Loading...
1971 05 11COUNCIL MINUTES -Regular Session Council Chambers May 11,1971 8:00 P.M. Members present:Councilmen,Robt.E.Hill,W.B.Moe,Norman W. Johnson,Gordon M.Ebbert,Otto M.Skaug, Ernest Lindell and Michael Boyle. Mayor Skaug called the meeting to order.Minutes of the regular council meeting of April 27,1971 were approved as written upon a motion by Johnson, second by Lindell.Motion carried. REGULAR BILLS GENERAL LIBRARY PARK STREET URBAN ARTERIAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL WATER AND SEWER SANITATION L.I.D.#25 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID 1,790.85 337.59 1,210.33 3,209,96 342.67 268.63 17,046.72 853.59 1,012.40 Motion by Boyle that the regular bills be paid.Second by Johnson.Motion carried. SPECIAL BILLS URBAN ARTERIAL FUND McAtee &Heathe,Inc. P.O.Box 656 Moses Lake,Washington 9,379.50 1578 Estimate #3 -Final -Section II-A,Pioneer Way Phase II Project,Contract 70-02. Motion by Hill that this special bill be allowed for payment.Second by Johnson. Motion carried. Washington Trust Bank 493.65 Main Office West 715 Sprague Spokane,Washington Estimate #3 -Final -Section II-A,Pioneer Way,Phase II,Project,Contract 70-02, constituting the 5%retainage for monies due McAtee &Heathe,regarding Section II-A. Motion by Boyle that this special bill be allowed for payment.Second by Lindell. Motion carried. SPECIAL BILLS (Continued) URBAN ARTERIAL FUND McAtee &Heathe,Inc. P.O.Box 656 Moses Lake,Washington TOTAL AMOUNT PAID 20,627.91 Estimate #7 -Final -Section III,Pioneeer Way,Phase II,Project,Contract 70-02. Motion by Lindell and second by Moe, that this special bill be allowed for payment.Motion carried. Washington Trust Bank Main Office West 715 Sprague Spokane,Washington 1,085.68 Estimate #7 -Final,for Section III,Pioneer Way,Phase II Project,Contract 70-02 constituting 5%retainage for Estimate #7,due McAtee &Heathe, Inc. 1579 May 11,1971 Motion by Moe that this special bill be allowed for payment.Second by Boyle. Motion carried. McAtee &Heathe,Inc.146.60 P.O.Box 656 Moses Lake,Washington Estimate #7 - Final,For Section V,PioneerWay, Phase II Project, Contract 70-02, Motion by Johnson that this special bill be allowed for payment.Second by Hill. Motion carried. Washington Trust Bank 61.00 Main Office .*'r*l West 715 Sprague Spokane,Washington Estimate #7 -Final -Section V,Pioneer Way,Phase II Project,Contract 70-02, constituting 5%retainage for Estimate #7, Section Vdue McAtee &Heathe, Inc. Motion byHill that this special bill be allowed.Second by Lindell.Motion carried. ,Warrant No's.381 through 451 in the amount of $57,867.08 were approved for payment. I ! |0*l PUBLIC HEARING -LID NO.24 - MILWAUKEE ALLEY Mayor Skaug opened the public hearing for consideration of confirming assess ments to property owners regarding Local Improvement District No.24,-Milwaukee Alley. Charles Edwards,of the Coast to Coast Store,asked the basis the LID paving was assessed on,according to McAtee &Heathe's billing or pro-rated along with the Broadway issue?He understood that combining it with the work being - done on the other side of the street they would be getting it at a reduced price. His final bill was slightly higher than the estimate.f**) Richard Weaver,City Engineer -stated the billing was made on actual construe-\ tion costs for the alley,and even at the slightly higher cost,we did save money.' The bid was slightly lower in some cases,however,in our estimated cost of the retaining wall,we were a little low. Charles Edwards -when the agreement was first made,those not affected,did not need to bear the cost of the retaining wall,this was not taken into considera tion when we gave our permission for the paving of the alley. Mayor Skaug -asked Mr.Edwards,what was your estimate and actual,billing? Charles Edwards -$1800 estimate and I am billed for $2100. Richard Weaver -The retaining wall was discussed in the original hearing. In placing the retaining wall it could have been set to drain the other way.I think you got the better deal.In fact the owners adjacent to the retaining wall had to pay extra on their own stairs. Councilman Ebbert -Is the retaining wall divided up in the whole project? Richard Weaver answered in the affirmative.f"l Councilman Moe -Is the cost divided evenly upon the property owners ? City Manager,Waggener -The retaining wall cost is included in the total project cost and distributed among the property owners. O.C.Shadduck - I feel well satisfied with the job and costs are always a little higher than we like to pay. Motion by Hill that the public hearing be closed.Second by Johnson.Motion carried. A written protest was read from Dr.E.V.Barnett,owner of Lot 12,SWLY 7.ft. of Lot 11,Block G,Plat of Neppel,noting that this alley and parking space are of no value to him and believes that the few merchants who will benefit by this should bear the full expense. // J '.:•-:-May 11,1971 Councilman Hill -asked Mr.Shadduck -what was your appraised cost on the LID and actual billing. Mr.Shadduck -one section was estimated $1,178.91 and billed at $1,402.42 and one section was estimated at $1,274.92 and billed at $1,296.83. Mayor Skaug -Were they substantially the same? Mr.Shadduck -Of course,these figures did not include an additional $500 in the final that was due to steps that we had put in,and that assessment would be directly to us and not charged to others in the project. Councilman Hill -asked the City Manager -is it not true that we cannot go 10%over the estimate. City Manager,Waggener,-Yes,but I am sure this is still under the 10% of the estimate of the project. Charles Edwards -We did not discuss retaining wall at the time and the estimate did not include the retaining wall. Mayor Skaug asked Richard Weaver if the total LID cost was within the 10%? Richard We aver -Just below the 10%. Motion by Johnson that the public hearing be closed.Second by Hill. Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO.625 -CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL -LID NO.24 / /07V The ordinance was read by title only,and the second reading before adoption was waived.Motion by Johnson that the ordinance be adopted at it's first reading.Second by Lindell.Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING -LID NO.25 -NORTHSHORE DRIVE /07& Mayor Skaug opened the public hearing for consideration of confirming assess ments to property owners regarding Local Improvement District No.25 -North- shore Drive.He asked for comments or question's from those attending the meet ing,,There was no response,and no written protests had been submitted. Motion by Johnson that the public hearing be closed.Second by Moe.Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO.626 -CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL -LID NO.25 :/076 The ordinance was read by title only,and the second reading before adoption was waived.Motion by Boyle that the ordinance be adopted at it's first reading. Second by Hill.Motion carried. 1580 ORDINANCE NO. 627 -REGULATING TRAFFIC SPEED DURING CONSTRUCTION - WHEELER ROAD AND ALDER STREET ~~~~~ The ordinance was read in it's entirety, setting the maximum speed limit at 25 miles per hour for the two designated streets.Said maximum speed limit will continue until the City Engineer determines that the project is complete which will probably be October 1,1971 . j Motion by Moe that the ordinance be adopted,and waive the second reading. J Second by Johnson.Motion carried. Li • RESOLUTION -AUTHORIZING SALE OF REAL ESTATE TO MTT.T.PR ithmps INC LOT 8,BLOCK 3.SUNSET PARK ADDITION '°' The resolution was read in its entirety,stating that the property was one parcel,along with others,turned over to the realtors in November,1970 as no longerneededforcitypurposes,and this particular lot had been appraised by the Multiple Listing Bureau at $1,000.Miller Homes,Inc.have offered to purchase it for the appraised price of $1,000. /oz? /ot/o 1581 -May 11,1971 Councilman Moe -asked to have the property identified on the map,and then stated that it has come to his attention that it is the only park on the Peninsula besides Larson Playfield. City Manager,Waggener -noted that it is a single lot and has been used as a "tot lot".It is a single 60 x 100 ft.lot and has very little value as a park. Councilman Moe - It does get quite a bit attention from the younger people and could expand that piece of property and do a better job down there,and there are some vacant lots adjacent to this particular parcel. Councilman Hill - Is this tax property?-City Manager answered,No, money r—i from the sale of this property would go into the General Fund.i Motion by Moe that the resolution be denied and that the property be taken off the surplus property roll that we have submitted to the Realtors.Second by Johnson. Mayor Skaug -Does it have some use now? Councilman Moe - It is definitely being used,particularly in keeping the smaller tots off the street. Councilman Hill -How many does it serve in that area? Councilman Moe -They are pretty prolific in that area. Bill Skeels?Park &Recreation Director -stated that it is one lot,a narrow strip that is isolated from the rest of the system,but it does get a lot of use from the little children in the neighborhood,in fact the center gets worn bare. It is in lawn and has city water,and is located in the middle of a residential area. Mayor Skaug called for a vote on the motion to deny the resolution and not accept the offer by Miller Homes,Inc.Those voting to deny the resolution:- Moe,Johnson and Skaug.Opposed to denying the resolution:-Boyle,Lindell and Ebbert.Councilman Hill abstained. Councilman Hill asked,if by abstaining,could he askthat the City Council look over the property,and bring the item back on the agenda for the next meeting? City Manager,Waggener stated -at this point you have a negative motion, that motion has failed and so Mr.Hill or any other Councilman can ask for reconsideration. Councilman Hill moved that this be put back on the agenda for the May 25th meeting and take a look at the property,and for further study.Second by Lindell.Motion carried. PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE NO.132. \y A letter was read fiom the Fire Chief,Russ Beeman,stating that the fireworks season is approaching and some of the local organizations will be requesting permission to sell fireworks.Therefore,re requests that the ordinance pro hibiting the sale of fireworks be amended to allow the sale of "safe and sane" fireworks.This would cause the ordinance to be in accord with the State Fire works Law of 1961,referred to as the Safe and Sane Fireworks Law.H He further added,that the Fire Department has not changed their position on fireworks, and still feel they are extremely hazardous from the standpoint of their ••''j ability to ignite combustible material,but places the Fire Department in an awkward position having to oppose different organizations each year for their permission to sell fireworks,and then having to enforce regulations governing the sale. As the Council is aware,organizations in the City have received special per mission to sell fireworks in past years,which is in direct conflict with the ordinance,thus making the^fort of the Fire Department more difficult each year to enforce the existing ordinance.If it is amended,it woeld relieve the City Council of some of the burden and would create a better relationship between the Fire Department and organizations wishing to sell fireworks. May 11,1971 -••--~ Councilman Ebbert -You have nothing in your letter as to definite areas where fireworks might be sold. Chief Beeman -The Fire Law does cover zones of these locations and sets up restrictions,and from those we can designate accordingly. Councilman Ebbert -We would have to take each case as it comes in then. Councilman Boyle -The sale of Safe and Sane Firworks is merely an interpretation of the Attorney General's opinion of the Law. Chief Beeman - I haVe a copy of the Fire Law. I City Manager,Waggener - I think the question is whether the City Ordinance J supersedes the State Law, and in this instance it cannot. Councilman Ebbert -If we pass this thing,can they sell these in every store downtown ? City Manager,Waggener -Each and every request would have to come before the City Council and you would have to judge each one individually as it comes to the Council. Councilman Ebbert - I think if we open this to the public for sale-instead of two cases we will-have 30 or 40. Councilman Boyle -Isn't it true in your own opinion that the Moses Lake Fire Department has opposed the sale of fireworks because of the danger rather than any conflict between organizations and the Fire Department;this is the only reason,is this true? Chief Beeman -Yes |Councilman Hill - Weren't there about seven fires within the cily during the 4th j of July contributed to fireworks ? Chief Beeman -Yes,approximately that many,if I remember.We have not changed our position,we still feel it is a hazard and they are allowed to sell them anyway.Some may have the opinion that we may be put under pressure, but they were selling in violation of the ordinance,and I feel we could control it with the State Regulations,instead of opposing it every year. Councilman Hill -stated he takes the same stand as he did a year ago and respects Chief Beeman's attitude and does not think the Council should lower standards on fireworks. Mayor Skaug asked Chief Beeman -Do I understand that no one is precluded if they qualify by the State Fire Marshal's requirements to sell fireworks? Chief Beeman -If organizations are allowed,it would not be fair to turn down anyone else. Mayor Skaug -The organizations substantially donate the money derived,to worthy causes,such as "Sing Out,Moses Lake",group,the blind,for youth recreational purposes,etc. i I Motion by Moe that the Council table this item for discussion to study it \[further.Second by Johnson.Motion carried.Councilman Hill cast an opposing vote. 1582 1583: /po* May 11,1971 ;;- MUNICIPAL AIRPORT LEASE A letter was read from the Public Works Director,Richard Weaver, and re commended negotiation of a lease with Russell Bigger,d/b/a/Big Aero Industries,Inc.Acopy of the lease had been submitted to each Councilman earlier for their perusal. Councilman Hill asked if Mr.Biggers has reviewed the lease? Richard Weaver.-Yes,and we discussed it,and he said it was fine. Motion by Moethatthe lease with Big Aero Industries be accepted.Second f~l by Hill.Motion carried.j • ^REQUEST FROM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO COVER PARKING METERS FOR CRAZY i//5 DAYS,MAY 14 and 15. A letter was read from Ray J.Malone,Manager,Greater Moses Lake Chamber of Commerce,requesting permission from the City Council to cover the parking meters for this two-day sales event.Motion by Johnson to grant the request. T Second by Boyle. Councilman Hill asked - We do not bill the Chamberfor loss of revenue? Answer -No. ,i»j Motion carried. PROTEST REGARDING SALE OF DOGWOOD PARK Mayor Skaug stated that a group of people are in attendance known as the "Brotherhood",an organization of young people to register protest regarding the sale of Dogwood Park recently to Tri-State Stores.The group frequently .gathers in Dogwood Park and also conducted a protest demonstration on Sunday because ofthe sale.On Sunday,Bob Folsom,a spokesman for the group,r-*> announced they would attend this Council meeting.He called on Bob Folsom }I to relate to the Council the groups feelings.Bob Folsom indicated that Dennis Dexter was appointed to speak instead. Dennis Dexter stated that first of all it is not necessarily the point that we want to stop the sale,simply a proposal that the City take steps to main tain Dogwood Park as a park.It is a very good place for group gatherings, and has a very good present use,being used presently by many young people. It's location is excellent - it has a well on it,and it's maintenance is very little,and might add that the "Brotherhood" is willing to keep the maintenance up on it,that is paid to anyone else.It is of good recreational value.Moses Lake is lacking in recreational facilities,and this particular park is valued by young people in particular. We realize there are ether parks,but their locations are unmistakenly family areas,underdeveloped or poor locations .If the young people would go to other parks,I believe you would find your family people moving away from the younger people.Using this park keeps the young people in one place where they want to be,and where family groups prefer them to be.It is also a land mark,it is lighted,has aesthetic value,and it is easily policed.It is well developed,and the trees are full grown.I believe this sums up what the young people have to say. Mayor Skaug commented on the article in the paper of this same date that Tri-State intends to keep it as a park. Bob Folsom mentioned that he had a meeting with Pat Banks of Tri-State and he said Tri-State did not have any plans for the park now,but later plans are possibly for a parking lot or some kind of building;it may not be for 2, 3 or 5 years, but let it be known that it will have to be built into something else though. Dennis Dexter - We want the City Council to inform Tri-State to set up a certain time limit, and our proposal is that the City negotiate on our behalf. May 11,1971 Mayor Skaug -We cannot impose any restrictions projecting use at the moment. It could be that the Council might be guided in future determination of land by the use that people want to make of it.We were not apprised of your feelings on the 27th of April,or in November,1970 when the City put this up for sale as surplus property.The City complied with all State Statutes by publication in the newspaper thata listing of city-owned property was being turned over to the Multiple Listing Bureau for appraisal and for realtors to sell the property at that price.Dogwood Park was included in that listing,and cannot take responsi bility for the public not being apprised of it.Dogwood Park was appraised at $17,500 by the Multiple Listing Bureau and Tri-State offered that amount to I purchase it.. U He also noted that from the signatures and addresses on the visitors list,that a goodly number give addresses living outside the City limits.People from outside the City limits are more than welcome to use our parks and facilities, but he questions the validity of their protesting action taken by the City Council. Mayor further commented that itis a sad thing that the Council has more people attending this meeting than any other time.Ordinarily department heads and one1ortwopeopleinterestedcometotheCouncilmeetings.Either people don t care, or maybe its the complete trust they have in the Council. Curt Austin stated re is not a member of the "Brotherhood",but inquired,first, what is the-criteria for establishing surplus property -what with all thetalk on •ecology and greenery;and second,what did Tri-State pay for the other side of park, I understand they paid $30,000? In answer to his question,City Manager,Waggener,stated that Tri-State paid approximately $25,000.They also bid on the property that currently re mained as Dogwood Park.They only bid about $8,000,and that being below the appraised value,the City decided to retain it for sale at some future date. j Lots that had mostly been acquired through LID foreclosures were declared |surplus ,along with other city owned property no longer needed for City \purposes,were turned oyer to the Multiple"Listing Bureau.It was published '—*in the local newspaper at the'time "that the property was made available for any realtor to sell if they could find a buyer.It was only on that basis •that Tri-State offered to purchase this piece of property for $17,500.The City Council accepted the offer and the deed has been signed.The list of property declared surplus,- .is available here at City Hall to anyone that wishes to have a copy. In addition,he added,that the City of Moses Lake has 136 acres of Parks with 70 acres developed and 66 acres undeveloped and/or in various stages of development.The national minimum standards put out by the National Re creation and Park Association is 10 acres per 1000 people.The $17,500 de rived from the sale of Dogwood Park consisting of approximately 1/2 acre, the City could obtain with that $70,000 in matching money from the State and Federal government for park acquisition and/or development. Mayor Skaug commented that the group on Sunday at Dogwood Park reflected to him that they did not want to go over to McCosh Park because there were too many young children over there,and maybe showed a little discrimination on their part. Dennis Dexter added -he didn't think they are discriminating,it's just they might interfere with the childrens'action.It is going to cause family type persons to withdraw. Mayor Skaug - We can equate then that other people such as families will not come to Dogwood while you are there ? John Folsom - No,it's more like some lady said,she would not bring her children there as long as the long-haired hippy type people are there,but she thinks the young people should have a park and do whatever they are doing. •iSBS May 11,1971 Bonnie Ostrander commented that she enjoys this park because no little children use it,just for young people.It is a beautiful park with its large trees,and it should be preserved for our children,if the world is still around for future generations. Councilman Moe asked the group - The Brotherhood image of Priday night,is it f"" to continue happening?Would you like to have youngsters around then?! i Others speaking protesting the sale of the park were Mrs.Sagen,John Lester, Mary Lassila,Richard Griffin.Dick Dean,Teacher,stated he came here in 1945 and would personally like to go on record opposed to the sale of Dogwood, since he has enjoyed the Park -he has seen the trees grow and also almost die but the City has bailed them out and saved them.It is also a land mark and would hate to see it go down the "tube".It is conveniently located across from the Junior High School,and would rather see the young kids there than anywhere else;also rather not see a big old building go in there. Karl Marks,stated he came and enjoyed this meeting and thinks the Council has been more than fair in handling this discussion and the business it has conducted.The sale has been consumated,and it should be accepted as such. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.upon a motion by Johnson and second by Moe. MAYOR,Otto MJ.Skaug ATTEST: ,Charles^Daavenport n n