1972 08 221752
COUNCIL-MEETING -Regular Session August 22,1972
Council Chambers 8:00 P.M.
Members Present: Councilmen Robt. E.Hill,W. B. Moe,Norman W. Johnson,Gordon M. Ebbert,
Otto M.Skaug,Ernest V.Lindell and Michael Boyle.
Invocation:-Rev.Reed S.Zakhary,Mobile Ministry.
Mayor Skaug called the meeting to order and called for approval ofthe minutes ofthe previous meetingofAugust8,1972.Motion by Lindell that the minutes be approved as written.Second by Johnson.
Motion carried.
REGULAR BILLS TOTAL AMOUNT PAID
"FUND -*
GENERAL $Ho?*ft?STREET i'ooi/n
ARTERIAL STREET i'lll'VnPARK5,boo./a
LIBRARY 59.70
URBAN ARTERIAL 5'5oic7WATER/SEWER 2'J5o'eiSANITATIONI'5?c 52.»EQUIPMENT RENTAL 2,415.47
Motion by Hill that the regular bills be paid. Second by Skaug. Motion carried./
Warrant.No's.2941 through 3006 in the amount of $35,168.74 were approved for payment.
PUBLIC HEARING -VACATION OF BLANCHETTE STREET
Mayor Skaug opened the public hearing and explained the procedure of a public hearing.py
City Manager Waggener stated that since the agenda had gone outto the Councilmen earlier, a petition
has been submitted opposing the vacation of Blanchette Street signed by approximately 24 property ownersabutting Blanchette, stating they have a vested right in the street and wish for its continuation as a street.He referred to the Community Development Director's letter stating that the City has received a requestfromMr.Love to vacate Blanchette Avenue alongthe southern edgeof Tracts 23 and 35 of the Park Crchards
Tracts. Blanchette Avenue, originally Sixth Avenue was platted as a part of the Park Orchard Tract in 1914andisunimproved.Since then Earl Road has been platted parallel to Blanchette Avenue only 100 feet to the
south leaving only one row of lots between the two streets.
It is the Planning Commission's recommendation that the street be vacated with the conditions that theCityretainallnecessaryutilityeasements,and require payment from Mr.Love ofone-hedf ofthevalue ofthe vacated right-of-way as it constitutes an outright grantof landto Mr.Love.The City Manager statedso far as the vacation is concerned, the street is definitely not located in the proper place being approxl-mately 100 feet in back of Earl Road.But should the Council determine not to vacate at this time,platting
could provide for relocation of Blanchette Street at that time.
Mayor Skaug called for comments or opinions from those attending the hearing.Ralph Kenison,Attorney
representing those opposing the street vacation.presented a map in order to show physically why thesepeopleareopposingthe vacationof Blanchette Street.He also wished to pointout to the Council that theCatholicConfraternityCenteris located in Lot 1onWhite Drive and the frontage street,if vacated,wouldcutthemoffandonlyallowentrancebyEarlandDaleonWhiteDrive.The parties he represents feel theyhavea vested right in the property anddo notwantit vacated. In the petition there is some indication behindthisthatMr.*Love has brought action against all the owners onthat street providing if the street is
vacated he gets the land,and basically there was such a hearing.
Mr J.O.Neil,Attorney from Ephrata representing Mr.Love,stated that Mr.Love is the substantial
owner of Tract 35 and 23 of Park Orchards Tracts and he owned the tract originally, selling offa smallpartofit.But this so-called Blanchette Avenue was platted in 1914 when the original Park Orchards wasplattedandthis street was never improved but remained a totally unimproved street.Mr.Love is interestedinactuallygettingbackthisproperty.He would liketobeina position to sell for platting,or possiblyplatithimself.As I understand,he explained,these houses face Earl Road and right behind them .s thisunimprovedstreet,and the City Planning Department would bedesirous to vacate this street and make provisionforanotherstreetnorthofit.We feel,on behalf of Mr.Love,thatit would be wholesome tothearea to permit this vacation and thenalso pave the way for a new platto goin there and a new street in
its place.
Councilman Johnson asked Mr.Neil -He is willing totakethis back and take out property again?
Mr.Neil -Yes,if the City wanted another street dedicated back there he would be willing to give the
right of way for that.
Dennis Hopkins spoke in behalf of Father McGrath regarding the Lady Fatima Catholic Church.StatedtheyhaveabigImprovementlocatedonthatStreet,the Catholic Confraternity Center,and Blanchette
1/
Council Meeting Minutes:2 August 22,1972
Street is the front door and wanted the Council to know it would work quite a hardship on the Center
and later church development.
Mr.Van Beek,256 Earl Road -stated that Mr.Neil stated maybe Mr.Love would agree to move the street
if they would actually start platting.We are dealing with a lotof its .
Mr m0ii -A«Tunderstand it if the City diddesire to vacate this they can lay down some conditionsaid^mXi^SSS^i^l^Z proper department to permit ^™^^™£"--a different street layout north of that,and I think Mr.Love would be agreeable to that condition for
such street if that is what you want to do.
There were no further comments from those attending the hearing.Mayor Skaug closed the hearing to the
public and asked the Council if they had any questions orcomments.
Councilman Hill asked Mr.Kenison -What is the main objection by your property owners?
have continued.
Councilman Lindell -What ifthere is some other plan that the City can come up that will not damage %
them,or they will not lose?
_. .,....u-„-....*..«•-.-ail **~-niat it Their proDerty richtsRalphKenison-One man wants it uack DecdUse he *.<a.^^-8-^*-—*~*"-*-w-»-
they feel are being taken away.
Mayor Skaug asked Ralph Kenison -Vested rights -what doyou mean by that?
Raloh Kenison -Say for example all of a sudden the City comes and wants to raise your street six feet,££ySl to£avlsted right in the street to object to it because it would be damaging to you.
Mi-Neil -As I understand itas far as vested rights;those people have an unimproved road and using
church where .it now runs Blanchette Avenue.
Raloh Kenison -This is the only time these people living on Earl Road have a chance ^tordand^if thevlSe their rights Mr.Love can come in and propose anything he wants.If Council turns this downandMr.£^ve co^el hi with a plan that would not damage their property Iam sure they will be agreeable,,
butnot merely to vacatethe street just because Mr.Love wants the land.
Councilman Bovle - Ifat some future time thestreet would be moved further north leaving frontage proper-Ste*£sk£of the street,wouldn't that double the value of Mr.Love's property as far as frontage
property?
Mr.Neil -Yes,it would.'
Motion by Hill that the public hearing be closed.Secondly Johnson.Motion carried.
Motion by Hill that the vacation be denied.Second by Johnson.Motion carried.
RESOLUTION =CHANGING STREET NAMES IN WESTLAKE
Mayor Skaug explained that new discussion or action was tabled regarding this item at the lastCouncil
meeting.
The resolution was read inits entirety,establishing the change of street names inWestlake and establishingnamesfortwoun-named streets and changing one street name due to duplication with one in the City.
Roy Morris,No.44,Westlake,presented a pctiUonwith 61 signatures stating they would rather at this time
leave the street names in Westlake as they are presently named.
Councilman Ebbert asked Mr.Morris - Is your petitionagainstthe nameing ofthe two streets that nowhavenoparticularname?Mr.Morris stated, -No,they don't belong tous,they belong totheState.
They have to be named so without any objection.
Councilman Boyle asked Mr.Morris -Are there any duplications on this petition that appeared onthe
original petition?
Mr.Morris -So many of them are Spanish people,they did not understand what they were signing before,
but we have an interpreter.
Mr.Sylvester Gonzales stated-We are opposed to thechanglrg the names ofthe streets;leave the streetnamesastheyarenow,and weare not objecting to the Dune Road,to Jude's Road and naming the frontage
n
Council Meeting Minutes:3 August 22,1972
roads Prlchard and Francis.The people were asked previously if they objected,but were not told what
the names were going to be,and after hearing the names they were objecting.
Mayor Skaug stated that the City Council perhaps could decide on the three other roads and the people
in Westlake do as they wish on the other streets,leaving them remain as is.
Councilman Moe -In view of the situation,the people in the area out there have been used for political
purposes for some reason I can't figure out.In fact some of the people are highly controversial,and I object
strenuously to City Management,Mr.Hibbard.and Mr.Weaver signing their names thinking this proper and
going along with it,and I am thinking we have something here that could embarrass everybody.
Mayor Skaug - I think the City has acted in accordance with the 32 people signing the original petition.
Councilman Moe - I think a great number were not aware of what they were signing.
City Manager Waggener - In defense of our City Staff,none of our people had anything to do with
circulating the petition.
City Engineer Weaver - The City Engineer was required to name two un-named streets and one street
that had a conflicting name with one in the City.I know that 32 people wanted the names changed and
presenting the petition was proper according to the precedure necessary.
Motion by Moe to reject the resolution in its entirety,and not in favor of Jude's Road,or Prichard and
Francis Road.The roads do need names and I think the City Staff can come up with names that are not
objectionable.Second by Hill.
Councilman Boyle -Bill,is it my understanding that you are objecting to Prichard and Francis and Jude's
Road?
Councilman Moe-That's right - my suggestion is for the City Management to come up with names that
are not objectionable.Jude's Road - I don't know what that is,and I object to Prichard or Francis.
Councilman Lindell -The only person that objected to those road names are you,Bill.
Councilman Hill - I object to Jude's.
Councilman Lindell -So that makes two.
Mayor Skaug -Mr.Morris and Mr.Gonzales presetted their objection with the petition.
Councilman Lindell -These names came up about two weeks ago.
Councilman Moe - I think that is right,but I don'tthink there are a lot of people that do know what
is going on.
The question was called -Voting in favor of rejecting the resolution in it's entirety -Hill,Moe,Johnson
and Ebbert.Against -Skaug,Lindell and Boyle.Motion carried.
Boyle stated he voted against because his objection is to the five streets listed below and no objection
to the top three street names (referring to the un-named roads and the co nflicting duplication named street).
Ebbert - That was my contention .too,voting in favor.
City Manager Waggener - I am thoroughly confused as to what is expected of City Management,especially
with those particular names and if they are not satisfactory,I don't know how you expect City Management
to come up with alternates that would not also be objectionable.
Councilman Hill - I am against names that have an apostrophe in them.
City Manager Waggener - Very well,we will come back with three names and hope they will be some
thing not objectionable to you.
ORDINANCE - ADOPTING UNIFORM FIRECODE (1st reading)y~_y
A letter was read from the Assistant Fire Chief,Don Garrison,stating that in order to update our present
Fire Code and keep abreast of changes in fire prevention standards,re is requesting that Ordinance #208
be repealed and replaced with an Ordinance adopting the 1971 edition of the Uniform Fire Code.The Uni
form Fire Code was purposely written to be compatible with the Uniform Building,Mechanical,Housing
and Plumbing Codes,and does use the same National Standards as reference.It is also more comprehen
sive in several areas and covers some of the newer processes and hazardous materials such as cryogenic
fluids.In adopting the 1971 Uniform Fire Code,Section 4,Sections 12.102 and 12.103 are repealed,as
these sections deal with bonding,insurance,manufacture,sale and discharge of fireworks,v/hich is
Council Meeting Minutes:4 Au9ust 22,1972
covered bv our City Ordinance #642.Also Section 15.704 (F)is amended in order to maintain ourp?esen!?standi!for self-service gasoline stations.The 1971 Uniform Fire Code has been adopted by
the State Fire Marshal's Officeand therefore may be adopted byreference.
The ordinance was read by title only.Motion by Johnson to accept the 1st reading.Second by Lindell.
Councilman Hill inquired regarding"Section 2,(c)recommending to the City Manager the employment ofS^Tinspe^.»Does that mean additional personnel?The Assistant Fire Chief stated that wasonlyifwedonothaveafireinspectororfireengineer,presently he is acting in that capacity.CUyMkLgerWaggenerstatedthatpeoplecanonlybeaddedbybudgetrequestwithCouncile'PProval Wedonothaveanyparticularplanforadditionalpersonnelinthiscapacitypresently.Motion carried.
ORDINANCE -RESIDENTIAL UNIT DEVELOPMENT (1streading).
jA Aletter was read from Larry Hibbard,Community Development Director,stating^that the'W™gjgICrCommissionattheirlastregularmeetingvotedtorecommendtotheCounc1adoptionoftheRUD1zoningordinanceamendmentsubmittedtotheCouncil.This ordinance follows basically the concepts .Wnn^^DSXiiint regarding better utilization of land in residential ^^S^ii^SSSToflandusedforstreets,-economies in residential development;and,greater use of open space through
design and building arrangement than in traditional grid developments.
The ordinance permits a combination of building types (single family,duplex,and multi-family)to beconstructedinR-1S,R-l or R-2 zoning districts wnen an area is developed as one unit and certainIpecmcandgenerairequirementsaremetasfollows:(1)contains a minimum of two acres (2)pro-vides proper utilities.(3)provides adequate traffic circulation.(4)the total density of residential
units is notgreater than permitted withthe zone in whichit is within,
He further recommended that Council seta public hearing on September 12,1972 at which time the pro
posed ordinance can be discussed.
Larry Hibbard exhibited several sketches showing comparison between two di««rent types ot ^ve^pamt)that seen in most areas;such asa grid pattern,with uniform lot sizes,uniform street sizes and verylittleoSnoTublicspace,compared to the different arrangement of a Planned Unit Development.Hee^taeTtto n^hSTbtin changed from PUD abbreviation because of aconflict with the abbreviationSKothepSSicUtilityDistrict(PUD)to Residential Unit Development (RUD .In his sketch he •pointedTLt Lw RUD can fit into the same area as the conventional grid pattern (in this case 20 acres)fn a different way with culdesacs which do not allow through traffic;different dwelling types or a combtoa-.tion of d!fferen?LTXrtypes such as apartments.In the area where the apartments would be located theots?zewould be smafer and not uniform?Density would be the same;tota amount of!t«^™**W*bablv be the same,although traffic patterns would be different with primarily only local ,raffie.Thes?reis would^be different,comparison of 15,000 feet (3 miles)ordinarily and in a RUD 9,000 feet (1*miles-).Usually^here Sone-third less street in this type of development;less for the developer to put-in andlessfortnlcit?regarding up-keep.Also approximately 4acres in parks and open space,compared toifacressomewhere?in aLmer and usually the bad land of an area.The lots would be smaller and more
opencommon space would be used in a variety ofways.
With the RUD ordiance amendment we are only talking about zoning,the use of land;^e arfnot telkingaboutdivisionofland.We are not only talking about lots to be arranged,but setbacks that allow more
room in back and front yards.
ThP ordinance was read by title only.Councilman Ebbert asked if the purpose of this ordinance amend-ment Ifto pe^^this type of development,not to encourage it?City Manager Waggener stated it would
be by special permit and in a particular area.
Motion by Boyle to adopt the first reading and set September 12,1972 for a public hearing regarding this
ordinance amendment. Second by Hill. Motion carried.
ALCOHOLISM CONTROL -REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN COUNTY PROGRAM
mTclty Manager stated that we do not have aresolution prepared,but that acertified copy of the minutes
should be sufficient,should the Council's action be one of approval.
u
I /
1756
August 22,1972
Council Meeting Minutes:5
Councilman Johnson commented -We have already sent In our letter of intent.
Motion by Johnson we go ahead with our letter of intent and fulfill it and direct our monies to the Grant
Coumy Council on Alcoholism.Second by Boylo.
Councilman Moe -Wouldn't it be better to have ?»^^«~*SST.wouldli^to HeT
^utiS^^^Mode Snead.Chairman.Grant County Commission J^EXfSS?^CoS^Sh'ofluly1.1972.Some time ^^^V^^St^SS^B^^l center by the effective date of^yf^t.T^XoXtt:IrfelTes Lake City Council concurred.
CouncilmanEbbert asked -Are you asking for official action.Just avote of the Council,or are you
requesting a resolution?Mode Snead stated -mour particular letter we asked for aresolution,but Ithink Council concurrence
is all that is necessary.
The question was called *Motion carried.
.wnt.Ti,TMLTM1TE"-»™PnMn RESOPT MOTH -CONVF.NTION CENTER f/?Cj
Aletter was read from Chamber -Co^^^*City have felt the need for several years to f^^i^inelSw such a facility could be put together,felly this year a group of concerned citizens ^t to deteratae^ows ^^^The results of this meeting was that Payrolls "^^^^nJVnlisted to support the project.IncludedffSfS-S £»T.^^n^-a?conference room,,and aconvention hall.
Informed of the progress of the project.
The site is located across the street from ^^^^^ffiW
S^VsT^^^
5&3»»r«£^^of this proiect wU1 lncreaseitschancesof becoming a reality.
Lyle Hicks was present,and since submitting hi,letter s-^^guaranteeing the loan for this site Theproperty^^^j^E™^they plan to put in amarina.partment,and they have agreed to turn this over to ™e ™"^°m d h e to come up with the actual con-We are presently negotiating with Hosts.*Ajerica.counln'He explained,our original intent is to getstructionofthisprojectwith^^^^^^UomMi and to get it on the Lake to enhance the Lake
is:t *£%£^^location is ideal;"can be seenfromthehighway,and it will enhance the area out there.
the Council's blessing to implement the project.
Aletter was read from Herb Quinn,President of Payrolls ^^-^^l^^^^^Tl^vacation zone change for the area of the proposed res°rt-morte';?°nv®nU°"™orchard Tracts.Payrolls Un-aportVon of Marina Drive,southwest of the "«»«"*^r°'^'^i^wm serve the property presenuylimitedwillinturnrededicatearightof«»*™*^«,^i^a1So^Tract 69 and the south-SJ?^t?^^S£^S5SEiS!oaS'£Sl permit motels,resfcurants.service
•stations,and related uses.^«,„„xAdrawingwaspresentedtogivetheCouncilsomeideawhatthecomplexwillconsistofanditsappearance.
to the Council for consideration.
1757
P
Council Meeting Minutes:6 August 22,1972
PETITION FOR L .I.D.-SIDEWALKS ON SHARON AVENUE
{0 Aletter was read iE-om Wayne Rimple stating that he is submitting a petition regarding a proposed LID
for sidewalks on Sharon Avenue."The property owners on Sharon Avenue request that a public hearing
be scheduled to hear the views of property owners and possibly clear up any questions that may be had
as to procedures,location and cost.Along with the request for a public hearing,he.requested that all
property owners directly or indirectly involved in the LID be notified by personal mail as to date,time
and place of a public hearing.
A letter was read from Rich Weaver,Public Works Director,stating that at Council meetings in April
!and August of 1970 the subject of heavy and speeding traffic on Sharon Avenue was considered,and he
recommended to Council that two things be done - (1)Some method of changing the traffic circulation
plan for Sharon Avenue between Monroe Street and Division Street be considered.(2)That sidewalks
be installed on Sharon Avenue to effect pedestrian and vehicular traffic separation.Presently this pro
posed petition of property owners on Sharon for sidewalks but that Community Standards.be waived to
place the sidewalks against the curb.He explained the State Law L.I.D.procedure requires that 15 days
prior to a public hearing each property owner receives notice in writing of the hearing and is informed of
the estimated cost of*the assessment that will be made against his property.He also explained that the
Community Standards of the City require.a five foot utility strip and five foot sidewalk in residential area's.
The utility strip is to be located between the curb and sidewalk and the back of the sidewalk is to be placed
on the right of way line.
City Manager Waggener commented that there was discussion at the time of the speed zone in the area
regarding the five-foot setback.There are no problems that are any different than in any residential area
in the city regarding setbacks.
Councilman Ebbert commented that they do not state why they want the setback waived and the sidewalks
placed next to the curb.
Pete Erickson,418 Sharon,stated that the residents of Sharon Avenue requested it due to the volume of
traffic and a safe place to walk.Also he would prefer that a public hearing be set regarding this.
Harold Blanchard,541 E.Sharon,stated,there are only two residents on his side of the street that want
sidewalks.
City Manager Waggener stated,to establish a public heari ng on this requires appreciable expense and
then have them vote it out because the sidewalks are not where they want them.If the City Council hoi
to the Community Standards,then you can reject the petition because of this clause.
11
Motion by Moe to deny the petition on the basis that it is not acceptable to Community Standards in i
requesting sidewalks be placed against the curb.Second by Johnson.
Councilman Hill inquired whether it would be acceptable to the City to have sidewalks on one side of
the street?
City Manager Waggener stated that in areas where street and curbing are already in,petitions have been
accepted to Install sidewalks on one side of the street.
The question was called -Motion carried.
SIX YEAR STREET CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 2
Aletter was read from the Public Works Superintendent for the Public Works Director,submitting the DC
Six Year Street Program 1973-1978,that incorporates a priority array as proposed by the City Planning QQ
Commission.The priority is divided into two sections.The first section being those projects that can-*ȣ
reasonably be expected to be funded during the next six years:^
1.Division Street,intersection of Fourth and Fifth Avenues -traffic control.
2.Third Avenue,from Pioneer Way to Beech Street,reconstruction.
3.Division Street,Seventh Avenue to Nelson Road -reconstruction.
4.Monroe Street &Nelson Road to Sharon Avenue -reconstruction.
5.Valley Road from Alder Street r to Grape Drive -reconstruction.
6.Locust Lane -contingency.
7.Wheeler Road -contingency.
8.Alder Street -contingency.
9.Fifth Avenue -contingency.
10.Grape Drive -contingency.
11.Penn Street,Elder Street to City Shop -construction.
12.Knolls Vista Drive,from Pine to Ridge Road -resurface.13. Wheeler Road Syphon - reconstruction of drainage syphonand resurface.f
14.Seal Coat Program,resurfacing of deteriorating streets.
15.Broadway Avenue,from Elder to SR17 -Joint City-State project -reconstruction.I
16.Alder Street (couplet) from Broadway to Division -construction.'
Rich Weaver stated that these priorities are recommended by the Planning Commission,and it is mandatory
that we submit the necessary prospectus to the Highway Department and the Urban Arterial Department.
Motion by Johnson to set a public hearing on September 12,1972 for consideration of the 6-year street program,. .
Second by Moe.Motion carried.
u
O
1758
August 22,1972CouncilMeetingMinutes:7
BEQUEST TO CAT.T.FOR BIDS -LARSON PLAYFIELP SPRINKLER SYSTEM ////**
Wm.R.Skeels,Park &RecreaUonf^^^^^^,
S^^l£req^e^^^on the sU system.
Motion by Hill that the request be granted to call for bids.Second by Boyle.Motion carried.
PP.QTrF.ST TO CAT.T.FOR BIDS -ARCADE PARK IMPROVEMENTS j/j/
Aletter was read from M.G.McLanahan Public Works ™^and fflW^U)nSwimmingg area9 development.(sTpump House ^Comfort Station.(5)Sewage Dump.This project is also ™™™^^-Becaus^tWs involves a water main project,he also requested to incorporate in the Phase III Contract
the replacement of six-inch steel water main in Ridge Road.
_Motion by Johnson to grant the request and approval of the plans and specifications.Second by Lindell.
0®Motion carried.
M REQUEST TO ENGAGE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -DIVISION STREET SOILS ANALYSIS,
Aletter was read from M.G.McLanahan,Public Works Superintendent stating that ^£££***-up on Division Street points to a definiteneed for emergency repairs to be done this fall if possiM*>..
a solution to the problem,
multi-million dollar project.
Citv Engineer Weaver commented that a similar test was conducted on Fifth Avenue and we had this do«eS^^rETtoST^s^Sites.and the firm has how been taken over by Dames &Moore,and it could
run less than $8,000.
Motion by Boyle to grant the request to deal with Dames &Moore of Seattle.Second by Moe.Motion
carried.
REQUEST TO ENTER INTO TOINT BID WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR DIESEL AND FUEL OIL /OS/
Aletter was read from Charles Davenport,City Clerk-Finance Director,W™*^™*™*»o°f d^eselfuelajointbidwiththeMosesLakeSchoolDistrictandthePortofMosesLakefortheSUpplying^ofJ^el fueloilandheawfueloil to the City of Moses Lake for thefiscal period of October 1,1972 to September ju,'W7 At th7present time we are using approximately 9,000 gallons of diesel oil ata cost of 18.79y per•g9al on The joint Wd tfMo.es Lake s'oho*District and Port of Moses ^^^or th-^urrent sea periodis1371*per gallon.By entering into the joint bid with the aforementioned agencies,the City will save
approximately 5*per gallon on the purchase ofits dieseloil requirement,.
JKS wsrcT-ssSSXZ ti^t^^X^T^^To£Moses "ke
MSfflS^S^SSffir^g'tS^^Board wlU,old an infortma«onalmrtlng^or the ,D//
|ZS&SZStSl tSS^Sff^Si^1^&.°%X^3SSfa ™ce-Sent bfthe news media this week ,and the public is urged to attend to discuss the proposed ordinance toLenactedinXenearfutureandfamiliarizethepublicasmuchaspossible,so itwill not come to them as
,—'a complete surprise.
Meeting adjourned at 10:55 P.M.
'MAYOR
ATTES
MOk,\>ttt M.siaflig