Loading...
1986 07 083978 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOSES LAKE July 8,1986 Members Present:Norm Johnson,Bill Reese,David Chandler,Wayne Rimple, Charles Edwards,and Roger Biallas. Absent:Bill Frederickson The meeting was called to order at 8 p.m.by Mayor Johnson Mr.Edwards moved that the minutes of the meeting of June 24 be approved as submitted,seconded by Mr.Rimple,and passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF BILLS REGULAR BILLS AMOUNT GENERAL FUND $626,358.25 STREET 1,973.20 STREET IMPROVEMENT 5.78 BUILDING AND EQUIPMENT 29,203.30 WATER/SEWER FUND 104,303.42 SANITATION FUND 30,494.38 CENTRAL SERVICES 5,480.84 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 198.29 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 2,561.37 FIREMEN'S PENSION 33.23 LID #53 734.55 TOTAL $801,346.61 Mr.Edwards moved that the bills be approved as submitted,seconded by Mr. Reese,and passed with Mr.Edwards abstaining from voting for that portion of the bills to Coast to Coast,and Mr.Rimple abstaining from voting for that portion of the bills to Moses Lake Steel Supply,and Mr.Biallas abstaining from voting for that portion of the bills to A &H Printers. I.CITIZEN INPUT None II.CONSENT AGENDA None III.CONSIDERATION OF BIDS CENTRAL DRIVE A letter was read from Rita Perstac,Municipal Services Director,which stated ID/9 that the City Engineer had prepared the bid tab and memo summarizing the four bids received.The low bidder is Marchand Construction if the bid is awarded without the landscaping.If landscaping is included in the bid award,the low bidder is Basin Asphalt.Also,there was a very minor irregularity on Basin's bid.If Council decides not to waive the irregularity,Marchand becomes the low bidder on the base bid with or without the landscaping. Action Taken:Mr.Rimple moved that the irregularity on the bid be waived, seconded by Mr.Edwards,and passed unanimously. Action Taken:Mr.Edwards moved that the bid from Basin Asphalt for the com- piete project,including landscaping,be awarded,seconded by Mr.Chandler, and passed unanimously. I'?fr •/}0D A letter was read from Municipal Services Director Rita Perstac that stated that the City Council had requested a recommendation from the Planning Commis sion regarding to what extent the City's Building Official should enforce the Uniform Building Code for day care facilities providing care for more than six children.On June 19,the Planning Commission held a study session on the matter where representatives from the State Fire Marshal's office and the De partment of Social and Health Services attended.At their June 26 meeting the Commission recommended to City Council "that the UBC be deviated from and that the Building Official be given the latitude,under Section 106 of the Uniform Building Code to determine the amount of deviation." Mr.Gavinski stated that there was a lot of discussion that occurred at the meeting between the State Fire Marshal's Office,the City Building Officialj and the Planning Commission with regard to the building code,the fire code, and related matters.They reviewed the actual code language in Section 106 that is quoted in the commission minutes.After a lot of consideration,based upon the discussion that occurred,the Commission felt that Section 106 would allow the Building Official sufficient authority to take into account those special circumstances that may arise but still allows him the ability to main tain and enforce the life safety requirements of the code.Being assured by Mr.Kimball that that could be done,he felt that the basis for the recommen dation that they are making to utilize Section 106 with regard to it's ap plication to day care facilities. Mr.Rimple asked if this was in reference to day care facilities only,and questioned if the Council was specifically addressing day care but giving the authorization for the Building Official to utilize Section 106 in anything pertaining to the UBC;and Mr.Gavinski replied that he was using that term in general but the question arose specifically with regard to day care,and that provision is in the code so that when people talk about relying upon the code and code sections in specific applications,it could be applied.This ap plication arose specifically with regard to day care,and that is why it was addressed.This recommendation from the commission is relative only to the day care but there is some discretion for the Building Official to use it in all cases. Mr.Rimple inquired if this would give the Building Official the authority to use Section 106 in any item pertaining to the UBC.Mr.Whitaker replied that the Building Official already has the authority under the code.The Building Official's authority could be limited in Section 106,but some sort of action would have to be passed and affirmative action taken.The statement from the commission is a statement about how the law is right now. 3979 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:2 July 8,1986 IV.PETITIONS,COMMUNICATIONS,OR PUBLIC HEARINGS None V.ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION -ACCEPTING STREET AND UTILITIES - SAGE BAY 3 &4 A letter was read from Rita Perstac,Municipal Services Director,which stated that Eilers/Niessner/Mann have completed installing to city standards street and utility improvements for plats Sage Bay 3 &4;that they have posted a $20,000 letter of credit at Security Bank to cover any repair work for the one-year warranty period.A Resolution accepting street and utilities im provements was also presented for Council's consideration. The resolution was read by title only. Action Taken:Mr.Rimple moved that the resolution be accepted,seconded by Mr.Edwards,and passed unanimously. VI.REQUESTS TO CALL FOR BIDS None VII.REFERRALS FROM COMMISSIONS DAY CARE 3980 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:3 July 8,1986 Mr.Gavinski stated that the Building Official does not need a statement but an acknowledgment would be appropriate since this was a very specific question with regard to the day care issue. Mr.Chandler wanted to know how the Building Official has handled it in the past if he already has all the authority in Section 106.Mr.Gavinski stated that it really has not been applied previously in any other situation because the amount of deviation has not been so much as to cause any difficulties. There have been some y/ery stringent requirements placed upon some day care _facilities which if strictly applied,and that what the issue is,would the Building Official strictly apply the code without any deviation or would the deviation would be something that would be endorsed and supported by the City of Moses Lake.That would really not allow some day care facilities to oper- ^ate because they could not meet the code. Mr.Chandler stated that there were some things that were stringent,as a two- hour wall,and he didn't know of any houses that had two-hour walls,and there were major structural changes in the windows and doors.He asked if the Building Official had been faced with that before. Mr.Gavinski stated that in recent history it hasn't been such an issue where it caused the amount of discussion that it did.It has perhaps in some very minor circumstances reliability on the code has been looked to and probably the code has prevailed,but the wide ranging application of the code in this case was so far reaching that there were a lot of people that could potential ly be effected.That is the reason that it became an issue.The Building Official has not had to rely on Section 106 very much because it was something of a new experience,researching how in effect you would use Section 106 and what sorts of record keeping would be necessary in order to protect the City of Moses Lake from any potential liability.There are some specific require ments if you read the code provision where he has to note what it is that has been done and it would have to be stated why it has been done.There is an alternative that would be used that then would take the place,for instance of a two-hour wall or a parapet wall,things of that nature.In other words,any -deviation that the Building Official would make would be covered by something he would require alternatively which would still allow for the same protection to the occupants of the building. Fire Chief Don Garrison stated that in the 26 years that he has been with the city it has only been used a couple of times on rather minor items,where an alternate method or alternate materials were used,as opposed to the require ment in the UBC. Mr.Biallas asked if he would be the sole judge of that and if this would come under review by anyone else,and he felt that that would put a lot of pressure on Mr. Kimball. Mr.Gavinski replied that that is correct that each deviation would be re viewed on a case by case basis.Mr.Kimball has something in mind that would standardize what that case by case basis would become and as to how he would react if a request were made. Mr.Edwards asked what the City's liability would be if case someone loses their lives due to one of these decisions by Mr.Kimball. Mr.Whitaker replied that the City has some liability exposure for any inspec tion,however,that exposure has been reduced somewhat by the tort reform act. Mr.Kimball will be using a check list and a written memorandum will be made of each situation he considers,what he considered and what variance he al lowed.This has been discussed and as long as he has acted reasonably in the recommendations he makes,the City has no greater exposure. Mr.Gavinski reminded the Council that the application of the UBC only applies to those situations where there are more than seven children.Even in a fami ly day care home,at times the day care operator can have more than six chil dren because of drop ins,but that is a fine point that has to be resolved as to how many of those homes would actually be affected.For the most part the UBC has its application in the mini and the day care centers,and there are very few of those operating within the City of Moses Lake to the City's knowledge.This is where the City would try to provide the greatest enforcement. »1fa 3981 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:4 July 8,1986 Action Taken:Mr.Rimple moved that the recommendation from the Planning Com- mission that the Building Official be given the latitude of Section 106 of the Uniform Building Code be upheld,seconded by Mr.Chandler,and passed unanimously. VIII.OTHER ITEMS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR REFERENDUM 38 FUNDS -WELLS 9 &29 AU A letter was read from Municipal Services Director Rita Perstac that states x that the City has been advised that water quality funds for 40%construction grants are available through DSHS.The City's water/sewer construction funds would pay 60%of construction costs if the projects are grant funded.Staff is proposing the City submit two funding applications for improvements to Well #9 and Well #29.Well #9 serves the Knolls Vista area and has hydrogen sul fide gas problems.Staff proposes to eliminate gas from the well water by sealing the well.Well #29 serves the Port of Moses Lake,Boeing and Housing Authority property.Staff proposes to change this well from oil lubed to water lubed because oil can contaminate the well and water system,causing high maintenance. Mr.Rimple asked if Well #9 could be fixed by just redrilling and if that would eliminate the hydrogen sulfide gas problem.Ms.Perstac replied that it would,that DSHS is aware of the problem,that the City of Tacoma has a simi lar problem and they have successfully eliminated the gas. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler moved that the City apply for Referendum 38 funds, seconded by Mr.Rimple,and passed unanimously. ftID \ofa ANNEXATION -SET DATE TO CONSIDER -NOTICE OF INTENT -WOODARD A letter from Municipal Services Director Rita Perstac was read which stated that Mr.Woodard of Okanogan has submitted a petition requesting his property located east of Highway 17 between Nelson Road and Kittelson Road be annexed to the City of Moses Lake.The site consists of 92 acres.No structures presently exist on the property but the property is currently farmed.Mr. Woodard requests the property be zoned Agricultural once it is annexed.Com mercial and/or light industrial zone change requests may be made in the fu ture.The annexation request can be referred to the July 10 Planning Commis sion meeting for a recommendation and July 22 be set as the date to consider accepting or rejecting the notice of intent to annex. Action Takeni Mr.Rimple moved that the City refer the notice of intent for annexation to the July 10 Planning Commission meeting for a recommendation and July 22 be set as the Council date to consider accepting or rejecting the notice of intent to annex,seconded by Mr.Reese,and passed unanimously. EMPLOYEES TRAINING AGREEMENT The City Manager had presented a letter to the Council requesting that since the Council had authorized the City of Moses Lake to use a training agreement for its employees,a schedule specifying the period of commitment which must be given in exchange for attending training programs as specified by the training agreement.This training agreement would not be applied in many cir cumstances,because there are not \/ery many occasions when there is any train ing which occurs for more than five working days. Mr.Edwards asked what the normal time generally used for training,and Mr. Gavinski replied that for the most part most training does not go more than five days.It is somewhat extraordinary if there is a training program that takes into account more than five working days. Mr.Chandler asked how long the Police Academy was.Mr.Gavinski replied that that was a special set of circumstances and a two year commitment is required because that is a condition of employment,and that lasts several months. Mr.Rimple stated that he would like to see the types of training programs that are being considered before he would require an employee to make a com mitment to work for the city for an additional five years.He inquired if anemployeewhichwasrequiredforcertification.Mr.Gavinski replied that no 3982 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:5 July 8,1986 training agreement would be required if the training was required for cer tification or the city specifically required the training.This would be dis cretionary,voluntary,and desired on the part of the employee. Mr.Rimple inquired if the City could legally do this,make the employee who receives training,for instance for 45 days,state that they have to work for the city five years?Mr.Whitaker replied,"yes". Mr.Rimple stated that he would like to see what other cities are doing.Mr. Gavinski stated that he would bring back to the Council a packet of informa tion that he has for the Council to review. Action Taken:It was the consensus of the Council that they will review the information packet before a decision is made on the employee training agreement. LEASE -PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES A letter was read from Park and Recreation Director Cecil D.Lee stating that a few weeks ago the Moses lake School District No.161 notified the City that it would no longer be possible to lease a portion of Midway School.This has made it necessary for the Park and Recreation Department to look for place for the department's administrative offices.The 1000 Ivy Street building fits into their needs quite well.A copy of the lease agreement with owner Jack Black was distributed to the Council members with the Agenda. Mr.Edwards inquired if this was the basement of the building.Mr.Lee re plied that this was the upper level. Mr.Edwards inquired as to what period of time the lease would be in effect, and Mr.Gavinski replied that it was for one year. Mr.Edwards asked what the difference was with the rent paid at the Ivy Street Building in comparison to the rent that was paid to the school.Mr.Lee re plied that it was less. Action Taken:Mr.Chandler made a motion that the City Manager be authorized to sign the lease,seconded by Mayor Johnson,and passed unanimously. IX.COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS None X.CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND COMMENTS INSURANCE POOL Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,presented a copy of the insurance pool proj ect status report from the Association of Washington Cities dated July 2, 1986,for the Council's information. LARSON SEWER TREATMENT PLANT Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,presented a copy of a report provided by the //^ Municipal Services Director with regard to the operation of the Larson Treat ment Plant.It describes how the plant operates and makes a comparison to the sand dunes site.It is important to note that the Larson Treatment Plant operates essentially in the same way and manner as the sand dunes site.There is wery little differentiation between those two facilities.The only real difference is that there is a rock infiltration system out at the sand dunes site which is not available at the Larson site,but on the whole the system operates the same.Once the wastewater is treated it goes into an infiltra tion basin and eventually filters back down into the soil. INCINERATION PLANT -PRESENTATION Mayor Johnson stated that Bob Thoren had a film that he would like Council and till 2 ienn°n an 1ncinerat1<>n P^nt.The film will be shown next Tuesdaynightat8:00 p.m.J I/O? /&?- i>- 3983 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:6 July 8,1986 ,</f &SALES TAX RECEIPTS City Manager Joseph Gavinski stated that at the AWC convention a number of cities got into the discussion about sales tax receipts and in Eastern Washington sales tax receipts for many or most cities in Eastern Washington are down significantly and apparently without explanation.The City of Yakima is very upset about it since their last distribution was down some 25%from the same distribution period last year.He has made inquiry from the Depart ment of Community Development and they made an inquiry of the Department of Revenue.He will keep the Council informed when he receives a reply. SOLID WASTE py)°City Manager Joseph Gavinski stated that he had had ameeting with the Grant County Commissioners on solid waste,based upon Councilman Frederickson's com ment.At this point the commissioners are not inclined to give any permission to the City of Moses Lake to haul it's solid waste to Adams County,and Adams County Commissioner would like before they will allow the City to take solid waste to Adams County.There were a couple of options offered by the Grant County Commissioners.The Commissioners would like to see the City of Moses Lake retained in the system but they did not offer anything more than has al ready been offered in terms of any alteration in rates to give any relief or any reduction which the City of Moses Lake would favorably consider.At this point as far as hauling solid waste to Adams County,it seems to be in dif ficult straits since Adams County wants this permission or some endorsement from Grant County,and Grant County isn't will to give it for obvious reasons, if Moses Lake does haul it's solid waste to Adams County it creates difficul ties for the remainder of the system. Mr.Biallas inquired if Adams County asked permission from the Grant County Commissioners for Consolidated to haul to Adams County?Mr.Gavinski stated that he did not know. Mr.Chandler stated that what is needed is for the Council,as the elected body,to make the request directly to the Adams County Commissioners. Mr.Gavinski stated that if the Council wanted to do that,that he would try to arrange a meeting between the City's elected officials and Adams County elected officials to discuss this single issue. The regular meeting was recessed at 9:10 p.m.and the Council met in an execu tive session to discuss litigation.The executive session was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.and the regular meeting was reconvened.The regular meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m...^/I Mayor ATTEST