Loading...
Minutes - 2000 - City Council - 07/11/2000 - RegularORiGiNAL EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 11, 2000 PRE-COUNCIL AGENDA: 6:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. 1. Ada County Sherif£s Office -Sgt. Ron Freeman will present the monthly report for June. Sgt. Freeman distributes the monthly report to Council and discusses the same. General discussion. 2. Trisha Nielson will review and discuss the language proposed to update the City of Eagle's Area of Impact Agreement with Ada County. Trisha distributes copies of the existing ordinance and a draft ordinance and discusses the same. General discussion. 3. Review and Discussion of Strategic Annual Goals: Council discusses FY99/00 Strategic Annual Goals and new goals for FY00/01. 4. City Attorney Report: Moved to end of Agenda 5. City Engineer Report: Moved to end of Agenda 6. City Clerk/Treasurer Report: Moved to end of Agenda 7. Zoning Administrator's Report: Moved to end of Agenda 8. Mayor and Council's Report: Moved to end of Agenda REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA: 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: Bastian, Merrill, Sedlacek, Guerber. Bastian is absent. A quorum is present. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 4. CONSENT AGENDA: · Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Mayor, a Council Member, member of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be placed on the Regular Agenda in a sequence determined by the Rules of Order. · Any item on the Consent Agenda which contains written Conditions of Approval from the City of Eagle City Staff, Planning & Zoning Commission, or Design Review Board shall be adopted as part of the City Council's Consent Agenda approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise. A. Claims Against the City. B. Minutes of June 13, 2000. C. Minutes of June 16, 2000. D. Minutes of June 20, 2000. Merrill moves to remove Items 4B, C and D from the Consent Agenda and approve the amended Consent Agenda. Seconded by Sedlacek. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES... Merrill moves to amend the Agenda to add as Item #8F. Council consideration of a wireless facility. Seconded by Sedlacek. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ..................... Sedlacek moves to amend the Agenda to add as Item #8G. Schedule a joint meeting on August 2, 2000, with the Park & Pathway Development Committee. Seconded by Merrill. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES .............. 5. FINAL PLATS: None 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. Transfer of property documents from Edge Development to the City of Eagle. (SEB) Mayor introduces the issue. Buxton: I have been working with Drainage District #2 and Edge Development. The issue now is payment of the remainder of Drainage District #2's attorney's fees. I will not be attending the July 18, 2000, meeting. I would request that this matter be continued to a meeting in August. General discussion. Guerber moves to continue this matter to the August 8, 2000, City Council meeting. Seconded by Merrill. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ........... 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CU-3-00 - Two - Two Story Office Building Height Exceptions - Dennis M. Baker & Associates: Dennis M. Baker & Associates, represented by Dan Torfin, is requesting conditional use approval for two 41.5-foot high building entry features which are proposed for the screening of the roof-top mechanical units. The site is located on the west side of South Rivershore Lane within Channel Center Subdivision at 599 South Rivershore Lane.(WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Mayor opens the Public Hearing Rick Hunter, 2874 E. Park River Dr., Architect for the property. Displays an overhead of the elevations and discusses the same. Vaughan: Displays an overhead of Channel Center Subdivision and discusses the location of the two office buildings. Displays an overhead of the elevations and discusses the same. Planning and Commission recommended approval. Staffrecommends approval with conditions. Discusses the additional conditions of approval as recommended. General discussion. Mayor: No one has signed up to testify and no one from the audience wishes to testify. Mayor closes the Public Hearing Guerber moves to approve CU-3-00 Two - Two Story Office Building Height Exceptions as proposed with the guidelines set down by Planning and Zoning and Design Review. Seconded by Merrill. Discussion. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............... B. CU-5-00 - Height Exception Request For 42-Foot High Poles And Safety Netting At Banbury Meadows Golf Course Driving Range Banburv Meadows, LLC: Banbury Meadows, LLC, represented by Cornel Larson, is requesting conditional use approval for the addition of twenty four (24) 42-foot high wooden poles and safety netting along the north and east sides of the driving range at the Banbury Meadows Golf Course. The site is located on the west side of Eagle Road approximately V2-mile north of Chinden Boulevard at 3023 S. Eagle Road. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Buxton: Mayor and Council need to declare any ex parte contact with the applicants or the public. Sedlacek: I need to declare ex parte contact with a Mrs. Edmark and another lady whose name I can't recall. Also, when I was out looking at the poles I had a discussion with Mr. Phillips and Mr. Hoff. Merrill: I have had phone calls from the public and meet with the Mayor and Staff at the site and I have had contact with Mr. Hoff and the architect on the project. Gu~ber: I have had two phone calls, one from a Mrs. Reece and I cafft remember the name of the other person. Mayor opens the Public Iq[earing Dick Phillips, 210 Murray Street, Discusses the need for a Conditional Use Permit and discusses the height of the poles. There was a Meeting on April 11 and we thought after that meeting that everyone was in agreement. Discusses the East ~d of the property adjoining Mr. Dillard's property and the agreement. Displays an overhead of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Banbury Meadows Subdivision, distributes copies to the City Council, and discusses the same. Discusses the poles on the North side. General discussion. Mayor: I'm wondering if we are getting off track here. Buxton: The Conditional Use permit is solely for the height exception of the poles. Vaughan: I believe it is acceptable to discuss the ascetics with the height of the poles. General discussion. Vaughan: Provides Council with an overview of the project and the Conditional Use Permit and displays overheads. Planning and Zoning denied the application for the height exception. General discussion. Mayor swears in Morgan Masner Morgan Masner, 3168 S. Whitepost, The Council has an opportunity tonight to determine a body of evidence and body of compliance. What you are going to say to the community is that when there is a planned unit development and we require certain conditions and come to certain agreements that is what we expect and that is what the public has a right to expect or you are going to say we have this and it is approved but it is okay to come back later if things don't work out for you and the public has no right to expect that what was approved in the beginning will be the way it is going to be. This is very critical. This is the deal that the City accepted and this is the deal the neighbor signed. What you see here is four poles on the North Side. We don't have four poles, there are more. The poles are in a straight line. Discusses the limited flight golf balls. This is the deal and the limited flight golf balls have not been tried. I have walked the road for two weeks to see if there was a problem. I have found three golf balls in two weeks. We have had no one injured and no complaints. It has yet to be proved that this is necessary. Mayor swears in Keith Watson Keith Watson, 260 W. Oak Hampton, this is on the ninth fairway. I oppose the poles and the netting for the fact that they are really ugly to look at. ! take some exception with Mr. Phillips on the CC&R's and his description of the meeting that was held in April. These poles are a utility and there is an ordinance in the City of Eagle against utility poles. There has not been one hour that this range has been closed so I conclude that there really is not a safety or liability factor. Mayor swears in John McCreedy John McCreedy, Attorney, 1275 Shoreline Lane, Boise. I did represent Mr. Dillard when we negotiated the Agreement in 1995 and did appear in front of the City Council during that period of time. Let me address two procedural issues where I differ respectfully from the advise you have been given by your City Attorney. First: You do not have the discretion to combine the elements you have to consider on a Design Review application with the elements you might have to consider on the CU application. No body of law or anything in your Code that says you can't combine them, that you must keep them separate. It seems to make practical sense to combine them. The issues are quite related and separating them puts you in a straightjacket and imposes some mechanical requirements which may limit your ability to reach a good decision. Two: Even if you don't combine them I'm not sure the proper procedure is in place. What you have here is a 1995 Agreement signed by the Dillards and signed by Banbury Meadows. The agreement was presented to the City Council. The City Council approved the agreement and incorporated that agreement into the approval of the Planned Unit Development. The applicant now wants to change the agreement. The applicant is essentially asking to change the Planned Unit Development. This is a modification of the Planned Unit Development which requires both due process, public hearing and etc. My goal is to convince you that all of the issues are properly before you and that you can consider them. There are two main points that I would like to make for the Dillards. The first is that the site plan agreed to has not been implemented. The second is that if we want to modify the site plan, do deviations from the site plan, then we need to obtain the consent of the Dillards to do that. This is the note in the agreement: Owner's will use regular flight golf balls. Ifa problem arises limited flight golf balls will be used. Here is the language that we can use tonight to get where we need to go if we decide that is what we want to do: Or a mutually acceptable alternative. Mutually acceptable to who? The Dillards, the golf course owners and developers and probably the City Council because they approved the agreement. The Dillards have had a hot and cold relationship with the golf course developers. On cc~tain issues they have met and they have worked things out and on certain issues they have not worked things out. They did try to work things out on the netting issue and it wasn't until tonight that we heard a proposal that is more in keeping with what the Dillards would like to see and is a little more consistent with the agreement. I would like to make a couple of comments, the first is on the issue of limited flight golf balls. I want for the record to have the Council know that Crane Creek uses limited flight golf balls. Second. I agree with the comment that they did not stick with the original plan for the length of the tee area. That tee area as I understand it is quite large compared to most golf courses. So they have the ability to move the tees way back, to move the tees to the middle, they have the ability to move the tees way up. I think they have some room to maneuver there. As I understand it that tee area is approximately 75 yards, our suggestion would be a tee area of approximately 40 yards. For the record I want to let you know that the Dillards were not invited to the meeting in April. So whatever informal agreement or possible agreement was struck off the record in April, the Dillards did not participate in that discussion. If the golf course is unwilling to use limited flight golf balls then the deal that was struck requires us to come to some mutually acceptable altemative. So you do not get the impression that the Dillards are unwilling to work on the issue, I want to give you their suggestions. Their suggestions are: 25' high metal, green poles set on concrete foundations or pads on the East end of the driving range, which is the Dillards side of the driving range; nets 25' high, in other words nets strong to the top of the poles with no significant sag in between the poles, we are willing to work with the developer on the number of poles, we would want the bare minimum number of poles to keep the net from sagging; light colored nets not dark, the reason being that the dark nets tend to obscure the view more, and regardless of the covenants and restrictions, those covenants and restrictions don't bind the Dillard property because the Dillard property is not within the Banbury Meadows Development and view was one of the things that was a major consideration; no wooden poles any where on the driving range. All the wooden poles that have been installed need to come out. They are unsightly. Mr. Phillips suggested that they would need to leave two wooden poles on the end of the south side of the driving range and the end of the north side of the driving range and those metal poles would be necessary to anchor the net. I don't see a need for those wooden poles to anchor the netting. Some operating conditions that would probably ease the situation: limit the tee to 40 yards not 75 yards, when the prevailing winds are to the east from the west and they are 10 miles an hour or more don't allow the golfers to get up to the front of the box. Staggering on the north side is what the deal calls for. The height of 20 to 30 feet seems more than adequate on the north side and the Dillards would request no poles all the way around. Distributes three documents to the Council, Dillard Exhibit A, B and C. These are the letter agreement that was signed between the parties on June 7, 1995. It essential says that the site plan will be presented to and approved by the City Council. I have provided to you the meeting minutes from 1995 where the City Council approved and incorporated the Dillard agreement. Mayor swears in Molly Schneider Molly Schneider, 856 W. Ashbourne Dr., I am opposed to the poles because they are truly unsightly. If safety was truly an issue ! would prefer landscape screening as has been done on the southern portion of the driving range. If the golf club needs netting for safety I would propose the standard 35' height with metal poles also landscaping on both sides of the northern fence line. Mayor swears in Jack Taylor Jack Taylor, 3533 N. Hull Drive, I am here to represent an entity that is not being represented tonight, which is the general public. About a month and a half ago my wife and I went to Banbury to hit some golf balls, as we were leaving we were leaving on the north side and I heard a loud bang and I stopped immediately and I heard a golf ball hit the pavement and bounce down the road. I got out and looked at the side of my car and there is a significant dent in my car. My car is in the parking lot if you would like to look at it if you are interested. I went back to the club house and I talked to the gal at the desk. Clint called me the next day. My concern there was not the car being damaged it was the fact that my wife nearly died or was physically impaired due to this golf ball. The first thing I said to Clint was that you guys need to put up the nets. Clint responded that they couldn't and gave me a short review of what was going on. That is the reason I am here. My only concern is the general public. I took some pictures of my car. Distributes the pictures to the Council. I put an orange dot where the golf ball hit. There is potential injury out there and I personally think that if we continue to drag our feet on getting the screens installed somebody is going to get hurt. Somebody can get killed or become vegetable. Another 6" and my wife could have been dead. General discussion. Mayor swears in Dave Edmark Dave Edmark, 3058 S. Whitepost, There are two issues here. One is safety. There does need to be netting and they need to use limited flight golf balls. This is a business it is not a park. Safety issues need to be take into consideration. There are things that need to be there when you put a driving range next to roadway, probably a mixture of netting and low flight golf balls. The next issue is ascetics. This if big. Over 900' long, proposed 42' high. As you come down the hill this will be a predominated feature that you will see as you enter Eagle. Distributes handouts to the Council. I would ask that people do what they agree to do. The original agreement had 5 poles stretching 150' along the northern edge. We now have 20 plus poles going almost 900'. The original agreement was for 20-30' poles along the roadway with a berm to the south of that. Now they have put 42' on the south side of the berm. There are other alternatives. I am asking the Council to enforce the agreements that were done. Mayor swears in Walt Gann Walt Gann, 821 Windmere, Boise. The issue of the netting I do have a vested interested in this. I own 28 lots and single family residence on the entire north side of the netting. I am in the process of selling the homes. I was aware from day one what the developer was doing, I was aware of the 1995 agreement along with the homeowner's that are buying from me at this time. I think the developer did a tremendous job on the golf course. Experts and engineers are guiding them in the right direction. You do need to address this right away. I have had two near misses with construction people on site. One with a six year old girl. It missed her by about two feet. When I say this this isn't 150 yards down it is all the way down to the end of the project towards Eagle Road. This does tell me that there is a consideration of height. I'm not an expert but I do rely on the people who have worked on the project for five or six years to tell me what is right. It is probably not in my best interest to have those nets up there but they have a driving range and we have to live with it and I am aware of that. It goes back to the issue of liability and I think the City should remember that this is a City street and we are going to have major problem there is you don't do something or act on this immediately. Mayor swears in Debra Svedberg Debra Svedberg, 1640 Joplin Lane, Meridian. I adjoin the west end of the subdivision. I live almost a mile away and I can see the poles that are up from my home. I feel that whatever you approve today could be action for future netting. Something needs to be done to help the people in their cars. If the poles are going 42' they should do something about the planning of making a driving range in the first place, not just putting it there because they want to squeeze it in. Dick Phillips, applicant. Every phase of a subdivision comes back for another approval and I this is just another phase of the driving range. I look at this as just another approval. The metal poles along the river at Warm Springs and those metal poles are 15' height with a staggered net, however the net around the driving range at Warm Springs is 50' high. The nets around the driving range at Shadow Valley are also 50' high. There must be something about that 50'. This map is relaying generally to Mr. Dillard's property. We didn't think that an agreement to be made would carry clear to the West end of the property. We understood we were talking about this area. As you can see there is only a portion of the driving range drawn on this map along the road with these berms. The other berm is not completed and that shows there is more that carry's on. The map which they related to says 20-30' high netting along the road. The road runs the full length of the driving range. It doesn't say for 100' or 150'. It was always our understanding that if netting was going to be put in it would be put in along the road and along the driving range. General discussion. We didn't mean to blindside Mr. McCreedy and Mr. Dillard by coming in and saying that we were agreeable to the 25' high metal green poles that George, Harvey and I talked about ten days or two weeks ago. We just figured out in the last couple of days that it was workable and we could do it. If it is the wish of this Council and acceptable to them we will do that. We want to continue with the wooden poles on the North side and have them 42' in height. For some reason if this Council says 42' is not going to work they have to be 35' were going to cut them off to 35' and put the netting up and we are going to feel that we did everything we could do for the safety of the traffic along the street because that is the highest poles we could put up. We would really like to have 42'. The CC&R's of Banbury Meadows do not apply to the Dillard's property. It is the applicable law, the three case laws that apply to the Dillard's property. General discussion. Dave Edmark, I have a question. Are the poles approved on the entire north side of the development? 900'. The original plan only has 150' of poles shown on it. They now have 24 poles stretching 900'. Vaughan: The poles were not addressed. It is my understanding is that the poles specific types were not addressed w/th the PUD or the Dillard agreement. They are shown as black dots on the plan. Guerber: In the agreement with Mr. Dillard is it drawn to scale to indicate where the poles would go? Dick Phillips: The drawing is basically to scale and is a freehand drawing and is not of the entire driving range it is just that specific area. It is not necessary to draw the tee box on the driving range. Had it been drawn the line of poles would have drawn the entire way. The feeling of the drawing is just what it says, 20-30' high netting along the road. The road runs the entire length of the driving range. Merrill: In your file do you have a copy of the approved landscape design from the Design Review Board? Are the poles addressed in the landscape for the PUD? Mayor swears Cornel Larsen in. Cornel Larsen, 210 Murray St., Boise. You have a full landscape plan on the golf course but it was probably submitted after the PUD application because the golf course PUD application was done without all of the construction detail at that time. Since that time the Design Review Committee did look at and review the plans for the golf course. Displays an overhead of the landscape plan for the golf course and discusses the same. Poles and netting are not shown on this landscape plan. John McCreedy, Attorney for Dillards, Netting and poles were not approved except as set forth in the Dillard agreement. What they got approved after the fact I don't think they have demonstrated here tonight that any of the poles were ever put on a plan and formally approved and certainly not in the context of a public hearing with due process. I disagree with Mr. Phillip's interpretation of the phase "high netting long road". Two points regarding interpretation of conlracts. Plain language of the contract controls. It says high netting along road and the only road possibly shown is the little bit of stretch of road adjacent to where the netting is shown. If he wanted to say high netting along entire road then he should have put the word entire in but he didn't. The plan was drafted by the owners and developers of Banbury Meadows so if it is ambiguous it gets construed against them. The only netting ever approved was the netting shown in the agreement. That is the deal. When they installed the 42' wooden poles they did so in violation of the City's approved plans. Those poles as they sit right now are in violation of the approved plans. Mayor closes the Public Hearing Merrill: The questions is were the poles and netting approved with this application. I would like staff and City Attorney to advise us. Buxton: I am at the present time going the files on this issue. I would request that I be given the opportunity to look at all of the files in regards to this issue and would request that this matter be continued to your next regular scheduled meeting. General discussion. Sedlacek moves to continue this matter to the July 18, 2000, meeting. Seconded by Merrill. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ................. Mayor calls a recess at 9:40 p.m. Mayor reconvenes the meeting at 9:55 p.m. 8. NEW BUSINESS: A. Destination 2020 - Regional Transportation Plan for Ada County: (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Charles Trainor with Compass discusses the Destination 2020 Transportation Plan. We are seeking adoption of this plan. Updates are done every 3 to 5 years. Provides Council with an overview of the street classifications. People are moving to West Ada County. Discussion on the Long Range Highway and Street Map. Discusses Beacon Light Road. This was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission two weeks ago. Discusses their recommendations. General discussion. B. Ordinance No. 371- (A-2-00 & RZ-1-00): An Ordinance Annexing Certain Real Property Situated In The Unincorporated Area Of Ada County, Idaho, And Contiguous To The Corporate Limits Of The City Of Eagle, To The City Of Eagle, Idaho; Established The Zoning Classification Of Said Real Property; Directing That Copies Of This Ordinance Be Filed As Provided By Law; And Providing An Effective Date.(WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Guerber moves, pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 50-902, that the rule requiring Ordinances to be read on three different days with one reading to be in full be dispensed with, and that Ordinance #371 be considered after being read once by title only. Guerber reads Ordinance #371 by title only. Seconded by Merrill. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ................. Guerber moves that Ordinance # 371 be adopted. Seconded by Merrill. Merrill: AYE; Sedlacek: AYE; Guerber: AYE: ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES .................... C. DR-20-00 - Two - Two Story Office Buildings - BB One: Per City Council request, all Design Review Applications are to be appealed by the Zoning Administrator to the City Council for their review prior to the approval of an application beingfinal. BB One, represented by Phil Hull with The Land Group, is requesting design review approval to construct two 29,800-square foot two story office buildings. The site is located on the west side of Rivershore Lane within Channel Center Subdivision at 599 South Rivershore Lane (a portion of Lot 3, Block 1 and Lot l, Block 1 and all of Lot 2, Block 1). (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Gnerber moves to approve DR-20-00 Two - Two Story with Site Specific Conditions as set out by Design Review. Seconded by Merrill. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES .................. D. DR-11-98 MOD - Proposed Poles and Safety Nettine within Banburv Meadows Golf Course - Banburv Meadows LLC.: Per City Council request, all Design Review Applications are to be appealed by the Zoning Administrator to the City Council for their review prior to the approval of an application being final. The applicant is proposing to install poles and safety netting along the east end of the driving range and along the north side of the driving range that are 42-feet in height. Per Eagle City Code the maximum height is 35-feet unless a conditional use application is approved by the City. On April 21, 2000, the City received a conditional use permit application requesting a height exception for the poles. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Guerber moves to continue this matter to the July 18, 2000, City Council meeting. Seconded by Sedlacek. Discussion. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............... E. Review and Discussion of the AIC Conference: (RY) Mayor introduces the issue. Mayor I have a list of items to consider: 1. National League of Cities membership. Next years budget. 2. Youth on committees. I would like to get a copy of Boise's resolution or ordinance. 3. Asset building. Process where students fill out a survey. Has to do with America's Promise. 4. Drug testing. 5. Human Rights Task Force. General discussion on the AIC Meeting. F. Council Consideration of wireless facility. Paul Hoffman, W & H Pacific Engineering, representing US West Wireless. We have made an application to make a text change to the wireless service to facilitate a co-location of antennas. That is not the subject of this particular discussion, I wanted you to be aware that we are working with the staff on the exact language. We found ourselves in a position because of the recent annexation of the property that we are now going to be delayed in getting that particular site operating assuming the application is approved for that site. It was in the County and their code allows for co-location of equipment. Distributes handouts to the Council which shows what the permanent site would like and the temporary tower on the flatbed trailer. We started this over a year ago. Discusses the need for a temporaw tower. General discussion. Guerber moves to allow, on a temporary basis, the location of this facility at the High School while the City Council considers an ordinance change which would allow the facility on a permanent basis. There is no indication that this a permanent allowance, it is in fact tied to the final decision of the City Council on that ordinance and it would be allowed until that decision is made by the City Council. Seconded by Merrill. Discussion. TWO AYES: ONE NAY: MOTION CARRIES ............... G. Scheduling of Joint Meeting with the Park and Pathway Development Committee. Guerber moves to schedule a joint meeting with the Park and Pathway Development Committee on August 2, 2000. Seconded by Sedlacek. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ......... 9. £X£CUTI¥£ $£$$10!~: A. Personnel Issues: I.C. § 67-2345 (a) or (b) Sedlacek moves to go into Executive Session for the discussion of personnel issues and threatened litigation. Seconded by Merrill. Merrill: AYE; Sedlacek: AYE; Guerber: AYE: ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ................. Discussion on personnel issues and threatened litigation. Council leaves Executive Session. REPORTS: City Attorney Report: Discussion on United Water Agreements and related issues. Discussion on Hormachea well. City Engineer Report: No report City Clerk/Treasurer Report: No report Zoning Administrator's Report: No report Mayor and Council's Report: Merrill: Discussion on the Skateboard Park. Guerber moves to waive the 45 days on the Ada County consideration. Seconded by Merrill. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES ............... Guerber moves to maintain Bill's current salary and his position will be that of a Planner III when the new zoning administrators starts August 1, 2000. Seconded by Merrill. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES .................... lO. AD]OURNI, JENT: Guerber moves to adjourn. Seconded by Merrill . ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES... Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted: '"'SHARON K. MOORE l CITY CLERK/TREASURER RICI~ YZA' ~E, MAYOR ~I