HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-1976`#
AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 1976
The regular meeting of the Auburn City Council convened at 8:00 P.M., in the Auburn
City Council Chambers.
• ROLL CALL
Councilmen Present: Councilman Roegner, Kitchell, Craig, Larson, Anderson, Flechsig
and Lea.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Larson, seconded by Flechsig, that the Council Minutes of January 19,
1976, be approved as mailed.
MOTION CARRIED
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The City Clerk read a letter from Pat Nevins, Director of Public Works, regarding
the final assessment roll for LID 287. The cost of the project was $33,184.52 and
assessments levied against individual property owners was $33,184.52. Engineering
charges of $2,906.79 are included in the total cost and should be credited to
Current Expense and charged to the project as per the Transfer Order. Preliminary
Assessment Roll figures were $50.77 per front foot and on the Final Assessment Roll
are $46.301143 per front foot.
Mayor Kersey declared Public Hearing open on the Final Assessment Ro11 for Local
Improvement District No. 287, construction of excavation, ballasting, curb and gutter,
asphalt-concrete surfacing, storm drainage, 8 inch sanitary Sewer, 6 inch side sewers,
6 inch cast iron water main and fire hydrant on 21st Street S.E. between a point
325 feet East of Hemlock Street thence extending East a distance of 325 feet.
It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by Larson, that the Public Hearing be closed.
MOTION CARRIED
It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by Lea, that the Final Assessment Ro11 for
LID No. 287 be confirmed and the City Attorney be directed to draw up the necessary
ordinance approving and confirming the assessments and the assessment roll.
ROLL CALL VOTE: A11 Councilmen voting YES. MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Kersey declared Public Hearing open on the request of Loran W. Davis to rezone
from SPU (Special Property Use) to R-4 (Multi-Family) property located at the SW
corner of "R" and 31st Street S.E. (Application No. 27-75)
The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request with the following
conditions: (1) That the density be restricted to 8 living units, (2) That the
buildings have a minimum setback on 31st Street S.E. of 20 feet and on "R" Street S.E.
of 15 feet, (3) That two story construction be restricted to townhouses (1i ving units
1st floor, sleeping area 2nd floor), and (4) If townhouse (2 story) construction is
used there shall be planted and maintained a 15 foot green belt along the west
property line and a 10 foot greenbelt along the south property line.
Loran W. Davis, 3701 SW Prescott Place, Seattle, spoke in favor of his request and
stated he does go along with the Planning Commission recommendations.
It was moved by Craig, seconded by Anderson, that the Public Hearing be closed..
MOTION CARRIED
It was moved by Craig, seconded by Kitchell, that the request of Loran W. Davis to
rezone from SPU (Special Property Use) to R-4 (Multi-Family) be approved, the
Planning Commission recommendations be concurred with and the City Attorney be directed
to draw up the necessary ordinance.
ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmen voting YES. MOTION CARRIED
-1-
~°°'
a_b .
AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 1976
Mayor Kersey declared Public Hearing open on the request of Yohei and Emma Hikida
to rezone from R-2 (Single Family) to C-1 (Light Commercial) property located between
702 and 714 Auburn Way ZJorth. (Application No. 33-75)
The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request because it conforms to
our Comprehensive Plan and there is an existing R-4 zoning to the East which provides
the necessary transitional use between the commercial and single family uses;
consideration should be given when final development is being planned t_o the
re<ommendations of the Public Works Department.
Ernest Crane of 220 1st N.E., Attorney representing Mr. & Mrs. Hikida, spoke in
favor of the request and stated he would be glad to answer any questions.
It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by Kitchell, that the Public Hearing be closed.
MOTION CARRIED
It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by Lea, that the request of Yohei and Emma Hikida
to rezone from R-2 (Single Family) to C-1 (Light Commercial) be approved, the
Planning Commission recommendations be concurred with and the City Attorney be
directed to draw up the necessary ordinance.
ROLL CALL VOTE: A11 Councilmen voting YES.
MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Kersey announced that the Public Hearings being held on the request of Bonanza
°-- Investment Company & Harry Corliss and the request of Mark Land Development Company,
,,..~ Inc. and Robert Smythe their attorney are being recorded by a Court Recorder; therefore,
*-~ he requests that those individuals who speak in regard to these requests speak slowly
and clearly.
"~ Mayor Kersey declared Public Hearing open on the request of Bonanza Investment Company
& Harry Corliss for a Special Property Use Permit for gravel removal for property
located south of Stuck River and east of Oravetz Road. (Application No. 34-75)
The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request because it conforms to
our Comprehensive Plan and will allow the use of valuable natural resources and leave
the land usable for .the uses designated on our Comprehensive Land Use Plan and that
the following special conditions and restrictions be included with the exception that
#9 be amended to read as follows: A Performance Bond in the amount of $1,000 per
acre, the amount of acerage as set forth by the Department of Natural Resources
guaranteeing the restoration of the site excavated, shall be filed with the Planning
Department prior to commencing of grading. The Bond requirements of the City may
be co-beneficiary under the Bond requirements of the State of Washington Department
of Natural Resources.
Special Conditions and Restrictions:
1. The topography after excavation is complete shall conform as close as possible
to the Comprehensive Grading Plans and Profiles as adopted by City of Auburn
Resolution No. 457.
2. On-site gravel processing shall include processing by mechanical means and
shall include such accessory uses such as washing plants, scale houses, stock
piles etc., but not including asphalt or concrete batch plants.
3. Before installation of any equipment for the on-site gravel processing plant,
the following conditions must be met.
a. That the owner sign an agreement with the City of Auburn to be binding
on his heirs, successors and assigns agreeing to terminate all removal
and processing of natural resources under the two county permits issued
prior to annexation (ZA 62-126 & ZA 63-211).
b. That a restoration plan for that portion of the property where removal of
natural resources have been performed under the county permits be submitted
for approval of the City Council Planning and Beautification Committee.
Said restoration plan shall include but not be limited to those conditions
imposed under the two county permits.
-2-
7f
AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY FEBRUARY 2,.1976
c. That restoration begin on that portion of property where removal of
natural resources had been performed under-the county permits within one
(1) year after approval of the restoration plan. A performance bond
in the amount of $1,000.00 per acre guaranteeing that restoration will
begin within one (1) year after approval of the restoration plan shall be
filed with the Planning Department.
d. That the plant be located as shown on the plans prepared by LeRoy Engineers,
Puyallup, Washington, dated 20 December 1970 on file in the City of
Auburn Planning Department.
e. Submit proof of valid approval or permit from the Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency.
f. That natural screening be retained surrounding the plant and, where no
natural screening exists, that suitable trees be planted and caused to
grow. Said screening to be of sufficient height so that said plant site
will not be usable from Oravetz Road.
4. That the existing stockpiles of crushed stone shall be removed from the
property before any processing is begun at new site.
5. No bank run gravel shall be excavated and removed from the. north face of
the pit area excavated under the aforesaid county permits, unless it is being
removed in conjunction with the restoration of the site in which case written
notice shall be given to the City of Auburn Planning Department that said
removal will take place.
6. A berm of natural material shall be left along the north edge of the pit site
until all excavation has been completed on the southerly portion of the pit site
in conformance with the Master Grading Plan.
7. Maximum noise levels shall not exceed the standards set forth in the noise
control regulation attached hereto as Exhibit "a".
8. Land restoration when grading is completed shall be in conformance with the
land restoration plans on file in the City of Auburn Planning Department.
9. A Performance Bond in the amount of $1,000 per acre ..:guaranteeing the restora-
tion of the site excavated, .shall be filed with the Planning Department prior.
to commence of grading. The Bond requirements of the City may be co-beneficiary
under the Bond requirements of the State of Washington Department of Natural
Resources.
10. That all haul roads within the permit area or over adjacent property utilized
for truck traffic be surfaced to eliminate dust. Said surfacing to be asphaltic
concrete paving or bituminous surface treatment with crushed rock cover.
Y1. That any unimproved dedicated right-of-ways used for truck traffic between the
excavation and Oravetz Road shall be constructed in conformance with the City's
specifications for the classification of road in conformance with the City's
Comprehensive Street P1 an.
12. The hours of operation shall be limited to - from 7:00 A.M. td 7:00 P.M. -
six days a week. No material shall be removed from the site on Sunday or legal
holidays.
13. That all equipment operating within the permit area, using gasoline or diesel
engines, be equipped with a rtiuffler. A muffler means a device consisting of a
series of chambers, baffles or other mechanical designs for the purpose of re-
ceiving exhaust gases from an internal combustion engine and effective in reducing
,noise resulting therefrom,
14. The Department of Planning and Community Development shall have the right
to make inspections of any property at any reasonable time as deemed necessary
to determine .compliance with the permit. The Department shall notify, as deemed
necessary, any operator of a proposed inspection. However, Zack of .such noti-
fication shall not be cause for denying the right to inspect. The operator shall
have the option of accompanying the inspector.
- 3-
I~
AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 1976
Monthly inspections shall be made duriny the permit year by the Department
inspectors to insure compliance with the operating permit, reclamation p1 an, and
the plan of surface mining. Any and all deficiencies shall be immediately brought
to the attention of the operator, and written notice sped fying deficiencies shall
be given to the operator. The operator shall commence action within thirty (30)
days to rectify these deficiencies and shall diligently proceed until the deficiencies
are corrected:, PROVIDED, that deficiencies that also violate other laws that require
earlier rectification shall be corrected in accordance with the applicable time
provisions of such Laws, or shall immediately commence action to rectify deficiencies
that involve health, safety, and water pollution if those deficiencies are not
regulated by such laws.
The Department shall have grounds to terminate and cancel the operating permit
if the operator does not commence action to rectify any and all deficiencies as
specified above, or as specified in the permit. The operator and his surety shall
be notified of such termination and cancellation, said notice to be mailed to
the last known address of the operator and surety.
15. That this permit shall expire, unless earlier modi fied or terminated, twenty
(20) years from the date of approval of this permit.
16. Treat t:ie permit after approval by the City shall be signed by the applicant
and be recorded in the Office of the King County Auditor.
Councilman Craig asked if it would be proper to combine the Public Hearings on the
request of Bonanza Investment Company & Harry Corliss (Application No. 34-75) and
~'~ the request of Mark Land Development Company, Inc. and Robert Smythe their attorney
(Application No. 35-75) .
r-~
The City Attorney stated that the two Public Hearings could 7a~ cpr~~l.~e~ ~~' ~~@.~e ~~
;,;,..~ no opposition from the petitioners qr an~~n~ ~zn ~~~ ~~~'ieDCe.
R®~be~t Smyth, at~9~raey ~®p~~~~r~tlt~~ ~®~~ ,p~~~~~®~~~~, ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~
®.bj~ction t® ~®n~®,~ld~~ln~ ~~~ ~w® p~~ll~ N~~~~~~~.
,fit ~~ ~1~~ n®t~~ t~~t t~i~~~ w~~~ n® ®~~~~~~®~~ ~~®tn ar~y®~~ ~~ ~~~ ~u~~~~~~.
It w~~ m®v~d .~y Cx'dlg', ~~~®t~~'~d ,~~ ~®~~~~~, ~~~~ t~~ pta~~~~ N~~~~~~,~ ®~ ~1~~ ~~~~~~~
®~ S~n~nz~ ~`~v®~tm~r~t C®mp~r~~ ~ ~1~~~~ C®~~~~~ (~p~~~~~~~®~ N®. ~~-95) ~~~ ~~~
l~P~l~~~t~®n N®. 35-75) ~® c®n~®~~~~~~~.
~~~'~®N ~~~~~~~
N~~~~~~ ~~~®~~~~~.
,~~®~~®~3 Z5, ~w,~ 3~ N. , ~ 5 ~'~v'N.
_~_
7~
AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 1976
2. The topography after excavation is complete shall conform as close as possible
to the Comprehensive Grading Plans and Profiles as adopted by City of Auburn
Resolution No. 457.
3. On-site gravel processing shall include processing by mechanical means and
shall include such accessory uses such as washing plants, scale houses, stock-
piles etc., but not including asphalt or concrete batch plants.
4. Before installation of any equipment for the on-site gravel processing plant,
the following conditions must be met:
a. The plant shall be located in the existing pit area behind the berm (south
side of berm) - said location to be approved by the City Council Planning
~ Beautification Committee.
b. Submit proof of valid approval or permit from the Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency.
5. Maximum noise levels shall not exceed the standards set forth in the noise
control regulation attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
6. Land restoration when grading is completed shall be in conformance with the
land restoration plans on file in the City of Auburn Planning Department.
7. A Performance Bond in the amount of $1,000 per acre guaranteeing the restora-
tion of the site excavated, shall be filed with the Planning Department prior
to commence of grading. The Bond requirements of the City may be co-bene-
ficiary under the Bond requirements of the State of Washington Department of
Natural Resources.
8. That all haul roads within the permit area or over adjacent property utilized
for truck traffic be surfaced to eliminate dust. Said surfacing to be
asphaltic concrete paving or bituminous surface treatment with crushed rock
cover.
9. That any unimproved dedicated right-of-ways used for truck traffic between the
excavation and Oravetz Road shall be constructed in conformance with the
City's specifications for the classification of road in conformance with the
City's Comprehensive Street Plan.
10. The hours of operation shall be limited to - from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. -
six days a week. No material shall be removed from the site on Sunday or
legal holidays.
11. That all equipment operating within the permit area, using gasoline or diesel
engines, be equipped with a muffler. A muffler means a device consistsng of
~a series of chambers, baffles or other mechanical designs for the purpose of
receiving exhaust gases from an internal combustion engine and effective in
reducing noise resulting therefrom.
12. The Department of Planning and Community Development shall have the right
to make inspections of any property at any reasonable time as deemed necessary
to determine compliance with the permit. The Department shall notify, as deemed
necessary, any operator of a proposed inspection. However, Lack of such
notification shall not be cause for denying the right to inspect. The opera-
for shall have the option of accompanying the inspector.
Monthly inspections shall be made during the permit year by the Department.
inspectors t6 insure compliance with the operating permit, reclamation plan,
and the plan of surface mining. Any and all deficiencies shall be immediately
brought to the attention of the operator, and written notice specifying
deficiencies shall be gi ven to the operator. The operator shall commence
action within thirty (30) days to rectify these deficiencies and shall dili-
gently proceed until the deficiencies are corrected: FROVIDED, that deficien-
cies that also violate other laws that require earlier rectification shall be
corrected in accordance with the applicable time provisions of such laws,
or shall immediately commence action to rectify deficiencies that involve
health, safety, and water pollution if those deficiencies are not regulated
by such laws.
J
-5-
i ~'
AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY F'IiIiXC1ARY 2, l97(i
The Department shall have grounds to terminate and cancel the operating permit
if the operator does not commence action to rectify any and all deficiencies
as specified above, or as specified in the permit. The operator and his
surety shall be notified of such termination and cancellation, said notice
to be mailed to the .last lcnown address of the operator and surety.
13. That this permit shall expire, unless earlier modified or terminated, twenty
(20) years from the date of approval of this permit.
14. That the permit after approval by the City shall be signed by the applicant
and be recorded in the Office of the King County Auditor.
Mayor Kersey declared the Public Hearing open on the request of Bonanza Investment
Company & Harry Corliss (Application No. 34-75) and the request of Mark Land Development
Company, Inc. and Robert Smythe their attorney (Application No. 35-75) - recommendations
set forth in the preceeding information.
Ardice ICemp of 1628 37th Way 5.E., Bette Wolf of 1709 37th Way S.E. and Jean Boeh of
1802 37t1~ Way S.E. spoke in opposition to the request. These individuals voiced
concern of the safety of persons and property due to the dangers created by the
trucks, they were concerned witr'i the noise created by the operation and concerned
with the hours of operation. They requested something be done to reroute the trucks
and control the noise.
Richard Fiedler of 1915 "U" Street N.E. voiced concern over the weight limits of the
,.,~_ trucks and suggested there be a weighing system to be sure the roads are not overloaded.
~-
~. Bob .Smythe of 29 lst Street N.E., attorney representing both Bonanza and Mark Land
,j Development Company, stated with him this evening on behalf of Bonanza is the President,
~' Mr. Harry Corliss and on behalf of Mark Land is Mr. Richard Kammeyer, the Auburn
.~ Representative and Mr. George Hull, the Comptroller.
Since the two applications are consolidated, Mr. Smythe stated he will make one
presentation. The two particular tracks are the Mark Land tract consisting of a
158 acre tract and the Bonanza tract which is approximately 40 acres. The tracts
abutt each other and as far as locating the tracts geographically, he stated the Stuck
River is immediately to the north of the property and "R" Street Bridge and Oravetz
Road comes down on the south. The property surrounding the area is generally undeveloped,
the property off to the west is undeveloped and the property to the south and east
is also undeveloped. The Bonneville Transmission Line traverses generally in a
northeasterly or southwesterly direction and the property immediately north of the
ri ver is developed in a residential area called Riverside South. The residential
area is bounded both by the Stuck River and by a distance of approximately 1/2 mile
from the excavation sites.
Mr. Smythe stated the operation is already operating due to a previous permit granted
by the City Council, approximately five years ago. The residential property is buffered
from actual excavation and will continue to be buffered from excavation by a berm
(mound of earth) which is up to 80 feet in height. The berm actually constitutes
the property as it existed initially, with the removal operation lying behind it and
going down, and the last thing to be done in the removal operation will be the removal
of the berm.. The two permits were originally granted by the City Council in March
of 1971 and the applications are basically the same as they were then. The conditions
that the Planning Commission have recommended to you are basically the same. The only
difference between the applications now, and as they existed five years ago, is that
at the present time both applicants are asking fDr a processing operation to be conducted
on their prospective sites.
The protection for the environment of the people living to the north are quite adequate
in terms of hours of operation, adequate buffer and noise control, inspections by the
Department of Planning and inspection of haul routes. Also, since the Zast application
was requested, Mark Land Investment has acquired the right-of-way and has actually
built their private haul route immediately north of "R" Street, going on west to be
ultimately connected to the Freeway - not directly but indirectly. This eliminates
local haul routes being conducted along "R" Street S.E. Also, there are detailed
provisions for the restoration of the property as far as to how it is to be restored
and reclaimed and the sequences of how this is going to be conducted. The processing
operations, as far as the two parties are concerned, will only be operation of crushing
and general .processing operation of gravel and there is no asphalt or batch plants
allowed.
-6-
8
AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY FP,BRUARY 2,1976
The location of the respective processing operations are: Mark Land conductF~d in the
actual excavation site which is in a big pit completely surrounded by berm and the
Bonanza excavation site is the one that was originally recommended and directed by
the City Council in 1971 and is located right along the natural swail or depression
in the ground. There are provisions relating to covering the entire operations so that
both of them will be very silent. Also to eliminate some of the problems, the.
permits issued by the county for the processing operation will be given up in exchange
for moving the processing operation further away from the single family residences
in the area.
A11 of the agencies previously approved the applications and the State granted
excavation permits. As far as removal is concerned, the Mark Land applicant has
already removed approximately five million cubic yards of material from his particular
site. This would make restoration, if it was insisted upon by the operation ceasing,
impossible and would leave a very bad scar on the location. Bonanza likewise has
not removed as much, but it has removed 100,000 cubic yards. The overall program
is consistent with the Comprehensive Grading Plan, which the City Council had adopted
earlier, and provides for the reduction in contours of the entire Comprehensive Gravel
Removal Area. The entire area shall be removed according to the plan with the
finished profiles in mind. Subsequent to this, there have been applications that have
been approved which were by other investment groups in other areas. They are in
other gravel removal pits in the overall area, but not within the specific confines
of the Comprehensive Gradinq Plan Area.
There are several benefits that naturally flow from a business operation conducted
in the City. One of them would be that Z/2 of li of the sales tax for all retail
sales of materials, from each of these sites, would flow ultimately to the City.
Any inventory that is on the prospective sites would of course be inventoried back
for flow into the City and also the same goes for personal property tax.
The other situation, coming back to the protests, I noticed three Protestants as such:
Mr. Fiedler expressed concern as far as weight limits and regulations, but I don`t
really feel that was intended as a protest. All of the protests involved the operation
of the particular trucks that are gravel trucks per se. Our position is that we are
not .the only company utilizing this road, as far as hauling and materials are concerned,
and some of the protests we feel were unduly directed at the companies involved.
In addition, we feel that what the Council has to consider this evening is not the
conducting of truck operations on the Public Highways of the State and City of Auburn,
but the actual removal and processing operations of these two SPU Permits. .There
are ordinances of the City of Auburn that more than adequately protect the City as
far as operation of gravel trucks within the corporate limits of the City and these
ordinances can be utilized to the extent where they can enforce any problems.
Therefore, Mr. Smythe stated he feels they should obtain consi deration by the City
Council relative to the particular applications. Both applicants are agreeable to all of
the conditions set forth by the Planning Department of the City of Auburn and he
respectfully requests that the Council entertain the applications.
Ardice Kemp asked what the citizens could then do about the noise and danger from the
trucks and wanted to know how they could approach the City.
The Mayor stated he could not answer at this time, but the Council has heard her
comments and he feels they will take them into consideration when they make a decision.
It was moved by Lea, seconded by Kitchell, that the Public Hearing be closed.
MOTION CARRIED
Councilman Craig stated he believes Mrs. Kemp's request for action should be considered
by the Council and he recommends that she get with the Public Safety Committee so
they can direct the City Attorney and Police Chief to look into the problems. He
suggested that Mrs. Kemp contact the Police Chief in order to arrange this.
Councilman Craig also stated he is concerned with the addition of processing on site
and stated that up until this time it has been the policy of the City Council not to
grant processing permits, just gravel removal. It looks as if we are about to deviate
from this and I think we should give it very careful consideration. He stated his
main concern is the noise and dust that would come from the processing.
Therefore, Councilman Crazg'stated he researched this and also spent a day with the
- 7-
AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 1976
King County Noise Pollution Agency. He stated that one of the restrictions in the
application states the applicant must obtain a proper permit from the Air Pollution
Agency before they start operating. He stated he asked the agency just what their
license means and said he was told that the agency will require the applicants to
submit plans showing the location of their processing plant and how they plan on
processing and what they plan on using in terms of dust control, etc. Then the agency
grants the permit and he pointed out that they very carefully explained that if the
applicant does not adhere to the pollutiari standards, the agency writes them a ticket
and can write as many as eight a day. It has been the agency's practice, and Councilman
Craig stated he does not want to imply that this particular applicant would not comply,
but it has been their experience with other people who have these permits that the
pollution goes on and fees are not paid for a period, at times, while they are in
litigation. He also noted that the agency inspects the plants at a minimum of once
a year, on a routine basis, unless there is a complaint. A11 the agency can do is
keep writing tickets and the only way that they can stop the operator, who does not
comply, is when trey issue enough tickets and the company is fined sufficiently that
i t becomes economically feasible for him to change his ways. Therefore, Councilman
Craig said he does not feel we can depend upon some other agencies to control the
problems. The problems should be solved here tonight with the proper restrictions.
Councilman Craig went on to say he did collect some noise measurements and pointed
out that one of the applicants was very cooperative. The applicant situated one of
his loaders in the approximate pit area and came close to simulating the noise that
we would expect from a gravel operation. The measurements were taken from locations
in the neighborhood and when we radioed the operator to power up, and then took
;~; the measurements, none of the locations had a rating above the ambient. However, there
F-- was one location at the end of "D" Street, adjacent_ to the river, where we could
+° barely discern the diesel engine as it fired up; but, it was quickly lost in the background
~-J of the river. He does not believe there would be a noise problem then from the Mark Land
~; operation and stated that they did not take measurements from the other applicant
~~ but he does not feel there would be a noise problem because they are another 500 feet
away.
Councilman Craig stated he feels we should allow the gravel processing operation
encompassed in the ordinance, but feels it should be renewed on a yearly basis so
the PZanning and Beautification Committee could review it if there are any complaints
and this would allow us an opportunity to do the policing. Otherwise, he feels a
twenty year permit is a long time to grant a permit for an unknown situation.
Also, Councilman Craig stated he was concerned and wanted to know what the Logic was
in omitting the item that stated no more than a 20 acre site would be surfaced at
one time. He said he felt that was a very good feature and is concerned that without
it, the entire area could be torn up and if the applicants forfeited their bonds
the City could not restore the property for that kind of money. He asked if this was
a drafting error.
Mr. Smythe and Mr. Kammeyer both stated that George Schuler, the Planning Director,
suggested that particular provision be eliminated. Mr. Smythe stated the main reason
is so that we preserve the continuous berm along -the north boundary rather than
remove it, which you would have to do with a 20 acre type removal. Also, there are
actual practical problems as far as removal. Having materials located throughout the
entire site does not necessarily mean that Mark Land or Bonanza is going to start
digging all over the site. I think the best answer is the five year results of the
Mark Land operation and I am sure that none of you'wi11 dispute the fact that Mark Land
has done an excellent job of the overall removal and protection of the environment.
Mr. Kammeyer pointed out that the rest of the property, other than the berm, will be
in 20 acre segments to the grade that the City adopted some five years ago. f7e also
stated as far as restoration, we have $1,000 an acre and it is no problem to restore
because it will be the grade and the top soil berm will be there to put back over.
If we went in ZO acre segments, we would have to remove the berm and that would open
the pit up the the public.
Councilman Craig asked a number of other questions relating to .the 20 acre segments
and the grading levels. Mr. ICammeyer pointed out that the Bureau of Mines does not
allow them to go below the grading level and. therefore, it is taken down in Zifts
for safety until they reach the floor level. Xe also stated that they must maintain
the comprehensive grading that was adopted by the City five years ago, and they are
doing so.
-8-
AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 1976
Councilman Craig also stated that the Air Pollution Control Agency pointed out that
these operations can be maintained without emitting a lot of dust, if enough water is
used and the op,~rator operates properly. Therefore, he asked where they would get
their water.
Mr. Kammeyer stated the water will come from a well and he stated that as far as dust,
there just isn't. He noted that they use water and spray bars and if they can't
pave a road, they water it continually and pointed out this could be determined from
the water that has been purchased from the City. He also stated that there is a good
probability that the water for the well will be purchased from the City.
Mr. Kammeyer stated he would also like to point out that they went to a real considerab
expense and a lot of work to acquire land in order to go through Shoreline Management
and everything to build a haul road.. Also, as far as Mr. Fiedler's statement
on weighing, our operation is by the ton and everything is definitely weighed.
Councilman Flechsig stated they have applications for each location. Now, with the
big area you have in Mark Land, is there a possibility you could do away with one of
the manufacturing plants.
Mr. Smythe stated he would have to ask his prespective clients. He checked with his
clients and then stated, after talking with both of the applicants and due to the fact
the Mark Land operation is in processing now and they have the grade basically down
to the point where they could put in a plant immediately and they have one available,
Mr. Corliss of Bonanza would be agreeable to withdrawing from his application the
actual processing portion of his application. This withdrawal would be conditional
upon all of the permits being granted as constituted with the conditions and so on
that have been imposed.
The City Attorney, John B. Bereiter, asked that the map (referred to by the speakers)
and the sound data (referred to by Councilman Craig) be made a matter of Public Record
and he asked that anything else that could come up during the course of the hearing,
that could constitute a part of the consideration of the Council, be also made a
matter of Public Record.
Councilman FZechsig stated he would like to ask the applicants two questions. No. 1 -
What in your opinion would a one year review do to you? and No. 2 - Do you use diesel
engine set up or electric motors on this plant proposed for Mark Land?
Mr. Smythe stated he will answer the second question first. The Mark Land processing
operation is all electric and the only time diesel would be used would be if they
are away from an area served by electricity. As far as the one year renewal, I
believe it is covered under the restriction that states "The Department shall have
grounds to terminate and cancel the operating permit if the operator does not commence
action to rectify any and all deficiencies as specified above, or as specified in the
permit. The operator and his surety shall be notified of such termination and
cancellation, said notice to be mailed to the last known address of the operator and
surety". I think that would apply to the processing and if the City Council took the
Planning Department to administer the actual processing operation, as well as the
extraction operation, I would suggest something like that rather than trying to put
it on a time frame.
Mr. Kammeyer stated they have no qualms, the City can come in and weekly inspect if
they so desire. He stated they have regulations they must operate by. Also, there are
other operating plants within the City Limits and I don't want to be discriminated
against with heavier regulations than the others. I just ask to be treated equally.
If we are not in compliance, it so states the Planning Department has the prerogative
of shutting us down until we have corrected it. Believe me, with the investment
that we have in this. town, we are not going to get up and leave Auburn tomorrow. The
land is just as valuable to us in restoration as it is in gravel operation and we
certainly intend to put it back as such.
Councilman Craig asked the City Attorney if what he was
,. of the yearly inspections, would be covered by item 14
by item 12 of the second application.
trying to accomplish, in terms
of the first appliction and
The City Attorney stated he thinks that could be handled administratively, under the
provisions of item 14 of the first application and by item 12 of the second application,
without adding an additional clause. He feels the Council can instruct the Planning..
and Community Development Department to conduct an annual review of the operations
-9-
~'
AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 1976
and if they feel there is a lack of compliance at that time, or any other time, .they
can bring the matter to the attention of the entire Council for termination of the
permit. Mr. Bereiter stated he feels the provisions set forth are a pretty heavy weapon.
Councilman Craig said there is an item that says the applicants shall submit proof of
a valid approval permit from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Alright,
say they get the permit but then violate the pollutant requirements. Shouldn't that
be encompassed in our ordinance?
The City Attorney stated you could change that to read "Submit proof of compliance with
the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency."
Mayor Kersey asked Mr. Bereiter, under the conditions made by Mr. FZechsig and
the agreement of Mr. Smythe and the owners, if the Council makes a motion concerning
that wouldn't it be proper far all of the notations made for on the Bonanza request,
which pertain to the processing of materials on that site, to be stricken.
The City Attorney stated that is correct.
Councilman Lea stated Mr. Kammeyer had stated they did not want to have any di fferent
application or permit from anyone else. Does the 20 year permit set in with all of
the other applications for gravel removal in the City?
It was pointed out that the original applications were issued for twenty years.
~,~ Councilman Lea then asked if the segments involved would be restored in five years?
~ ,
,~,,. Mr. Smythe said no. The actual restoration and reclamation period was set up on
~„~, the basis of the State. In 1970, the Legislature enacted control and recommendations
on gravel pits and provides for it to be done in a manner that they set forth.
Differences occur, as far as the time period is concerned, based on the amount of
material available at a particular site. If you have a very small site, that has
a limited amount of materials, then the general practice among the City Council or
County Council is to let the removal period be for a time consistent with what would
be ordinary to remove it, considering the availability of users for the material.
Councilman Lea also asked how the segments would go in terms of restoration and wanted
to know what protection the City of Auburn would have if the property was sold.
Mr. Kammeyer stated that depending upon a number of factors, the interim restoration
will probably consist of about 10 to 20 acres every five years. Everything will come
out, with the berm being. the last thing to be removed, and then the area will be
all open and reseeded. In regard to the property, Mr. Kammeyer stated the permit
and everything goes with the land and not to the individual.
Councilman Lea asked if the applicants have had any violations served on them?
Mr. Keller stated there have been no violations since he has been with the City
and Mr. Kammeyer stated they had no violations. Mr. Kammeyer also pointed out that
the City has a restoration plan on file showing how the property will be restored.
The City Attorney asked that the Restoration Plan be made a part of the record also.
councilman Lea stated that the restoration and the restrictions seem somewhat lax
compared to some of the previous applications and he asked Mr. Keller to speak on that
from his experience.
Mr. Keller stated he does not think Councilman Lea is entirely correct because the
segment plans are on file and they have to follow those, as they were adopted by the
City Council several years ago. Also, the Attorney representing Bonanza and Mark Land
leas pointed out the fact that the berm is there and we wanted to leave it there until
the final time when the berm will come down and they will have the final grade.
He pointed out he thinks this is a proper way to go about this operation and stated
it is a good operation and a clean operation.
Mr. Kammeyer stated that the grading and restoration plan is also on file with the
Department of Natural Resources and that also protects the City because they will also
inspect them periodically to see that they are in compliance.
Councilman Craig asked the City Attorney if it would now be proper for the Council to
-10-
,~o- x~c
~,
AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 1976
go out and look at the property .and he pointed out that he was going to do that earlier
and had been advised not too.
The City Attorney stated a break may be appropriate as the Court Reporter could use
a short break.
Mayor Kersey recessed the meeting at 9:35 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 9:43 P.M.
The City Attorney stated if the Council authorizes the granting of this permit, at
this evenings meeting, the ordinance would be prepared by his office and submitted
for Council approval at the next Council Meeting. There would be no reason why,
after this meeting, any individual Council Member, the Mayor or any official employee
of the City could not go out and examine the site to be faimiliar with it. He
explained that he had cautioned one of the Councilmen not to go out there this week
because there is a doctrine in the law, known as the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine,
and of course it is held that if an official who is going to pass on an application
of this type goes out with somebody that is asking for the permit, in the absence of
an opportunity for those who are protesting the permit, that even tho nothing wrong
happens, there is an appearance of unfairness or an appearance thatyou might not have
been fair. Now if you pass on this tonight, there is no reason why you couldn't go
out and take a look, take a tour and familiarize yourself with it. In fact, I think
that would be proper and appropriate.
Councilman Lea asked Mr. Bereiter what recourse would the Council nave if they felt
differently after viewing the site.
The City Attorney stated this is a matter of legislation and you could always move
to reconsider it.
Councilman Larson asked Mr. Bereiter if he understands Section (a) of Item 4. The
section states the plant shall be Located in the existing pit area, behind the south
side of the berm and said location would be approved by the City Council Planning
and Beautification Committee. Does that protect us and mean that they could not put
in the plant until they get authorization from the Committees
The pity Attorney stated that is correct and it appears to him to protect us.
It was moved by Craig, seconded by Larson, that the request of Bonanza Investment
Company & Harry Corliss for a Special. Property Use Permit for gravel removal
(Application No. 34-75) and the request of Mark Land Development Company, Inc. and
Robert Smythe their attorney, for a Special Property Use Permit for gravel removal
(Application No. 35-75) be approved, the Planning Commission recommendations be concurred
with - with the following exceptions: Items 2 and 3 of Application No. 34-75 be
deleted in their entirety and Item 4b of Application No. 35-75 be amended to read
"Submit proof of compliance with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency.", and
the City Attorney be instructed to draw up the necessary ordinances.
ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmen voting YES. MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Kersey declared Public Hearing open on the request of Keith B. Li 1e for an
amendment to an existing S.P.U. (43-66) to build 8 four Alex units instead of one 26
unit and two 28 unit apartment houses reducing the density from 82 units to 32 units
also to change design and have separate ownership of said four-plexes per the requirements
of City of Auburn Zoning Ordinance No. 1702 as amended Chapter 11.16.015, Sub-section
(3-H) Dwellings, Duplexes and Multi-family, located on the north side of 23rd Street S.E.
between "D" & "F" Streets S.E. (Application No. 36-75)
The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request because it conforms to
our Comprehensive Land Use Plan and there is existing multi-family development on
surrounding properties. The proposed use would be less detrimental to surrounding
properties and place less impact on the streets and public utilities serving the
property. The following condition should be included in the permit: (1) That a six
foot high screen fence be constructed along the north property line.
Keith Life of 32015 1st Avenue South spoke in favor of his request.
It was moved by Larson, seconded by Flechsig, that the Public Hearing be closed.
MOTION CARRIED
-11-
8.5~
AUBURN, WASHINGTON
MONDAY
FEBRUARY 2, 1976
It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by Larson, that the request of Keith B. Life for' an
amendment to an existing S.P.U. (43-66) be approved, the Planning Commission recommendations
be concurred with and the City Attorney be instructed to draw up the necessary
ordinance.
._ ROLL CALL VOTE: A11 Councilmen voting YES.
MOTION CARRIED
CORRESPONDF. NCE
The City Clerk read a loiter from George A. Schuler, Planning Director, regarding
segregation of Assessment No. 2, L.I.D. No. 232, Total Assessment $11,721.95.
It was rnoved by Lea, seconded by Craig, that the segregation of Assessment No. 2,
L.I.D. IVo. 232, be approved as follows: (A11 assessments belong to Fred L. Brannan
of Seattle and are segregated as follows) Assessment No. 2 for $5,365.03 (287.56 F.F.
Street @ $11.538647, 167.56 F.F. Water @ $5.265615 and 167.56 F.F. Sewer @ $6.950926);
Assessment No. 2A for $1,589.23 (66.90 F.F. Street @ $11.538647, 66.90 F.F. Water
@ $5.265615 and 66.90 F.F. Sewer @ $6.950926); Assessment No. 2B for $1,589.23 (66.90
F.F. Street @ $11.538647, 66.90 F.F. Water @ $5.265615 and 66.90 F.F. Swer @ $6.950926);
Assessment No. 2C for $1,589.23 (66.90 F.F. Street @ $11.538647, 66.90 F.F. Water
@ $5.265615 and 66.90 F.F. Sewer @ $6.950926) and Assessment No. 2D for $1,589.23
(66.90 F.F. Street @ $11.538647, 66.90 F.F. Water @ $5.265615 and 66.90 F.F. Sewer
@ $6.950926).
ROLL CALL VOTE: A11 Councilmen voting YES. MOTION CARRIED
The Clerk read a letter from George A. Schuler, Planning Director, regarding segregation
of Assessment No. 10, L.I.D. No. 261, Total Assessment $8,214.81.
It was moved by Lea, seconded by Larson, that the segregation of Assessment No. 10,
L.I.D. No. 261, be approved as follows: Assessment No. 10 to Lone Bros. of Auburn for
$5,653.76 (930.50 F.F. San. Sewer @ $6.076045); Assessment No. IOA to Robert Kuzmer of
Auburn for $768.62 (126.5 F.F. San. Sewer @ $6.076045) and Assessment No. ZOB to
Robert Kuzmer of Auburn for $1,792.43 (295.0 F.F. San. Sewer @ $6.076045).
ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmen voting YES. MOTION CARRIED
The City Clerk read a Zone Change Application from G. L. Honeysett (Agent for Owner)
(Application No. 2-76).
It was moved by Lea, seconded by Flechsig, that the Zone Change Application from
G. L. Honeysett, Agent for Owner (Application No. 2-76), be referred to the Planning
Commission for recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
MOTION CARRIED
The following item was submitted by the Director of Public Works, Pat .Nevins, for Council
Approval:
Change to the Urban Arterial Board Road and Street Functj..or~~1 Classification as
follows: "A" St. S.E. from south city limits to East"'l~Iain St., Auburn Ave. from
East ldain 5t. to Auburn Way North and Az:T~ urn Way North from Auburn Ave. to the
north city limits from MAJOR Arterial "to SECONDARY Arterial. Also for East l4ain
Street from Auburn Ave. to Auburn Way North from SECONDARY Arterial to COLLECTOR
Arterial.
It was moved by Lea, seconded by Larson, that the City Attorney be instructed to
draw up the necessary Resolution to encompass the above.
PROCLAMATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Kersey requested the Council to study the informationgiven to them regarding
the Puget Sound Council of Governments and be prepared to make recommendations to him
at the next Council Meeting.
-12-
'1
~~6
AUBURN, WASHINGTON _ MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 1976
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
BUILDING COMMITTEE - CHAIRMAN ROEGNER
Chairman Roegner announced that the next Building Committee Meeting will be held at
7:30 P.M., February 9, 1976, in the Council Conference Room.
AI.~ZPORT COMMITTEE - CHAIRMAN KITCHELL
.r
Chairman Kitchell stated the Airport Committee wf~l be discussing applications for the
Airport Manager Postion, at their meeting of Feb~°uary 3, 1976.
UTILITY COMMITTEE -CHAIRMAN CRAIG °^
The Utility Committee met at 7:30 P.M. on January 27, 1976. Chairman Craig reported
on the Committee Meeting and the Minutes are a matter of Public Record. on file in the
City Clerk's Office.
The next Utility Committee Meeting w.i11 be held aft 7:30 PoM. on February 5, 1976..'
PLANNING & BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE - CHAIRMAN CARSON
Chairman Larson announced that the next Planning & Beautification Committee Meeting
will be held at 7:30 P.M., February 10, 1976.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING - CHAIRMAN ANDERSON
Chairman Anderson announced that the next Public Safety Committee Meeting will be held
at 7:30 P.M., February 11,.1976, in the Council Chambers. °
FINANCE COMMITTEE - CHAIRMAN FLECHSIG
~I
The Finance Committee met at 7:30 P..M. on January 29, 1976. Chairman Flechsig reported
on the Committee Meeting and the Minutes are a matter of Public-Record on file in the
City Clerk's Office.
The Committee discussed and recommends that the Director of Finance be authorized
to make investments of amounts, as well as other monies., received during~,>-the month
of February.
1
It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by Kitchell, that the Director of Finance ~e a.uthorized
to make investments of amounts, as well as other monies.,. received during the month
of February. ~`
;~~
ROLL CALL VOTE: A11 Councilmen voting YES. MOTION-.CARRIED
,t
The Committee discussed and recommends that the City Clerk be authorized toCa11 for
Bids on 1976 Legal Publications.
It was moved by F1ec~sig, seconded by Kitchell, that the City Clerk be authorized to
Ca11 for Bids for 1976 Legal Publications.
'MOTION CARRIED
The Committee discussed and recommends approval of the issuance of Inter Fund Loans.
It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by Lea, that the issuance of Inter Fund Loans be
approved as follows: From the Water Fund to the Water Reservoir Fund - $10,000.00;
from the Water Fund to the LID.~287 Construction Fund - $27,000.00; from the Fire R & P
Fund to the LID 287 Construction Fund - $2,400.00 and from the Water Fund to the Water
Reservoir Fund - $2,000.00.
ROLL CALL VOTE: A11 Councilmen voting YES. MOTION CARRIED _
The Committee discussed and recommends approval of the progress payment for King
County Housing Authority.
It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by .Larson, that payment be approved on the billing
for the progress payment for King County Housing Authority for work completed on
Community Development Repair Demolition Program, in the amount of $7,637.39.
ROLL CALL VOTE: A11 Councilmen voting YES.
-13-
MOTION CARRIED
.,, • ^
A
AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY FEBRUARY 2, 1976
The Committee discussed the resignation of a member of the Police Department.
It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by Lea, that authority be given to fill the position
in the Police Department.
MOTION CARRIED
STREET COMMITTEE - CHAIRMAN LEA
The Street Committee met at 7:30 P.M. on January 21, 1976. Chairman Lea reported on
the Committee Meeting and the Minutes are a matter of Public Record on file in the
City Clerk`s Office.
Chairman Lea announced that the next Street Committee Meeting will be held at 7:30 P.M.,
February 4, 1976, in the Public Works Department.
OLD BUSINESS
No action was taken on Ordinance No. 2896 pertaining to codification of ordinances.
(This ordinance was introduced only on July 16, 1975)
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE NO. 3043
~;, It was moved by Craig, seconded by Larson, that Ordinance No. 3043 entitled "AN
r- ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SUB SECTION (8) OF AUBURN
~'"'+ CODIFIED CITY ORDINANCE 4.10.240 (ORDINANCE NO. 2897 --JULY 7, 1975) ALTERING THE
~ CHARGES FOR COLLECTION OF GARBAGE FOR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL GARBAGE COLLECTION."
~~ be introduced and adopted.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AZ1 Councilmen voting YES. MOTION CARRIED
ORDINANCE N0. 3044
It was moved by Craig, seconded by Kitchell, that Ordinance No. 3044 entitled "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, ADDING TWO NEW SECTIONS TO CHAPTER 4.10
OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, (PERTAINING TO GARBAGE COLLECTION AND
RATES) TO BE KNOWN A5 ORDINANCE 4.10.265 (TEMPORARY SERVICE CONTAINER USE CHARGE IN
LIEU OF RENTAL) AND 4.10.266 (SCHEDULE OF CHARGES FOR SERVICE NOT PROVIDED FOR PER CONTRACT
WITH R.S.T. DISPOSAL, INC. -- HOURLY CHARGE AND SPECIAL REQUESTED SERVICES)." be
introduced and adopted.
ROLL CALL VOTE: A11 Councilmen voting YES.
ORDINANCE NO. 3045
MOTION CARRIED
It was moved by Larson, seconded by Flechsig, that Ordinance No. 3045 entitled "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, REQUIRING THAT UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THIS ORDINANCE, ALL INTEREST ACCUMULATING ON FUNDS IN THE WATER/SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
(NO. 440) OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNT OF
THE WATER/SEWER OPERATION FUND N0. 430." be introduced and adopted.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AZ1 Councilmen voting YES.
MOTION CARRIED
ORDINANCE N0. 3046
It was moved by Craig, seconded by Lea, that Ordinance No. 3046 entitled "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF AUBURN
CODIFIED CITY ORDINANCE 10.08.330 REGARDING DELINQUENT PAYMENTS AND COLLECTIONS FOR
WATER BILLS." be introduced and adopted.
ROLL CALL VOTE: A11 Councilmen voting YES. MOTION CARRIED
ORDINANCE N0. 3047
It was moved by Larson, seconded by Lea, that Ordinance No. 3047 entitled "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 4 OF AUBURN CITY ORDINANCES
2593 (PASSED NOVEMBER 1, 1971), 2607 (PASSED DECEMBER 20, 1971), 2643 (PASSED JUNE 19,
1972), 2613 (PASSED SEPTEMBER 5, 1972), 2700 (PASSED JANUARY 2, 1973) and 2838 (PASSED
SEPTEMBER 16, 1974) CREATING LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS 265, 266, 271, 274, 276 and 285.~~
-14-
~8
AUBURN, WASHINGTON MONDAY I•'I73RIIhkY 1, I `17fi
be .introduced and adopted.
ROLL CALL VOTE: A11 Councilmen voting YES. MOTION CARRIL:D
RESOLUTION NO. 707
It was moved by Craig, seconded by Kitchell, that Resolution No. 707 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE 1'~?AYOFZ
AND CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, TO ENTER INTO A LETTER AGREEMENT FOR REVIS:iONS
AND UPDATING OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN WITH STEVENS, THOMPSON
AND RUNYAN, INC." be adopted.
ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmen voting YES. MOTION CARRIED
VOUCHER APPROVAL LIST
It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by Lea, that the Voucher Approval List dated
January 20, 1976, including $4,389,019.08 in pre-payments and $43,740.29, for a
total of $4,432,759.37, be approved. (This list will close 1975)
ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmen voting YES.
MOTION CARRIF,D
It was moved by Flechsig, seconded by Craig, that the Voucher Approval List dated
January 31, 1976, including $3,375,109.05 in pre-payment and $57,158.39, for a
total of $3,432,267.44, be approved.
ROLL CALL VOTE: All Councilmen voting YES.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
MOTION CARRIED
Councilman Craig stated he got a copy of the minutes from the Downtown Community
Development Committee and is a bit concerned that the Committee may be planning to
use the $10,000 allocated to their committee, through the Community Block Grant Program,
in a different manner than was discussed by the Council and he wants to be sure that
the money will be used strictly for improvement of the public right-of-way area.
He stated he is concerned because several committees are getting involved and he
would like to see them all working toward the same goals and not branching out in
different directions.
Councilman Roegner pointed out that the Downtown Community Development Committee is
a joint meeting with the City and Chamber. He also stated that as a member of the Bui.Zding
Committee, he attends those meetings and he would encourage other Councilmen to attend
when possible.
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Kersey adjourned the
meeting at 10:45 P.M.
Mayor Kersey announced that the Council will be going directly into an Executive
Workshop Session for the purpose of discussing positions within the City and not
discussing personnel or individuals. He noted that real estate may also be discussed.
The Mayor asked the City Attorney and Director of Finance to join them.
APPROV D THIS 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1976.
MAYOR /'~
.i
~~~~ ,
i