Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/04/1983CITY COUNCIL APRIL 4, 1983 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, April 4, 1983, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Leona Lansing, Michael Flaherty, Hugh Marvin, William Burgess Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Department; David Spitz, City Planner; Albert Audette, Highway Department; Pat Burgmeier, The Other Paper; Nancy Wolfe, Dale Wolfe, Tom Cloutier Read Minutes of Regular Meetings of March 9, 1983 and March 21, 1983, and Joint Meeting with Planning Commission of March 22, 1983 Mr. Burgess moved that the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of March 9, 1983 and March 21, 1983 and of the Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission of March 22, 1983 be approved as presented. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous consent. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. Review Proposed Recreation Department Fee Charges Mr. O'Neill said that although it is difficult to pick a trend, it appears that even though there are fewer children in the schools, there is more participation in the recreation programs. He noted that there has been no restructuring of the fee schedule for many years and that most of the programs have been free or at minimal cost to participants. He said that both he and Mr. Szymanski felt there should be more revenue coming in. With these facts in mind, the new fee schedule (attached) was prepared. Since most City youngsters are completely dependent upon these programs during the summer months, fees for tennis and swimming will average only about $1.00 per week. The summer playground program will still be free to participants. Ms. Lansing asked what percentage of the program will be paid by the participants. Mr. O'Neill said it would vary, but in all cases it would be very small, 1% or 2%. The remainder will come from the City, with the School Department contributing the facilities. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council approve the fees outlined in Mr. O'Neill's memo to Mr. Szymanski of March 16, 1983. Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous approval. Determine Dog Damage Compensation & Action Against Dog Owner Mr. Szymanski indicated that Mr. Thieret, the complainant, has chosen to proceed against the City for compensation. Mr. Farrar explained that in cases of this sort, the complainant has the choice of proceeding against the City or against the owner of the dogs. Mr. Szymanski said he had checked with a local cattle dealer who said that $60 was a reasonable fee for the lamb that was killed. Mr. & Mrs. Wolfe, owners of the dog accused of the killing, indicated that they were willing to pay for the damages but not to acknowledge that their dog was responsible. They indicated that although Mr. Thieret said he had picked up their dog on March 27th, at the time of the attack, and had taken it to the pound at that time, they had been told by the pound that there dog was not brought in until March 29th at 4:45 p.m. They felt that this discrepancy cast a doubt as to the guilt of their dog. Mr. Farrar said he felt that the Council should try to find out the facts of the situation and get a statement from the owner of Pet Lodge, before making a decision about the dog. Click here for Police Complaint Report Click here for Ordinances relating to Animals Dogs Mr. Flaherty then moved that the Council authorize payment to Mr. Thieret for the sheep based on the City Manager's recommendation of $60.00. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Flaherty further moved that further discussion of the matter be tabled until the next meeting until a statement can be gotten from the owners of Pet Lodge. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Approve 1983-84 City Budget for presentation at the April 7, 1983 Public Hearing Mr. Flaherty moved that the budget prepared by the City Manager be approved as presented. Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous consent. Consider response to letter received from three South Burlington State Representatives concerning Correctional Facility expansion Mr. Marvin indicated that he felt the Council should reply to the State Representatives thanking them for their interest and concerns. Mr. Farrar agreed and added that the Council might also present to the Planning Commission any concerns relevant to the application. Mr. Flaherty also suggested that the original Planning Commission minutes be reviewed, since it appears that what is being planned may not be what was originally discussed. Discussion on Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Mr. Spitz indicated that it seems likely that the Governor will take the last step to create the MPO. In the meantime, several groups are attempting to determine how the MPO will be run. The Agency of Transportation is seeking reactions from communities to its "Prospectus," and the Regional Planning Commission would like a response to its proposed "By-Laws." Mr. Spitz said the key issue at the moment is where planning funds should go. The State currently gets $225,000 per year in planning funds. They propose to give 1/3 of this to the MPO. Also, a 15% match by local governments may be required. He indicated that several staffing options have been suggested. These include having the Agency of Transportation do all planning work; using the Regional Planning Commission administer all planning work; have the MPO hire its own staff; pass the planning money to local governments for use by their street & planning staffs; or various combinations of these options. Mr. Spitz indicated that he felt it was premature to make decisions at this time. Mr. Farrar said the State has intimated that if the State is spending the money there would be no local funds required but if the local areas are doing the planning and spending there would be a 15% local contribution required. It was decided to inform Barry Carris, the City's representative on the Regional Planning Commission, that the Council is not yet ready to act in this matter. Proposed Bond Issue for May 17, 1983 Ballot Mr. Farrar said a recent letter from the State says that as far as they know, the local match will be 2% for the projects concerned in the bond issue. This raises a question as to the amount to be requested in the bond issue. It was decided that the Council would meet at a special session on Tuesday, April 12, 1983 to discuss the wording of the bond issue. Mr. Flaherty moved for adjournment. Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous consent. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. SOUTH BURLINGTON RECREATION DEPARTMENT a 575 DORSET ST. SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05401 TEL:(802)863-2883 TO: WilliamSzyrnanski FROM: Bruce M. O'Neill RE: Recreation Fees DATE: March 16, 1983 Please find attached information that I have prepared for the South Burlington Recreation Committee. This information was presented to the Committee at their meeting on Monday, March 14, 1983. The hnmittee adopted the Recreation fees as presented. Page 1 lists the considerations to be followed when discussing fees and the simple formula that we adopted as a means of determining fees. Section 9 on that page is of major importance as in some cases the Recreation fee differs from the fee that would be established if we adhered strictly to the formula. Page 2 summarizes the length of each program, present fees, what the fee would be, based on the formula and what we recommend as the fee. Paae 3 t~kes the three fees, multipied by the number of participants in these various programs over the past year, and gives an indication of how much money would be raised in each program. Page 4 is a sumnary of what the Recreation Committee recommended for increased fees for lights at Jaycee Park. Please note that this is a $5.00 increase over the past years, and it institutes a fee for the first time for social functions in the O'Brien Center at Jaycee Park. Page 5 is the minutes from the March 14 meeting. Life. Be in%: ~ SOUTH BURLINGTON RECREATION DEPARTMENT • 575 DORSET ST. SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05401 TEL:(802)863-2883 The following phi losophies and guide1 ines wi 11 be used in establishing a series of fees for Recreation activities that come under the responsibility of the Recreation Committee (Athletics, Pl~ysical Programs). 1. All activities should be available to all citizens of the community. 2. No one should be denied the opportunity to participate because of their inability to pay a fee. I I 3. Those actual participants in a particular program should bear a greater financial responsibility for its operation than non participants. 4. There will be a fee established for all programs. This fee will help to defray expenses and/or to a1 low the start of new programs. It is not the intent of the Recreation Committee to make a profit on any activity. 5. Programs that require specialists will have a higher fee than those that do not require specialists. 6. Program that have special equipment needs will have a higher fee then those that do not require special equipment. 7. Those programs that require specialists or~,special equipment will have a basic fee of $.50 per hour based on the Recreation Department staff's best estimate as to how long a program will last. Those not requiring specialists and/or special equipment will have a basic fee of $ .25 per hour. I 8. Programs which would be considered essential ' for all citizens will have I I an adjusted fee, an example would be swimming. I 9. Where the above stated formula results in a sudden large increase in fees over what is presently being charged it will be adjusted at the discretion of the Recreation staff. An example would be Track. 10. In cases where the program fee schedule does not cover the cost of running the program and any budgeted amount would not make up the difference, then the Recreation Department staff has the authority to adjust the fee so as to cover all program costs. ~ I ~ I I Life. Be in it: 01475 SU 4 bm A-d NUMBER OF NUMBER OF TOTAL PRESENT POL ICY RECOMMENDED NAME OF PROGRAM WEEKS HOURS PER WK HOURS FEE FEE FEE Basketball 12 2 2 4 $ 2.00 $ 6.00 $ 4.00 Girls Gymnastics 6 1% 9 $ 3.00 $ 4.50 $ 4.50 Boys Gymnastics 6 1% 9 $ 1.50 $ 4.50 $ 4.50 Bowl i ng 7 2 14 Free Lane Chg. Lane Chg. Skiing 8 6 48 Free Lift Ticket Lift Tick. Cross Country Ski i ng 8 4 3 2 $10.00 $16.00 $16.00 Basketball Clinic 4 1% 6 $ 3.00 $ 3.50 $ 3.50 Men's Open Gym 12 1% 18 Free $ 1.00 $ l.OO/sessic Volleyball 16 2 3 2 Free $1.00 $l.OO/sessic Softball 7 3 2 1 $ 2.00 $ 5.25 $ 5.00 Track 8 3 2 4 Free $ 6.00 $ 3.00 Swimming 3 2%- 5 7%-15 Free $ 3.00 $ 3.00 Sports Cam s 2 $ 7-10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Tennis Lesson (Youth) 3 4 12 Free $ 3.00 $ 3.00 Adult Tennis 6 2 12 $ 4.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.09 Soccer 7 3 2 1 $ 2.00 $ 5.25 $ 5.00 1 Cheerleading 8 4 3 2 $ 2.00 $ 8.00 $ 5.00 PRESENT POLICY RECOMMENDED q::eyLa ;:GRAM FEE FEE FEE $408.00 $1,224.00 $ 816.00 Girls Gymnasium Boys Gymnasium Bowl i ng Skiing Cross Country Ski ing Basketball Clinic Men's Open Gym Vol 1 eybal 1 Softball Track Swimming Basketball Camp Soccer Camp Lacrosse Camp Baseball Camp uth Tennis Soccer Cheerleading 285.00 31.50 Free Free 200.00 117.00 Free Free 492.00 Free Free 84-120. 147-210. 42-60. 56-80. Free 168.00 427.50 94.50 Lane Chr. Lift Tick. 320.00 136.50 204.00 224.00 1,291.50 180.00 312.00 120.00 210 .oo 60.00 80.00 427.50 94.50 Lane Chr. Lift Tick. 320.00 136.50 204.00 224.00 1,230.00 90.00 312.00 120.00 210 .OO 60.00 80.00 SOUTH BURLINGTON RECREATION DEPARTMENT * - 575 DORSET ST. SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05401 TEL:(802)863-2883 FEES FOR FACILITY USE Field Lights-Jaycee Park 0' Brien Center-Jaycee Park for social functions $BxW effective July 1, 1983 $15.00 Showers Parties No charge for use of tennis courts or ball fields 1) Cost,ly to administer tennis courts a) no reservations used 2) Ball fields would require daily maintenance and that isn't possible or necessary. Most groups using fields also pay for lights. S OIJT!; 171 ~l<l,li':i:'i'ON I'OL I ('E IIEPUTMEN'I' trj - !;C)ll't'll ill l Ki, l N(:'l'i)N , VERMONT COMPLAINT NO. C-24442 COMPLAINANT 'S NAME Thie~t DOB :5-28-28 POB : Galion, Ohio COMPLAINANT'S ADDRESS 150SwiftSt- SouthBurlimJton PHONE 658-2340 REC *D BY Chief Carter ASS ICNED st Lavallee TIME DATE 3-29-83 *?? COMPLAINTI A dog by Dale Wolfe attacked ard killed a skep on 3-27-83. SUBJECT(S ) INVOLVED : Dale & Nancy Wolfe (dog mrs) 100 Allen Fld. INVESTIGATION I South Burlingtuil, Vt. On 3-29-83, Chief Carter was advised by tk city manager, Bill Szyrranski, that a dog had attacked and killed a sheep owned by Eugene Thciret of 150 Swift St. Mr. Thieet had apprehended tk dog and tkn called Pet Ldge who mnt to his residence ard picked up the dog. It had been asertained that tk dog was awned by Dale ard Nancy Flolfe of 100 Allen Rd. Nancy Wolfe had called tk police departmnt at 1557 hrs, on 3-27-83 to report that two of tkir huskies had gotten loose from them. On the afternoon of 3-30-83, 1 telepbned Eugene Thieret and learned that k still had tt~ carcass of a la& which had been attacM and killed by & dog. He said that hc had appreheded one of the dogs which had heen near his rvsidence and then called the Pet Mge- Ptl. Gary Smll wnt to the Tlzieret residence ard spoke to Mr. Thieret further about this corrplaint. Mr. Thieret told him that he had observed two dogs arourd his residence at appraxirnately 1730 hrs. on Sumlay, 3-27-83. One of tk dogs was inside tk fenced-in area where his skep are confined, while the otkr dog was just outside the fence. He caught tk dog which was bathering the skep. Tk1d.t dcx-j had blood on its face ard was described as a reddish brm colored with one brown eye and one blue eye. The dog which he was not able to catch was black in color with two tags on it. W. Thieret tkn checkd the area of tk skep's confineren? arvrt fourd that a 4 d ?y old la& had been killed as it was lying on tk side of tk hill with its throat tom open. He said that tk sheep was valued at $60. Mr. Thieret sh& Ptl. Small the carcass of the lamb which hacl since ken partially eaten by other animals. Ptl. Snlall said that 1~ could see where the throat had ken torn open. I spoke to Dale and Nancy Wolfe at tk police station on 3-30-83. Tky said that they here willing to mke ~stitution to tk owner of tk sheep. Dale Wolfe shmed m a collar with tags on it ad said that the dog "Bandit"', a Siberian Husky, had slipped out of its collar. The tag on tk collar shuwed that tk dog had been vaccinated for rabies with tag $1877. He also shclwed rre a registration for tk doq shmirq that it had 1982 South Burlington tag #481. nY3y tkn wnt to Pet Ledge wl~ 12 tky paid the required fees and retrieved tk dog. -/ - yLz, \Ltf, ,+/lCL- lNVES'I'I(:ArI'IN(; OI'l-'ICEK VCLC FORM . C~MFIANU ~NC; OFF ICEH / SOUTH BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT South Burl ington, Vermont Statement Form B Name, & c, y&/Ek>C 7- Complaint Number Address / SLyl F7- SF DOB t Time ROB: G/$&L-&M 0h9~ Officer flFF/~Efl Sh -4 The f-ollowing statement is the truth to the best of my Knowledger ~fn/DAy MARCH 27 AT 4P~/?oJlj~4~~~~ /7:3D f *messed ' -. - .& ". ~, - : ,-..+. - , Signed & T.20 $3684 INT. SEC.-ANIMALS Ch. 193 8 3684. -Offenses; bill of costs in prosecution The holder of the permit who neglects to remedy conditions speci- fied in said quarantine order, other than the prevalence of con- tagious disease, within ten days after receiving notice of such order, or who sells, gives away or otherwise removes a dog under quar- antine or affected with a contagious disease, shall be deemed guilty of cruelty to animals as provided in section 403 of Title 13, and the provisions of subchapters 1 and 2 of chapter 9 of Title 13 shall apply. Necessary fees and expenses of a veterinarian desig- nated by such officer or agent shall be included in the bill of costs in a prosecution made hereunder and shall be taxed to the re- spondent. ' HISTORY Source. 1951, No. 171. Subchapter 4. Damages by Dogs 5 3741. Election of remedy The owner of sheep, lambs or other domestic animals worried, maimed or killed by dogs may hive his election to proceed against the town, or against the owner of such dogs under the provisions of this subchapter; but having signified his election by proceeding in either mode, he shall not have the other remedy. HISTORY Source. V.S. 1947, 8 7622. P.L 3 8285. G.L. $ 6736. P.S. $ 5645. V.S. 8 4842. R.L 5 4048. 1816, No. 16.3 10. ANNOTATIONS 1. Quution for jury. Court properly submitted it to jury to' determine whether plaintiff had signified his election to proceed against town in such a manner that he could not afterwards proceed against clefendant. Remele v. Donahue (1882) 54 Vt. 555.60 Yale L. J. 783. $ 3742. Notice of damage; appraisal A person who suffers loss by the worrying, maiming or killing of his sheep, lambs, fowls or other domestic animals, by dogs, within twenty-four hours after he learns of such damage, shall give notice thereof to one or more of the selectmen of the town wherein the damage was done, who shall proceed to the premises where the damage was done and determine whether the same was inflicted by dogs, and, if so, oppmjse the amount thel.eof and return a cer- tificate of sucll iirnou~lt to the selectmen of suclr towl); but if, in the opinion of the seler $20.00, he shall appoin. selectman, shall apprais certificate of the same Such appraisal shall b not less than one-half than fifty cents per he; ffock over three mont Source. V.S. 1947, g 7617 8 1. G.L. 6730. P.S. 5 66 1876, No. 16, 10. 1. Effect of common law. mals and fowl did not under: and in so far as they are a continues ns to cases outsic 202,22 A2d 506. 2. Duty of releetinen. UI))F damage through killing of h selectman affirmatively to de damage and certify to selec Vt. 493, 70 Atl. 1061. $ 3743. Examination of a Such selectmen shaJ1 when doubt exists, may interested and make sud shall issue an order urn damage was done, for al Source. V.S. 1947, 4 7620. P.S. 5 5642. V.S. 8 4839. R. 3 3744. Fees and travel e: The appraisers shall re moneys received under 1 each for every exarninati acting in the case shall r his necessaly trtlvel. Source. V.S. 1947, 3, 7619. I'.s. 8 5641. V.S. $ 4838, 188 -ANIBlAI,S Ch. 1'33 gle "‘Btion o remedy conditions speci- Ch. 193 uocs T.20 5 37-44 her .than the prevalence of con- kr receiving notice of such order, wise removes a dog under quar- a disease, shall be deemed guilty in section 403 of Title 13, and and 2 of chapter 9 of Title 13 xpenses of a veterinarian desig- 11 be included in the bill of costs . and shall be taxed to the re-::, 2;;: )IY :m.ages by Dogs e his election to proceed against Re other remedy. RY 0s. 1 .er domestic animals, by dogs, &men of such town; but if, in the opinion of the selectman, the amount of sucl~ damage exceeds $20.00, he shall appoint (two disinterested persons, who, with the selectman, shall appraise the amount of such damage and return a certificate of the same to the selectmen of such town forthwith. Such appraisal shall be for the full value of all animals killed, not less than one-half value of all animals maimed and not less than fifty cents per head for any injury to the remainder of the flock over three months of age, caused by worrying. H~srouv Source. VS. 1947, 8 7617. P.L. 5 8280. 1933, No. 145, 5 1. 1927, No. 125, B 1. G.L. Q 6730. P.S. 8 6639. V.S. 8 4836. 1888, No. 107, 1. R.L. 8 4043. 1876, No. 16. 8 10. ANNOTATIONS 1. Effect of common law. Statutes concerning dog damage to domestic ani- mals and fowl did not undertake to cover whole subject matter of dog damage, and in so far as they are more narrow than common law, common-law right continuer as to cases outside their scope. State v. Sylvester (1941) 112 Vt. 202, 22 A.2d 505. 2. Duty of selectmen. When person informed selectman that he had suffel~d damage through killing of his sheep in that town by dogs, it was the duty of selectman affirmatively to decide whether that was true, and, if so, to appraise damage and certify to selectmen amount thereof. Otis V. Bridport (1908) 81 Vt. 493, 70 Atl. 1061. 8 3743. Examination of certificate Such selectmen shall forthwith examine such certificate and, when doubt exists, may summon the appraisers and all parties interested and make such examination as they deem proper. They shall issue an order upon the treasurer of the town in which .the damage was done, for all or any part thereof, as justice requires. HISTORY Source. V.S. 1947, 8 7620. P.L. S 8m. 1927, No. 126, 8 3. G.L. 5 6733. P.S. 5 5642. V.S. g 4839. RL. 8 4045. 1876. No. 16, 8 10. 8 3744. Fees and travel expenses The appraisers shall receive from the town treasurer, out of the moneys received under the provisions of this subchapter, $1.00 each for, every examination so made by them, and the selectman acting in the case shall receive twenty cents a mile one way, for his necessary travel. Hrm~ Source. V.S. 1947, 5 7619. P.L. 5 8282. 1927, No. 125, fi 2. G.L. 9 6732. P.S. Q 5641. V.S. Q 4838. 1888, No. 107, 8 2. RL. 8 4044. 1876, No. 16, 8 10. -I[ s 1 ill A 1.S ' Ch. 193 ch. 193 DOCS T.20 S 37-17 ';ograise damage done to sheep F, shall make inquiry and, if pos- .orrying or wounding such sheep when such selectman has, to his , he shall issue his warrant to a .riding him forthwith to kill such . the officer shall receive for such for the killing of unlicensed dogs. .rd for the identification of such eed the sum of $5.00 and shall ut of the moneys received under i.' .. VRY gl. C.L. 8 6731. 1912, No. '227, P.S. w, No. 100, p 2. town to perform the duties prescribed ; title, or the treasurer to make 3543 of this title, the party st& . same of such town in an action. ;&. $ 3.- * , :-- my - m. 198, No. 125, 5 4. G.L. Q 6736; !<' ; *{,! ...:#, +: -...7.+;::,*;; :- 2; '&:.T; ;;I&.%: - :;{ .. - .I .. xect one suffering cerbin damsgw &.- . ' i town, compensation therefor in fall""'3 Ad, through an appraisal by s sd*~: -\::.- Barber v. Dummerstan (1900) 72 <Y&+,$-. : 2,q-T. . *r'. z..: ring such damage might, upon fdldx19; w of the town in an action ,of -debt; -g-::, .- kl not previously exist, and in dew cif : 3 in its operation. Id. a town for value of ;t selectman when r. whether sheep had been .n instruction that, if the and honest investigation, if his case was made out in &;-by dogs, but decided and o?@ only that he was unable to determine matter one way or other, defendant was not prejudiced by the court's failure to charge that burden was on plaintiff to make out his case before selectman. Id. In such case court properly refused to charge that selectman was entitled to an opportunity to view carcasses of sheep, and examine premises, and that fury could consider removal of carcasses and the failure to notify the select- men for week, as suspicious circumstances, in determining whether the sheep were killed by dogs, in case they found that the selectmen had not properly performed their duties. Id. 5 3747. Action by town against owner of dogs The town may bring an action of tort against the owner or keeper of a dog involved in doing damage to sheep, lambs or other do- mestic animals, in such town, which damage the selectmen have ordered to be paid, to recover the full amount thereof to the use of such town. Hrmr Source. V.S. 1947, H 7623. P.L. 4 8286. G.L. 8 6737. P.S. 8 5646. V.S. 8 4843. R.L. 5 4049. 1876, No. 16,g 12. ANNOTATIONS Constitutionality, 1 Joint action, 2 Evidence, 4 Measure of damages, 3 1. Constitutionality. Statute was not unconstitutional because the damages were appraised without notice to owner of doe, for such appraisal was not conclusive on owner, nor made with reference to recovery of damages from him. Fairchild v. Rich (1895) 68 Vt. 202, 34 Atl. 692. 2. Joint action. Action may be joint against owners of two or more dogs. Fairchild v. Rich (1895) 68 Vt. 202, 34 Atl. 692, 9 A.L.R. 947, 49 A.L.R. 854. 3. Measure of damages. Measure of damages was actual damages and not amount of appraisal. Fairchild v. Rich (1895) 68 Vt. 202.34 Atl. 692. 4. Evidencc In action under this section, when evidence had been intro- duced showing propensity and opportunity for defendant's dam to kill sheep, evidence that pasture where sheep were injured was common hunting ground, where dogs hunted foxes and rabbits, was inadmissible to show that defend- ant's dogs were there for legitimate purpose, especially in view of positive evidence that defendant's dogs had on different occasions chased sheep of same flock. Lowell v. Parker (1923) 97 Vt. 15,121 Atl. 412,61 A.LR. 891. In slich action, evidence that witness saw two hounds, which he thought wen defendant's, go through different pasture than the one where sheep were killed, and that they did not molest sheep therein, was inadmissible, when plaintiff's evidence tended to show, and defendant did not claim contrary, that defendant's dogs were not at large, in that vicinity, at that time. Id. Question being whether defendants' dogs killed certain sheep, it was error to exclude statement made to plaintiff's selectman by one defendant, in pres- ence of the other, that "they thought there were other dogs in the scrape.', Dover v. Winchester (1898) 70 Vt. 418, 41 Atl. 445. Question being whether defendants' dogs killed sheep in question in one pasture, it was not relevant for defendants to show that other dogs killed other sheep, in a neighboring pasture, at about same time, in same manner in RECEIVED MAR 11 I983 STATE OF VERMONT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MANAGER'S OFFICE CITY SO. BURLlNGTON MONTPELIER 05602 March 9, 1983 Mr. Paul Farrar, Chairman South Burlington City Council South Burlington City Hall Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Paul: It has come to our attention that a 50-bed addition to the Chittenden Community Correctional Center in South Burlington is being planned for construction in summer 1984. We felt it prudent to bring this matter to your attention so that it might be discussed with ample time for any interaction between the city and the state, prior to final planning for such an addition. We would respectfully suggest that the Correctional Center's compliance as to capacity and type of prisoner in relation to the original intentions and agreements be studied as part of your discussion concerning expansion. We would be pleased to work with the city in any way you feel would be beneficial. Sincerely, State Representative State Representative State Representative Chittenden-6-1 Chittenden-6-2 Chittenden-6-3 cc: Mr. Sidney Poger, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission