1975 04 222208
CITY COUNCIL MEETING -Regular Session April 22,1975
Council Room -City Hall 8:00 P.m.
Members Present:Councilman Robert Hill,Bill Moe,Michael Boyle,Gordon Ebbert,Don Swanson
and Otto Skaug.Councilman Norman Johnson was not present.
Mayor Ebbert called the meeting to order and called for approval of the minutes of the previous meet
ing on April 8,1975.Motion by Boyle that the minutes be approved as written.Second by Skaug.
Motion carried.
REGULAR BILLS ' AMOUNT PAID
GENERAL $10,201.67
STREET 650.08
ARTERIAL STREET 617.11
FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING 381.42
WATER/SEWER 4,523.83
1972 WATER/SEWER CONSTRUCTION 5,250.00
EQUIPMENT RENTAL 4,200.03
Motion by Moe that the regular bills be paid as presented.Second by Hill.Motion carried.
Warrant No's 2797 through #2878 in the amount of $25,824.14 were approved for payment.
911 EMERGENCY PHONE SERVICE
A letter was read from Police Chief Wayne C.Baker,stating that further consideration may be given
Moses Lake and other jurisdictions concerning the 911 emergency phone service for our area,and in
order to do so it is necessary that an application be submitted to Pacific Northwest Bell.
He requested authorization for the City Manager to sign the application for the City of Moses Lake.
It should be noted that this is an application and not a contract,and is necessary to indicate our
sincerity in order for the phone company to conduct further studies to be able to give each govern"
ment agency an estimate of the costs involved.
Chief Baker added that we had a series of questions to answer to Pacific Northwest Bell,which we
have done,and now they have requested a formal application in order that they can conduct further
studies.This application has been submitted to Warden City Council,the Warden Fire District
and after submission here tonight we will go to Rural Fire District and the Port District.
When dialing 911 it will ring in one central location and we presume it will be Moses Lake Police
Department,and it will cover the Warden Fire District,the City of Warden,the City of Moses Lake
and the surrounding area covering 'Rockwell 5 Exchangeand Rockwell 2 Exchange.We will dispatch,
either by direct radio with some,by hot line telephone with others and perhaps by standard telephone.
This will be part of the feasibility study that the telephone company will be conducting.
Mr.Lloyd Madison with Pacific Northwest Bell of Spokane was present as consultant for 911 Services.
He stated that 911 Services is a universal type emergency service.Chief Baker has been the instigator
for this and has done a tremendous amount of background work in order to come up the feasibility of
this working in the Moses Lake area.We are grateful for that,because we want to blend in with the
community and do what we can.'911*provides a common number for everyone in this area to be able
to know.It comes into a central answering agency and from that point that emergency is determined
as to who should react,and then that message is dispatched.It is a fantastic service for the community.
Eventually our entire United States will be involved in this.Also Governor Evans has declared that the
entire State of Washington will be involved in this sooner or later.To that extent Pacific Northwest
Bell is here to do what they can for the community.
Chief Baker added that his request is for.the Council to authorize the City Manager to sign the applica
tion on the city's behalf.We don't know what the costs are as yet,that is what the application is
all about.After submitting the formal application,they will come back to us with the costs.This is
just authorization to show them that we are sincere in our Intent and we would like them to run some
costs for us.
Motion by Boyle to authorize the City Manager to sign the application for the City.Second by Swanson.
Motion carried.Councilman Hill abstained for conflict of interest.
//?&
CONSIDERATION OF BIDS -WELL NO.31 TRANSMISSION MAIN
A letter was read from Jerry Fay,Public Works Director,stating that on April 2,1975 four bids were
received for the construction of a twelve inch water transmission main,connecting Well #31 to an
existing main at the intersection of West Broadway and Interstate 90.A tabulation of bids,including
the Engineer's estimate,is attached.The low bidder is DeBlasip Construction of Yakima,with a bid
of $114,012.15.This bid is $31,134.60 below the Engineer's estimate and $25,166.14 below the next
highest bidder.
Since the bid opening,Mr.DeBlaslo has submitted a written request to change his bid price for
Asphalt Concrete Pavement,Class "B",from $20 per ton to $35 per ton.It is my understanding that
his original price was based on square yards,as opposed to tons,as specified in the proposal.If
the price change is accepted,DeBlaslo's total bid would be Increased by $2,457.00 to a total of
$116,469.15.The Engineering staff has reviewed his bid and determined it to be satisfactory,with
the exception of the price for Asphalt Concrete Pavement,Class "B",which is low in comparison to
the price we used for estimating.
//(ad,
2209
City Council Meeting Minutes:2 APr11 22»1975
Cities where DeBlaslo Construction has completed similar work have been contacted,and all commentsreceivedwerefavorable,and recommend the City Council approve the price increase for the Asphalt i iConcretePavement,Class"B",and award the contract to DeBlaslo Construction.Also the approval J j
would have to be subject to DSHS Approval.
Hill inquired if It is permissible after bid opening to allow anyone a $2400 increase withoutthrowingoutalltherestofthebids?Jerry Fay responded that this is claimed as an error and it ispermissible.His bid price for the Asphalt was based on square yardage where the "P^^™""f1forpriceperton.We definitely were concerned about the fact that his bid was so much lower than the
others, andthis is why wewentintodetail in researching his bid.
Motion b«Boyle that DeBlaslo Construction be awarded the contract with the change for Asphalt ConcretePavement,Class"B"from $20 to $35 per ton,and also subject to DSHS approval.Second by
Swanson.Motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO.721 -PUBLIC HEARING -COMPREHENSIVE REZONE OF WESTLAKE (second reading)
\\^Ordinance No.721 was read In its entirety rezoning the former town of Westlake annexed by the CityofMosesLakeinGrantCounty,Washington on the 27th day of June,1972,changing thezoning from
,R-Is entirely to R-l,R-2, R-3, CM, HS,CRandPl.
Mayor opened the public hearing and explained the procedure of same.He then asked for comments
or questions of those in attendance.
Dick Cook 317 W.Broadway -Thought this area was unfit for human habitation and falls to understandwhyitshouldbezonedresidentialnow.Perhaps there is a reason that sewage can be taken care
of by other means,he added.
By use of a map showing the different zones Bob Kimball pointed put the various "nos for tiie Westlakeareaandinterpretedthemeaningofeach.Basically the the existing area where most of the singlefamifies£2TE^^^ll2iilna.R-l and M.Other areas are rezoned to accommodate suchJapartments,and then the Commercial areas.The land the Bureau purchased is a11 zoned P-l.Asfarasthesewageproblem,he added that the potential growth Is very small,and it can be pretty wellcontrolled.Again,depending upon the total development of the area.—-^
Jerry Fay,Public Works Director,added,that .ultimately you will have to look at central disposal ,systems for that area but at this time it Is economically unfeasible.But if development should occur |
we would have to look at it very seriously.
Dick Cook remarked that it would be possible for pollution to take place there with the drainage problem.
Jerry Fay added,that at this point in time it has been thoroughly tested by the Health Department forthesurroundingareafordevelopment,there is no contamination of the ground water or the Lake fromexistingsepticsystems,and this is something we willwatch very closely inthe future.
Jesse Gonzales -131 Sunrise.As far as the Bureau land is concerned,is there going to be any develop-m^ent ortoprolement on that land?I used to live out ther,and my folks still live there.All the Bureauareaisbeginningtobemoreofapollutionproblemthananythingelse,what with weed growth,etc.
Bob Kimball responded saying the Bureau will control that.They are doing some right now in the area.
But no future development is planned.
Mrs.Gonzales -#47 Davey Street.As far as the septic tanks,tes anything been done yet, oristhereanydefiniteplanforeithertheCityormaybetheindividualsinWestlaketodosomething
about it.Is the rezone for this purpose?
•Bob Kimball - -An ordinance effective approximately a monthago pertains to new systems only that vwouldbeinstalled.The zoning is only to control future development inan orderly fashion.Each ofthezoneshavedifferentuses,which in turn willaffectexisting development,other than residential,
to expand.
Leo Ruiz,1210 Arnold Drive.Will the zoning bring that property up to standard to bring inthe sewage
system that they need out there?
City Manager Chet Waggerier responded:There is perhaps some confusion here.Zoning allows the'construction of building of certain types on a piece of land.For instance Inthe R-2 zone it allowsaduplexandInanR-l zone It allows only a single family residence,etc.But the solution to thesewageproblemiscompletelyapartfromthezoning.That is a different kind of program that has no
relationship atall with how the land is zoned.
Therewere no further comments or questions from those In attendance.Therefore,Mayor Ebbert closedthepublicportionofthehearingandturneditovertotheCouncil.Also written protests had not been
filed.
Li
/i
City Council Meeting Minutes:3 April 22,1975
Otto Skaug asked Bob Kimball,Inspector,whether he was following the Bureau's intent to keep that
south side of the highway as per their agreement?Bob said they are.The State Game Department
is also taking part In the effort to keep it cleaned up.
Motion by Hill the Public Hearing be closed.Second by Boyle.Motion carried.
Motion by Moe to adopt the second reading of the ordinance.Second by Boyle.Motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO.710 -AND PROCLAMATION -SETTING SPECIAL ELECTION DATE
A letter was submitted by City Manager,Chet Waggener,stating the City Attorney,John Calbom,
has prepared the accompanying resolution and proclamation for the Council's consideration for
setting a special election date for Petition for Abandonment of the Council-Manager form of Govern
ment.The County Auditor requires a minimum of 45 days notification to set a special election.The
earliest date available for election would,therefore,be June 10,1975.
The Resolution and Proclamation were read in their entirety.The resolution authorizing the Mayor to
issue a Proclamation setting a special election date on Petition for Abandonment of the Council-
Manager form of government.
A letter was also read from Citizens for Improved City Government signed by Harold Hochstetter,
Richard F.Cook and Erna Lynn,wishing to request the wording in the resolution and proclamation
be identical to that of the petition.Namely,,"Shall the city of Moses Lake abandon the Council-
Manager plan of government and accept the provisions of the general laws applicable to the cities
of the third class."Yes or No."
The City Manager clarified this briefly.Mr.Calbom informed him in drafting the proposed resolution
and proclamation that is mandatory and that it is statutory language and It cannot be amended.
When the letter came today he checked with Mr.Peddycord,who is the election officer for Grant
County, and he concurred that that was mandatory language and could not be changed.It does
not really say anything substantially different than that which Is proposed in the letter in any event.
Probably the objection Is to clarify it so people can probably use simply "yes"or "no"at that point.
The rest of the title is mandatory and Mr.Peddycord stated he must use It.
Dick Cook stated that the thought behind submitting the letter is from previous experience where
a little change in wording means so much;could practically Invalidate that same thing.If that
language Is mandatory that is the way it should be,but we wish on behalf of the.1100 or 1200
petitioners to have it known that there is a difference and we are aware of it and that we have pro
tested this.
Mr.Cook certainly raises a valid point,responded Chet Waggener,and it is something one nee'ds
to be very concerned about in establishing a valid title.Actually,inasmuch as this terminology is
mandatory to change it from anything other than this language,could in itself invalidate an election
that was held.That is why it is very Important to stay with the mandatory language.
Bob Hill"asked Mr.Cook if he has any comment on the 'yes'or 'no'usage?Dick Cook stated the
'yes*or 'no'usage is more of a clarity and gives people a better ability to vote the way they want
to vote.
Motion by Moe for the adoption of the resolution as presented,and set June 10, 1975 as the date
of the Special Election.Second by Skaug.
Bob Hill stated it appears Mr.Peddycord intended -that 'yes'or 'no'and I would suggest we
approve the Resolution with the change from retain or abandon to yes or no.
Chet Waggener responded that Mr.Peddycord Is going to establish that as he sees fit in any event.
He Is the election officer and he is going to determine the terminology on that.
2210
/o/s
The question was called -Motion carried.
ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE -WASHINGTON STATE HIGHWAY DEPT.
MAIN.
WELL NO.31 -TRANSMISSION INF
Public Works Director,Jerry Fay,submitted a letter along with a franchise from the Washington State
Highway Department granting the City of Moses Lake the right to construct,operate and maintain
a twelve inch steel water transmission main on a portion of State Route 90.The water main is part
of the transmission line connecting Well #31 to the City water system.He has reviewed the franchise
and determined that it is suitable for acceptance by the City,and requested that the City Council
approve this franchise and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk sign on behalf of Moses Lake.
Motion by Boyle to accept the franchise and authorize-the City Manager and City Clerk to sign the
Franchise on behalf of the City.Second by Swanson.Motion carried.
2211April22,1975City Council Meeting Minutes: 4.n»inry~~*--»™--*•«"•11°™"•""•MMM"M«SHBBCT\*'a.«»,...~-1™.».w.«.-«•••ir/ssTbSS'aiw»'~si~'sss*'Zil-^^l^ol\T^J^^lTtm%granttornthe1973FederalHighwaySafetyAct-Section 205,PavementMarkingDemonstrationProgram.The$2,000isadirectcostandnon-reimbursableunderthegrant.AlsoIneligible,areEngineeringcostsofapproximately$1,000.Thisproject,bytheuseofplasticpavement-^>»«>"J«•^ISEME^oi.andproceedf!r!TtAepreparationofplans,specificationsandcostestimates.that will beprovidedfor bya fifth storage lane.MotionbySwansonthatauthorizationbegivenfortheCitytoenterintothecontract.SecondbyBoyle.Motioncarried.yHALLMARKLIFTSTATB3Nr^Cts^^1.Frontfootagechargesforconnectionstowaterandsewermains,byHostsofAmericaontheirownthirteenacres,wouldbewaived.>•^rrAmeracw«^^3SZw^&^EZ°fp—nt-403feetlon9-onMarinaDrtve-Thupaven,entwasdamagedduringconstruction of the gravity main.4.HallmarkInnagrees to install thefurnaceroomdamper.5.WhentheseconditionsareacceptedbyCityCouncil,apermanentoccupancypermitforHallmarkInnwillbeissued*MrHayestimatestheircostforthesesewerfacilitiestobemorethan$51,000.HostsofAmerica'smaximumusa*TwillTotexceed30percentoftheliftstation'sratedcapacity.HerecommendedthatCityCouncilacceptthe•^^^l^^^^^^l^^Swithin theremaining27acres serviced by thisfacility.Marr^fprrpdtoResolutionNo.181adoptedIn1959bytheCityCouncilgivingtheCitytherighttopro-wmmmwmmmrWhenHallmarkInnwasbuilt,theCitywasdoingalltheycouldtocooperatewiththeconstructionof HallmarkInn so that we would get a good job..mately$5l!u00testedFntnese*sewerfacilitiesforthe27acres,orapproximately$2000peracre.
u
U
City Council Meeting Minutes:5 April 22,1975
Since that time we have been negotiations with Mr.Hay,the new owner of Hallmark,for these facilitiesHemaTntalnsthateveryonethatdischargesIntotheliftstationshouldrerabursehimThisintolvesthl27acres.We maintain we will not maintain the lift station until It is acceptable to thec^v He does not have any emergency facilities set up as yet on the lift station.Consequently wehivenegotiatedwith*Mr Hay and hope this will be acceptable to the Council,because development£tni^rewin beheldTup until this is straightened out.If the City proceeds with the developmentoftheUftstaVlon,which is operating successfully to him right at the moment;he,doesn't need to doanvthlnatobringItuptotheCity's standards,but ifwe will go ahead,he will release all $51,000totoeCityofMsinvestmentplus$1000 of the Sun Basin Plat Permit fee,for the City to buy parts for^l^iZuonc<^Z^the stipulations set forth in the preceding letter.Then.the.people,Inthe27acreswillonlyhavetoreimbursetheapproximate$10,000 to the City,instead of the $51,000.Sis will te about $400 per acre which is fairly reasonable.Otherwise we will get no development In
the area.Also thinkthe City should controlthe lift station facility.
Motion by Hill to accept Mac's proposal and come back with cost figures to complete the lift station
to standards acceptable tothe City.Second by Skaug.Motion carried.
SANITARY LANDFILL -REQUEST FOR RATE CHANGE -SUPERIOR DISPOSAL
a litter was read from City Manager Chet Waggener stating that Gordon Meling dba Superior Disposal^^a^B^r^cS%^StsBTdW lindfill.He referred to Paragraph 5.2.60 of the Moses LakeMunS?Pal Codl setting forth the rates for private hauling and unloading "at the Sanitary LandfillSTrSinnMnfthebidspecificationsoftherewgarbagecontractincludedas a portion of Appendix C«PRO?OSE^^USE OI^ANCYIN PROCESS OF BEING ADOPTED.»This section i^^d tee "tetementthaithechargesforunloadingattheSanitaryLandfillwouldbedeterminedbyresolutionoftheCity
Council of the City of Moses Lake.
It is Mr.Meling's contention that the terminology included In section,14 of the new garbage contactLolledtohimthataratechangeattheSanitaryLandfillwouldbeforthcoming.He further contendsthat:his bidI was based on the present Landfill charges because he anticipated a change in the rate
structure.
Ordinance No.695 adopted by the City Council on April 23,1974 provided the:same>SanitaryJill«!£v^were Included In the Municipal Code.Itis because of these items that Mr.Melling now^&™JS^&W*2^the charges for disposal at the Sanitary Landfill In accordance
with his submitted proposal.
Superior Disposal requested rate Increase at the Landfill as follows:
$.50 each
1.00 per yard
2.00 each
.50 each
.75 each
10.00 each
Free
Passenger Cars
All Other VehiclesAppliances(stoves,Ref.,etc.)
Tires:
Car tires
Truck Tires (900 or larger)
Large Animals
Dogs &Cats
Mike Boyle commented that quickly glancing at Mr.Meling's proposed change In rate.fchedule.ItlooksliketheoneyouareparticularlychangingIsthepickuptruckorthistypeofvehicle.
Mr Meling was present and answered to that -when someone comes in with 4or 5^T^^9^'tap'truckhe pays 50$,and the next one will come with half a house on a pickup and he also pays only
5D$.Charging bythe yard would be more reasonable, and fair.
Bob Hill asked Mr.Meling If It wouldn't be advisable to give a weight regarding large animals.Mr.Meling Sid he was referring to acow or something like that,andwehaveo take care of themseparately.-Also he commented tires are a problem since they do not decompose.The last 2000 or
so we had hauled off,because we cannot burn them.
Motion by Hill to request administration to bring back an ordinance for consideration based upon
Mr.Meling's figures.Second by.Swanson.Motion carried.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME -REMOVAL OF WATER TANK -GRANT COUNTY AIRPORT
Aletter was read from Monte Holm for the HOD Company,stating that the ^WW™^*??0 acontractwiththeCityofMosesLakeonAugust20,1974 for removal ofa water tank underthecontactfor"Water Tank Painting and Repair -Schedule "B".The time of completion In that contractisMay11975WehaveheennegotiatingforsaleofthetanktosomeagencythatcouldputIttoao^d use,he stated.The tank hai now been sold to Coulee City.Their Engineer is now workingInplanfforfoundationspriortomovingthetank.To allow adequate time for moving of the tankrathe?than simply demolishing it,he requested an extension of time on this contract to September 1,
1975.
2212
/0/f
//^s
2^213
April 22,1975CityCouncilMeetingMinutes:b
viewpoint dortt see any problem with another four months.
jerry Fay commented that If we grant this extension we will have to make it contingent upon thefeetthatMr.Holm renew his bond;his bond expires August 4,1975.
Bob Hill lnaulred If we were to extend it until August 4 so he would not have to pay a.new bondingLeandtheq„mayli request a3-week extension if necessary to save him another bond?
Chet Waggener stated he did come Into the office to ask for ^^^^^f^
the August 4 day that he would have to extend his bond.
Motion by Skaug the request be granted with some provision as mentioned by Mr.Waggener.
Second by Hill.Motion carried.
REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION EV&T.TTATTON -Bin REND COMMUNITY COLLEGE
/VneToaW4T£s»^^^^
that area be separately incorporated."
Aletter was also read from City Manager Chet Waggener,stating that should the Council wish tonr^H-with a feasibility study,potential revenues,versus necessary expenditures would need to£verca efully^evalua ed We would need to investigate our obligation for providing full municipal^r^fcLtota cost of providing those services and the effect of annexation upon our municipal firefn^rance ratina There s^m to be several indeterminates at the present time regarding revenuesp™ally^InvoMng thrstltus of the housing area as regard to rental or sale of the property which
would then yield a property tax return.
Bob Hill stated,that Is one of the considerations the College should have taken into before they f"*^rthl decisionThere are actually three property owners out there,the Port District,U.S.i
Sov—^^have to have inthe way ofthe feelings ofotherproperty owners outthere?
Chet Waggener answered that the normal procedure on something like>this would be actually have apetitionResentedtotheCityrequestingannexation,and then at that time we woulcI conduct afeasibilitystudy.There would be quite a bitof effort involved to conduct the kind of feasibilitystudyhatwouldbemeaningfultotheCouncilon"which you could really base a decision,particularlybecauseoftheindeterminatesatthispointregardingthefutureofthehousingprojecl.I canunderstandwhatBBCCisconcernedabout,is before they start making any contacts with Peopleraarttac.a petition for annexation,toseeifthere is any possibility that in fact be effected by theCitv-i"it could befnancially reasonable for the City to do it.It is a difficult position;they wouldUtesome^formation and we would like to know if they are really serious about it before we spend
a lot of time getting that information.
If the housing were to be retained as public housing,I woUld assume that we f^«W consi^somekindofarrangementsuchasthePortcurrentlyhaswheretheypaytosupportthefiredepartment.IMt is so^and becomes private housing,then likewise would assume we would take full responsi
bility for providing fire protection at no cost payment,but we would be receiving property taxesThesamethingappliestostreetmaintenance.Those streets within the housing area,for example,are not currently dedicated.It would be my contention if we were to annex it that we would thennav^no responsibility for maintenance of the streets in the housing area and am sure they-wouldwantthemtobemaintained.If sold as private property,then undoubtedly,the streets would bededicate?for puWic streets and we would be expected to provide full maintenance of them.
There are a lot of variables here in working up any kind of feasibility analysis on it.Also we findourselveswtth?he problem right now,and the Council Is aware of the short time element that theDepartmenroiSocial&Health Services gives us to get these water projects under<contractOurF^aineerina Department would have to do much ofthe work ona feasibility analysis,and they are™i™^*t£^B™$L.and don't see in the next twelve months when they are not going to be.
If the Council instructs us to go ahead with such a study,the first thing we would have to determinewithG?ant County and General Services Administration is to find out what the future qf the housing
is really going to be.
Itis also obvious with the Port being one of the principle owners of the industrial pre>pertSr thatanvthlnowedidregardingafeasibilitystudycertainlyshouldincorporatethePortwiththatstudy.Do nomeln toTimffy they would necessarily be a part of the annexation,but they are definitelyfnvolve™They e^eive much of their financing for the fire department at the P™«^J*«**housingproject,ifthat is taken away from them,we would probably have to work out something
cooperatively with them for fire protection.
I
I
u
City Council Meeting Minutes:7 April 22,1975
Bill Moe inquired as to Dr.Wallenstien alluding to the former Larson Air Torce Base.What
exactly do they mean,the entire complex?They are not that specific.How can we make a
feasibility study based on something that really is not that specific.
Chet Waggener responded,stating,that is probably one of the things we would have to negotiate
with the owners that are out there to try to determine some indication of what area really would
be involved.That is the reason I originally stated it would be much easier,and would certainly
be the normal procedure to actually have a petition requesting annexation for a specific area.
Then we would have something tangible to work with.Also the college alone is not contiguous
to the corporate boundaries,which is a requirement for annexation.The annexation would have
to be instigated by the people or owners in that area and suggest that any annexation would
probably have to include the housing in order to incorporate property that woild make it contiguous
to the City.
Bob Hill inquired —Could it be an Island,like we have the municipal airport?Chet Waggener
answered that it would have to be contiguous.The only way there can be an island annexation
in the City is if the city owns the property.We were able to annex the airport because it is
under municipal ownership.If it were private ownership,we could not have done so.
Otto Skaug commented that it Is apparent Dr.Wallenstien does not speak for the owners out there.
I would suggest that rather than having a singular appeal,to see how widespread that particular
thought is there and have something come from them that does embody more widespread ownership
than just the college.
Mike Boyle commented that he would concur with Otto on that.I feel this would change the whole
procedure of possibility of annexation.I do not think we really could justify that from a stand
point of expense of a feasibility study until we would have presented to us either a broad concensus
of the people and of the ownership out there.
Bob Hill added,that possibly it might be wise to indicate to Mr.Wallenstien that we are interested
but that we want to await more direction as to which way the housing will go.
Chet Waggener suggested =Would the Council consider it appropriate for him to work with the
college and make some inquiries of GSAas to what their plans currently might be for the housing?
I am not sure if it's possible to determine that.They may not even know at this point.But perhaps
if we had a better idea of what is going to happen there,it would help making a decision.I still
concur,however,the City should not be in a position of instigating the annexation procedure,that
it should come as a request from the people In the area.
Mqtion by Skaug that the City Manager be instructed to relay this thinking of the Council to the
College Board, to let them know that we recognize the request,but will need more substantial
definite information.Second by Hill.Motion carried.
REQUEST TO AMEND FIRE ZONE ORDINANCE
A letter was read from.Russ Beeman,stating that an analysis has been made of our present fire zones.
Included in this was a study of the Fire Zones in neighboring communities,and a review of the grading
schedule for the Washington Survey and Rating Bureau.
The results of our analysis indicated that Fire Zone I encompassed an area larger than other cities
surveyed.It also showed that Fire Zone I is larger than present requirements dictate,and that the
Washington Survey and Rating Bureau is no longer primarily concerned with the possibility of a
conflagration.Their new schedules do not address structural conditions but grade the City's ability
to fight fires and provide required water flow.
Based on this information,he requests that the Fire Department be authorized to prepare for Council
consideration an amendment to our Fire Zone Ordinance,reducing the size of Fire Zone I.
The present West boundary of Fire Zone I is presently drawn at Marina and Commerce,with its East
Boundary drawn at Block Street.He recommended the West boundary be drawn at Dogwood Street and
the East boundary at Balsam Street.This reduction would be in line with present day trends for the
implementation of off-street parking and the development of shopping malls.The proposed reduction
would not decrease the effectuality of our Building or Fire Codes.Proper fire zone separation will
.continue to be met.A side affect of the proposed reduction could be the creation of a more liberal
economical picture for a developer.
Russ Beeman pointed out the different Fire Zones on the map,that of Zone I, II and III and indicated
the area encompassing Fire Zone I presently and area of Fire Zone I as proposed for reduction.The
area removed from Fire Zone I would be absorbed into Tire II,he added,and it would be advantageous
to shopping malls,etc.to provide off-street parking and more.economical construction requirements
in Fire Zone II.
Mike Boyle inquired whether this would have any effect then as far as going any further than a
Fire Zone II.In other words as far as into the residential or anything,.this wouldn't change or
2214