the proper decision. Mrs. Krapcho said if the decision came out as it did initially it would suggest that the initial decision was appropriate; if it was completely contrary then there would be an opposite interpretation. Mrs. Neubert said she didn't know what she wanted; she didn't know whether they wanted to reverse the decision of the Zoning Board. She didn't feel that way; she happens to be against use variances in cases like this. Mrs. Krapcho said she was interested in getting the rules on granting of variances very clearly defined in the minds of the zoning Board. She is not interested in the decision on the Lamplough property; she is interested in the decision on the variance. Mr. Dinklage said he would the City Attorney to tell what was right and what was wrong, that the Board made this determination on the evidence presented. Mr. Dinklage's concern was that the Board seemed to have based its decision on the test of economic hardship, whereas he felt the test of hardship should be based on unique physical circumstances of a site which might make it impossible to be developed in strict conformity with the zoning ordinance. In this case it clearly could have been developed. He referred to the Minutes of January 19th, page 12, zoning land for it's highest and best use, and then said the Master Plan puts severe restraints on that, that economic health depends on commercial growth but unplanned commercial growth creates traffic problems, downgrades residential neighborhoods, etc. Under the Growth Policy, Chapter One, the rate and location of economic growth is to be planned according to the needs of the people of South Burlington as determined by the Planning Commission. Even though there is a movement a foot to change the zone for that parcel of land, the present zone is the law, and he doesn't think the Zoning Board has the authority to maximize the highest and best use without considering the zoning ordinance and the Master Plan. The citizens do not wish to see intensive development at the present time in the Lamplough property for a variety of reasons. I think the variance that has been granted goes against that view, he said. He said he didn't feel the Zoning Board should operate in a true adversary procedure like a trial where the jury makes its decision on the facts presented. Our Zoning Board is expected to have knowledge of the zoning law, past developments of the City, the wishes of the community, and presumably they have the responsibility to question the presentation based on their own personal knowledge. Mr. Dinklage said he did not feel the applicant had exhausted all of the available avenues under the present zoning. Some of the uses permitted under the PUD concept would clearly have increased the economic return to the owner, and when the applicant chose not to invoke those provisions the Board did not choose to question this. This sets a very damaging precedent for all the zoning regulations of South Burlington if the Zoning Board were to accept without question the only alternative the applicant could see. The intent of the zoning ordinance is violated by these concepts of maximizing only the economic hardship without consideration of possible uses under the zoning ordinance. It raises the question of who is supposed to oppose the arguments offered by an appellant. He believed there are responsible members on the Zoning Board but they did not countenance arguments. Mrs. Neubert said valid points were raised by the audience. Attorney Parker was the only spokesman and resented audience participation and particularly her participation. She tried to speak; was told she could only ask questions and not make statements; she didn't know who she was supposed to cross examine. When people in the audience raised questions she didn't think any attempt was made to answer these questions. The audience did not get the benefit of Mr. Spokes' opinion. People were going away very dissatisfied. She felt no one was making any attempt to refute the statements Mr. Parker made. Mrs. Larsen said her reading had suggested that hardship referred to hardship created by physical hardship. She said she was the one who had raised the question of the use variance, that an opinion be obtained from the City Attorney, and they thought she was questioning whether or not the appeal could be heard. She was questioning the right to grant a use variance, but assuming a use variance could be granted she felt the Board's findings of fact to be rather weak and could be argued on almost every point, based on her reading of Vermont law. Mrs. Neubert said that was her frustration; is the Zoning Board capable of handling a case like this. Chairman Farrar said this has to be looked in two ways. Do we wish to challenge this particular decision because it is thought to be a bad decision; or do we wish to pass from this particular decision but learn something from it, and learn how to get better procedures so that the next time there would be a result which was more reasonable. Mrs. Larsen said Council might think about going to court mainly because of the kind of precedent they could create. She asked if this could be dealt with by talking with the Zoning Board. Mr. Farrar said an appeal would have to be filed sometime in the next month and the zoning is to be changed on the piece of property. His understanding is the proposed zone would basically allow what is being asked for here, and he asked Mr. Ward if that was the case. Mr. Ward replied it is an allowable use under the proposed change. Mr. Farrar said the City might be in the position of approving a zone change which would probably predate the appeal. It would just be dropped and they wouldn't get a decision that way. Mrs. Grucza, saying she was concerned with the precedent, asked if something could be done to make it very clear to the Zoning Board that they have to follow very careful procedures. They have rather brushed the people aside. On March 1st she took the position that traffic did go to the merits of the case and the Board would not consider it. They just cut the audience off. Also she objected to the fact that while the Minutes are supposed to be in the Library they were not available for several previous meetings of the Zoning Board because the Board had not yet approved them. Mr. Flaherty explained the Zoning Board is here primarily for the people, not for the Town. If there was no arrangement for appealing for variances there would be no method for appeal by the people. The Zoning Board is here for that purpose, to represent the people and it should represent them. If appeals and variances are not allowed, the representation of the people is cut right off. Mrs. Neubert said this wasn't a real appeal; they were hearing the wrong thing, whether or not it was an economic hardship. Chairman Farrar said they had the right o appeal; it is very difficult with the information available to say wheter they made the right decision. The question is not so much about the decision but about the procedures. He didn't think an appeal would be really looking at the procedures, but at the evidence. Mrs. Neubert asked who the City Attorney works for. Mr. Farrar said his definition would be that he works for the people as represented by the government, the Zoning Board being a part of the government. Mrs. Neubert said if he works for the Zoning Board, the Council and the Planning Commission, and they all represent the public, and the public asks a question that demands a legal answer, she didn't think in this gave he gave an answer. Mr. Farrar said questions can only be asked of the City Attorney through the public representatives. It is up to the public to go to the City Council to ask questions of the City Attorney. Mr. Dinklage said the City Attorney did respond in writing to the Zoning Board and said they did have the right to hear the appeal, but he did not specifically addressed the question of whether there is such a thing as a use variance. It makes a very compelling case that statutes do not mention that a use variance can or cannot be granted and Mr. Dinklage said he felt that to be a peripheral issue. His primary concern is that even if this use if allowed in the new zone and question of appeal becomes moot, there is a very dangerous precedent of a case where an appellant has tried to show economic hardship without exhausting all of the available uses in the zone. Since there are many zones in this town which have multiple uses permitted, he felt this was a dangerous precedent. Mrs. Neubert felt this all stems from needing some advice before it was set up as this kind of appeal. She thought there was a misstep in there as to the Zoning Board and the City Attorney. She said she thought this should be a zone change, and if the Attorney felt this should be a zone change then they would not have been hearing a use variance. It was the fact that a use variance was asked for that caused all the problems. Mr. Dinklage said he disagreed strongly with Mrs. Neubert's opinion that anyone has the right to tell anyone else what process of appeal he should take. He felt it was quite proper and lawful. They attempted to show, as has been reflected in the findings of fact, that the owner of the land was under the severe economic hardship. They were appealing what was permitted. Mrs. Neubert said they were not; they were appealing the uses of the existing zone. Mr. Dinklage said Mr. Ward refused them a building permit. Any of as has a right to make as compelling an argument as possible. The argument is with the procedural matters; anyone has a right to appeal. Mrs. Neuabert said the Zoning Board has only the right to hear the appeal. They cannot change the law that the Council makes. Mr. Dinklage said he agreed, quoting a paragraph stating the Zoning Board is to act only within the guidelines set by the ordinance. He said he thought they went beyond the guidelines, and if he had been on the Zoning Board he would have thrown it out on that basis. He said his personal feeling was that something should be done to modify a very damaging precedent He was not convinced that it would be wise to appeal this in court although he did feel such grounds for appeal are there. He said he didn't happen to disagree with the use proposed. His concern is with the precedent as it now stands. How is the City going to extricate itself from being bound in the future by that precedent, the precedent being that the Zoning Board has taken the need for the highest and best use of the land out of context and focused only on the highest rate of economic return without considering the other constraints he had mentioned earlier. Mrs. Neubert asked to see the letter from the City Attorney to Chairman Myette, and this was given to her. Mrs. Krapcho then said she didn't see that Attorney Parker had addressed the point that hardship arises out of physical problems, circumstances unique to that, particular piece of property, not to circumstances created by the zoning ordinance. A granting of a variance for one specific price of land must not lead to further requests to grant similar variances in that area. If the problem arises out of the zoning of that district then the situation should be addressed by other means than a variance request. She said she recognized the necessity for a variance procedure but a careful delineation should be made between circumstances which can be addressed through variance and those where a zone change is the appropriate step to take. She was not concerned with the zone change the Planning Commission is proposing as this is still subject to popular referendum by the community so it really can't be a consideration in this. There was a significant discrepancy between the appraisal value of this property and the potential purchase price of the property and apparently the proposed project, she thought, was based on that. The variance is the question; it was not just for a general use but for a certain intensity of use; there would 50% more commercial utilization of the area than is the case with the Holiday Inn property. A variance could have been granted for less depth or less units. Mrs. Neubert said that Chairman Myette was telling people it was going to be zoned that way; it was very shocking to her and completely improper in relation to findings of fact. Mr. Dinklage said he had explained his concern about the precedent and if anyone else shares his concern he would like to discuss this with the City Attorney to see if there are any ways to eliminate what he views as a legal precedent. Mrs. Neubert asked if he was not opposed to use variances. Mr. Dinklage replied in this case he did not think the findings of fact substantiate it. Mrs. Neubert then asked him if he personally disagreed with a decision made by the Zoning Board. Mr. Dinklage replied Yes. Mrs. Neubert said she thought them was a question of legality to begin with. Mr. Dinklage said he didn't share in that thought. Mrs. Rubin said she was struck by the openness of the exchange here and she felt that depth of discussion was left out of the Zoning Board hearings. She said she would like more information about the meeting which was billed as an executive session by the Zoning Board. Chairman Farrar said this had been listed as a tentative executive session. Mr. Dinklage said there was a possibility of a minor procedural error which was not something which could be discussed. Mrs. Neubert said an executive session had been advertised and then it became an open meeting. What she objected to was the unwarned, unnotified presentation of testimony without the public present. Mr. Dinklage said he would like the opportunity to meet with the Zoning Board for discussion, but he was most concerned about trying to get advice on what recourse there is to what he felt was a damaging precedent. Mrs. Neubert said she agreed and would go one step further and say perhaps a vote is needed. Mr. Russell Chase said he approved of Mr. Dinklage's idea to do what can be done to be sure a precedent isn't set. The Zoning hearings were not well conducted; there was opportunity for all sorts of criticisms. Mrs. Krapoho said that according to Vermont Statutes the public is very limited in what kind of role it is allowed to play; a formal petition by ten members of the public is required. She didn't think the Zoning Board should be faulted on that. Her position is that she wants to see the Zoning Board and the Planning Commission follow the requirements of the statutes and not put them aside. Mrs. Neubert said the public should be informed ahead of time, and the Zoning Board should make people aware that if they want to participate there has to be a petition from ten people. Mrs. Krapcho added that the points raised must be confined to certain specific issues. Mr. Dinklage referred to the question raised by Attorney Parker as to there being no formal input from Council or the Planning Commission, and said he attended the first meeting but decided to keep out of the process because he recognized what an important question it was to be and he wanted the Board to feel it was operating as an independent body. Mrs. Neubert said she limited herself to questions; she said she was a member of the Williston Road Task Force and she represented the City Council, and Mr. Parker felt that didn't count. She said she thought a member of the City Council should always be permitted to attend a meeting and express an opinion without being cut off. Chairman Farrar said Council might wish to take a position to clarify the situation of City participation in future requests. Mrs. Rubin asked for more communication between the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board she felt was not really accessible to the public whereas the Planning Commission is more accessible. Mr. Farrar said Council might wish to ask for input from the Planning Commission as a matter of procedure; Council might wish to become a party to any particular question; perhaps in this instance Council made a mistake in not becoming a party. Mr. Flaherty cautioned that differing with the judgment of a Board which was appointed by Council could be setting just as dangerous a precedent as allowing a use variance. Mrs. Neubert said she agreed and that is why she is more concerned with the legality. Mr. Flaherty said rather than fighting the Board on judgment Council has the right to not reappoint members when they are up for reappointment. Mr. Merrill said this was a very crucial point. He would feel extremely uncomfortable in appealing a decision; it would be impossible to get citizens to serve again on these Boards. The point is the Board did grant a variance and Council has to decide what and how far its limits are. Perhaps there should be a better educated Zoning Board. Mr. Merrill stressed the importance of a member going to any kind of meeting, that this member should say he or she is not representing Council. He doesn't want Mrs. Neubert, he said, going into the Zoning Board meetings and giving the impression she represents Council. This has come back to him several times that someone gives the impression he is representing Council. He does want the members to be free to express their own personal opinions. Mrs. Neubert responded that she has had this problem ever since being elected, and said nobody is going to shut her out and keep me out of a meeting. I represent myself and I represent the public and I do represent myself as one member of Council. I can't take that away. She felt it is important, this business of taking a Zoning Board to court, and it is important for her as one member of the Council to express dissatisfaction with the procedures. Mr. Farrar said there is no way to take the Zoning Board to court, what we would be doing is to appeal the decision, and this should not be taken by any members of the Board as a question of their character or ability. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council meet with the Zoning Board to discuss the comments received from the public. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mrs. Neubert said the motion doesn't accomplish anything and Mr. Merrill said he did not agree with the motion. He would like to meet with the Board and discuss the state regulations governing zoning. Mr. Dinklage said he would be happy to withdraw his motion. Mr. Farrar said he would like to set up formalized procedures for the future where the Zoning Board as the separate judicial function can meet with the Council as the executive arm concerning requests for zoning variances. Mr. Merrill asked if Mr. Myette made it clear at the beginning of the first hearing on the Lamplough request that only adjoining property owners could discuss the request. Mrs. Larsen said Mr. Myette stated only questions could be accepted, but no comments. Mr. Merrill asked if the people there understood that, and Mrs. Larsen said they didn't because zoning was a new procedure to everyone there and there was a lot of misinformation. Mr. Dinklage said the debate was cut off because the audience was offering no new information. Mr. Russell Chase said the work of the City Council is vital to the City and it is uncumbent on the Council to make decisions that are best for the City and if it embarrasses someone that is too bad, but anyone in the long run won't mind criticies. You can consider your actions in an intellectual way without criticizing anyone's character, but you shouldn't 1st these mistakes go. Mrs. Neubert asked if she was the only one who felt there was a legal mistake and Mr. Dinklage replied she was not the only one. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council meet in Executive Session with the City Attorney to discuss the legal implications of the Zoning Board's decision on the Lamplough property. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council meet next Monday evening to work on subdivision regulations, consult with the City Attorney on legal implications of the Zoning Board's decision, and if convenient to meet with the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the only Executive Session being with the City Attorney. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. The meeting will be held at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, March 22nd. Appoint Town Service Officer Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council appoint Mrs. Neubert as the Town Service Officer. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Motion carried by four affirmative votes, Mrs. Neubert abstaining. Authorize City Manager to sign deed transferring abandoned section of Spear Street to U.V.M. Mr. Szymanski explained this is the part of Spear Street which was abandoned when the jug handle was constructed, and was to be turned over to the University. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council authorize the City Manager to sign the deed transferring the abandoned section of Spear street to the University of Vermont. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. Appointment to the Sign Review Board Mr. Flaherty moved that Council appoint Frank Plumley to the Sign Review Board. Mr. Merrill objected, saying Mr. Plumley is an outstanding person and might be willing to serve on some other Board. Mr. Krapcho reminded Council that the Planning Commission still has a vacancy. The motion died for lack of a second. Sign Ambulance Agreement Mr. Szymanski said the contract is for the same price paid last year. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council sign the Ambulance Agreement with the City of Burlington. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Review of proposed 1976-77 budget and salary schedule Chairman Farrar explained there are now four acceptable classifications of City employees rather than three as in last year's schedule. The base level has been increased by 5½% over last year's base level. This recommendation was voted and unanimously approved by the members of the Salary Review Commission with the exception of Duane Merrill who was absent at that meeting. The longevity is basically unchanged he said. Mr. Farrar moved that on behalf of the Salary Review Commission he would recommend that Council adopt this salary schedule. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for adoption. Mr. Farrar stated the membership of the Commission consisted of two from Council; two from management; members from various departments, highway, sewer, fire, etc.; also a representative of the public was involved. Mr. McCaffrey asked if these people are elected or appointed, and Mr. Farrar said they are appointed, but basically on the recommendations of the various departments. Mr. McCaffrey asked how long they are in for, and Mr. Farrar replied some have served two years, some of them only one. Mr. McCaffrey questioned the Fire Department representation, and Mr. Flaherty said the department was represented. Mr. Farrar said there had been other members of the Fire Department who came to meetings and participated. Anyone was welcome to attend. Mr. Audette agreed that they were all public meetings, anyone could attend. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. McCaffrey if he had heard other complaints or if he had complaints, saying she had heard no complaints herself. Mr. McCaffrey said he was just trying to find out how they are appointed — no complaints. Mr. Farrar said he felt people should be rotated so different people get involved, but also they need come continuity. Regarding the Budget, Chairman Farrar said the changes proposed by the City Manager involve the treatment of the County Court House tax, and the City Attorney has ruled that portion of the tax which was voted on by the citizens of the county should be treated as bonded indebtedness and appear in that portion of our budget and not as part of the operating budget. This has been done and has resulted in no change in the tax rate but only a change in the format. Mr. Flaherty asked about the money from the tennis courts, that this was expected revenue but was not plugged into revenue. Mr. Farrar said he would suggest that the budget include one of the highway projects because it is extremely important to get started on a systematic way of doing this. He suggested Project #3 could be included in this year's budget without exceeding the limit of $6,800, and also recommended that $600 be included for library shelves. This would add up to $7,400 of the anticipated revenue of $15,000 from the government and would leave the tax rate as proposed. The other half of the $15,000 could be used next year. If the City can get this start this year it might be possible to take #1 and #4 as one big project next year. Mr. Szymanski said Bartlett Bay sewers will be on the ballot. In answer to a question by Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Szymanski said $6,670 is raised by one cent. Everyone expressed concern about the increased tax rate. Mr. Merrill recommended going through the budget again, that anything which could be eliminated should be eliminated. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council add two items to the budget, $6,800 for highway project #3 on the supplemental list; and $600 for library shelves. Also that Council include in the revenue projections the $15,000 which will be received from BOR for the tennis courts, and that the bonded indebtedness be reduced from 24% to 23%. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously by the four members present, Mr. Dinklage having left. Mr. Merrill moved that Council reduce the membership donation to the League of Cities and Towns by $500. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mr. Merrill moved that Council put back the $50 for the hallway light at City Hall. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mrs. Neubert moved that Council cut #295A, the budget for Human Services to $1,200. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mr. Merrill moved that Council cut back the budget for the Regional Planning Commission to $3,300. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mr. Merrill questioned if anything could be done about the subsidy for the Transit Authority. Mr. Farrar said the only thing the City could do would be to vote to get out of it; budgeting for it is the only thing that can be done this year. The Mass Transit Act may be enacted and money may be coming from that. Mr. Merrill said the City should make up its mind; there is a request rather often for a substantial increase in their subsidy. Mr. Merrill moved that Council increase the compensation for volunteer firemen by $100, making the budget for this an even $7,000. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. O'Neill about staffing the library, if volunteers could be used. Mr. O'Neill said they get $2.50 per hour and are asking for $2.75. Anytime volunteers are used in an area of serving the public, there will be public relations problems. It is too easy for volunteers to say they can't make it for various reasons, and residents coming to the library and finding it closed during hours when it is supposed to be open would have reason to complain. Asked about the program for exceptional children, Mr. O'Neill explained what he wanted to do to extend this service beyond what is done in the summer. Asked about tennis instructors, he said they are not classed as professionals but are people with some experience in teaching tennis. Classes include both those for adults and those for children. Mr. Merrill asked about the amount for repairs of cruisers in the Police Department budget, saying it seemed high if three vehicles are to be replaced this year. Mr. Szymanski said the repairs will run at least that for this year. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council meet on Thursday, March 18th, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving final approval to the budget for 1976-77. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. The meeting was declared adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.