1974 07 23i i
•3S*.-f'r-•'••"'
1980 i
,_,July 23,1974CITYCOUNCILMEETING- Regular Session 8.00 p<M#
Council Room -City Hall
Members present:-Councilman Bob Hill,Bill Moe,Norm Johnson,Mike Boyle,Gordon Ebbert,
Don Swanson and Otto Skaug.
z2S£zszs£azs ssr.'SJUssa.'sssaVb.—.«........«~
and Evergreens, not either/or."
Motion by Johnson to accept the minutes as written with the'correction noted by Bob Hill.
Motion carried.
Second by Boyle.
REGULAR BILLS
GENERAL
STREET
FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING
WATER/SEWER
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
AMOUNT PAID
$12,321.58
1,773.13
119.33
23,812.98
514.91
Motion by Moe that the bills be paid as presented.Second by Boyle.Motion carried.
Warrant No's 1197 through #1271 In the amount of $38,541.93 were approved for payment.
CONSIDERATION OF BIDS -WATER TANK REHABILITATION //4S
Atetter was read from Stevens Thompson fi Runvan.^...Win.**^^^cXMrport"ih£'for the painting and repair of the J^*»1»£^^I^S aftat ttme and were rejected.AtotalprojectwasoriginallybidonJuneS,1974.Two was "erereceivea "A"and "C"be awarded to DelraarofelevenbidswerereceivedonJuly10.and ^commendedtha Schedu^J^%„,teble
Painting Company for $83,194.65 and 53,15U<.uu,""1*™™'''•d successfully completed work through-SSK^ftS.:hlT^Z^^^^^P^^&.O.5.Company of Mosestakefor$5?145.00.Principals in the firm are Mr.Holm.Olander and Duncan.
KXi^^^^^and his efforts helped considerably in getting this number ofbids.Bob Hill imired regarding the time schedule of the project,and Chet Waggener answered that all should be
completed andbackin service by May 1,1975.
Motion by Hill that Delmar Painting Company and HOD bids be accepted according to STR's letter.Second
by Johnson.Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING -SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN JA/?
M*Vnr Fbbert stated thattheShoreline Management Plan Is quite lengthy and no doubt will have to discuss it!2SLK5Sf He openeS the public hearing by explaining the procedure to those citizens in attendance.
Chet Waggener,City Manager,Introduced Stan Bech,who has been working on this with the Adv^ory Committee^l^l^lr^xl and hi explained how Shoreline Management came about,the composition of the Shoreline
Advisory Committee,and then went onintodetails ofthe Plan.
Stan Bech stated that in 1971 the State Legislature passed aShoreline ^^Bt^M^^^k^etoaTnn*I 9 1972 This reouires all the shorelines ofthe State to come under this jurisdiction.The Shorelinesrefer'toareas 20^feet back from the high water line.It requires every local government to have such a plan.Mthe'CUr^Moses Lake 3oes not adop?a plan by itself,the State will come in and draw amore stringent plan.
The Plan presented now is the City's Shoreline Management Plan.
m contom^r of 1973 the Shorelines Advisory Committee was appointed by the City Council.The members are:CU1S&ly Ctal^n^Sb Sifvic GlUiland,Barbara Jacobs,Marvin Whitney Dick'.1™*J%£>™"and Ed talker The Committee has been meeting since November of last year,and since then has »™«™«L
revSons since tSn.'If the plan is adopted it will go again to the DOE for adoption^and after that becomeapartoftheWashingtonStateAdministrativeCodegoverningtheshorelinesofMosesLake.This is the responsi
billty of local government to administer andregulate.
"H-—'•
1981 .^^^^v.*-*.,
;~:^"$S^-~?
City Council Minutes:2 July 23,1974
All statements contained within this Shorelines Master Plan are referring to the area between the normal
high water markand an imaginary line 200 feet back,and any associated wetlands,and has Jurisdiction
over no other lands but these.The shoreline areas referred to are ail of statewide significance in the
Washington Administrative Code Number 173-16-040 (5). The Plan consists of four environment areas,
that of Natural Environment,Conservancy Environment,Rural Enviornment and Urban Environment.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT -shall preserve and restore those natural resource systems existing relatively
free of human Influence.
1.There shall be no development of any kind permitted in the Natural Environment.
2.All motorized vehicles shall be prohibited.
Permitted Uses -None
Conditional Uses -Public Access
The areas designated as 'Natural Environment' are Marsh Island,the peninsula jutting out at Parker Horn,
a marshy area behind Westlake,and an area west of Division Street fill.
Tesslca Longston,owner of Marsh Islard and the area behind Westlake strongly objected to the classification.
She stated -"it seems to me you are usurping private citizens'rights of ownership,and I don't think anybody
in this room really wants that.In other words -according to this if we want to build up operations on Marsh
Island so we can have our operation out there all under one roof - we can't do it.I want plenty of places for
ducks and that sort of thing,but I don't think it is fair and right for the government to go in and say,look you
own that property,but you carit do anything with it."
Tom Clements,Biologist for the Game Dept.-stated -"I think the swamps are a great thing -it is also the
most productive part of the Lake for fish and wildlife.If you don't preserve those,we won't have any fish
and wildlife.The more the City has of them,the better,that is the intent of the Shoreline Act -that of pre
serving.Peoplevoted that in, or they will go out of existance.We recognize that shorelines are valuable,
a nd every effort should be madeto preserve those natural areas.There is very important language in the
Shorelines Management Act which explains this.Nobody is trying to take away anybody's rights - you canget a variance fora permit in any environment if you wantto, but if we lookat this whole planbased on
private ownership,the whole thing is chaos."
Stan Bech commented that possibly Jessica Longston would like it classified in"Conservancy Environment','
in this classification a variance is obtained very easily,where in the 'Natural'it would be very difficult.
That is what the public hearing is for,to make possible changes.
Mrs.Cliff Hochstatter -"You send In a piece of paper in the formof a variance application for your ownproperty,but will It be allowed,orcan you getit?The Citizen is paying taxes on it and they are controlling it.
Mayor Ebbert commented also,that is what the Public Hearing is for,we are forced to segregate this under somecategoryandto get your thinking as to what category we willbe designating these shorelines areas.We laveto do something orthe State will come in and make upour Plan,andthey can really tie us in a knot. I think
we better study this real closely and accept it underthe best possible united agreementthat we can come up
with.
CONSERVANCY ENVIRONMENT -shall conserve and manage existing natural resources and undeveloped areas j-q
in order to satisfy the needs of the Community as to the presentand future locationof recreational areas.^
1 All new roads shall be mainly for public access and shall notbe main arterlals.CD
2. Besides the valuable future recreation areas,the Conservancy Environment shall Include *
the following delineatedareas which present overly severe biophysical limitations to be.^^
designated as rural or urban environments.
a.Shoreline area West of Crestview Drive (too steep).,„.,,*„„.,%b. Shoreline area West of the railroad tracks,North and South of Montlake Park (existance of RR tracks)
Permitted Uses:
Transportation -Access roads only.
Utilities -Underground only.
Recreation -Passive water related;
City Manager Chet Waggener raised one question regarding the area tothe East ofthe Natural zone on thePeninsula, and it was discussed at one of the Shoreline Management Committee meetings and they mean to
leave an area for an arterial crossing in the Conservancy Zone for a proposed second lake crossing.It is
intended somewherein that area.Stan Bech commented that a small area will be designated before sending
in the Plan, and also noted that variances can be applied for conditional uses.
Tesslca Longston pointed out the area her partner owns off Gibby Road,which is an industrial zone because therailroadtracks go through it,and she has been paying taxes on it all these years for future industrial development.
The classification is fine up to a point for the public, but it is not fair to the private citizen;I think your regula
tions are too stringent. Shewas informed that possibly this couldbe changed, or handled through a variance.
Density of use not to exceed 6.0 acres per 100 users.
\/
1982
City Council Minutes:3 '•July 23,1974
Norm Tohnson stated that there seem to be three pieces of property owned by Jessica Longston under the
Natural Environment,and if we can redesignate this to the Conservancy Environment where she has a
better chance and lesser problems In putting in.'for variances at a later date when she does want to develop,
I think this Is what should be done.
Jessica Longston concurred and added that -"I am not opposed to the Plan,just don't want It too hard and
fast so it cannot be changed in the future."
Tohn Calbom.Cltv Attorney,pointed out that the variance permit is something that is normally granted if
there was no foreseeability that the land would be used for a particular purpose.There has to be a special
hardship on the property owner when claiming that the owner •could not properly use the land unless there
was a variance.There are certain conditions that the land owner must show before a variance can be granted.
I don't think we should take it as a matter of routine that a \eriance can be easily obtained.
It was also emphasized and noted that the Shorelines Management Plan is subject to change every two years
by the City.
City Manager Chet Waggener commented for clarification -that first the voters of the State of Washington
did approve the Shorelines Management Act.We don't really have any choice whether the Act is going to exist
or not,it is in existance.The only choice is to decide what kind of local option you are going to apply for as
to how it is going to be enforced and how you are going to designate lands.We must designate something,
keeping in mind that again that this body of water has been declared a body of state'.vide significance.Stan,
is representing to you the views of the Shoreline Advisory Committee,not his own views alone,and these views
are\up for recommendations.Again,the Public Hearing is to see if you agree with those things and suggest to
the Council areas where you disagree or may want to change.
Jim Campbell Inquired saying he thought the law stated that 20%of the total area of the Lake should be includ
ed in the Shoreline Management Plan.Why not get this 2o%on the outskirts of the Lake?Why not get together
and work with the County and not take it out of the oity limits area entirely?Stan Bech stated the Commitee
determined that It dealt with the City's 20%of the Lake Shoreline.
Dave Campbell Inquired whether it would be possible to get a set idea howthe State would view this area,so
we can get an idea of how to run this ourselves?Stan Bech answered that would be possible,we can.get a
Consultant over here from Seattle.
Chuck Warren - I am curious why the County does not have any 'natural'area designated.Mayor Ebbert
answered -their plan has been rejected..
At this point of the Hearing it was noted that a number of people were present (Including RKCompany representatives)
that it warranted moving ahead into the Shoreline Plan -"Transportation'Uses"-Goal:-To construct roads so
as not to damage the shorelines environment.
Policy:1.Railroad construction along the lakeshore or across the lake will be prohibited.
2.All new roadways will be located and designed so as not to restrict access to shoreline areas.
3.All new arterial and through roads will be placed,if at all possible,at least 200 feet inland
from the shoreline.
4.All collector streets along the shoreline will also provide for safe pedestrian and other non-
motorized passage.There should also be safe access to special view points.
5.Any highway bridge constructed over the lake will have enough clearance above the water to permit
easy passage by motor boats and will not restrict the water flow of the lake or possible flood flows.
6.Efforts will be made to have the existing Pelican Horn railway crossing raised.
7.The railroad,running aiong the downtown shoreline and across Pelican Horn,will be encouraged
to relocate.
8.There should be pedestrian and bicycle access to the shorelines provided by bicycle and foot paths.
Goal:To relocate existing railway lines away from Central Business District.
Policy:I.Commercial establishments depending on the railroad for deliveries should find alternative methods
of transport or relocate.
Use Regulations
1.Railroad construction along the lakeshore or across the lake shall be prohibited.
2.All main highways,arterlals and through roads shall be located and designed so as
not to overly restrict physical and visual access to the shoreline,when their construction
is unavoidable within the two hundred (200)feet shoreline area.
3.All roads which must be constructed in the shoreline area shall provide for safe pedestrian
passage,other non-motorized passage and access to special view points.
4.Any highway bridge constructed over the lake shall have enough clearance above the water to
permit safe passage for the majority of boats which normally use Moses .Lake and the bridge
shall not restrict the water flow of the lake or be a hazard in case of flood flows.
Stan Bech commented that No. 7 statement seemed to cause more response and bring the majority of the people
to the meeting.We are either going to propose to leave it or throw it out.
Tim Campbell 307 Offett Drive,Beer Dlstributoi,stated that as of the first of the year he built his place of
business on Marina Drive and has committed himself to 15 years of payments,and also went to the expense
of building a ramp to be used by the railroad for his shipments.Trucking rates are such that we cannot operate
bytruck in this area,and am very happy where the rails are inthe area,and the area as a whole is looking for
1983
City Council Minutes:4 ^23'1974
industries to make it grow.-He also stated that he is aware of anotherwholesalerthat is in the
process of moving here because of the facilities.In his estimation,the Railroad happens to be that which
makes the City function and grow.
Ron Perune Civil Engineer,representing the Railroad,recommended this be thrown out and be revised.The Railroad is inthe location due to geographic dictates.Economically not feasible to locate anywhere
else It also has a direct service to the Port of Moses Lake.What we would like is that we are willing to go
along with the aesthetic appeal of the shoreline,clean up, etc. ,and do whatever is necessary,provide nofutureconstructioninyourShorelineManagementarea, but would like the railroadto stay where it is now,and under your variance permit there, all we ask is that we be allowed to maintain and repair facilities.
Stan Bech -then vou would prefer to scratch Policy:#1 and #7-?That therebe no further extension of the
railroad construction within the shoreline area, but maintenance of existing facilities.Mr.Perune concurred.
Ron Perune stated -regarding Policy #8 - that the railroad has worked with the State in various areas to have 'bicycle paths,but the paths are at least 25 feet from the railroad and not crossing the railroad,parallel with
the tracks and crossing at designated crossings.
Clint Connelly - I don't see that many box cars going either directly to or from the Port.I thinkthere is only onecompany,American Potato,thatis using rail out there. I think the Railroad canget out there without coming
through the heart of town.
Barbara Tacobs - In lieu of getting the railroad relocated - what the Committee had in mind is if the tracksccu.'d be removed for bicycle paths. Thattype of thing would be a tourist promotion and a recreational promo
tion.\
Stan Bech -The only way we are going to agree onthis is to reword it.We are dealing with just the future
construction and permitting normal maintenance of the existing.
City ManacerChet Waggener stated that the Shoreline Management Planwas approved by th*Committee,
and Staffdoes not make any change except with Council concurrence.Does the Council want to refer this toShorelinesCommitteeandwait until a later date.?Y.ou have before you a document that changes in it snould
result which are discussed at this public hearing. Perhaps you should make notes of areas where you want
them made and then review it, and then youhave the option to refer it back to the Shorelines Committee and -
have them work with it and again present it to City Council.
Monty Holm inquired about the commercial establishments depending on the Railroad,and was informed that
this will have to be changed hopefullyby the Committee and following recommendations as closely as possible.
City Manager Chet Waggener seated the only way those changes can be made is by motion by the City Counciandtheproperprocedurewouldbe to continue the public hearing,and have the Council list those areas of
change and refer it back to the Committee.
Montv Holm suggestedthat someone from the Railroad should be onthe Committee as they have a vested
interested in the area .
Motion by Boyle that the Public Hearing be continued until the next Council meeting scheduled for August 13,
1974.Second by Johnson.Motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO.700 -ZONE CHANGE -BLOCK-^3,RIVIERA ADDITION -PUBLIC HEARING (Second Reading)
The ordinance was read by title only along with the legal description.Chet Waggener commented this wasbefontheCouncilforthefirstreadingatthelastCouncilmeetingtochangetheentireBlocktoC-MuponrecommendationbythePlanningCommissionandconcurrencebyEdhullownerofthe100feetneededto ^
complete the zone change for the entire block.-^
Mayoi Fbbert opened the public hearing and explained the procedure of same to those in attendance lie Ocalledorcommentsorquestionsfromtheaudience.There were none.He asked the Secre ary.ii any jgwrittenprotestshadbeensubmitted.There were none.Therefore/he closed the public portion of the public t^
hearing and turned it overto the City Council for action.>^U
Motion by Skaug to close the public hearing.Second by Boyle.Motion carried.
Motion by Johnson to accept the ordinance as written to allow the zone change from H-S to C-M.Second by
Hill.Motion carried.•"
gjDTNANCJ -PARK REGULATIONS (1st reading)
Aletter was read from Cecil D.Lee,Park &Recreation Director,stating the Moses ^Park *ystem hasbeenestablishedandmaintainedfortheenjoymentofthemaximumnumberofpeopleinasuidelydiverseactivitiesaspractical.In order to assure this,we must set some limitations wnich will insure the use of?hep"rk areas in safety and to protect the right of the majority of park users,therefore to en orce theseimitationsrecomendedtheCouncilapprovetheParkRegulationsOrdinanceAfterconsiderablestudybycTtvstaffandthePark&Recreation Advisory Commission,the final draft of this ordinance was approved at
the State Liquor Code and if you can find out who is doing it they can be processed under the Coae.,^
Motion by Skaug to accept the first reading of the ordinance.Second by Boyle.Motion carried.
,w...
1 I
"If
City Council Minutes:5 July 23,1974
RESOLUTION NO.686 -ACCEPTING UTILITY EASEMENT -Mr.&Mrs.Eric Peterson //)/-?
Aletter was read from W. R. Baker,Asst.City Engineer,stating that the Resolution is forwarded forCouncilacceptance of a utility easement from Eric D. &Catherine Peterson. This easement is a partofaproposedeasementthatwouldrunparallelwithBroadwayfromThirdAvenueto"C"Streetextended,
as shown on the attached drawing.
Motion by Moe to adopt the resolution.Second by Swanson. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO.687 -ACCEPTING UTILITY EASEMENT -Professional Center,Inc./6/S
Aletter was read from W.R.Baker, Asst.City Engineer, stating that the Resolution is forwarded forCouncilacceptance ofthree utility easements from the Professional Centerof Moses Lake,Incorporated.This easement is a part of a proposedeasement that would run parallel with Broadway from Third Avenue
to "C"Street extended,as shown on the enclosed drawing.
Motion by Johnson,second by Boyle to adopt the resolution.Motion carried.
DELBERT DRIGGS -APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION - MOBILE PARK
Aletter was read from Delber Driggs stating that on June 27,1974 he presented a proposed Mobile Home L^-q*Park tothe City Planning Commission.At the time,the Planning Commission refused the permit onthe j)yUbasis of objections from the public,voting against the park at the public hearing.All plansforthe Mobile'
Parkwere based on the proposed City Ordinance that will control future growth of Moses Lake and as aconditionalpermitwouldbe subject to city inspectors and engineers assuring that all codes were met andanychangesmadewouldonlyimprovetheproposedplans.He requested anappealto the City Council andask for another public hearing since he felt the Planning Commission did not investigate the project thorough
ly before being influenced bythe publicvote. Ampnber of the Commission stated that R-l should remain
R-l,yet the new proposed city zoning showsthis area as R-2, with a conditional use for mobile parks,
and felt this statement influenced the Planning Commission.
Mayor Ebbert asked Mr. Driggs if he wished to have another public hearing before the PlanningCommission,
and Delbert Driggs replied that actually he would rather have the Council handle it,since the Planning
Commission did not consider the proposed zoning Uiey are talking about.He feels he did not have a fair hearing. The Commission lacked a quorum at the previously schedule Planning Commission meetingand a public
hearing was held at the same time he presentedhis statements and plans,therefore,he feels the Planning
Cw/uiuissiort did ;.ot L.»o3tigaLc tliC p»oJwCt tI»o»o«yI«ly Lcfo»c Lei.iy ii»Iluo«c;cJ «/U»«s puwuC vole.
MayorEbbertcommented that as yet the Council has not received anything from the Planning Commission.City Manager Chet Waggener stated,the Councilreceived the minutes indicatingthe Planning Commission
denieithe request for a change of zone. If the developer does not agree with their decision,he has the right
to appeal that decision withthe City Council, and that is what Delbert Driggs is doing. Tne Planning Commissionhas held a public hearing and rejected it,and if new information is goingto be presented to the Council for your
consideration,the Council would most likely want to hold a public hearing.
Delbert Driggs stated he is asking for a zor.e change and a conditional use permit. Chet Waggener stated In
that instance twopublic •hearings are necessary,one forthe zone change and one for the conditional use permit.
Bob Hill inquired whetherit shouldn't go back to the Planning Commission for the conditional use permit, and
was informed it was rejected by the Planning Commission and he is appealling to the City Council.
Delbert Driggs presented his plans for the Mobile Home Park to be located in the Lakeview Terrace area on
Evergreen &Hill to Nelson streets.He also noted that while there are a number of mobile home parks In and
around Moses Lake,very few of them can accommodate the larger double wide mobile homes.
Motion by Hill to grant Delbert Driggs request for a public hearing regarding a zone change and set August 13, 1974,
as the date d the hearing.Second by Boyle.Motion carried.
RESIGNATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION -Leonard Mathews
A letter was read from Leonard Mathews submitting his resignation from the Planning Commission effective
July 5,1974,the date of the letter.
Motion by Skaug to accept the resignation with regrets.Second by Boyle.Motion carriod.
REQUEST TO CALL BIDS -OUTFIELD FENCE AT LARSON PLAYFIELD /S/r
A letter was read from Cecil Lee,Park &Recreation Director requesting Council approval to call for bids on '<?
490 feet of chain link outfield fencing material to be Installed on the new ball field at Larson Playfield.The
item was included In the 1974 budget under revenue sharing.Park crews will install the fence when time peimlts.
Motion by Skaug to grant the request.Second by Hill.Motion carried.•
l&\°l
^
City Council Minutes:6 July 23,1974
REQUEST TO CALL BIDS - EAST BROADWAY LANDSCAPING.LABOR AND MATERIAL •
A le.tter was read from Ron Baker,Asst.City Engineer,requesting permission to call for bids on a labor and
materials contract for the East Broadway Landscaping Project.This contract would include the necessary laboi
and equipment to install the sprinkler system and nursery stock that will be purchased on a separate contract.
The materials referred to are decorative rock and topsoil.The bid request is necessary to meet Washington
State laws requiring competitive bidding for projects costing over $5,000.
Motion by Hill to grant the request.Second by Swanson.Motion carried.
GAME DEPARTMENT -BOAT LAUNCHING -LOWER PENINSULA
Property owners in the Peninsula area as well as residents elsewhere In Moses Lake and County area submitted
a petition with approximately 100 signatures protesting the Game Department constructing a boat launching site
in the Lower Peninsula Park.The Petition read as follows:"We hereby make known our opposition to the develop
ment of a boat launching area,and other facilities,at the site known as Lower Peninsula Park.This site is in a
residential area,and would create traffic,trash,and fire protection hazards and problems which we do not feel
to be justified.The streets and roads In the area are already in an inadequate state of repair and cannot bearthe
increased heavy traffic.We also have speeding and other vehicle problems now,and are not interested in more
traffic.We also feel that there are already enough existing,or planned,boat 'aui.ching facilities on Moses Lake.
The State Game Department Grant could better be applied to the proposed Port District facility across from the •
Moses Lake State Park,which is not in a residential area."
City Manager Chet Waggener explained that the City acquired the Lower Peninsula Park about 10 years ago with
one of the specific purposes being to develop boat launching facilities in this park;not immediately,but includ
ed In long-range plans.The City Council did recently authorize entering into an agreement with the State Game >.
Department to allow them to construct a boat launcning facility on this site,with the stipulation that the City
would maintain it.The Game Department has secured approval from the Inter-Agency Committee for Out door
Recreation for Bureau of Reclamation funds to develop the project.They then applied for a Shorelines Permit,
which is in the process 6i going through the Moses Lake Planning Commission.The required public hearing has
not been held as yetbecause at this point have not received a satisfactory Environmental Impact Statement from
the Game Department,but believe we will have modifications to their Impact Statement shortly in order to proceed.
He suggested referring the petition to the Planning Commission to be presented to them in conjunction with
their Shorelines Permit public hearing......•'
Motion by Hill to acknowledge receipt of the petition and wait until the Planning Commission establishes
the Shoreline Permit regulations.Second by Skaug.Motion carried.
CITIZEN INPUT -None
STATUS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Park &Recreation Director:
Boat Regatta:
\\J 'For pointof information,Cecil Lee stated that forthe last few years there has beena boat regatta at Cascade^'Park,sponsored by a Seattle Outboard Boat Club.This year they have chosen to go in August instead of May.gJJustwantedtoinformtheCouncilofthisupcomingevent,which willbeonthe 10th and 11th of August.There P[J
will be racing for approximately 5 hours perday.They have beenasked to provide the City with evidence of Oinsurance pertaining to bodily or property damage liability in the amount of $500,000 and $100,000. We deslg^O
nated a certain area for overflow regarding camping facilities,and overnight camping will have to pay the regu^J
fee.There will be approximately 70 to 100 entries in the two-day race.No additional security will be require^
Meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
ATTEST!sT^rf i$tf^~
A,
^MAYOR,Gordon M.Ebbert
City Clerk,R. R.Gagnier