1976 07 202391
CITY OF MOSES LAKE
MOSES LAKE,WASHINGTON
CITY COUNCIL MEETING -REGULAR SESSION July 20, 1976
CITY HALL - COUNCIL ROOM 8:00 p.m.
Members Present:Bob Hill, Kent Jones,Bill Moe, Eric Skaug,Don Swanson,and
Jim Barney. Absent:Norm Johnson
Mayor Don Swanson called the meeting to order and called for approval of the minutes
of the last regular session held on July 13,1976.Mr.Moe moved that the minutes
\/be approved as submitted,seconded by Mr.Hill,and passed unanimously.
I.CITIZEN INPUT
Joe McCollough,Bruce Cowan,Director of the Washington State Mobile Home Dealers
Association,Jim Louvier,Department of Labor &Industries,and Frank Noel,State
of Washington Mobile Home Field Inspector stated that they would like to speak
on the factory built home ordinance.
II.CONSIDERATION OF BIDS
None
III.PETITIONS,COMMUNICATIONS OR PUBLIC HEARINGS
ARMED FORCES CARAVAN PROJECT
A letter from Dr.Robert L.Mason,Chairman of the Bicentennial Commission,//jT^?
requesting that Third Street between Division and Ash be closed to traffic
so that vans from the Army, Navy,Marine Corps, and Air Force, can
be displayed in this area, was read.
A letter from Jack Hatfield, representing the Retail Trade Division, supporting
this project, was read.
Mr. Hill moved that permission be granted for this display,seconded by Mr.Jones,
and passed unanimously.
IV.ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE -FACTORY BUILT HOMES
A letter from Stan Bech,City Planner,recommending approval of an Ordinance /€?<£>•/
for the placement of factory built homes on individual single family lots,was
read.
A letter from Robert Kimball, Building Official,stating that the requirements
in the Federal Register,Department of Housing and Urban Development for mobile
homes are less restrictive than in the Uniform Building Code,was read.
Mr.McCollough stated that there were people present to answer any questions the
Council may have on the differences between factory built homes and mobile homes.
Mr.Louvier stated that he was certain the Council was aware of the Creed case
in King County in which the judge ruled that any lot that was zoned for single
family residence could not exclude mobile homes.
He also stated that the Mobile Home,Commercial Vehicle Rules and Regulations in
the State of Washington (RCW 43.22.410)state that mobile homes meeting the
^—^requirements prescribed under RCW 43.22.340 shall not be required to comply with
any ordinance of a city or county prescribing requirements for body and frame
design,construction for plumbing,heating,or electrical equipment installed
in mobile homes.
2392
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 2 July 20, 1976
He stated that Section 280.303B in the Federal Register under Construction states
that all construction methods shall be in conformance with accepted engineering
practices to insure durable, livable, and safe housing, and shall demonstrate
acceptable workmanship reflecting journeyman quality of work of the trades.
Mr. Cowan stated that he had before him a case, in Grant County, where Kenneth
L. Bohne and his wife, placed a mobile home on a lot, which was zoned suburban
agriculture.He stated that the County challenged them and the court ruled that
it was a misuse of the police power to attempt to regulate a single family residence
from an area zoned for single family residences.
He asked the Council to note that nine million people now live in mobile homes
and that there are 85,000 in this state alone.He stated that many people buy
mobile homes because they are cheaper.
He stated that when the power of the right to regulate is being used, the courts
have said that the problem that must be considered is if the safety and general
welfare of the public is an issue, and if the answer is no, there can be an
accusation of misuse of police power. He stated that a city could apply square
foot restrictions which would apply to all homes.
He stated that the Mt.Laurel case was on land where the entire township had
ruled that there could be no lot less than 25,000 square feet. He stated that
the land in that area was quite expensive,and it was ruled by the Supreme Court
of the State of New Jersey that this discriminated against a number of
classes of people and prevented them from owning homes. He stated that the
court did not rule on the specific regulation but went to the total problem.
Mr. Skaug wanted to know if HUD requirements had precedence over the Washington
State Uniform Building Code. Mr. Cowan stated that HUD has jurisdiction over
the mobile home unit in its entirety.
Mr.Waggener stated that he thought there was some confusion on the court cases
cited and stated that the City Attorney could clarify it.
Mr.Acres stated that the the Bohne case in Grant County is on appeal and that
it dealt with a county ordinance dealing with the transport of homes from one
location to another. He further stated that the ordinance that was drawn up
for the Council would fully comply with the rulings of the courts.
Mr.Cowan stated that the ordinance in the Bohne case stated that a home could
not be moved onto a lot but that the case went much deeper than that.
Mr.Acres stated that he had talked to the prosecutor on this and it is his
opinion that the case deals with the transportation of the home.
Mr.Jones wanted to know if they were talking about factory built housing or
mobile homes.
Mr.Waggener stated that it is the contention that they are two different things,
and there is no quarrel with the statement that mobile homes must meet the require
ments of HUD and that HUD has,in fact,pre-empted any local authority from
setting separate requirements for construction of mobile homes.He stated that
he had found nothing in the Federal Register that,in itself,says that mobile
homes have to be allowed on a residential lot and this is the point of disagreement.
He stated that this ordinance is to establish regulations for factory built homes
that can go on residential lots and meets the Uniform Building Code.
Mr.Cowan stated that the city had the right to distinguish between mobile homes
and factory built homes but that it had no right to exclude them.
r
2393
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:3 July 20,1976
Mr.Waggener stated that the ordinance does not exclude,it simply regulates.He
stated that he had received a bulletin from the Association of Washington cities
with an article on the regulations of mobile homes.One thing that was noted in
it was the appreciation of conventional housing over the years and the exact
reverse of that happening with mobile homes.
Mr.Cowan stated that he was the former assessor of Walla Walla County and he
stated that he could not agree with that statement.He stated that it was true
\J that at the outset of the studies that it was felt there was a very heavy
depreciation and the state recommended such a depreciation.He stated that
concentrated sales studies were run and the mobile home did increase in value
and the life of the mobile home cannot be predicted as it has been.
Mr.Moe stated that the Bohne case did not involve the question of the mobile
home meeting the Uniform Building Code and wanted to know if the case in King
County did.Mr.Cowan stated that the question in the King County case was if
there was a code making mobile homes acceptable as residences and he stated there
was but it was the mobile home code and not the Uniform Building Code.
Mr.Acres stated that the Planning Department had checked on the Seattle
ordinance dealing with this subject and that the Seattle ordinance was remarkably
like the one being presented.
Mr.Waggener stated that the ordinance deals with factory built housing and that
the men representing mobile homes would like to broaden that to include mobile
homes.He stated that the original ordinance mentioned that a mobile home must
bear a state insignia from the Department of Labor and Industry showing compliance
with RCW 43.22.450.He stated that the only change in the ordinance was to
change mobile home to factory built home which was the intent of the ordinance.
Mr.Barney wanted to know the basic difference between the reguirements for a
mobile home and a conventional home as he had lived in a mobile home and found
it satisfactory.The chief engineer from Marlett Homes stated that he was not
up on the Uniform Building Code but wanted to know the procedure for getting
approval to build a home.He also stated that there are very stringent controls
on the manufacturing of mobile homes.
Mr.Jones stated that the plans for building are presented to the City and they
are approved or amended to meet the Uniform Building Code and that there is local
inspection.He stated that he was confused as to what the issue was and the fact
that control and inspection of these mobile homes does not seem to rest with the
city.
Mr.Cowan stated that because the mobile homes cross state lines,it was felt
that inspection should be federal.
Mr.Jones stated that the last comment he had received from the state was that,
if the mobile home comes out of the factory with Department of Labor and Industry
seal on it,local authorities have no control over the way it is built.He
wanted to know if the words in the ordinance were changed from factory built
housing to mobile homes what kinds of problems would develop,because the Uniform
Building Code requirements would still be there.
Mr.Waggener stated that there would be problems with inspection and there would
be no way of knowing if the mobile home met the Uniform Building Code.He stated
that the ordinance that was prepared provides for a stamp that states that the
factory built home does meet the Uniform Building Code.
i
u
2394
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:4 July 20,1976
Mr.Jones asked if the DLI stamp that comes on factory built housing —does that
mean that it meets UBC.Mr.Ferry answered,"that is correct".Mr.Jones
asked if the mobile home stamp that is a red color -if they came out with that
stamp would that meet UBC requirements?Mr.Louvier asked if he was referring
to the red stamp or the gold mobile home stamp?Mr.Jones answered that he was
referring to the red stamp -he understood that the gold stamp did meet UBC
requirements.
Mr.Ferry answered,"I better let Mr.Louvier answer that".Mr.Louvier asked
what red stamp Mr.Jones had.Mr.Jones answered that they had four stamps up
here.Mr.Louvier asked,"where did you get them".Mr.Jones said that the
stamps say "SAMPLE"on them,Sir".Mr.Lourvier asked,"when did you receive
that?",referring to the sample of stamps.Mr.Jones answered that they had them
for three months.Mr.Louvier turns around,and tells Mr.Ferry,"I gave those
to you for your use,and not to spread them around".
Regarding this mobile home ordinance,has our Dept.of Labor &Industries given
you input towards your ordinances?
Mr.Jones said that he was hearing his other problems and trying to get an answer
to his first question.I don't want to create any problems within your group and
my question should have been,"does a mobile home as is in your regulations meet
UBC?"Mr.Louvier answered,"not with that particular red seal on it1,to which
Mr.Jones replied,"thank you".Mr.Louvier continued,"it will under the HUD —
some of them".
Mr.Waggener requoted Mr.Louvierfs comment "some of them",that is the problem.
Mr.Barney asked what is distinguishing between them,that is what we are trying
to get at.
Mr.Louvier said that possibly the reason I'm here tonight is there has been
nothing but modular home input here without us in the Dept.of Labor &Industries
of which I am the Chief,over Gail,knew nothing about this until this explodes
here a few weeks ago,and we as officials can not give any imput,we are not
supposed to give any input into local municipalities and the making of their
codes.I ask again if any of our department put any input into this particular
code.
Mr. Waggener said he could answer that,and then he would like to follow up with
a question.The answer is basically "no",we inquired as to what each of these
stamps meant, we got input so far as that is concerned, as far as the ordinance
is concerned, it was drafted by City staff, we check with other cities to see
what they were doing.After we drafted the ordinance we referred to the City of
Seattle and found that they had come up with almost an identical ordinance
of their own volition. A second point that I am concerned about is that I see
a great deal of concern expressed Sir,on your part this evening (referring to
Mr.Louvier),in terms of whether or not there has been input that would have
adversely affected the mobile home industry. I also noticed when you came in
this evening that you are very well acquainted with everyone in the mobile home
industry and yet you check with no one on our City staff today.It is interesting
to me that input is given to an industry who is coming in representing their
own interest, but no input is apparently given to our staff to assist us.
Mr.Louvier said that they didn't have any input here and they had no idea
about what was happening here until about 4-5 days ago.
Mr.Waggener said that in those 4 or 5 days Mr. Louvier has had a great deal of
discussion with the mobile home industry but none with the City of Moses Lake.
He said he thought it was rather stange,it seemed to him that a couple of
representatives from the Dept.of Labor &Industries this evening are also
frankly virtually representing the mobile home industry.
n
I
2395
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 5 July 20, 1976
The ordinance allowing factory built homes to be placed on indiviual single family
lots within certain basic requirements was read by title only.
Mr. Jones moved that the ordinance be tabled,seconded by Mr. Barney.
Mr.Skaug stated that he felt the only thing being decided tonight was whether
or not factory built homes bearing the gold seal of the Department of Labor
and Industries meet the Uniform Building Code and that this ordinance should be
acted on.
Mr.Jones and Mr.Barney voted to table the ordinance,Mr.Swanson,Mr.Moe,
Mr.Hill,and Mr.Skaug voted no,and the motion was defeated.
Mr.Skaug moved that the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Moe,and passed
with Mr. Barney opposed.
ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION -SALE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY
A letter from Mr.Waggener stating that Richard and Verla Massey have offered
to purchase Lot 23,Garden Heights Addition #2 for $1,750,was read.
The resolution authorizing the sale of real estate to Richard Glenn Massey and
Verla Merkley Massey,husband and wife,was read by title only.
Mr.Hill moved that the resolution be adopted,seconded by Mr.Jones,and passed
unanimously.
The ordinance providing for the conveyance of certain lands of the City of Moses
Lake pursuant to resolution heretofore entered,was read by title only.
Mr. Hill moved that the ordinance be adopted, seconded by Mr. Jones, and passed
unanimously.
RESOLUTION - A GIFT FROM JAPAN AIRLINES
A letter from Cecil D. Lee,Park and Recreation Director, stating that Japan Air '
Lines has donated materials for the construction of a backstop at Lakeview Park,
was read.
The resolution accepting a gift of good will and understanding from Japan Air Lines
in the form of materials to construct a backstop at Lakeview Park, was read by
title only.
Mr. Skaug moved that the resolution be adopted, seconded by Mr. Barney, and
passed unanimously.
V.REQUESTS TO CALL FOR BIDS
SO/Q
A letter from Jerry Fay, Public Works Director, stating that the street resurfacing
project was established in the 1976 budget to level,seal,and overlay selected
asphalt streets and requesting authority from the Council to advertise for bids,
was read.
Mr. Fay informed the Council which streets would be resurfaced.
Mr. Hill moved that permission be granted to call for bids,seconded by Mr.Skaug,
and passed unanimously.
/OVO
2396
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:6 July 20,1976
VI.REFERRALS FROM COMMISSIONS
Jj A letter from Stan Bech,City Planner,recommending that final approval of the
\)v Aeck plat be granted,was read.
Mr.Jones moved that the final Aeck plat be approved,seconded by Mr.Barney,and ('
passed unanimouslv.
1
|3>
rf
passed unanimously.
VII.OTHER ITEMS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
A letter from M.G.McLanahan,Assistant Public Works Director,stating that
Western Cold Storage has petitioned the City of Moses Lake for the vacation of
that portion of Elm Street located northwest of Broadway,was read.
Mr.McLanahan explained the vacation procedure to the Council.
Mr.Hill moved that a resolution be drafted to vacate Elm Street,seconded by
Mr. Jones, and passed unanimously.
VIII.COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Mr.Hill asked Jerry Fay if it is railroad or City responsibility to fill in
between the track where West Broadway and Milwaukee Road cross.Mr.Fay stated
that it is not City responsibility but that he would check on it.
IX.CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
The Financial Report Year to Date as of June 30,1976,was presented to the
Council.
Mr.Waggener then stated that the Council had requested that the City staff make
P^r0 a rate analysis of Mr.Meling's request for increased rates for the collection of
y)garbage and also,that the City should try to work out the landfill problem with
the County.
Mr.Waggener stated that there had been a few problems with the rate the County
wanted to charge and that another meeting was being held on Wednesday,July 21,
1976, to try to work out the differences.
Mr. Waggener stated that Mr. Gagnier had a report on the rate analysis of the
proposed increase in garbage collection rates. Mr. Gagnier went over the report
with the Council and stated his conclusion that the costs were quite accurate.
After some discussion of the proposed garbage rates and the landfill problem,
the Council decided not to act until after the meeting with the County officials
and to consider the results at the next study session.
The Council was advised that the study session for Thursday night could,not
be held in the Council chambers because of the regular Planning Commission
meeting.It was decided that the staff would check on a possible meeting place
and inform the Council members.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Donald E.Swanson,Mayor
ATTEST:
s7&67<&
R.R. Gagnier, City C
n