1974 12 04-•*;.>Ji -
2111
CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 4,1974
Public Hearing,1975 Budget (Cont.)8-00 P-m-
*
Members Present:Councilman Norm Johnson,Mike Boyle, Gordon Ebbert, Otto Skaug.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Gordon Ebbert.^
Ebbert - We left off in the Public-Works in the Engineering Department.'
Boyle -Are you going to gobackandpickup Sanitation and Building ?
Ebbert- We missed the part of the budget hearing on Building and Sanitation.Bob, could you -
*are you prepared to take thatat this time.We would like togo back and pick thatupfirst.Yes,
this is a continuation of the public hearing.
?i Kimball - I don't believe there is any reason for reading over the areas of emphasis again,because we
.2;have covered that-The effective enforcement and construction codes and removal of dangerous buildings'?>I think has already been covered and supervision over the Sanitation Department I don't think needs any-
m ,thing to go over.Are there any questions there at all,that -
Ebbert-Have we got a ~-?designed and ready to go on that removalof dangerous building.
Kimball -Yes sir,it is already in effect.
Johnson - Did you get on that triangle ?-.
Kimball - Yes sir - off the record,I'll have a call tomorrow morning at 8:00 from the people that want
to putthe new building up, and just all I can say there is that it will be a restaurant drive in place -
Evidentlyit will include a liquor license.Thatis all I know until tomorrow morning on it.
Boyle -Bob,on the General Fund on the Other Services and Charges for '75,the projection there for
$3,709 over the $1,435 for '74,what does that include?
Kimball -That is codes and updating everything we have.
Ebbert-You are needing $2,000 there for something,over and above last year.
Kimball -Well,our code books only come out every three.
Ebbert -Oh,that is for printing the code books?
Kimball -Yes sir.
Gagnier - Could I respond to that too,a little bit?You will notice that Non-Expenditure Disbursements
has dropped off to zero.If effect the Other Services and Charges in '75 are a combination of the last two
items.So when you add those two together you come up with something close to $3,000 representing only
about a $700 increase.
Ebbert -How about Sanitation?
Kimball -Basically,we have got the same that we had before.
Ebbert -Except the ws ed control.
Kimball - Yes sir,I am not sure which way that is going to go,Mr.Waggener and Fire and with this new
ordinance,could very well come under building,or it could very well come under fire.I don't know which
way that is going to go until -
LJ
Waggener -It's pretty well agreed that the weed control is going to be administered by Fire.
Ebbert -Why is it under Sanitation?
Waggener -This budget was put together while we were still putting that ordinance together and dis
cussing it internally regarding our administrative structure,Mr.Mayor.
Ebbert -Aren't we expecting an increase in the cost of operation of solid waste?This year?
\r
2112
M&P&•"-•A^^vi^^^^^X:^*''•"'IS •„>•
Public Hearing,1975 Budget.(Cont.):2 December 4,1974
Kimball -Are you talking about the Grant County -*
Ebbert -Right .
Kimball - At this time I am not prepared to say,I think Mr.Waggener might be able to fill in more on
that,I don't - I think that we have just about come to a standoff on it -Mr.Waggener,I don't know
what's happened over that lately.
Waggener - You may remember,Mr.Mayor,that the agreement with Grant County Inter-local Agree
ment was presented roughly 30 days ago to the City Council.That actually calls for implementation
of the Moses Lake site in 1976.So nothing,presumably,will happen next year.
Ebbert -It doesn't show in the budget any increases in cost that amount to anything,
it?
Is that about
.-•#;•-**•.-
Kimball -Yes sir.That is all I have.
Ebbert -Okay,we'll go back to Engineering.
Waggener - Mr. Mayor, before you get into Public Works and the Engineering Division,'I would like to •
review some things that were presented to you at the last meeting,which I think,you had some in
correct information,inadvertantly supplied you,and I would like to review that for you.Principally ,
I am concerned with the area of Grants.I had asked Mac to prepare for me information regarding all of
the projects for which we now had outstanding grant applications.Neither Mac nor Ron were on hand
when some of these were submitted,so they were nottotally familiar with them,and again,sorry for my
own illness that prevented my being here that evening or even being here that afternoon to review these
items them.So we didn't have an opportunity to present it probably as it should have been,so I would
like to present that to you again,and I will also follow that up later with a memorandum that will give
you something to keep permanently in your files,and will give you better information on it..If I may
I would like to go to the overhead^transparency now and put these slides back on and review them for
you.It will probably take five or ten minutes.
This is the first transparency that I wanted to review and this was presented as —?--projects and is
broken down by the various sections of the City and shows a total of almost $1,000,000.Now this
application was submitted about two years ago - the Council may remember that we reviewed with you
the Region 10 Regional Council proposal,that had asked the City of Moses Lake to present a pilot
project.That pilot project presumably being able to show that the Regional Council would be able to
work well together , work effectively together to put together projects,to fund them,and to see them
through.They had asked Moses Lake to submit a proposal to help them and for Moses Lake to be a
pilot city.We put this together as a crash project,we presented it to the Council with the idea that we
were throwing something together quickly,we had no idea whether or not it was going to be funded.It has
not been funded,it will not be funded,the project is absolutely,totally dead.It was dead within 60
days' after we submitted a proposal to the City Council.The reason that I wanted to mentionthat,is
because this project then is no longer alive so far as any grant application is concerned.Now, I feel
that what happened, was the Regional Councilwas tryingto show its effectiveness in operationin order
show that they could handle money and get more federal funds to distribute and I don't really know what
happened,but none of the pilot projects were funded.
There are no projects on this one - I thinkwe would wantto discuss at this time. This showseither HUD
or EPA funding and there is basically no money available in either of those agencies at this point. This
projectrelates to the same thing for sewer projects.This was partofthe same project.Now,some of these
projectsare still veryvalid projects.However,the same thing applies as faras the overall HUD,EEA
applicationis concerned.This too, is partof the Regional Council Application,andit is a dead project,
andagainit has beendead.The EPA calledonit,which is this one,and some ofthese items would be
valid,we have discussed with you Sewer-Peninsula Lift modifications,we have discussed sewer sealing
and we have discussed several of the other areas.Some,as you go down in showingthe Basin Homes
sewer,for example,a $165,000 item was a part ofthis application and doesn't look very probable for the
future.As we goonintothe Sewage Treatment Plant side,which is overhere,you may remember that we
are now looking at a completely new ball game as faras EPA is concerned on those kind of projects.Be
fore we canreceive anyfunding with EPA monies,we have to have our plan of study approved,we havetocompleteafacilitiesplan,and then after the facilities plan,they will give us authorization to proceed
orto not proceed with certain steps and phases of it.One of the projects,and I don't recall specifically
—rnn^rr—
:1
2113 !
Public Hearing,1975 Budget (Cont.):3 December 4,1974
if it is on here,I don't believe it is.But one project that we had made application for previously with
EPA funding was the Knolls Vista siphon crossing pump station,and some re-routing of mains in that
area.We thought when we started on that one,that that project was one that was going to go,and
EPA changed their ruling in the middle of the ball game on us to the point where the infiltration and in
flow analysis had to be conducted,and that has to be tied in with the facilities plan,and so that until
that plan is completed,we can do nothing on EPA funds.We will receive no grants.So we will come
.back to you at a later point with those projects,when it looks like there is something definitely to go.
They will give us a revised schedule as far as the sewage treatment plant is concerned.They have sub
mitted to us on that,a proposed waste discharge —?—which sets some time limits,for doing certain
OS things.I think we presented part of that to you.There is some detail on it that I think probably you
Os|haven't seen.It is pretty much engineering ,technical type information and we are now in the process
O*of discussing some of those points with them as to their validity for our particular situation.For in-
O stance,they had given us some definite limits to be achieved with final treatment from the plant and
U our contention is that those limits should not be set until the facilities study is completed and make
£l3 some determinations as to actually what benefit there would actually be achieved by improving the ef
fluent from the lake,what improvement would really make upon the lake.Which our contention is that
even though it is going to be 90%federal money,we are not anxious to spend that kind of money if the
result will be no significant improvement in water quality.We wanted to be sure that was available.
Okay,so this full sheet then,is no longer valid.
The same thing applies to this one.This again was a Housing and Urban Development-Economic
Development Authority proposal,and this was to tie some industry into it,which they said was necessary
as a part of that Regional Council application.So we tied into Penn Street Project and put in a lift
station and some proposed storm drainage.With no engineering done these were strictly shotgun '
estimates of what might be necessary to do the project.Frankly,as we look at it now,it is probably
not nearly enough money.The problem is much more severe than we had originally envisioned it,and
of course costs have escalated.But this again was part of a proposal that was made and in researching
,I the files to try to give you complete information on the grants that - for which we had application under
way,of course Ron found this in the Engineering files,as far as he could determine an application that
had been submitted that was still pending.Not being here at the time,had no way of knowing that the
thing folded almost as rapidly as we submitted it.I don't think I have a great deal to talk about on the
others,I think we can probably put then together in a little better form later,but let me touch them
briefly.As far as the grants are concerned,some of these aren't really grants in the true sense.For
instance,the half-cent arterial tax monies is money that we budget regularly in our budget.You approve
a Six Year Arterial Street Plan or Six Year Street Plan,of which part of it is arterial street,and I think if
we take out the -items one and three,I believe - As I recall,I think you will find engineering and/or
construction on the other of these in the budget for this year.I shaded item four because I was think
ing that one will be pretty well completed by the end of this year,that's not really true -it will be
partially completed as far as engineering is concerned,but it will also carry over into 1975.I shaded
item 7 yellow,because the ?federal trade monies on the next item three,you will see is a dupli
cation.Division Street signals.That actually shows up in three places,it is on the next sheet that I
have here too,with Division Street signals under Urban Arterial Board projects.We submitted prospectus
for the Urban Arterial Board for $70,000 to do the project,we have also submitted under the needs study
on Division Street signals for $170,000 and we show it under half-cent arterial tax.Frankly,I think what
is going to happen,is while we would like to get funding for it with some participation out of federal aid
or out of urban arterial,where a major portion of it would be paid for by someone else,I think we are
realistic to anticipate that we will probably end up idoing it with our own monies.It will be our recom-
'•-mendation then,to proceed on into the budget,that we do go ahead with the project,on our own funds,
I-think we can wait until we get into summer and see if the other funds are forthcoming,but if they are
rrr : r :not,I think that particular signal project is important enough we need to preceed with it without matching
--•-monies.Okay,I merely wanted to notice'oh this that"these two projects,that in some respects,we have
i:->.-c-never-made the-normal application-for.-We have submitted'under the federal aid monies,we have sub-
_"mitted a needs study,a plan of work,«o to-speak",:we have listed the projects that we felt were impor-
•'-:•-tant-to us.We haven't made the formal State or Federal aid:application as we normally think of it,for
these projects.We filled in a detailed"questionnaire,"that - I don't know how many man-hours we put
j into it,but I know that seeing the forms as they came through and I routed them up to the engineeringoffice,
it had to be considerable,the research and work that went into these projects,and fill out that question
naire for them.Now,they will then,as those-federal aid monies come through review the projects,
• --•-establish their own priorities and tell'us which of these projects,if any,they will fund.That is not
"-".-.-from this point on that really isn't ourchoice.-fwould hope"the Council would agree that these are all
worthwhile projects,if we can receive funds for them.And I think probably that is the way it was pre-
-sented to you Monday night...• —
-rrssr-:
2114
Public Hearing,1975 Budget (Cont.) : 4
December 4,1974
Okay,Washington Traffic Safety Commission,again we submitted a work plan and have not submittedtheapplicationinthefinalform,although Iam told that we have received co"esPonfefrn^f^m..t^";i.hindicatingthatactuallytheseamountsofmoneyareavailable.And frankly Iam not that J*^**.tt and Mac is doing some research on itwith Ron to try to find out exactly what the funds are for and we .
will come back to you with that information.
The Urban Arterial Board project I mentioned isa duplication of the Division Street signals.Ron had in-*ca£d to yoTthat money is pretty well dried up.There is alittle bit of money that ^•jf**™'4beenabletogetprojectsunderwayandthereisalittlebitofmoneyavailable.But I think its very
unlikely that we will get any ofit.But we thought it was worth a try.
Then the bulk of the projects are still alive,as far as State-Federal grants are concerned and thesehappentobeallStategrantsatthis.point,is the Referendum 27 projects.Department of Social andHealthServices.And I think there is really not much to comment on on these.The ones I shaded ingreen,and they don't show up all that well,I guess,items one and four and nne:and ten,as Irecall
we don't show on our proposed work program for 1975.We feel they are projects thatare not verylikelytobefunded,they are projects that are deslreable but not as likely necessary as we see someofSeothersAndlthinkasamatteroffact,that we could probably put Reservoir #4 on the Peninsula?n Sat same category.As we look at the money that we are going to have toparticipa e in the grants,weren't going to be able to do everything on that list.It would be too °Ptimistih^that we would receive grants for everything on the list,but ifwe had to make a choice,and I think weareafthatpoint,we would consider Reservoir #5 which is the reservoir in the Terrace area would haveMoherpriorttythanthereservoironthePeninsula.So we would probably want to ,somewhat delayourappUcationonthatone,I think it would be unwise to withdraw it,but I don't think we should push it
too hard at this point.
I lust wanted the opportunity to review those briefly with you,because particularly as related to someoi'the detailed^projects that were shown on those Regional Council proposals,Iwanted you oknow that&£«not,to fact,live projects at this point.There are no funding ^ic^^li^^t*£'I will get,again,more detailed information to you on this and give you some summary.********<*or someone probably mentioned to you in conjunction with the Community Development Act of 1974 .Tthink that may have been referred -may have heard that referred to as the Housing Act.It ^^tuallyAenropertitleofitistheCommunityDevelopmentActof1974,and I think it had been Presented toyouTsftZaTln^lw that it is not Lally tied to housing.It can take into.account^^^^Now,if we are going to get any of that money,that's something that we don't have in this budget aallaTttdspotot.And if we are going to get any of it,Ithink ifs.important that Stan be allowed to proceedasrapidlyaspossible,and it will require some of the rest of our time,and certainly some eng neeringtirn^,ohelp put some of that together.But,I haven't had an opportunity to read the somewhat voluminousndnutesthatwehavehadinthatkindofdetail,so I don't know what was presented to you,reallyMondaySghtbufferexample,Ihave had innumerable requests to do something to improve the streetsSTtoKiidthelowerPeninsula.Peninsula Drive and the loop back on the other side And mycommenthashadtobethatitisanextensiveproject,I don't know any way that you can get funded for
ttrtthto point,perhaps there isa possibility of getting some funding for it under the Community^J^L^».Another one that we might want to think about is the Possibility of extendingse^r into the Basin^omes area.At least getting the trunk line up there J^^^^1.'^with the rest of it.Those are the kinds of public works projects that can be tied into it.Because they^considered necessary for the improvement of housing.Projects do have to be keyed to housing,soUis^SS^Ti^betog ahousing plan,but Iknow my first reaction and Isuspect yours when we"alk about aolng something with ahousing plan,we think of aredevelopment project to relocate people.
It doesn't have to be that.
At this point Iwould like to turn it over to Mac to"proceed with the Engineering Public Works section of
the budget,unless there are some questions.
Ebbert -Well,what projects have we got left that are hot?We were told,of course,that most all of
these were hot,but specifically four projects.
Waggener -Okay,right now it is principally water projects and as we moved into-°^£*aJ«^Z rtl ««tpr -«wer svstem it was our belief at that time that the ones we would be able togetalmost
by mid-1975.
o
vY-''>«'••..•*r£S:--
2115
Public"Hearing,1975 Budget (Cont.): 5 December 4,1974
When that is completed,then we will again become eligible for the EPA projects.Gordon,I
don't really know what projects are going to be included in that,and I have no way of knowing until
the facilities plan itself is completed.That will give us some insight into what they might accept
as other projects.The one that we said we were going to try to receive funding for,but at the time
though we had very little possibility for it,was. our water projects because at the time we first passed
our rate increase,had our rates study completed,we were looking only at Housing and Urban De
velopment funds and we knew that those funds were drying up.About that time the Referendum 27
projects came into being,or Referendum 27 funds came into being.They had just been voted in,
no one knew how they were going to be allocated,and frankly,we are very optimistic on the
applications that are presented to you and are basically in the budget,we are very optimistic that we
will receive funding on most of those projects,so those are live ones at this point.The one sewer
project at this point,which is a facilities plan,the other one is the series of water projects -now,
lest 1 not diminish the importance of that facilities plan.If EPAgives us an order,following the
facilities plan to completely replace or relocate or otherwise handle our sewerage effluent than the
way we are doing now, we are probably looking at in excess of a million dollars and perhaps appre
ciably more than that for our own local treatment plant.So that facilities plan is important to us.If
they tell us to move that thing,it will also have keyed to it,the provision that we will be required to
do it at such time as federal matching funds are available.Those will be 90%funds.So if it is a
million and a half dollar project,that is only $150,000 of our own funds.So that one could develop and
be an important project.What other ones are alive,I would say nothing at this point,but others can
be.The FAM monies,and Ron is certainly more familiar with those than I am.But I don't know whether
any funds are going to come from those or not,but it is very possible that we may receive some funding
of those in 1975.
Ebbert -Well #11 then is definitely alive.
Waggener-Well #11 is definitely alive.At this point we have funding for Well #11 and the transmission
line and Well #31 project.We believe that we will receive funds for others of the projects.But I think
that I'm probably getting way ahead with that in trying to answer your question,Gordon,of where we
should be in discussing the budget,because with the projects that are listed in the budget,I think those
can be discussed and we provided engineering and provided for some detail on the construction break
down on those projects that we think are likely to happen in 1975.So I would like to turn it back to Mac.
Ebbert -Did we finish the Public Works part the other night ?
McLanahan—We were going into Engineering,I think.In order to give you insight into Engineering and .
so forth,I think if I go to the Public Works Projects,it will justify the Engineering.
Gentlemen,this is the priority array that we presented to you the other night with Well #31. This left-
hand column represents the projects up on the Terrace.Well #5 rehabilitation,we have to proceed
with that as rapidly as possible and we want to get this one back in and pumping and we may try yet
before April to rehabilitate Well #8.This Well #8 is the one with --?—.
Waggener -Mac,excuse me.So'that we can follow this in the budget,we are looking -and you are
not following in quite the same sequence -but this would be on Page 33,wouldn't it,on the Water Section
of the budget where you are at now,and Well #5 would fit in with the Item 2-B,Well Rehabilitation programs,
It says Wells No.'s 4 and 7 and goes on to No. 5 and 8.I wonder if it would be Just as well to just follow
it in the budget instead of on the sheet on the overhead,Mac,because there is some detail with it here
that you don't have.
McLanahan -I'll be 9lad to.It might be less confusing.
On Page 33,then,with Well #11-This is a new source,as you realize.This source will be used and
d eveloped for the Lakeview Terrace Area.We will be coming to you at the next Council meeting with
proposed dates for bid opening and bid award.-We do.have.permission from DOE to build this well.
However,we are negotiating here with an estate for a well site at this time.We are negotiating three
sites,really.In case we are not successful in our choice site,then we will move to one of the other
two sites.I will stop after each one of these and ask you if there is any questions.
On the Well Rehabilitation -as you know,we — — ?because it was two months
back,so we were anticipating somethings that won't actually happen for 1975.We were anticipating
that most of our projects would be completed -.or most of our construction project at Well #3 would be
completed at this time.We will,however,go into next year with it.We also,on this Item 2-B,are
closely tied into item 3-B so when I am talking about one,if you will turn the page .upto 3-B , I will
also be talking about the other.The pumphouse rebuilding and the rehabilitation of the wells are going
pretty well together.They are all under the same grant program..
2116
I.--
ME
• *V /
„V
December 4,1974
Public Hearing,1975 Budget (Cont.) : 6
TheWellRehabUitation-onWell^weh^veto^
-?^rd^nr w^rwfpn:^
purchase a new pump for Well #5.
Wei!*B again is the one with *-*£•„-^Z*.TJTTsX^T^T^Z^
4„K«4nrt hnUt We are going to haveWell#4 -the pumphouse has been removed ^«™*£*?££££isa portion completed or com-to bring our well drilling contractor in VdrtLr under SJactprtor to the construction of Well house #4
wfnow ^TU^rrS^SSl -^'"*-U ™°°ntraCt0r "^
onthe wells thatI have mentioned._
PumP Structures,^hich is 3-A.This money is going *££j£^'^^iTX^-^nd equipment for Well tllwhenitis completed Yomay seethis p^_?j_^
lot of this depends on how fast Well #1 is drilled and .*™to*Ja ble drilling,ltwiU bemoveintothisconstructiononWell#11 «^*^J^£,™fh.1976 budget.Pumping Equip-nrobable that some of Well #11 pumphouse and equipment wm P d he pand pump ~?~.m^t again,4-A.For Well #11.^^^^^^S^TLfSiSi *^^Tiu-at this time until the wellWewillnotbeabletodoanymorethasigJ™^n^m be able to size the pump and size theisdevelopedandwerunapumptest.At that time,
transmission line.?The Booster Station-I believe thisWell#5,I am repeating myself there ---t "'"'been funded for Well #31 -Item Cwill possibly be deleted.^T^8.^'^^^^ihat we had budgeted for the.BoosterSSSSKT^Z^^SSlwetSfreturn with abudget for aBooster Station.
Distribution Reservoirs-™,~^«^completed his contract.We will W ^"V6"^£?some reason we do not -I'm sorry -If weinJanuary.That would come out of ™*J^i*£^some reason we don't pay him at thepayhiminJanuaryitwillcomeoutofthe^™f.k £»pay hlm.It couid go either way.Also,
first meeting in January,ttonpartd this•™ney tton#a portion of this money is to pay r .ior meu
4ii k«aWo to revise this estimate on consultingReservoir#4 and #5 -Iam happy to tell ^^^^.^S^the tanks lnClUdin9 ^i*™*entering fee,the companies .^^^^^^^^m be the consulting engineering fee.atton.They will not provide asoils ™^-J*%^^£Z ask us to provide acontractor to put
sstsar ^a==^SST.1 ZZ^ttXXZZZ^will be less than «,000.
Skaug -Is the reservoir and a tank the same thing?
MCnahan-*s sir.^^^^'S^SSX*2K weadam.There is a different terminology for reservoir.
have on the base.So it is a broad term.,*u ™i«oorina cost,or the consulting engineeringBoyle-How much do you feel that is going to alter the engineering cost,
cost then onthis project?
McLanahan -Right at present Iwould be willing to drop $50,000 on it.
J:5-ir"'-'c-.--"-V"?T"?.ti4ai».^>5aa3v<,-is-u>m--i-^
at-
OS
OS
o
w
w
V*2117
Public Hearing,1975 Budget (Cont.):7 December 4,1974
McLanahan - With Reservoirs#4 and #5, as you know from previous meetings and previous talks,
we will.go ahead - in fact the plans and specifications are around 30%complete right now,for
Reservoir #5.We are completing ? . We will have these specifications and plans
withthe exception ofthe soil test complete forbidby December 15.We will then submit them to the
District Engineer of the Department of Social and Health Services in Spokane.D.S.H.S.As I told
you a moment ago,we can design and write our own specs now for this tank.They,for about $2,000
included in the tank cost will develop a design and foundations for us.We are writing pretty general
specs,to submit to D.S.H.S.
We probably,for Reservoir #4 willnot submit plans and specifications for that tankuntilwesee how
'our monies are being allocated that wehave for matching. Thisis our bondings monies. I would
assume that it will be almost a year away beforewe will seek any funds from Referendum 27 for
Reservoir #4.We probably will duringthe year draw up the plans and specifications for it and just
hold them until we are sure we have matching money enough for that.
Item No.6,Transmission Mains.A-is the Lakeview Terrace transmission main.This itemincludes
really -excuse me just a minute let me see what it does include.It includes the two transmission
lines, that's what I wanted to make sure.First, it includes the transmission line that will connect
' the existing tank which is located at Lakeview Terrace toa 12 inch line located between Juniper and
Pioneer on Hill Avenue.This then, will -We will haveWell#8 pumping through the system serving the
MacDonald Hillarea,Garden Heights areas, and the overflow of that flowing into reservoir#2.When the
pump off,then Reservoir #2 will backflow into the Skyline,Garden Heights,MacDonald Hill area.Also
Montlake.The other transmission line is the transmission line from Rsservoir #5 whichwill flow back
intoan eight inch distribution systemlocatedat Clover and Nelson Road.I believeat the present
timethis is 14 inch. Thistransmission line, we aren't far enough alongwith design yet to actually
check that diminsion but tentatively it is 14 inch.Item B, is Reservoir#4 transmission lines.
Reservoir #4 at present we show it across Wapato Drive - this would be south ofthe Oasis Motel.1We hope to locate this in and around the school property - it may not be on school property,but it would
beinthat vicinity.We will have to negotiate with the School if we locate it at particular location.This
Reservoir #4 and Reservoir #5 we donot have actual:rightof wayforlocation at this time.We do not
have actual location right of wayforWell #11.So, these can be flexible or can move.The reservoir
transmission lines included in this,we haveactually included some of these intoour Referendum 27
funds forWell#31.This line that is shown onhere is actually not included inWell #31 funds.The line
probably will be moved to go across school property,and connect in on Pioneer -I'm sorry -WestBroadway.It will make a shorter line and will connect toa 10 inch transmission.main that is already
existing.It willbea cheaper construction cost than what we have shown onthe map here.
Waggener - Mac,now this one needs to show some construction monies.
McLanahan -Yes sir,the budgetdoes need to show some construction monies ?
and Jim Griffith and I have an appointment to revise that.
Gentlemen,on Page 36 is your Sewer.I think I have a tranparency that will show you the priority that
we have for sewer projects.
You have approved our awarding the contract on Eastlake Sewer.Within the next two orthree weeks we
willbe in construction withthis project.We probably will notget as far along as we hadanticipated,
but we dohave monies enough budgeted in the.Eastlake Sewer project - this is Item 4 on page 36 -we do have budgeted enough monies that we will be able to complete the project without any problems.
On the main - I will back up to Item 2-There is no engineering as you see,involved with this it
is strictly anupdating orupgrading of the station by rebuilding pumps,replacing pumps,replacing con
trols.Main lift station will be relieved some by our construction ofthe Eastlake Sewer Main,this will
take one lift stationoffofthe main lift stationandthe proposed Knolls Vista reliefwill takeor remove
a ten to twenty percent load off the main lift station.
The City Sewer Plant -As'you probably remember both ? at the sewerage treatment plant were well
worn tothe extent where we had to replace them*We have calledfor bids for these, theyare due for
delivery on March 15.
•;>3*vU,;;;.:-.
M-t-.^m^m ^teVMiSS^--,;
Rick
2118
Public Hearing,1975 Budget,Cont.:8 December 4,1974
for at least three more years.The reason we had it inJ^udgerIs beeauseof the p y
fails.
Gentlemen,the facilities study we are in J~^Z*J™*ZV£,™d oZX ST*"a plan of study -at the present moment.We will beP™*""^«™_°_?„'_d ten,^facilities^y^Ce^upnd^
At Kennewick,the faciliUes study plan,they have !^'™'°°"™^n for tMs *oaB we couidreasonIampointingthisouttoyouis-you can g'P^^f.1^^nree dferent ways ofspendthesameamountofmoney.We coud go in and design^say »««*threetreatingit.Even down to the point of writing specmcations and *°£•£•**"^^s(ud whlchplansandsoforth.I don't believe this is anecessary th ng I*'nk ttat we can dra y ^will give us a good guideline to go by From thstudy it won t be written in ^^
we are going to go for $50,000 or so.
Tahnson -could I-off the record again -ask aquestion ?Your facilities studies,in comparisonSSstudieswThavealreadydone-what are we doing here?Idon't quite follow.
w t u t„1Q77 DOE has ruled that all plants will be into secondary treatment.Don't quite hold
for sewage treatment plants We £;^?^^^£^.!S'U.W.solution forwithoutanyproblemsuntil1977.But aftertnat, we may «""•Tohnson is thatwe probably will
weT-aJ Jump *1°well to with the flow so that we dilute the effluent from the sewage treatment
plant to acceptable standards for dumping into the lake.
Johnson -That is^your faciliUes study?
McLanahan - Yes sir.That is the faciliUes study.
Rn„Raker -There isa point here that should be made -On the previous studies,the comprehensive
expandedon~They are not Just lost to the new study.They will become apart of it.
Waggener -Ron,isn't that one of the reasons that the Kennewick plan was so expensive is that theytad?o do thefcwhole comprehensive plan and everything as part of the facilities study ?
n»t»r -That's correct They were lagging a little bitIn their total comprehensive plan,and their planJUSTiiSwP^Plta ana we are s'hooLg for about $S per capita,with the blessings of the EPA on
this.They would like us to hold the cdst down.
hlv "sea'le*of appro^ma"ly four million gallons per months out of the sewage treatment pUnt thathaveseaieaoiiapprortwo-fold project for us.We feel that possibly our faciliUes studywms^wTtn^gta^rwhU se^r «will be necessary.We have some areas we are alreadyawareoTofexfllMtlonintheGuffin-Eccles area.For instance,we have three hundred feet of ppe-Zl inoneocatZdown there that we can run afire hose off of a"re hydrant a,^full pump and aU thewaterdlssaiatesbeforeittravelsthreehundredfeettothenextmanhole.It is that porous.So we have^1 fh»^reas once aweek with manpower and maintenance from the sewage treatment plant.InoldertoteepthrUnesTpena'nd filing.We hope in the next several years at smaU contracts and so
EV^I^i—iUM»—=tS»«T^rr^j—•—.:ik_££ir^T
•OS
O
w
I /
-,«S >2&'—
2119
Public Hearing,1975 Budget (Cont.)December 4,1974
forth,to be able to seal those sewer lines down there satisfactorily so that they will perform the same
as the rest of our sewer lines.
Skaug -Mac,this may be a little bit ?to the the thing,but - Are all the lagoons still function
ing out at the base,or is McMillan still doing work out there ,or somebody,or -
McLanahan -Yes sir.McMillan is still doing work out there,he at present time -excuse me,I was
looking for something before I answered you,but I dont.see what I was looking for -he at present time
will not complete this year,the one lagoon that he is working on,Mr.Skaug.Mr.McMillian will be in
Friday.It takes about 40 or 45 degrees temperature for him to seal the line.Unless we get some real
warm weather,that we don't expect,it will be probably next spring before he'll get the weather that he
put that lagoon together with.He has the linings in for the lagoon.
Waggener -Otto,you may recall that presented for Council's information a couple of meetings ago,a
letter of instruction to McMillan to replace the lining.He has ordered the liner,it is on hand,here now.
He has excavated to remove the material for the liner,and is ready to start the replacement.
Mac,I would suggest maybe,to stay on the construction items,in order to drop back to page 31 on
Arterial Street.
McLanahan - All right,sir.On Page 31,gentlemen,Item No.1 will be seal coating.We will be seal
coating some of the streets that have been constructed since 1960. We hope we wili be able to seal
coat between four and five miles of streets.First,we will go in on these streets and make any neces
sary repairs,patching,curb repair,that is very obvious,and drag them in the street back-up so that
when it is seal coated,it will be a near new-like appearance.We are able to do this with arterial
street funds because of the fact that it does give some additional structural strength to the street.
Division Street Traffic Light - We are in the process at the present time of revising the plans that were
made by Lewis and Rebton,rending the technical provisions of them up to date.As soon as they are
up to date we will probably be back to you after the first FAM funding,if we aren't successful and ask'
for permission to call for bids for this project.
On Division Street Resurfacing,we have budgeted just enough for a two inch overlay for this project
and approximately 1,000 feet of drain line.This will be a minimum amount that we can do and provide
ourselves with a good street ? . As you probably remember ,Freda,again you can stop for a
minute,I just want to review with them,As you remember we had a soils report on Division Street that
suggested that we tear up the street,put in drain line,the project would probably run somewhere between
a half million and three quarters of a million dollars.We have resurfaced that street four or five times
for that amount of money.The street as it is isn't constructed to the correct standards,it is constructed
without the necessary funds to do an accurate Job of construction,it was a mediocre construction job,
but do you realize that street has lasted eighteen years ? And that is about as much as you are going to
get out of any asphalt street.It has been sealed once.
Ebbert - You are not going to get anything but the engineering on that this year?
McLanahan - We don't have monies,Mr.Ebbert,to go ahead with the construction of that unless we
provide some other source.There isn't money in the arterial street fund.
Waggener - I was going to comment that it would be obvious from looking at the water problems under
it that of course,weren't there,not totally,there at least,when the street was constructed.That we
had a choice of starting new,we would certainly never build the street the way it was constructed in
1954 or 1955 . Now we are at the pointwhere it is a quesUon of whether you can really afford to abandon
everything that's there and just totally tear it out and rebuild.It might be better to do considerable
patching and overlay work,as against rebuilding.
Boyle r One really bad year of breakup in '71 or 70,whichever it was,that really hurt it.Last year
wasn't that bad at all.
Waggener - One of the things,too,that we need to remember is that we get someone spoiled in terms
of the conditions of our streets in this area,and generally pretty good,and even those that we have had
some breakup on,with the exception of Division Street,have good ride-ability.Now,I just was on vaca
tion in the Southern Utah,,or Southern Idaho and into Utah,and gentlemen,you drive on some of the streets
that some of those old cities and it would make the streets in Moses Lake look good,including Division
Street.It is not as rough as some of the downtown streets in Idaho.
2126
V
ru'.
,,**;£:,££••••-"•--.•'-*•**•-•»'**(*:
Public Hearing,1975 Budget (Cont.):10 December 4,1974
Johnson -
McLanahan - Well, you remember last year we went in with McAtee and Heath and put in I think it
was less than $2,000 Just scrub-patching the street,so to speak.Just patching the bad spots that look
like they would break out from underneath if we didn't hit them.This is why youdidn't have break-up.
We didn'tput anything over ? .Some ofthe places were only halfand inch to 3/4 ofan
inch overlay. It was Just mainly smooting it out and preserving the street so it would last a little while
longer.And we did that forabout $2,000.Roughly,at today's prices,we are looking at around
$125,000 for just what I was telling you, to put in that 1,000 feet of drain line,to patch the street,
to give it a decent ride-ability and then put a twoinch overlay on it.We also,in doingthis design
are not planning on using a very hard type asphalt such as we used before.Something that won't get
as brittle.We will use an asphalt that is more flexible.Let me give you a perfect example of that.
In 1953,? the contractorgo caught in cold weatherand a blockand half betweenSeattle
Bank and Ash Street on Third Avenue,that block and a half,they used cold mix.Which is called an
MC product. It stays flexible year-round, and it is like an asphalt.If youwill notice that block and
a half as opposed to the rest of ThirdAvenue, you will noUce one large difference in crack reflection.
This asphalt is still working. Inother words, the traffic keeps working the asphalt together so that the
cracks do not develop.
Ron Baker- Just to reinforce what Mac said,I attended a conference on asphalt and one of the speakers
was a forest service representative and he said that they had extremely good luck with their mountain
logging roads that they pavedwitha similar mix that Mac is talking about. It is much more flexible and
it just works with loads..
Ebbert -More expensive?
Baker -No,suprisingly,it is a cheaper mix.
McLanahan -Everybody in this state,including the Washington State-Highway Department got carried
awaywiththat rigid asphalt.I don't know of anybody that - well, I do know ofa few that stayed with
the MC.
Gentlemen,item No. 4 - Third Avenue Resurfacing.This is approximately the same as I was just
talking to youabout Division Street with the exception that no drain lines are intended in this.This
was just strictly the resurfacingtwoinches of Third Avenue.Again,weare talking about approximately
$125,000construction cost at today's prices.We do not have moniesin the arterial street fund to do
these.I would hope before we use our monies for many more new capital programs,- I am speaking of
Valley Road right now - that we try to use our monies to save whatwe have already constructed. We know
we have got to tear Valley Road up, anyway. So if we could,I would certainly recommend to you that
we continue to patch Valley Road and we try and save our investment that we have in Division Street and
Third Avenue by resurfacing.
Item No. 5 - Penn Street Drainage and Paving.Three years ago we received an L.I.D.petition for the
paving of PennStreet and drainage.It is such a massive project,along with our urban arterial projects,
we did not wish or have the capability to ? . I went through briefly with you the other
night at the end of the session the Bureau's change of accepting the responsibility for the water that
is flooding that Penn Street area.This has been a complete about-face change in the last few months.
On two occasions I talked to George Neff,on both occasions he has accepted the responsibility that the
water is his,but says that the Bureau of Reclamationhas no legality for accepting liability for the water.
He suggests that we apply for federal aid,either through our congressmen,or possibly another source
would be through the Army Engineers.I hope in January,?~
We cannot proceed with the paving of Penn Street until the drainage problem is solved.And it is a massive
project.We aren't only talking about solving the problem on Penn Street,we are talking about a project
such as we talked about the other night.The Garden Heights drainage line.The people that lived on
Grant Street had problems,we went in for approximately $1500or so to put in a drain line to solve their
problems.I feel that it's got somereal good possibilities but we are going to need all the support from
the Council that we can get.
Skaug - Mac, in that water that comes down Penn Street, does it emergeout of one outlet up there further
or does it converge from a number places up'in there ?
McLanahan -It converges from the springs all through there.
Skaug - A spring?
McLanahan -Yes,I think that would be the best way to describe it.
n
CM
CJ
w
w
2J-2i ;.-'•:.}'
Public Hearing,1975 Budget (Cont.): 11
December 4,1974
Johnson - Any water that's causing any problems they don't want anything to do with,but if it isn't,
it's theirs.
McLanahan -Gentlemen,I feel that concludes the capital items.If there are any maintenance
items we can answer for you,I'll be glad to.If you will note that the Engineering Budget is tied
right to the capital improvements,we hope that the Engineering Budget will be reimbursed by the
capital budget by about 75%. There will be some general engineering costs incurred in the year,such
as making calendars,assisting different maintenance structures,assisting Park Department and so
forth,Police Department functions,that will have to come out of the general budget.The majority
of it will be coming through reimburseable items,water,sewer and street.
Boyle - One maintenance item,off the subject - Coming across Alder Street,coming this way to
town as you make the turn going down Broadway,there's a sizeable chuckhole developing.
McLanahan -This afternoon,late,or first thing in the morning,you will see a concrete saw
sawing that out,we have had enough of it ourselves.We have about five different patches,Mike
that we are going to catch,that being one of them.And we are trying to get them done today or
Friday,is because school is out,there won't be bus traffic.
Ebbert -Does Equipment Rental come under your category?
department?
Johnson -Me and you.
What's the two pick-ups for,what
McLanahan -'One of those pick-ups will be a Cushing pick-up.It will be used in the Park Department
probably.I was trying to persuade them to use a small Courier-Luv type pick-up to replace that Cushing,
but I think I lost the battle.The other pick-up is a pick-up to replace the one -the '65 Dodge that is
being used at the Sewage Treatment Plant at the present time.The pick-up has almost 100,000 miles
on it and it's still being used every day.I believe ?.
Waggener-I would like to say,Mac,in a little explanation of the Park Department's wishes on the
,Cushman, and perhaps yours as well.I'm sure Mac feels that the small sub-compact type pick-up
is going to be less expensive to maintain,than the Cushman motor-scooter type.There - on the
other hand -the Cushman from the Park Department's viewpoint is much more manuverable,much
easier to get in and out of,they use it for changing sprinkler heads.One step,and they are out to
plug in the sprinkler,they can almost plug them in on the go.Just grab a sprinkler and stop and lean
over and plug it in and go.So it's much faster for them then using a conventional pickup.
Ebbert -What will we do with the Police Cars that we are dis-manning.Are we trading them in,or
are they going to some other department,or what.
Waggener - We will either trade them in,or sell them.
McLanahan -Yes,as you will remember the bid,those were traded in.
Ebbert -What about the Airport,that is the only thing left.
Waggener - I think you have Airport, and Building Maintenance and Street Maintenance if you have any
questions on it.
McLanahan -Ron,did you have anything on the Airport Maintenance.
Baker - We are not expecting any real problems next year,due to the resurfacing.The maintenance
should be ?with the exception of the water well pump,which as you know,we have had
problems with in the past and the users in that vicinity expressed to the Council no desire to have a new
water system put in so they turned down the loan for that work,with the understanding that we may have
to do some maintenance on the pump to keep it in operation.
Johnson - Ron,is there any chance that we could
.-—?Biggers ?
—one of our people,like this guy
2122
—••">)i"
Public Hearing,1975 Budget (Cont.):12 December 4,1974
Baker-Biggers ^C^ZeU^^^^^quite some time - he introduced tuei into tne «•.«fillina up with that particular
f„r L^A^^*»rt °<the"—;
because these people have planes and they would muchJohnson-That's,what ?
prefer to be up here thanout there.
Baker -Well,as you may have noticed,right after the paving was complete,all of asudden there
were several airplanes tied back down out there.
Johnson -And they would like to stay right there.
Baker -Well,I'm not sure -
...„.,e _nt ?so it's kind of hardto press him.Johnson-Well,he's not .&w *i.
support to Biggers,I really don't have any hope right now -
Johnson -What would this entail?
Baker -Basically,we would have to carry him on the books for the fuel.In other words,we would bedoingthesamethingthatnormallythefuelcompaniesdo.
Waggener -There would be some serious question about our loaning our credit to aprivate individual
to do that.
Baker -Very true.We never have been In that business and Idon't see where we should be.
Ebbert -You going tobe able to keep the same manager?
Baker -Well,that Is up to the Council.We have approached the question of his contract,which is
renewable yearly.
Ebbert -He just isn't here any more,he is in CaUfomia mostly.
Ebbert -Is he paying Biggers to do that,because Biggers is doing all that work.
Baker -Well,Jackson had one of his Moses Lake Air Service employees doing aconsiderable amount of
that work.
Ebbert -You are not figuring on any hangars,or anything this year?
Baker -Well,at the present time,there are not funds available for hangars,there have been requests
from Biggers and others -
Johnson - Ihear this'all the time up there,but ?don't go forward about It.
that we reallydon't know how serious the intent is.
_».'£
'-cr'**)
,-?
n
OS
o
a est.-
2123
"Public Hearing,1975 Budget (Cont.):13 Decembers,1974
Waggener - I think another point,too, is that I don't see any reason why the City shouldextend it's
credit to help a private individual In his own business.If there is a need for ten or twelve or twenty
hangars, or whatever number. If the City were going to actually pay for them, then we mayas well
collect the rent and receive the revenue ourselves instead of simply be helping an individual
Ebbert -Well,I didn't even have Biggers in mind when I mentionedhangars.There are enough
people that want hangars,to - right now, rent them the minute that you build them. If the City wants
to go into the hangar business.Get some contractor or somebody else to go into the hangar business
and it would be well worth while-.
Baker - I would.certainly not recommend that unless these individuals were willing to commit them
selves in writing for a fairly long-term lease to off-set the cost of such a construction.I honestly
believe that many of these individuals -well,I'm not promoting it,they could go to Grant County at
a more reasonable rate,than I think what we would have to charge if we were to build new hangars.
Johnson-You talk about your advance,I think Mr.Biggers was talking to some people about building
the hangars, in other words, if they financed it he would see that they were filled...Hewanted enough
in advance,cash,? .
Ebbert ?•
maintenance ?Mac.
I just wondered if you have anything in mind.Who handles building
McLanahan -That's on Page 25,Building Maintenance.
Ebbert-29.
McLanahan - Okay.There are twoemployees that workin this division.Theyare also assigned a
pick-up.Their budget is pretty small.
Ebbert - You have two employees -janitors,is that it?
McLanahan -Yes sir.
Ebbert -To work in all the buildings ?
McLanahan- No sir,not all the buildings.They take care of the Public Works Office,Engineering Office,
McCosh,Central,the Police Station, City Hall and one treatment plant office.I believe also,I left out
the Museum and the Library.
Ebbert -That's a $9,000 job?
Gagnier -$9,000 including fringe benefits and overhead.
McLanahan - This includes about 25%fringe benefits.I believe,at this time,Mr. Ebbert their salary
is Just a little under $600 per month.
Ebbert -Do they do many actual maintenance to the buildings otherthan cleaning?They don't do any
repair work,do they?
McLanahan -Very little repair work. If there is any repair work done, we usually dothat through the
street crew or through private contractors,such as ? , Swartz, someone such as that.
Ebbert -Does that about sum it up?
McLanahan -Unless you have questions.
Waggener - I thirik,Mr.Mayor;we've been pretty rapidly,we've gone through the entire budget,I
would like some time with the Council in Executive Session tonight,and I would think after sometime
to review what has been presented,I think we should have at least one more budget hearing and review
everything and see if you have any additions orchanges that you would like to have us put In the budget.
If there are some specific questions tonight, of course,we would certainly attempt to resolve them.
2124
.
Public Hearing,1975 Budget (Cont.):14 December 4, 1974
Johnson - We should close the public meeting first,shouldn't we?
Waggener - Okay, and I guess I would suggest that any meeting that you have discussing the budget
be considered a public meeting.The open meeting law in effect does that anyway.
Johnson -This has been called to the press as a public hearing.
Waggener -My suggestion to you would be that rather than technically closing the public hearing tonight
you wait until another night, though, until you review perhaps the entire budget. I think I would have one
more opportunity for it to be a public hearing.
Ebbert - You want to extend this public meeting then until the final review.
Waggener -And I think that may be a date that you could establish next Tuesday evening,unless you
wanted to establish one now ,you have three people absent,which might make that difficult.So,rather
than recess it or continue it I think you might simply want to adjourn at this point,and you can set a
special meeting next Tuesday night,which we could advertise.
Ebbert -
Waggener - No, I'm sorry.Next Tuesday night you could set a special meeting date,I mean to say.
You have a regular meeting next Tuesday night.
Ebbert - Is that satisfactory?Okay,we'll declare the public hearing ? .
Meeting adjourned at 9:40.
i
sf(rf\
City Clerk,R. R.GagnL
MAYOR,Gordon M.Ebbert
ATTEST:
•*&