HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/29/1994 Adjourned Business Meeting 223
CITY OF YAKIMA, - ::;,:WASHINGTON
MARCH 29, 1994
ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING
1. ROLL CALL
The City Council met in session on this date at 9:30 a.m.,
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Yakima, Washington.
Assistant Mayor Clarence Barnett, presiding, Council Members
Ernie Berger, Bill Brado, Lynn Buchanan, and Bernard Sims
present on roll call. Mayor Pat Berndt and Council Member
Henry Beauchamp absent and excused. City Manager Zais, City
Attorney Paolella, and City Clerk Roberts also present.
2. INVOCATION /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Assistant Mayor Barnett.
3. OPEN DISCUSSION FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
A. PROCLAMATIONS (IF APPLICABLE)
Assistant Mayor Barnett read a proclamation declaring
March 31, 1994 as Senseless Acts of Kindness. Day in the City
of Yakima. He encouraged all citizens to participate by
committing a senseless act of kindness.
4. PUBLIC HEARING"FOR KPFF RETAIL CENTER LAND USE APPLICATION
(Continued from 3/22/94 - Please bring previously distributed
material)
This being the time'set for continuation of the public
hearing, Assistant Mayor Barnett reopened the public hearing.
He announced all the exhibits in the SEPA Appeal are hereby
admitted as evidence in the hearing. If any other exhibits
are to be added, the City Clerk will continue the numbering
of them.
After submitting a 14 -page staff report, Exhibit No. 3, to
City Clerk Roberts, Joan Davenport, Supervising Planner, was
available to answer questions regarding the status of several
Hearing Examiner recommendations to be modified based on
discussion that took place during the initial March 15, 1994
1/ public hearing. One of those items is the modification of
Item 3F1, the •improvements to 17th Street. There were
questions from Council Member Sims, with discussion
following, pertaining to the three lanes of improvement, the
street lightings and the curbing, along with clarification
concerning whether or not there would be a sidewalk installed
on both sides of 17th Street. Ms. Davenport reiterated the
modified condition, three lanes with improvements for South
17th Street, including street lights, curbing and just one
sidewalk to be installed on the west side of 17th Street.
224
MARCH 29, 1994
She stated staff indicated they were reasonably comfortable
with this recommendation. There is 55 feet of right -of -way,
which is enough room to put in the three lanes and one
sidewalk. The real question came down to that second
sidewalk and whether or not the additional 5 feet of right -
of -way was needed; the testimony indicated it could be
engineered in 55 feet, although it would require a slope
easement or the extra five feet to make that happen.
Ms. Davenport stated the staff recommendation includes
deleting the 60 -foot right -of -way requirement and clarifying
that only one sidewalk be installed on the west side of 17th
Street; however, Council will decide that issue. The second
Hearing Examiner's item discussed for changes was Item 3F3,
the Chalmers Street improvements. In summary, the intent of
the change includes a minor wording clarification referring
only to improvements. Rather than compelling the applicant
to purchase additional right -of -way, or the City condemning
the right -of -way, staff wanted to clarify the intent that the
frontage improvements would be full on Chestnut and Chalmers
along the property that was owned and controlled by the
applicant, but not on the property that the applicant cannot
control. At the request of Council Member Sims,
Ms. Davenport pointed to its location on the site plan map to
show that Chestnut would be extended and connected to
Chalmers, which now goes into Riverside. She also pointed to
areas where the right -of -way has not been given to make
Chalmers a full -width street. The third issue is the
Greenway Overlay District as it relates to the Greenway Board
of Directors approving site plans and exterior building
colors and appearance, as well as the landscaping plan.
After a considerable amount of discussion about this issue,
the staff recommendation was to delete three conditions, 3J,
K, and P and to replace them with the recommendations that
the staff had presented to the Hearing Examiner. Those are
at the bottom of Page 2 and would return the authority for
approving those plans to the City Planning Department in
consultation with the Department of Ecology for the
landscaping and the Greenway Board of Directors. Referencing
Item 3S on Page 3, Street Improvement Bonds, Ms. Davenport
explained the intent of the additional language is for
clarity, although it is,a standard provision where the City
Engineer has the authority to take a bond for certain
improvements not completed. It would be at the City
Engineer's discretion as to what unfinished improvements
would be bonded for. Council Member Sims explained his
understanding of the intent of the Hearing Examiner to
mitigate the S -Curve corner on Chalmers on both sides since
the traffic study was done after 5 o'clock in October. The
issue that Central PreMix and Superior Asphalt bring up is
that there needs to be some mitigation for safety, due to
concern about the alignment of this street. Ms. Davenport
indicated that issue would be for the Engineering Department
to address. Assistant Mayor Barnett indicated that would be
part of any off -site developments and would be a separate
2
f
r 225
MARCH }'.:M , 1994
. s,
item where Council would direct staff to review the
conditions of the entire road structure. He requested Glenn
Valenzuela address this issue. Council Member Buchanan
stated there is definitely a need to address additional
traffic that will be combining with existing heavy truck
traffic on Beech Street and on Chalmers Street.
Ms. Davenport stated the items that have been discussed so
far are proposed on -site improvements. Council Member
Buchanan stated that essentially the west side of Chalmers
Street is on -site. That is what Item 3F3 was meant to
address, the on -site improvements to Chalmers Street. Other
issues considered as off -site improvements have not been
included at this point. Council Member Buchanan discouraged
2 rebuilding only half of Chalmers Street. He compared this
situation with a similar one and expressed concern about City
taxpayers having to pay for a lot of road improvements and
right -of -way on Chalmers due to increased traffic when the
improvements benefit the applicant. Council Member Brado
stated the applicant doesn't own the property and something
needs to be done because of the street's current condition,
especially the corners. Staff needs Council direction to
determine a solution to this problem. At the request of
Assistant Mayor Barnett, Glenn Valenzuela explained staff
agrees the whole issue of 18th Street and some of Chalmers
Avenue, the traffic, and some of the improvements should be
duly considered by the City in the coming months. Staff
doesn't feel these improvements should be conditioned on this
development because they are considered off -site
improvements. Due to the number of projects that have
indicated an interest in developing in this area, there is a
possibility that an LID could be the solution. However, an
engineering and planning analysis are needed to assess this
issue. Council Member Buchanan stated it is important for
Council to be aware of these future development projects
because we represent the taxpayers as a whole City and an LID
will also affect property owners in this area. The roads are
adequate at this time, but there will be increased traffic
within a few months due to this new development. It is not
fair to the people who own the property and it is not fair to
the rest of the taxpayers in the City to start building
streets so that somebody can build a new project. Council
Member Berger requested clarification concerning proposed
improvements to the front portion of Wal- Mart's property on
1/ Chalmers. He also asked if the street will be wider than it
is now. Ms. Davenport explained there will only be frontage
improvements on the west side. Improvements will be made to
existing right -of -way, but the problem is on the other side
of the street where full right -of -way has not been dedicated.
Mr. Valenzuela recommended utilizing a systematic approach to
address the aggregate industry's concerns about needed
improvements on 18th Street. He suggested an appropriate
time for further consideration of this issue is when future
development occurs. Responding to Council Member Buchanan's
point, City Attorney Paolella explained part . of this issue
3
226
MARCH 29, 1994
relates to off -site improvements and off -site mitigation
measures, which ultimately lead to the authority to require
the applicant to pay for off -site improvements. Although
this is a bit of an unsettled area, there are legal
authoritie8, especially in the Growth Management Act
concerning impact fees. Currently, the City has no such
ordinance in place; this clearly represents a clear basis
for doing that. In the absence of any impact fee authority,
it is uncertain as to what the precise limits of authority
are, but in any case, the City would have to have adopted
policies and other sorts of mechanisms in place. These may
need to be more developed within the City of Yakima to
address these off -site mitigation measures. Council Member
Beauchamp stated that will not help in this case, but it
needs to be considered because it is really unfair to the
rest of the taxpayers in the City. City Attorney Paolella
explained those types of policies could be more developed if
the Council wishes to do that. Council Member Barnett
reiterated his point that we don't have those sorts of
mechanisms in place. Even though we have a lot of authority
under SEPA and the UAZO, we don't have the full pathway of
authorities in place to be imposing off -site mitigation
measures. Council Member Brado stated that maybe that is
something to look into.
Referring to 17th Street, Council Member Brado stated he
understood the improvements to include three lanes and two
sidewalks in the 55 -feet, or if needed, increasing the right -
of -way to 60 feet. The City will have a right -of -way on the
1 -82 access for pedestrians, and if there is no sidewalk on
the west side, those individuals will have to cross 17th
Street to access Wal -Mart. It would be better to have a
walkway on both sides of 17th Street. If they can do it in
55 -feet, that would be fine.
Referring to the 18th Street signal, Joan Davenport recapped
testimony heard from the aggregate industry on March 15 about
their perception of how the new signal at 17th Street would
impact truck access and traffic movement at 18th Street.
Because the distance is short between 17th and 18th Streets,
the loaded trucks may have to wait for a signal phase to pull
out. There was testimony and written comments concerning
that issue. In summary, none of the parties involved,
neither Superior Asphalt, Central Pre -Mix, Wal -Mart or
Mr. Hall, was interested in having trucks use 17th Street.
1/
The proposal to have signalization of some sort at 18th
Street to allow a gap for the trucks to get out has come from
Superior Asphalt and Central Pre - Mix. A meeting was held to
discuss more fully what that would entail and how it would
work. As a result, a private agreement has been reached for
the enhancement of 18th Street, to include a partial signal.
It was suggested the City share in this enhancement by
providing engineering design to be done in -house by the
Engineering staff. The physical improvement, the
4
227
MARCH 259 -: 1994
enhancement, and the hardware for the signal was estimated at
about $96,000 and would be split amongst the four main
private parties for about $24,000 each. This estimate
includes just the physical enhancement and does not include
the value of the engineering design. Joan Davenport
explained the applicant would be assigned the responsibility
for financially participating in installation of that partial
signal. This is only recommended to Council by staff if all
four parties voluntarily agree to participate. If this is
not something all four parties want to participate in, then
staff is not recommending this signal to Council. As far as
the City's involvement, engineering and design, and the other
parties' participation, besides Wal- Mart's, a separate
agreement would need to be established and it would not be
tied td project approval. Council Member Sims asked if all
the parties have agreed, when would the agreement be made,
and how binding would it be after project approval.
Ms. Davenport stated the parties have indicated approval, but
they are fully prepared to speak to that.
Shelley Willson, Supervising Traffic Engineer, described the
partial signal proposed for 18th Street and the separating
barrier on Terrace Heights Drive, as well as how they would
function. She reported that if this were to become a City
contract, then the City would be required to use prevailing
wages that would increase the cost of this traffic signal
project by 25 -35 percent. She further described the detector
loops that would actuate the signal if the traffic were
backed up onto the ramp from 18th Street. At this point,
there was a considerable amount of discussion concerning how
the traffic signal project would be handled; it will be a
private contract. City Manager Zais emphasized the fact that
Engineering would do the design only and the City would not
issue the bids for the proposal. At the request of Council
Member Buchanan, Ms. Willson further described the barrier
that would be installed on Terrace Heights Drive.
Fred French, City Engineer, answered Council Member Sims'
question concerning the City's staff costs for engineering
design at approximately $25,000. Council Member Sims also
asked why staff would not recommend the project be handled in
this manner if it was a City recommended project.
Shelley Willson explained City staff would not have
recommended this solution because it is contrary to standard
practices, doing partial signals or mixing stop signs with
the signalization. She further explained the Traffic
Engineering Department's position, which would have been to
develop one of the two roads to a standard that would
facilitate the movement of both commercial and truck traffic,
instead of the parallel approach. Council Member Buchanan
indicated the traffic that will be coming and going to Wal-
Mart and Sarg Hubbard Park on weekends will be heavy and
should also be considered along with the truck traffic
consideration. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked who would
oversee the installation of the traffic signal. Council
5
228
MARCH 29, 1994
Member Brado asked if there is any willingness to participate
in a separate, private agreement.
Bill Hammett, Superior Asphalt, explained their intent to act
as the prime contractor for this particular part of the
project. He also clarified issues concerning the cost
estimate. He stated they have committed to participate in
25 percent of the construction costs. Council Member Sims
asked Mr. Hammett if the other parties have also agreed to
participate. Mr. Hammett stated that Bob Hall has agreed to
participate and so has Central Pre -Mix, but he couldn't speak
for Wal -Mart. Jack McCullough, an attorney representing KPFF
Engineering, stated that Wal -Mart is in agreement with the
condition set forth. He described this as a two -part
approach. One is to impose a condition, such as staff has
recommended here, which requires payment of money by Wall -Mart
to participate in the project. That would be the condition
that would attach to the rezone and the master application
approval. The second part of it would be the agreement,
which would not be a condition of the rezone. Council Member
Berger asked if there is any provision if the $96,000 maximum
does not hold and it turns out to be considerably more than
that. Mr. Hammett stated he thought the cost of the signal
is pretty much fixed, and there are some design differences
that could be made to possibly decrease the costs of the
median barrier and the impact attenuators. The total
construction costs also include the sales tax. He stated
that Superior Asphalt, Central Pre -Mix, and Bob Hall are
committed to 25 percent of the construction costs, not to
include whatever the engineering design cost is. Bob Hall
stated he supports the cooperative effort and he sees this as
an opportunity for all parties to win a good public /private
partnership that can put a first class intersection in place.
Wayne Kalbfleisch, Central Pre - Mix, explained their reasons
for participating in this cooperative effort. It will
alleviate their concerns about the truck traffic, and will
further enable their company to continue as further
development occurs in the Terrace Heights area. Council
Member Buchanan stated this is really a good way of getting
things done. He wished there were more projects that had
everybody working together. Assistant Mayor Barnett stated
that everybody has done a great job.
At this time, Assistant Mayor Barnett provided opportunity
for public comment. Council Member Sims asked
Glenn Valenzuela for his recommendation concerning the other
two issues that were addressed by Superior Asphalt and
Central Pre -Mix, the street improvements on Chalmers,
Riverside, and 18th Street. Mr. Valenzuela recommended that
the Council direct staff to take a very close look at 18th
Street at Riverside to determine what can be done to enhance
those streets for, not only safety, but to make them more
attractive to future commercial and recreational uses in the
6
f
: 2 2 9
MARCH# 9, 1994
' area. Council MemberSims• asked if that would include buying
the right -of -way in 'those corners. Mr. Valenzuela stated
that needs to be considered. Council Member Sims stated he
was not aware of the other projects slated for that area, but
would certainly think that now would be considerably less
, i expensive than later. Mr. Valenzuela stated that he would
hope Council would direct staff to study that issue and come
back with a recommendation within two to three weeks.
Council Member Sims asked if a crosswalk was recommended.
Mr. Valenzuela indicated the Hearing Examiner did not address
this, nor did staff or the applicant support that idea.
Council Member Sims questioned whether it was a-consideration
and it seemed as though that would have to be a high -rise,
handicapped accessible overpass as opposed to anything else.
Assistant Mayor Barnett asked whether that would be part of
the overall street study to be considered when improving the
street for the safety of the pedestrian. Council Member
Brado commented that maybe that should discouraged.
Assistant. Mayor provided opportunity to KPFF to make any
further comments.
Jim Towslee, with KPFF Engineers representing Wal -Mart,
referred to the traffic mitigation measures proposed as part
of the project. He explained they are proposing to actually
dedicate additional right -of -way where their property fronts
Chalmers to bring that up to the full standard City right -of-
way. He pointed to its location on the site plan map and
explained where existing City right -of -way stops. Since
there is no right -of -way connecting Chalmers with 17th Street
or existing right -of -way with Chestnut, their proposal
includes dedicating additional right -of -way along Chalmers,
dedicating full right -of -way and an extension of the right -
of -way to make a public connection between 17th Street,
Chalmers, and Riverside. Mr. Towslee further stated they
will also do full improvements on Chestnut, the new Chalmers
being built to City standards, and half frontage improvements
on the extension of Chalmers. They are also proposing to
dedicate right -of -way on South 18th Street to accommodate the
standard City right -of -way for whatever future improvements
are deemed necessary. They are also proposing the full
three -lane improvements with curb and gutter. He referenced
the sidewalk discussion about whether there is to be one
I/ sidewalk or two, with the staff recommendation to put one
sidewalk on the west side to accommodate pedestrians from
downtown and back through the project site. He indicated two
sidewalks could be built within the existing right -of -way.
He explained the difficulty of building the second siadewalk
due to the grade difference between the roadbed and the
sidewalk relative to the existing property which will require
the construction of a retaining wall. Mr. Towslee indicated
their contention all along has been to build the sidewalk,
but it is the other appurtenances that would make it
necessary to question whether there is really value added for
•
230
MARCH 29, 1994
the additional costs. They are also proposing a 280 -foot
turn lane on Terrace Heights Drive to accommodate the right
turn vehicles and a fully actuated traffic signal at 17th
Street. This will not only serve our project, but the auto
dealers and t %e future hotel across the street. It will also
service all te other vehicles, including park traffic that
come through this new arterial connection. Mr. Towslee
estimated the :total of these improvements to be in excess of
$300,000 and described this.as a very fair and substantial
contribution towards the ,public infrastructure in terms of
traffic. The issue has.come up about the 18th Street
underpass and the potential impacts caused, not necessarily
by the project, but the signal on.l7 Street. There been
some evidence in the record that :improvemen ; to' the 18th
Street underpass is not wa:rr-.anted from a strictly traffic
engineering standpoint, but some evidence has been heard from
the local business owners that they feel this is going. to be
a problem, if not today, but in the future.. In the interest
of the team playing that Mr. Hall has articulated, Wal -Mart
has agreed to help solve this problem 'in an equitable manner.
From a traffic standpoint, Mr. Towslee expressed his thought
that they will be more than mitigating the ; project's, direct
impacts and providing important infrastructure to this new
signal. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked Mr. Towslee if they
had seen a copy of the latest staff recommendation._ He said
they had and are in agreement with the staff recommendations
as they had been given to them. Council Member Buchanan
asked what size the sidewalk would be. Mr. Towslee stated
whatever the. City wants. One sidewalk can fit easily,
whether it is . 5 feet wide or 7 feet wide. Council Member
Brado expressed his thought that he would like to see the two
sidewalks put in, even though there will be the added expense
for a small retaining wall, if they can do it within the 55
feet of right -of -way. For the purpose of clarification,
Assistant Mayor Barnett asked how the identifying language in
the staff report would be changed. Council Member Brado
stated the wording should be changed to say both sides of
17th Street. Assistant Mayor Barnett questioned whether that
is agreeable to all parties, since it was said it could be
done either way. Mr. Towslee explained the point they were
trying to raise earlier that the second sidewalk will cost a
lot more than the first sidewalk, and they were questioning
whether or not it really provides the benefit for that extra
amount of money. They are certainly willing to do it; but
the point they were trying to make earlier in the Hearing
Examiner's report was that they don't have the ability to
donate more right -of -way on property that they don't own.
Mr. Towslee explained they can do it within 55 feet, if
necessary. Council Member Barnett stated all areas of
differences need to be resolved. Mr. Towslee stated they
were comfortable with the staff report and the construction
on the 17th Street side.
8
231
MARCH:29, 1994
Assistant Mayor Barnett provided.opportunity for anyone else
who wished to speak. There being no one, Assistant Mayor
Barnett asked if there were any more questions from Council.
Council Member Buchanan asked if the issue of the Greenway
Overlay District is settled to the satisfaction of the
1/ Greenway Board of Directors. CecVogt stated they feel they
can work with the parties involved and feel comfortable with
the way things are going. At the request of Council Member
Sims, City Attorney Paolella provided legal explanation
concerning the private contractual agreement to be made
amongst the parties to fund this traffic signal improvement.
The City's involvement includes engineering design work and
. the approval of the specifications. The funding would be a
private matter. In terms of the condition, the applicant
would participate in a private financial agreement to install
the signal. It would not be conditioned that the City be
part of this agreement in a formal way. This agreement would
be a separate contractual document involving the private
parties. Since they are all in agreement, it is anticipated
that they would draft a contract they all would sign that
sets forth the financial aspects along the lines of what has
been discussed, the $24,000. From the City Council's
perspective in terms of the condition, their condition would
be that Wal -Mart participate up to $24,000 in this financial
agreement. Assistant Mayor Barnett referred to page 4 of the
staff report, Recommended Condition which says that Council
would need to direct the City Legal Department to prepare an
agreement, etc. Mr. Paolella explained that in further
discussion with the Planning Department and the private
parties involved, there is a slight adjustment to that now.
It is anticipated that the private parties would draft the
agreement, since they all concur on this concept and would
bring it back to the City. Assistant Mayor Barnett closed
the public hearing.
Assistant Mayor Barnett stated the first motion would be to
adjust any of the staff recommendations as Council sees fit.
It was MOVED BY BRADO, SECONDED BY SIMS, TO ADOPT THE
FIRST PORTION DISCUSSED WITH THE AMENDMENT TO BOTH
SIDES OF 17TH STREET. Assistant Mayor Barnett stated
then, depending upon the Council's wishes, adopt these
recommendations up to the signal, then the signal would be a
separate motion, and a third motion would be whatever Council
wants to do on the road study. The question was called
for a vote on the motion. The motion passed by unanimous
voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. Now Assistant Mayor
Barnett stated he would entertain an appropriate motion for
the signalization. Council Member Sims asked if that would
include the replacement of the Hearing Examiner's
9
23 2
MARCH 29, 1994
Recommendations J, K. and P with the staff recommendation,
the three parts. It was MOVED BY BUCHANAN, SECONDED BY
SIMS, TO ADOPT THE EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE
CHANGES LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND DIRECT LEGAL
STAFF TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION
REGARDING THE REST OF IT. The motion passed by unanimous
voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent. City Attorney
Paolella stated for clarification purposes, that Council has
adopted the Hearing Examiner's recommendation as to. the
Rezone, the Street Vacation, and the Class 2: Approval.
Council Member Buchanan stated now all we have: to' do.: is: ask
staff to bring back plans and proposals for.' 18tth • Stre"et,
Chalmers and Riverside Street improvements.:.. There was
discussion concerning the motion regardingr 1'8:th Street
improvements, and City Manager• Zai i ndicated the motion was
on that .recommendation and that's all :inclusive. Council
Member Sims asked if that included the sidewalks on both
sides of the street. City Manager Zais directed Council's
attention to the next discussion concerning the improvements
on 18th Street, Chalmers, and Riverside. Assistant Mayor
Barnett stated he didn't know the best way to handle that,
but thinks we need to direct staff to take some sort of
action. It was MOVED BY BUCHANAN, SECONDED BY SIMS, TO
DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK TO THE COUNCIL THEIR PLANS
FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE 18TH, CHALMERS IMPROVEMENTS.
The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Berndt and
Beauchamp absent. Assistant Mayor Barnett asked
Glenn Valenzuela if he understands the intent and purpose of
the motion. He said he did. City Manager Zais suggested one
more item that should be on the record as a motion. There
should be a direction that is separate from this project,
which is certainly applicable in the future and that is the
issue of pursuing authority for Council to consider other
types of mitigation fees'or impacts that deal with off -site
improvements for these kinds of projects. The City has no
expressed authority except where it can be stretched under
SEPA or otherwise. Council Member Brado stated staff has
done a good job under that and if there really is a need to
do something, that gives all the authority needed. Assistant
Mayor. Barnett stated that he thought all those things are
going to be resolved as we progress further under the Growth
Management Act and all the other mandates that we've been
given over the past year. Council Member Buchanan stated
that he thought there should be a study session on that
issue. City Manager Zais stated we will come back with some
options on that. Those are discretionary; they are not
necessarily all required under Growth Management; they are a
tool available to the Council to consider.
5. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
None
10
. •
233
MARCH ,2 1994
6. OTHER BUSINESS
None
information Items:
Items of information supplied to Council were: Memorandum
from Transit Planner regarding State Summary Report and Six
Year Transit Development Financial Plan public hearing
notice. 3/24/94; Agenda for April 7, 1994 Downtown Area
Redevelopment Committee, meeting and minutes of its
February 3, 1994 meeting;( Agenda for the March 24, 1994
Yakima "Air Terminal Board meeting and minutes of its
February 24, 1994 meeting; Assignments Pending in Office of
Environmental Planning as of March 29, 1994; and Washington
Rail News; April /May 1994.
7. ADJOURNMENT .
It was MOVED BY BUCHANAN, SECONDED BY BERGER, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:30 A.M. The motion carried by
unanimous voice vote; Berndt and Beauchamp absent.
•
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE
COUNCIL MEMBER DATE
6/67q
COUNCIL MEMBE ATE
ATTEST:
Pc 0..}t_Z-„_..) /`2
CITY CLERK • AS TANT MAYOR •
Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audio and video tape of this meeting are
available in the City Clerk's Office
•
•
11