1974 11 12CITY COUNCIL MEETING -Regular Session November 12,1974
Council Room -City Hall 8:00 P.M.
Members present -Councilman Bob Hill,Bill Moe,Norman Johnson,Mike Boyle,Gordon Ebbert
and Don Swanson.Councilman Otto Skaug was not present.
j Invocation - Earl Hargis,First Baptist Church.
Mayor Ebbert called the meeting to order and called for approval and/or additions or changes to the
\1 minutesof the meeting of October 22,1974.Motionby Boyle that the minutes be approved. Second
by Johnson.Motion carried.
REGULAR BILLS AMOUNT PAID
GENERAL $18,061.39
STREET 5,716.60
ARTERIAL STREET 5,145.67
FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING .1,218.74 .
WATER/SEWER 53,265.70
SANITATION 11,183.77
EQUIPMENT RENTAL 1,149.13
FIREMEN PENSION 12.40
Motion by Boyle that the regular bills be paid.Second by Swanson.Motion carried.
Warrant Nos.1805 through 1900 In the amount of $95,753.40 were approved for payment.
CONSIDERATION OF BIDS -WELL #4 PUMPHOUSE
L-
^
U
>;yfc^::
A letter was read from Ron Baker,Asst.City Engineer,stating on November 6,1974 bids were received
for Well #4 Pumphouse,Contract No.74-10.Three bids were received,and the low bidder was
Sure-Lock Homes of Moses Lake bidding $22,109.85;Main Engineering of Leavenworth bidding $25,357.50;
L & S Construction,Moses Lake,bidding $24,646.65.All figures include sales tax.Subject to approval
by the Department of Social and Health Services,he recommended the bid be awarded to Sure-Lock
Homes of Moses Lake.A grant by the Department of Social and Health Services will reimburse the
City 40%of the eligible cost.
Motion by Moe,that the bid ofSure-Lock Homes be accepted.Second by Boyle.Motion carried.
CONSIDERATION OF BIDS -POLICE SEDANS
Aletter was read from M. G.McLanahan,Acting Public Works Director, stating that bids were opened /(J''
on November 7,1974.Four bids were received for furnishing three police sedans,B & D American
Motors was low net bid with $10,790.00.Their bid was with exception on motor size and they bid
fleet units instead cf the American Motors Law Enforcement package.Motors which would meet our
specifications would cost B & D $.790.05,for a total cost of $11,580.05.He recommended the Council
award the bid to Boyle Chevrolet for furnishing the three police sedans at a net bid of $11,305.75.
This recommendation would accept $3,200 trade-in allowance for the vehicles to be replaced.
Mac added that in all fairness to B &D,they may have bid with Fleet equipment to save the city money.
However,in contacting the ether bidders they concur the City would do them a great injustice if we
accepted B &D's proposal.The City called for Police sedans needing the most dependable equipment
available.When vehicles are down for unscheduled repairs,it costs the time of the operator and the
mechanic's time,or double time In manpower.He explained the difference between Police &Law En
forcement equipment and Fleet equipment:
Engine —Police motors have extra durability features.
Radiator —High capacity cooling system,large radiator and special fan and shroud.
Special Suspension -Heavy Stiffey Spring,heavy-duty shock,heavy-duty stabilizer bar attachment.
Wheels —Heavy-duty 15"x 16".
Brakes —Power,anti-fade linings,dual diaphragm.
Electrical —Exceeds 60 Amp Alternator and heavy-duty long hour battery.
Speedometer —Certified Accuracy.
Transmission —Heavy-duty.
Seats—Heavy-duty front and rear.
Hill =Since he didn't bid,I would like to ask Mr.Swanson a question - do you agree with these
conformities,etc.?
Swanson -100%.
Ebbert asked if there was any particular reason B&D didn't bid with these requirements,wasn't
it specified in the bid requirements ?
Mac -It was specified In the specifications,however, I don't knowwhy other than they thought
they were trying to save the city some money by bidding the fleet package only.The package they
should have bid would have cost them approximately $400 more In money for each car.
2035
//;«
•ti
2036
,D»r
\0
->}S
3\\o^
3
Council Meeting Minutes:2 November 12,1974
Motion by Moe to accept the bid of Boyle Chevrolet.Second by Johnson.
Hill inquired -What is the variance figure that American Motors did not meet to the $790,was it
horse power or cube or what?Mac replied -the engine they bid isn't a durability engine that is
usually bid in the police package;it is 40 cubic inch lighter than the 400 cubic inch engine we
asked for.. I cannot answer all the features engine vs.engine they bid,but one of them is the
carburotion difference;some of the manufacturers put in heavier connecting rods and heavier bear--
ings.For instance on the State bid,the bid between the engine that Dodge Cornet bid and was
successful with this year is 287.89 difference in price.Hill =Thanks Mac,I'll pass.Mac added
the Boyle Chevrolet bid is a Chevelle.
Ebbert inquired about the Moses Lake Ford bid;it seems lower than the Boyle Chevrolet.
Mac commented - looking at the trade price of Boyle at $3200,and no way could we come any where
closeto that even at an auction.
The other two bids were Ford =$11,727.00 with $2350.35 trade-in;C &V=$12,499.45 with $2000
trade-in.
JAPANAIR LINES -CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION;KNOLLS VISTA FENCING
Japan Air Lines asked this to be taken off the agenda.They prefer to have the certificate presented
to them at the site where the fence was built that they sponsored, which will be Monday morning the
18th of November.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCE,FINANCE DEPARTMENT -PRESENTATION BY THE STATE CHAIRMAN OF
THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS OF AMERICA.
Ted Bennett,Chairman of the Municipal Finance Officers of America,stated it is a pleasure for him to
present this Certificate to the City and to Rick (R.R. Gagnier) end his Finance Department in particular.t
It is not often that the efforts of a Finance Dept.in any municipality are recognized.Our Washington
Finance Officers Association attempt to do this and the Municipal Finance Officers Association of the
United States and Canada attempts to do this by presenting a Certificate of Conformance for the Annual
Reports that are prepared by the Finance Departments and submitted both to the State level and National
level to be Judged,I am pleasedto state that Rick has previously received the State Award at the
Washington Finance Officer Association Convention at Ocean Shores recently for the 1973 Financial
Report for the City of Moses Lake,and tonight it is his pleasure to present to the City of Moses Lake
and Rick Gagnier,the Finance Director the Certificate of Conformance issued by the Municipal Finance
Officers Association of United States and Canada.
Ted Bennett in making the presentation to Rick Gagnier commented that "you join an elite few in the
State of Washington who have received this and the City is to be congratulated for having such an
excellent Finance Director and your Staff is to be congratulated for doing such an excellent job for you."
Rick Gagnier stated,efforts like this its never always done by just one person.He presented Jim
Griffin, City Accountant,contributed substantially in achieving this award.He needs to share part
of the glory at the same time.
ORDINANCE NO.709 - FIRE ZONE CHANGE - GRANT COUNTY MALL SITE -Second Reading
The ordinance was read by title only amending Chapter 3.28 Moses Lake City Code "Fire Prevention
Code",by changing the boundaries of Fire Zones 1, 2 and 3.
Ira Paul,Architect,representing Grant County Malls Inc.,was present.Mayor Ebbert asked if he
had anything he would like to add since his presentation at the previous meeting.Fie had nothing Hrt
more to add unless the Councilmen had questions._—.
o
cr>
Flill - I have heard there are objections to this,and agree they are in a marginal area - they have the ^
setbacks and I am all for it.But being they have the setbacks;there are some downtown people think CO
they should be changed to '2'also.
The question was called.Motion carried.Johnson abstained from voting because "I don't know for
sure what is going on -this just changed,and now we are changing back,so I'll,just abstain from ^
voting."
ORDINANCE -(Proposed)-VACANT LOT CLEANUP
A letter was read from Bob West,Assistant to the City Manager,along with submittal of a proposed
ordinance presented for City Council review.It is emphasized that the ordinance is not presented for
approval.It is still conceptual and must be reviewed by the City Attorney.The boundaries of the pro
posed weed control zones and the zonal requirements are totally arbitrary.Final Zone definitationsr re
quirement terminology,enforcement authority,and penalty stipulations v/ill assimilate recommendati'ons
from the City Council and City Attorney.Anticipate the final version of this ordinance will be ready for
presentation as a first reading on November 26,1974.i
Motion by Boyle to adopt the second reading of the ordinance.Second by Swanson.
2037
Council Meeting Minutes:3 November 12,1974
The City Manager asked Bob Westto summarize basically what is proposed in eachofthe zones,
which would be Section 2 of the ordinance.
{Bob West stated that basically the concept was to break the City out into zones;it was totally!x arbitrary,we didn't tryto base it according to the existing building code or anything likethat.
1 I ,zone 1-carries the strictest of the requirements,and is basically the Central Business District.
Zone IA -would be classified as major Access - takes in Grape Drive,Valley Road,Broadway
and Pioneer Way accesses to the City.
Zone II - we classify primarily as dense residential,and is just that, those areas that have a
high concentration of the residential type housing.
Zone III- includesthose portions of the Cityfoat have a sparsial residential concentration and
also some light commercial or light industrial concentration.
Zone IV -would be the remaining portions of the City -would be the wide expanse, open vacant
C75 lots,the heavy industrial commercial type areas.
<Jl The terminology for requirements -we reallydid not have anything to base it on. It was very
r\difficult to arrive at the definltioreas to what constitutes weeds and what constitutes noxiousJjvegetation.What we tried primarily to do Is to present you with a vehicle that we can work fromSwithyourrecommendationsandpresentanordinancethatwouldallowthelatitudetoeffectively
control what is obviously a nuisance in Moses Lake.
'Hill inquired as to the method ofremoving weeds -how is it supposed to be done,by burning off ?According to Mike Boyle we will have trouble with burning soon.Also when this wasdiscussedpreviouslyinburningthesefields,would it cause a dust hazard;we might have something worse
than weeds.
Mike Boyle replied that according to Federal Regulations it will be prohibited as of.July-of,',i1975unless they otherwise stipulate(from information received by the CleanAir Committee)amsuretheyaregoingtohavetomakesomeexceptionsbecauseespeciallyin the case of agriculture
there is no other suitable means of disposal but burning off of stuble,and am sure it will apply
to the referred open fields in this case too.
:Ebbert inquired if contacthas been made with the County Weed Control onthis noxious weedssituation,it wouldbe well to do so because they have authority over that situation and what is
^—'used to control the weeds;they have to determine what is used and what can legally be used and
how it is done. There may be certain weeds where burning might not be the answer,that might
Just spread the pollen.
The City Manager added thatin 'removal'we don'tspecify burning.It is Just removal by whatevermeanstheycan.Secondly as faras the noxious weeds as the farmer thinks of them,the actuallegalauthorityorresponsibilityreallylieswiththecityinsideofcorporateareas.When adjacent
to a weed control district,then we are required to remove and control noxious weeds.We have.for many years been contracting with the weed control district adjacent to us to handle within thecorporatelimitsofthe city. It is still technically our responsibility;we merely pay them to handle
it for us because they can identify noxious weeds and weare not that familiar with and they do knowtheprescribednethodsoftreatment.This is something we certainly candiscuss with Mr.Calbomiffrefiningtheordinance,and probably we do need to contactthe weed control people as suggested.
Hill asked if there are any similar-ordinances,particularly other cities.Bob West replied that we
have received ordinances of other cities and have had nothing that we could use as a pattern.Most
of the cities that have dealt with weeds or vacant lot cleanup particularly have done so on the basis,of litter and not addressing weeds as problem unto themselves.This ordinance'is primarily just for
weeds. We already have a draft forthe City Attorney's reviewof the Uniform Litter ControlCode
and it does address that portion of litter,rubbish,etc.,everything except weeds.This is a separate
,-ordinance entirely.
Johnson suggested;proceeding to get the ordinance to Mr.Calbom to get to that point forthe Council
A to act on it.
Motion by Hill to refer it back to Mr.Calbomfor clarification,except Item #5 on.penalties which
"are too stringent legalities;basically agree to go ahead with the cleanup ordinance.Second
by Johnson to proceed without delay.Motion carried.
j 'RESOLUTION NO.696 -ORDINANCE NO.708 -OFFER TO PURCHASE CITY OWNED PROPERTY.LOTS 41 &42,GARDEN HEIGHTS.SECOND ADDITION./^y^)
.I •Aletter was read from Chet Waggener,City Manager,statingthatan offer has been received from
United Builders of Washington,Inc.,to purchase Lots 41 and 42,Garden Heights,Second addition,
at the price of $1600 each lot,which is in accord with the appraised value of the property by the
Multiple Listing Board.This property was acquired through Foreclosure on L.I.D.No.16. He
recommended acceptance of the offer to purchase.
/
Council Meeting Minutes:4 November 12,1974
Resolution No.696 was read by title only authorizing the sale of Lots 41 &42,Garden Heights,
Second Addition to United Builders of Washington,Inc.
Motion by Johnson to adopt the resolution.Second by Boyle.Motion carried.
Ordinance No.708 was read by title only authorizing the City Manager and City Clerk to execute
deeds conveying the a fore-mentioned lots to United Builders of Washington.
Motion by Swanson to pass the ordinance.Second by Boyle.Motion carried.
AGREEMENT -TOINT SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
A letter was read from the City Manager along with submittal of the Grant County Solid Waste Manage
ment Interlocal Agreement for Council consideration by Dan Dietrich,Solid Waste Coordinator for
Grant County.The letter stipulated that the City Council by Resolution No.638 on August 28,1973,
adopted the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan subject to several conditions,the principle
one being that the allocation procedure as proposed in the report be used in assessing costs.The
City Manager and City Attorney have reviewed several drafts of the proposed Interlocal Agreement
and believe the agreement as presented is in accord with conditions specified in the City of Moses
Lake Resolution No.638.The proposed plan will provide for improved solid waste disposal through
out Grant County.The City Manager requesteauthorization from the Council to sign the agreement on
behalf of the City of Moses Lake.
A letter was read from Dan Dietrich,Grant County Solid Waste Coordinator,stating that the Technical
Committee consisting of municipal representatives of the various cities and towns as listed within the
agreement,completed the final draft,and respectfully requests each City and Town Council authorize
its designated officials to approve by signature an official and conformed copy.In order that the 50%
grant eligibility for capital costs can be obtained through the Washington State Department of Ecology,
it is important to submit the approved and signed agreement on or before November 15',1974.
Dan Dietrich was present and stated it was a long duration since the time this particular program was
undertaken to meet the State Mandate.To date jointly and collectively we have accomplished 100%
of the requirements necessary to be grant eligible for Washington Future grant funds for capital costs
incurred for the development of solid waste:management plans those that are approved by entities parti
cipating in it.We are culminating it with the final arid necessary Interlocal Agreement which is of course
important to the financing method.In referring to copies of the Interlocal Agreement you will notice on
Page 9,10 & 11 of that agreement,It refers to a three stage financing concept.Stage I--affecting those
entities so mentioned within that particular area in phase.Stage II -essentially complete the remaining
portion of the County and those remaining entities not affected under Stage I.The cost for that particular
Initial interim financing method are established by existing rate structure at that particular time,and
Stage II,which comprises Moses Lake,Warden and the County essentially for 1976-77 phase;the rate *'i
at that particular time that you would look at for this contractual agreement with the County would be
established consistent with the rate structure within the community at that time.
Stage III takes the interim 2-year phase with accumulative data and background information as necessary
in order to pinpoint more specifically establish costs per se for both capital costs and operating costs.
Then by the Comprehensive Plan establishes the financing based upon a cost allocation procedure,
which again was one of the items that was subject to your approval of the Comprehensive Plan.That
cost allocation procedure essentially establishes cost by service disposal area.That Involved four
separate service disposal areas for the entire County.
Mayor Ebbert inquired of Mr.Dietrich if all the other towns in the County are in agreement with this
"and have they all signed up?
Dan Dietrich replied that all of them have not as yet had it before their Council.There are some
special meetings,such as tomorrow night I will have to attend where again it will be brought before
their council.In most cases,specifically the four communities up north Grand Coulee,Coulee Dam,
ElmerCity and Electric City have taken action.-Hartline took action last night; city of Ephrata hastakenaction;Quincy has taken action;Warden is meeting tonight..••Signatures on the actual document
and there are three conformed official copies that require signatures -we have no signatures at this
time.This is our first Council meeting with this entity and we request your consideration.
Mayor Ebbert asked if it has to be 100%program in order for the State to accept this for funding basis?
Dan Dietrich replied -that in this particular case,in order to be eligible for the grant funds,it very
specifically states it must be 100%of the entities comprising the Interlocal Agreement entering into
the Comprehensive Plan.All entitles indicated on the front sheet of the Interlocal Agreement were a
part of the joint comprehensive solid waste management plan, and therefore,they are required to be
signing entities on this Interlocal Agreement.
Hill -about this 90%all the way through here -does that mean the selected committees of the 15
communities ? Dan Dietrich said it means sufficient entities comprising 90% of the
population residing within Grant County are necessary to approve any particular action. Specifically
whythe terminology of 30%.was used rather than 100%;if you will notice on the entities listed in
Item #15 - such othe^govWrimental agencies to become a part of this agreement,and rather than make
it 100%of the participating entities,there are certain entities such as Washington State Game Dept.,
Highway Dept.,Park &Recreation Commission and various other entities that could become a part
ofthis agreement, but do not necessary feel,and It was the consensus ofthe committee that drew theagreementup.did hot necessarily feel thatlhese entities individually should have the rightto stop any
particularaction that would affect the majority of the sponsoring entities of the program.
n
u
2039
Council-Meeting Minutes: 5 November 12,1974
Hill- Well, then you are talking entities notcitizens.Dietrich - in that particular case Jf we -did not use the terminology,entities comprising 90%of the population, then any signing entity would
conceivably have that veto power.
Hill -Would say Moses Lake would have ?Dietrich -23%I think ofthe populationwithintheCounty- it would individually have a veto power shouldthat situation arise.Also withintheagreementitself,you will notice the advisory committee is comprised ofa representative ofeachoneofthesigningentities to the agreement,and therefore,in order to give due weight to the population
areas Involved on one man one vote situation,that latitude is providedfor that major entity.In thatentityagreementtherearethreeentitieswhosolelyorindividuallyhavethatvetopower,because of
their population within their area,Moses Lake, Ephrata, Grant County per se .
Hill - then Moses Lake has veto power overthe wholearea? Dietrich- shouldit arise - yes they do.
Moe inquired of Mr.Dietrich -regarding the 75*charge -would that be in addition to our regular
billing?
Dietrich -No,Sir,and I might add this.You will note that is for Stage I financing which does not affectthisparticulararea at all, but only those entities as listed within Stage I. Thatrate structure was
arrivedat taking into consideration your existing or present rate structure,and it is a trade off between/T}what costs were projected to be and what assumed tobe agreeable to entities concerned,by trialbasis,Xjj fact finding and data gathering,so we can more specifically pinpoint the actual cost.
?*Waggener -to be specific regarding Stage II which affects Moses Lake,we have an existing contract
^"which spells outourdisposal costs, that would then be ourcosts under Stage II?
W Dietrich - essentially this is it if you are the majorentity and there is only another entity involved
and that is yourselves and Warden.
Hill - Of coursethis is based upon utilizing our present fill for the time,say two years.
Dietrich - Well we would say until such time that a newfacility is available and we would propose
that new .facility be developed and operational during 1976.
Motion byHillthat the City Manager be authorized to signthe contract.Second by Boyle.
Johnson -In 1976 when we do relocate and have another location for solid waste,who then sets the
rates,city yet or the county?
I Dietrich -The County Ordinance will set forth the actual disposal charge rates,however,these arereviewedbytherecommendationsandapprovalsubmittedtotheBoardofCountyCommissioners.through•the Advisory Committee which is comprised bythe participating entities of the agreement.Soagain you{),__will have an opportunity to review them,make recommendations and approval.
Waggener - In 1976,at that point,there is still in this agreement a basis onwhich those rateswillbexcharged,which is basicallythe prevailing rates in the Warden-Moses Lake area?Dietrich -That s correct.
The question was called.Motion carried unanimously.
RANCH &HOME -REQUEST TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE.J/)^~V
A letter was read fromW. S. Dress asking to be placed on the Agenda to review the present ordinance
regulating outside storage and displays and possibly consider somechanges or amendments.
A letter was also read from Robt. Kimball,Building Official,stating that on February 27,1973,City
Ordinance No. 665 was passed by the City Council which added section regarding storage and displayforcommercialbusinesses and quoted Chapter 3.24.145.180 "CI"Zone Storage and Display.
The letter gave a history along with dates of letters,contacts and meetings by special committees
and the Planning Commission regarding Ranch &Home violating Ordinance No. 665. (The letter is
attached as Page No.13 and made a part of the minutes.)
Hill -Don't we have to make a motion to get this back on the floor ? The ordinance is presumably in
force,don't werave to take some action from the Council to get it back on the floor? Mr. Dress
is requesting a review of the ordinance or changing the ordinance,so I think before we take any
action I think "Roberts"would say we would have to get it back on the floor before we can take any
action.
Ebbert - He is asking us to review the ordinance.We rave not read the ordinance.Is that what you
want to do at this time,to read the ordinance?
Hill - No, I don't think that necessitates it - he is requesting - Mr.Bob's letter pretty well covers
Uit,but I don't think we can take any discussion until we get it back on the floor,therefore,I move
we decline Mr.Dress'request for a change in the ordinance until we get into discussion.Second
by Moe.
Ebbert -According to his letter he is not requesting a change of the ordinance,he wants us to con
sider some changes or amendments.
Johnson -If we vote on it we are declining this letter and it goes nofurther.Hill - You are right,
but thought we ought to get it on the table so we could discuss Mr.Dress'request.Johnson - If
we follow your motion we cannot put it onthe table.Hill -I'm not putting it on the table - I want
to discuss it.Vote down my motion and try something else.Question called -Hill &Moe for the
motion.Johnson,Boyle,Ebbert and Swanson against the motion.The motion failed.
-2040
Council Meeting Minutes:6 November 12,1974
Johnson moved to accept Mr.Dress's letter and open for discussion and review of the ordinance.
Second by Boyle, and also added that the item has never been tabled to the best of his knowledge.
It is an agenda item.
Question was called -Motion carried.
MayorEbbert asked Stan Bech,Associate Planner,to give a little background as to how the ordinance
generated and why.
Stan Bech stated that it seems that outdoor storage display Is a rather common subject to come up
before the Council.The original.Zoning Ordinance was passed in 1961,and then in March of 1965
Ordinance #523 was passed by public hearing before the Planning Commission and referred to the
City Council on outdoor storage and display and that was passed by the City Council.Then again
in 1972 in September outdoor storage display was getting a lot of complaints,especially in the CM
Zone and a Citizens Committee was appointed by the Planning Commission to study these conditions
and their recommendations were sent back to the Planning Commission and passed over and then sent
to the City Council.The City Council then met with the Planning Commission,and I think most of
you were probably there,and came up with the ordinance which is now in force,and that was in
October of 1972.
Moe = As stated by the letter here by Mr.Kimball,the Planning Commission has researched this
whole problem quite thoroughly,and have made several attempts to get things fn proper focus'and
as a result they recommended the ordinance remain as it is.
Hill =inquired as to who was on the original committee about two years ago,- was Mr.Dress on
the committee.Dress stated he was not but he was invited to attend the meetings.
Mayor Ebbert inquired of Mr.Dress if he wished to make a statement here tonight or wanted it
opened for questions and answers,or something definitely that he wanted to present other than
stated in his letter.
Dress = As I suggested in my letter,wanted to appear to see if there isn't some kind of an ordinance
-change or special permit or whatever so that I can keep operating the way that I am. My merchandise
in general is actually farming equipment. I guess it wouldn't be classified as farm machinery whether
it is motor driven or whatever.I do meet the requirements as far as setback in front and back.The.
fence that I do have alongside of the building now will be sight-obscuring shortly.The stuff that I
have in there I do not intend to display it.The stuff that I have in front of my store,this is more
display merchandise.I try to conformwith Mr.Kimball to get one of each out there.I have sometype of merchandise in front of my store that is kind of rediculous to try to stack one of each out there.
So at this time I am open for any suggestions.
Ebbert = You have limited the stuff that is supposed to be behind the sight-obscuring fence?Dress =yes,I have cut it down considerably right nowto one of each of them in front of my store.The pickupracksprimarilythe biggest problem that we have, and at this time I have one of each on display.The
others that I have alongside my building lam getting rid of because I am not going to have any more of
them.I have possibly five at a time out there and it is one of each.
Ebbert= Youare aware then what is required in the ordinance and also aware of the ordinance before
you moved on the property?Dress =Yes I was.
Ebbert=You are makingan attempt at this time to comply with the ordinance ? Dress = I already have
better than a month ago.
Ebbert =Why is it then you are requesting a change if youare goingto comply? Dress =Well, at thistime,when Mr.Kimball came down about 3 or 4 weeks ago, he at that time told me that I still did notcomply,andI believe that was because of my stocktanks and some tractortires out there. I dohave
old tires that come off of cars and of course they pile up there for a week or so, and then I load theminto atruck and get them out of everybodies way.They are an eyesore,I agree.It is a continuing
process unless I quit selling tires.
Swanson=Particularly what items were out there that violated the ordinance and also the ones we
had the letters on.
Kimball -Let me say this if I can.We are talkingabout large items oneofa kind,for instance 10
stock racks that open to the left and to the right is one of a kind.Also for example fuel tanks that
normally go in the backofa farm pickup that can be tiered offto threecells such as one for diesel,one for regular and one for ethyl.That doesn't mean 8or9out. I am talking about bulk items.The
thing thatI try to make real clearto Bill,and I think that he really bent over backwards,is thathe
is using motor vehicles as a sight-obscuring fence and that is not whatthe ordinance Implies.Itsays'sight-obscuring',and one vehicle that is designed to haul bulk fuel to me is not a sight-obscuringfence.Al\Ton truck is not considered a sight-obscuring fence.Years back we had the first go-round
withTri-State Stores, weare talking metalbuildings;you can havean 8 x 10 or 9x 13,but that onlymeansoneofanitem.It is up to the Council to say where we are.The existing structure at the timethepermitwasissuedwasthathewouldhaveasight-obscuring area that is a pen that sets west:of Ihim.Up to this date the sight-obscuring fencing has not been in place.Also my personal feeling is and myinterpretationoftheordinanceisthatifyouhaveonebart.that.Js green that doesn t mean that it is a
different type rack than the other.
Wl ^,November 12,1974CouncilMeetingMinutes:7
Hill =Is Mr.Dress the only one in town outside of this ordinance?Are we planted equally.
What about somebody ? •Kimball -As t general rule Mr.Hill that stock rotates less than a 60-day cycle.
I sar^ffl fn^mmswctk =^^---'U swanson =Ithink we can take these ordinals and ^^^^^^T^S^SST*
It is permissable like a used car lot.
n •r/0iXopXrwe^^^TjS this isI think where Council staid look at the thlngwy ,"^^'~^JJehlm but the guy next doorgSSSiSSS:s^^XigHe^lTi's ^SKffi.*.*..we fa'.,down.
W Hill =Within the confines of the ordinance of which you are part of theapproval the way it waswritten.I tMnk Mr.Bob is applying his official duties of that approval.
•Johnson =At this time Mr Hill I•»"^.u-*g^^^^"bu'SS^wouldYavfPurred
SL'USISISWSS?^J^ff-M**^""they arl all nested in
as a set.
2041 !
I
u
u
if the situation justifies it.
f'^me^nla'c^^^^^
^birandreAeh^ta^b^
Motion by Hill not to make any changes in the ordinance.Second by Moe.
Ebbert =The people complaining about Mr.Dress were not five different complaints,it was a letter
with five signatures.Dowe have that letter Bob?
vimKaii -That lottpr was submitted at the last session with the Planning Commission.It is not avail-a^Te at tWs moment ThattrtlcuTar'letter was originated with Farm Management,and right off hand 1do
not remember the signatures that were on it.It is on record though.
Rob Blacklburn =But there were other complaints mentioned tonight,specifically five,if I recall.A?sboBtheC bu^ness'plopfe'that were appointed to acommittee to work^with the Planning Commfion all
four that were mentioned were competitors,and begins to look like to me it is a pretty stacked dec*.
If you can't see it we are in bad trouble.
2042
Council Meeting Minutes:8 November 12,1974
Ebbert =I think this committee had all that done before Bill even builtthat building?Kimball-ItstartedpriortoandthenwhenMr.Dress and I right afterthe completion ofthe building had theoutsidestorageproblemswhereIreferencedat the beginning ofthe letter and then It continued on.
Hill =Mr.Mayor I think we are losing all context here.There is amotion on the floor and seconded.This is nota public hearing and I think the only proper way for Mr.Dress is to come back tothe PlanningCommissionwhereheshouldhavegoneoriginallyinrequestforazonechangeormodification.
Ebbert =You have beento the Planning Commission Mr. Dress? Dress =Yes, I haveMr.Mayor.
Hill=You are skipping this last round - I believe it's almost a public hearing now Mr.Mayor.
Ebbert = No, I am not going to open up to a public hearing.
Moe =Mr.Mayor I agree with Mr.Hill it should gothe route to the Planning Commission andassurethatMr.Dress gets a fair shake at the Planning Commission is up to him to attend and bring thosequestionstotheirattentionandtofollowthroughtomakesureit is a fair hearing ordeliberation onanyoneofthechangesorproposedchanges.I agree it should go back to the Planning Commission.
Ebbert =I understood that this has been before the Planning Commission and stood flat ontheir
decision.
Hill =No,they did not discuss this change,they discussed some ofthe plan proposals ? .
I think Mr. Dress came directly to the Council for a different type of hearing.
The question was called -In favor =Hill,Boyle and Moe.Against =Johnson,Ebbert and Swanson.
The motion was lost because of a tie vote.
Motion by Johnson that the Council meet with the Planning Commission which I think-the Planning
Commission would like and have Mr.Dress present.Second by Swanson.
Ebbert ="Actually this should go to the Planning Commission first, it is theirbaby;they designed this
thing.
Waggener =There isa regular Planning Commission this Thursday,did you plan to attend atthat time ?
Ebbert -How heavy is their agenda?Bech =It is very light.Dress =I won't be in town then.
Boyle =If we .move in on their regular meeting - I am wondering if we aren't super-imposing ourauthorityhere.Possibly we should meet ina joint study session.Ebbert=Other than a meeting night?
Hill =I would like a ruling on my motion thatsplit3to 3. I question whether my motion was defeated.
I think my motion is correctandwe won.I would like an official ruling on it.
Boyle =An affirmative motion ifitis tied is lost.Ifa negative motion.-Hill:-No,you read itto
me.Waggener =Was your motion to deny?Hill =to deny,and I would like a legal reading to the motion,
there is something in Roberts Rules - I can't remember it.
Johnson =/We have a motion on the floor now that has been moved and seconded that we have to dis
pose of, either we take it off the floor or vote on it.
Hill = I still question the legality of my motion outcome.
Boyle =Read Roberts Rules ="In case of a tie vote on any proposal,the proposal so shall be considered
lost."Hill =Thanks.
The question was called tovote on the motion that the Council have a joint study session with thePlanningCommissionatconvenienttobothparties.The Council concurred toset the date <t
November21, 1974. Motion carried.Opposed by Hill.
POOL &AWNING SUPPLY -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Aletter was read from Stanley Bech,Associate Planner,stating the Planning Commission held-apublichearingonOctober24,1974 and recommended the City Council approve a Conditional UsePermittoa/low Poo^l &Awning supply to move their business from 1070 West Broadway to 2709 WestSwayTheycurrentlylocatedIntheC-M Community Business Zone and the proposed move wouldplacHhebusinessTnaHighwayServiceZone,next to Dad's Trailer Suuply.There will be ,no new
construction as they will be utilizing an existing building.
^
•Motion by Moe to grant the conditional use permit.Second by Swanson.Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT -SUN BASIN REPLAT
Aletter was read from Stan Bech stating that at the October 2^QTO^.th«^^PjSf"f1recommendedthattheCityCouncilapprovethefinalplatfortheSunJJ^^P^^^o^;^approved by the Planning Commission ata public hearing on October 10,1974.AS5,0uU surety oona
>
\1„-:-•ii?-
u
u.
2:043 1
City Council Meeting Minutes:9 November 12,1974
has been posted by Farm Management,Inc.,to assure the Installation of sewer improvements.
All City platting and County filing fees have been received.
Motion by Boyle that the Council give final approval to the plat.Second by Johnson.Motion carried.
RETAIL TRADES DIVISION -REQUESTING CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE -DOWNTOWN PARKING PROBLEMS
A letter was read from Jack Hatfield, Chairmanof the RetailTrades Division of the Moses Lake //A^
Chamber of Commerce,stating the local merchants voted at the November 5th meeting of the
Retail Trade Division to take positive action to ward off future downtown area parking problems.
As a first step they request the Council to authorize the city staff to study the offstreet parking
situation.Their assistance in determining financing methods and tentative costs is essential to
the improvement and expansion of current parking areas.
Jack Hatfield was present and added that the merchants at that meeting got into a discussion of
-avenues to take to improve the parking in the business district and came to the conclusion upon
the suggestion of the City Manager to get Council authorization for city staff to get some preliminary
data for them as the city would probably be involved In financing through an L.I.D.or some such
^format.Reallyitsthe first step to gather a little bit of information.
~L*Hill ==Didn't we have something in the 1974 Budget on this and wasn't a carry-over for it.Let's£r*not hope we hire an outside consultant.
W Waggener =Weare not proposing to go to consultant work on it.What we have done at this point
C-L]is merely have some studies to the availability or to the shortage of parking spaces.Principally
what we would be discussing here is how those spaces would be utilized in relationship to the
various places of business and along with that the utilization of either Local Improvement District
or Business Improvement Association concept for financing.It does take some time on our part,
it will take some of Mr.Bech's some of mine and will take some engineering time to.actually go
on through with it.Stan did some of that previously,but never really completed.Also Ron Baker
has done.some work on downtown parking.
Johnson =Is this for offstreet parking rather the individual spots?Waggener =That is correct.
Johnson =I think this is in terms of authorizing you to do some study on offstreet parking and .how
to finance it.
Waggener =If carried to its ultimate it could mean acquisition of property and ultimate improvement| ofthem,and that could mean perhaps city issuance of bonds of some sort to get an LID or Business
1 Improvement Association bonds with some means of revenue assured for redemption of those bonds.
—Hatfield =One thing we are mainly after is an idea of cost.I think you probably noticed every time
the city has come head to head with the merchants is usually over costs.As you might surmise there
are those merchants that are gung ho for this parking and realize that you can't put a price tag on it,
but in order to get the project rolling and get good 100%support behind it,we reed s.ome figures to
lay our hands on to talk to the other merchants so theycah have a price tag to put on it.I understand
the other survey was not related to costs.
.Ebbert=Will it take an act of the Council to get this city staff on this thing?
Waggener =Mr.Mayor,I suggested that the request come this way simply it does become a fairly
sizable project.I am not talkingiout tens or thousands of dollars.We tried to bring as we take
on,if It is largeenough to be called a project in itself,we try to bring it to the Council for approval,
and I think this one gets into that scope.I frankly would heartily endorse it because I think it is
something that needs to be done for the downtown area and we would like to have your authorization
to go ahead bnd work on it.
^Motion by Johnson to grant the City Manager authorization to act on this request.Second by Hill
as long as we don't bring special consultants in.Johnson =I'll go along with that.Motion carried.
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT - LEASE OF SURPLUS LAND -to Wm.Duncan
A letter was read from Wm. N. Duncan stating that he has examined the farm lease on airport ground
and find it satisfactory,except that he plans at this time to have it farmed by others and hopes this
•*«meets with the Council's approval.
Hill = I move we accept the lease to Mr. Duncan with the exception of Item #9 that he has the right
to assign.Second by Johnson that was also my understanding that he had the right to assign.
Waggener =Normally is customary to allow leases to be assigned but the Council or person giving thelease has authority to say who it is goingtobe assigned to, and this is all we are really asking for.
, ' We are not saying it cannot be assigned,we merely say it has to have written authorization in order
|to assign it.I would assume that the person Bill would want to assign it to would meet with your
'approval and there would be no problem on it.
City Attorney Calbom =If another person is only farming it andas long as Mr.Duncan is not going
to assign the lease there is no problem.
Duncan =That is right,I am not assigning the lease.
Hill =I understood earlierthat Mr.Duncan would assign the operation to some other party.I am
happy to withdraw my motion and accept the lease and have the City Manager sign it.Secondby
Johnson.Motion carried unanimously.
2644
,\»
City Council Meeting Minutes:10 November 12,1974
GARDEN HEIGHTS SEWER -ACCEPTANCE OF WORK
A letter was read from Ron Baker,Asst.City Engineer,stating Howard Cass has satisfactorily
completed all work under Contract #74-03,Garden Heights Trunk Sewer,and recommended the
City Council accept the work and enter into the thirty day lien period.
Motion by Johnson to accept the work and enter into the 30-day lien.period.Second by Boyle.
Motion carried unanimously.
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAVING -ACCEPTANCE OF WORK
1^0^Aletter was read from Ron Baker stating McAtee and Heathe,Inc.,has satisfactorily completed
all work under Contract #74-04A,Municipal Airport surfacing,and recommended the City Counci
accept the work and enter into the 30-day lien period.
\{fib
Ron Baker added the paving is complete but the marking and striping will be completed next Spring
by the City Street crews as part of normal airport maintenance.
Motion by Boyle to accept the work and enter into the 30-day lien period.Second by Swanson.
Motion carried unanimously.
REFERENDUM #27 GRANT FUNDS -TRANSMISSION MAINS &SOURCE (WELL #31).Westlake
A letter was read from the City Manager stating the accompanying letter offers Referendum #27
construction grant funds in the amount of $96,242.00.This represents 40%of eligible costs of
construction of a 12"transmission main from Well #31 connecting to the City water system in the
vicinity of the proposed Reservoir No.4,along with construction of a new pumphouse,pumping
and electrical equipment.This project will allow full utilization of the available capacity from
Well #31 to supplement water supply for the Peninsula and for the Central Business District.*This
Is in accordance with recommendations included in the Water System Operational Analysis.Full
utilization of this source of supply Is particularly important now because of limits placed upon new
well permits.He requests authorization from the City Council to sign the offer and acceptance
agreement on behalf of the City of Moses Lake.
A letter was also read from Robt.L.Wubbena,Administrator,Referendum 27 -Municipal &Industrial
Water Supply stating that Project #277308102 -Moses Lake -Transmission,Source (Well No.31)
has received a high priority rating enabling a grant offer of $96,242.The amount represents 40%f
of estimated capital costs of construction eligible for funding under RCW Chapt.43.83B.The
origina1Offer and Acceptance Agreement must be signed and dated and mailed to the Department of
Social and Health Services on or before December 1,1974.
Waggener = I realize that this is coming to Council without very much time regarding the Dec.1,1974
date of returning it.If you do have questions.and would like to review it in more detail we will be
having study sessions on the budget beforehand and suggest that you may wish to continue the meet
ing to for example next Tuesday night to give you more opportunity to review this.In the meantime
certainly would certainly answer any questions or comments on it that you would like.
Hill =One thing,I cannot find In the Analysis Study where they make this recommendation.Could
you point out the page for me?
Waggener =Bob,I am not sure which Study you have there.Hill = I just discovered I brought the
wrong book.
Waggener =In the Water System Operational Analysis that we just received as you may recall is
actually an addendum to the previous reports we have had as a result of computer simulation of the
study.The result of that stady shows that we need more water in the Peninsula and Downtown area.
On Page 4 of the Analysis it stipulates -"Add Well #31 (existing well at Westlake)to supply Zone 1."
The reason for that is because originally we were going to put Well #11 to go Into the Downtown area,
and now with the computer analysis they propose that Well #11 go into the new high zone to supply it,
and Well #31 be utilized to supply additional flow of pressure into the downtown area.
/
Hill =Mr.Baker what Is the gallon consumption per minute out at Westlake?
Ron Baker = At the present time about 250 gpm.It is capable of much more.
Hill =The well output is 900 gpm.Baker =We believe the well itself is capable of putting out
between 1500 to 1800 gpm,the 900gpn is with the present pump that is on it.
Hill =Yes,but we just spent $30,000 two end one-half years ago or perhaps just two years ago.
Baker =I'm trying to understand the questions you are getting at.We have two reports here.
Hill =••Yes,we have two reports,and I am being very unfair with you Mr.Baker.I am challenging
the whole situation.Westlake has a water system and we have spent $30,000 about two years ago
of Westlake money.Water runs two ways into town and out of town.I think this proposition is to
enforce the Peninsula area with water,plus water to be made available the other way.
Baker = May I make a point concerning the grants themselves.The DSHS Ref.#27 money is allocated
by the DSHS Staff and it's priority rated by them in three different categories.The No. 1 priority rating
is for'source'which would be wells type of construction.The second category would be 'storage'and
.y
2045
City Council Meeting Minutes:11 November 12,1974
and a third category would be 'transmission'of that water between the various facilities.We havenocontrolover?hat priority rating that they assign us and based on their current rating system •source'OTo?ect^ge^tiie highest priority,'storage'projects will be given a second category Parity rating,while^S^S^reoSS^B a lowe?rating yet.We have submitted numerous projects;one of those is theW^lT#31 prefect which is considered a source project,and that is why it was offered for funding,asopposedtosa>r teservolr #5 not receiving a high enough priority at this time.There is nothing that we
can doto give Reservoir #5 (Lakeview Terrace)a higher priority.
,I Hill =Ithink as the City should do something and worry more about Lakeview Terrace,they are the
ones in most trouble,aren't they?
Baker =We've acknowledged that that isa problem area and we are working on correcting it.However
we have not been offered a grant on it as yet.
Hill= Can't we do something onour own -can't we be 'gutsy'?
Waggener =Sure,ifthe Council wants to authorize us.We have grant applications in and_we havehonesthatmonieswillbereleasedsothatwewillget40%matching for eligible costs on that projecttoWS.^wrcan^guarantee you that.If the Council wants to move and not wish for that and ask us
to go ahead with 100%city funds on it, that's certainly your prerogative.
&>'Hill =What I mean the people in Lakeview Terrace need help.To me this Well #31 there is somethingCQwrongwithit.Ithink we ought to help Lakeview Terrace before we -the Peninsula is not too bad.
^RaVor =If I mav make one other point onthis priority.It also depends upon the priority rating as to^5^*^™l™weM^!are ready for these projects.They rate in terms of zero to four monthsWTeadlnesk.Four to ten months then that is another rating and beyond that is anotherrating We couldWincreasethepossibilityofgrantfundingforlikeReservoir#5 if we were to develop the plans.and speci-tications for the tank and submit them with the application.We currently are working towards thaiasyoiJwSallwiththeOperationalAnalysisthatisoneoftheconsiderationsthatweaskedoftheCouncil.
McLanahan =Mr.Hill I believe you stated at least $30,000 spent on the Westlake well.To my
knowledge it was $3,000.
Hill =Look back at the minutes of April of 1972,you were authorized to spend $30,000 out there.
McLanahan =We may be authorized,but we spent $3,000.Hill =I don't know Mac but you supposedlyupdatedthatwell.In this study it says they don't know what the well was made of.
'Mac =We went back and got some records from Frank Zimmerman and found out the pump test on the well
was 1800 gallons per minute.
Hill =Why did we spendell this money and they say 900 ?Mac =I'm sorry I wasn't responsible forthereport.Hill =I know you weren't Mac.We spent allthis money and they say 900.
>Waooener =I"think the point we are trying to make Is that studies and reports are constantly beingundatedandyouaretryingtorefertoanotherreport.Hill =I'm referring to our most recent one datedFebruary197^Waggener -No,this report is dated October 1974.Water Systems Operational Analysis,an^e put a lot of work of staff time on this report along with the consultant to try to get the most updateinformationthatwepossiblygetintoit. I would like for you to consider this as exactly what ittlan!iZ*n£rt to a^^has been submitted and something that is more up-to-date
v_than anything that has been previously submitted.
Hill =$12,000'spent and its repetitive.Waggener =It is not wasted nor is it repetitive.
Hill = I still think we should spend in thinking more about Lakeview Terrace.
Waggener =I think the way the Council spends the money on it is certainly your Prerogative.The tthine?is we think all of the projects are necessary,and what we said originally whenwwirt'y.•the Rate Analysis on it was we would try to emphasize and place the importance and utilization of•money onT?hose where we can get grants and speftd it that way first Unless we take advantage of toegrants,frankly,we don't have enough money in that bond issue and the ^tes that are available to usLdoalltheprojects,so you will need to start thinking about cutting some out.We have more projects
on the line than money to do them with,if we do all the projects.
Johnson =Ithink whatdisturbs us here is the fact that Lakeview is in serious trouble for threeje*™now,and thought it was taken care of and a few weeks they come and we find they haven't been takencareofWearespending$96,0000 in this direction where we don't really need water now.I think
,we should concern ourselves with spending money where they really do need water.
Mac =We will be making a presentation ofour capitaloutlay to you at the next study session andyouwillhaveabetterunderstandingofit.We rave in the last three months made a systematicdevelopmentofhowweintendtoimprovethewatersystemoverthenext.4 or 5 years ]think wtenwehavetimetopresentthistoyou,you will understand how with the additional Well #11 reservoir #5howweareworkingtowardsimprovingtheLakeviewTerracesystematicallyandyetimprovingthedowntownsystematthesametime,so that it doesn't suffer at the same time in the next 5 years of growth.
Hill =Some of those people can't wait five years. They have been waiting five years or so now.
Mac =Do you realize that we are being held up right now because of permit for Well #11.With thatwell as relocated it will eliminate alot of the problems in Lakeview Terrace;notall of them,butjtwilleliminatequite a bit of it.But forthis wewill have to have the plans and specifications before
U
City Council Meeting Minutes:ll November 12,1974 *v
we will even be considered for a grant.We can do most of this in house to submit plans'and specs,
later we will have to have consultants in designing this.Next Tuesday's Study Session we plan to
present you with quite a detailed water development program for the City.
Swanson «Perhaps we should carry this over to next Tuesday night,along with a budget session.
r .
IMotion by Hill the meeting be closed and call a study session and not continue this item.Second "y
by Johnson.
Waggener =I would just like to be sure to understand what the motion would do. Is that would be In
essence-•denying this request,because you will not have an opportunitywhatever again to consider'
this prior to December 1,1974.
Hill =That was my aim.
The question was called.The motion failed.Hill and Johnson In favor. Moe, Boyle, Ebbert and
Swanson against.
Motion by Boyle this item regarding the Ref.#27 grant be continued on to next Tuesday night.Second
by Swanson.Motion carried.Opposed by Hill.
CLAIM AGAINS THE CITY -SHIRLEY E.HOLT
PO^Aletterwas read from the City Manager stating the accompanying claim by Shirley E.Holt has been .
forwarded to our insurance agency for processing.RCW 35.31.040 provides that claims for damages v
against any city of the third class must be presented to the City Council and filed with the City Clerk.
The claim Is presented for that purpose and hereby note receipt of the claim.No council action was
necessary.
CITIZEN INPUT
Pat Lightel inquired as to how many wells are there in the Peninsula area?Mac replied there is one
located in the Peninsula School area and one located in the 1500 Block of Peninsula Drive.
Pat -and there are two at Westlake,but only one usable.Mac =It is usable,but the water is awfully
hard,unless we have to,we don't use it.Pat = I live on the Peninsub and who says that area has
pressure problems.I can run my dishwasher,washer and sprinklers and still have a lot of pressure or
water.Mac =The pressure is erratic.************************************
Jack Hatfield = I would like a review as to what the reason was for the Fire Zone Change?Because
it was requested,and what was the basis for change?Awhile back It was zoned a certain way. Is
the City Council saying it was a mistake to zone it that way the first time?
Waggener - The Zone Change to Fire Zone 1 is the most restrictive zone.It was suggested to change
it to Fire Zone 2 by the architects for Grant County Mall to build ;lesser expensive structures.The
City allowed the change only contingent upon adequate setbacks,which they complied with.Want
to emphasize it wasn't strictly a give-away thing because somebody came in fromout of town and said,
they wanted a lesser zone****
a***********************
Mr.Collier of Meco Co.,-complimented the city organizations involved in the sewer
sealing project that has taken place on Penn and Block Streets.I happen to be involved in that area
a little bit,and it has been an excellent job performed by them.I think the project was finished in
one area about 1:P.M.and we struck .artesian water about 1:30.It has created some problems,gentle
men, and I don't know just exactly/w8aare going to be able to do. I guess the city has a few water
problems in their own building basements,and Bee-Line as well as ourselves has real water problems.
Just to make you aware of the situation has arisen.
Ebbert=Is the excess water because the sewer is hardly accepting it now?Collier =It appears that way.
STATUS REPORT/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
City Manager:
ia 1.Larson Treatment Plant Lagoon Repair..4
\I Just to Inform the Council regarding McMlllen Bros..,in their efforts to seal the leaks in the Lagoon
No. 2 at the LarsonTreatmentPlant. Basically at the time of the letter (submitted a copyto Coundil),
that the liner has been repaired and resealed and we still had leakage and asked him to remove andreplace the existing liner, feeling that at this pointthey will be needing to have a new liner in order
for it to be acceptable.Mr. McMlllen anticipated this almost and agrees that this is neally the.onlyacceptablewayto try to take care of It.They are in the process of now of almost complete removal of
cover material of the liner and they have the new liner ordered;do not know what the delivery date
will be. He is going ahead with It without any question at all,and are proceedingwith that repair.
2.Budget Review Sessions
Asked whether the Council would want an earlier Budget Review Session than next Tuesday night,November 19th? We will need to have a public hearing on it the first Monday in December, but thatdoesn't say we have to adopt the budget at that point, can continue the hearing into December.
Council indicated the first budget session to be leld Tuesday,Novemeber 19,1974 at 7:30 P.M.
Meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
ks.JB
MAYOR,Gordon M.Ebbert
WH-NES6:---
City Clerk,R.R.Gag
j£^vBj*w'.£»f.v
05
o .
w
2047
[.•fjfiiiiijfrw."',^^--;«-.^^l.:r^JVW^^-jrt.^".ii.l.."1i-ii^?i^^i1jni(f;ir^Uilrr,•....»
Council Meeting Minutes:13
November 4,1974
TO:City Manager for Council Information
FROM:Building Official
November 12,1974
SUBJECT:Outside Storage and Display at Ranch and Home Store,Located at 1147 West Broadway.
On February 27,1973,City Ordinance Number 665,was passed by City Council which added a
section regarding storage and display for commercial businesses,as follows:
"Chapter 3.24.145.180 "Cl"Zone Storage and Display -Merchandise ,equipment,supplies
and other similar materials being stored shall be kept wholly within a building or sight-
obscuring screening or fencing.Screening or fencing shall be constructed and maintained
to a height of at least six feet and shall be in conformance with Section 3.24.230.50.
Materials required to be stored within a sight-obscuring fence shall not be stacked or
piled higher than the enclosing screen.Storage of nursery stock,operative automobiles,
farm machinery,trailers,mobile homes,boats.and other similar items for rent or resale
may be allowed in an open sales lot or next to the place of business.
Open outdoor displays of merchandise are permitted on private property when they are located
such that they don't interfere with parking,traffic,or pedestrian movement and are
changed at least every sixty (60)days.Displays may consist of Christmas trees,bedding
plants,peat moss,or presto logs arranged in an orderly manner;larger items such as
swing sets,stock racks or utility buildings when not more than one (1)of a model is
displayed."
On May 28,1974,I sent Mr.William Dress,a letter quoting the applicable portion of the
ordinance and advising him that he was in violation thereof.
After approximately two weeks,I sent Mr.Dress a second letter establishing June 30,1974,
as the deadline for correcting the violation.
On July 11,1974,the Moses Lake Planning Commission met to review the storage and display
section of Ordinance Number 665.I stated that not more than one item of each type of mer
chandise should be stored outside.Mr.Dress felt that for his customers'convenience the
stock racks and squeeze chutes should be already assembled.Although a sight-obscuring fence
was suggested as a solution,Mr.Dress stated that he wants the items in the open so people
will be aware they are for sale.
A committee of businessmen,was formed to make recommendations on the findings of the Planning
Commission.On July 25,1974,the businessmen's committee requested a meeting with the Planning
Commission.During discussion,the Commission asked the committee to meet twice for the next
two weeks and then hold a joint study session with them on August 8,1974.
On August 1,1974,the first study session was held.Those present were:Mr.Earl Hubsmith,
Moses Lake Grange Supply;Mr,Chuck Edwards,Coast-to-K:oast Stores;Mr.Larry Buckley,Moses
Lake Steel Supply;Mr.John Chandler,Tri-State Stores.
I explained the screening requirements.Mr.Dress did not attend the meeting.The four busi
nessmen at the meeting voted to corroborate the findings of the Planning Commission.
The second study session on August 6,1974,was cancelled.
On August 13,1974,the joint study session was held.Mr.Dress was also present,
sensus of the Planning Commission was to not recommend a change of the ordinance,
stated that enforced compliance would hurt his business.
On August 29,1974,the Planning Commission met and received a letter from five citizens.The
letter protested the existing conditions at Ranch and Home Store and endorsed the ordinance
enforcement.
On September 26,1974,the ordinance was again reviewed by Planning Commission.Since Mr.Dress
had taken no action,each member felt the ordinance should be enforced by any means necessary.
The Planning Commission.asked City Staff to send a letter to Mr.Dress advising hime to conform
with the ordinance within 15 days.On October 1,1974,I sent a certified letter to Mr.Dress
setting the time limit for conformance.
On October 18,1974,I sent a report to the City Manager.This report stated that no changes had
The con-
Mr.Dress
taken place.The violating conditions still existed.
On October 21,1974,a letter was sent to Mr.Dress informing him of the City's decision to
file.a formal complaint against him.
An official complaint was prepared by the Building Department on October 25,1974.On the
same day,a review of the complaint and attached documents was made by City Manager.At this
time,he advised that no action be taken because Mr.Dress concurrently requested that he
be placed on the next City Council agenda to have the council review the present ordinance.
Respectfully submitted.
Robert E.Kimball
Building Official