08/25/1987 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT
TO APPROVAL SEPTEMBER 8, 1987
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 25, 1987
The special meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 8:00 pm., by
Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present
joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor Jim Barnes, Parks and Rec. Div. Manager
Jack Wilson, Council President Peter Hahn, Community Services Director
Steve Dwyer Art Housler, Admin. Services Director
Laura Hall Bobby Mills, Public Works Superintendent
Jo -Anne Jaech Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Bill Kasper Bob Alberts, City Engineer
John Nordquist Mary Lou Block, Planning Manager
Lloyd Ostrom Alice Brown, Recorder
HEARING ON LOCATION OF SECONDARY SEWER TREATMENT PLANT. AND COUNCIL DECISION
Mayor Naughten requested that those in the audience who wished to participate in the
public hearing portion of the meeting sign up on the sheet provided, to speak on the
subject of the location of the Secondary Sewer Treatment Plant. The Mayor also asked
the participants to limit their presentations to five minutes.
Mayor Naughten introduced Gordon Culp, of Culp-Wesner-Culp, who served as the
engineering consultants on the Sewer Tretment Plant waste water siting project since
1985, stating that the audience would be given a brief overview of what has transpired
to date.
Mr. Culp explained that in their capacity as consultants they were not advocates of
either site, but were presenting the results of their consulting work showing the
pluses and minuses. He asked that the audience set aside the image of the present
treatment plant, as the new plant will neither look nor smell like the existing 30
year old plant. It will be an odor -free plant.
Slides were presented as a visual aid, differentiating between the existing site at
2nd and Dayton, adjacent to SR104, which had been expanded somewhat in 1979 where
gravel and building materials are stored, and the second site, "Pine Street Site",
adjacent to the intersection of Pine Street and SR104, a 4.5 acre parcel owned by
Union Oil company. He noted that the fish hatchery currently on this property would
be relocated without disrupting its function, adding that Union Oil would be willing
to sell to the City under certain restrictions in the event this site is selected.
A slide showing the Dayton site, "Proposed Site Plan Option 1", pictured the site as
though you were looking down on it, with the arrangement of the buildings and
equipment. An architecturally pleasing barrier of landscaping was depicted around the
exterior of the property, and showed where the administrative building would be
installed. AlMost all of the existing treatment units would be demolished in order to
upgrade to the level of the treatment to the secondary level which is required. The
present roof should be replaced, as it is not functional for containing odors. All
odor generating portions of the plant would be under cover and controlled in a
positive manner.
A slide showing the Pine Street site showed the sewer elements or conveyors which must
be considered. Mr. Culp stated that approximately one-half the water comes from
Mountlake Terrace, and could be drained into Pine Street by gravity. The flows from
Edmonds congregate by gravity, and would have to be pumped over to Pine Street, with
pumping station to remain at the Dayton Street site to get the sewage over to Pine
Street. One and one-half million dollars would be saved if the Pine Street location
were chosen, due to the gravity pipeline. Other alternatives would be to pump out
through Union Oil and along Admiral Way. Pumping it out would be more costly, but is
an alternative.
A slide entitled "Preliminary Plant Layout" showed the Pine Street location, as though
looking down on the wetlands. There are approximately 4.5 acres in the parcel, but
all of the acreage cannot be used due to the setback requirements from the wetlands.
It would leave approximately two acres of usable land. The plant would fit, but the
environmental
environmental aspects which may be required on the setbacks may cut down on the space.
The hatchery would be relocated to the north adjacent to SR104, and access to it will
need to be determined, perhaps to run the access to to the east of the plant and the
State highway right-of-way, but it is expensive because of the steep embankment.
A slide entitled "Cross Section Profile Alternative 1" showed that the Pine Street site
slopes quite steeply. An alternate would be to bury the plant deeper into the hillside, to
reduce the visual impact, but would add $6 million to the cost.
A slide entitled "Cost Differences for Pine. Street" was shown:
Savings $ 2,212,000
Effluent Pumping Station
Site work reduced
Added Costs $ 5,707,000
Raw Sewage Pump Station to the outfall
now separated
Primary clarifier -- replace existing clarifiers
New effluent sewers
New effluent pipeline
Relocation of Fish Hatchery (perhaps $200,000)
Environmental Impact Statement
Site acquisition
A slide entitled "Edmonds Monthly Rate Impacts" was shown, comparing Dayton and Pine Street
locations, and Mr. Culp explained these are cost estimates as they exist now:
If at Dayton Street, $39,000,000; if at Pine Street, $42,500,000.
With Design and Construction Grants:
Dayton Pine Street*
$18.10 $21.10
Without Grants:
$22.00 $24.85
*High profile option
A slide entitled "Schedule Impacts" for the Dayton location was shown, and Mr. Culp briefly
recapped the scenario for implementation of the project, explaining that the original date
for completion of the plant is April 1, 1988, but because the City of Edmonds applied for
and was granted an extension of three years, the date is now April 1, 1991. This is set
forth in a Compliance Order to Edmonds, a legally binding order issued by the State of
Washington. He stated that we are basically on that schedule for the Dayton Street site,
with the preliminary work being basically completed, with finalizing to be accomplished the
first week of September. The Department of Energy (DOE) has stated that if any one of the
deadlines is missed; they will impose a building moratorium on all jurisdictions served by
Edmonds.
Pertaining to the Pine Street location, the "Schedule of Impacts" are basically the same as
for Dayton Street, and Mr. Culp stated that_ the —DOE will not review the engineering aspects
of the project until all the environmentai-'wor-k is accomplished. This would mean that most
phases would be behind schedule. There would b`e a -possibility that the schedule could be
mitigated with the DOE, but an extension is.highly unlikely, even if it was taken to a
higher level for determination. During the time of the environmental study, there would be
a moratorium on building, if we do not comply. A second choice would be to gamble by
starting a final design on Pine Street without knowing if we would ultimately get it
approved from an environmental standpoint, and this is risky.
A slide entitled "Planning Considerations" was shown, with the considerations being: EIS,
Shoreline Management Plan amended, the engineering report and pre -design revised,
rights -of -way and easements, as well as the site itself, would need to be obtained.
A slide pertaining to "Construction Considerations" was shown, indicating downtown
impacts, plant operation, 0.5 mile of SR 104 for pipelines, closing one lane of Dayton
Street for new outfall for approximately one month, and hatchery relocation as a few of the
considerations.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2, August 25, 1987
A slide was shown listing "Other Factors" involved to be plant expansion capability, visual
impacts, and social benefits.
A slide was shown listing the main "Risks" to be the compliance schedule, the potential for
added delays, the costs, and the grants .
Mr. Culp concluded his presentation at 8:26 p.m.
Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing portion of the meeting, stating that 11 people had
signed up to speak, and he would allow five minutes for each person, in order to allow for
each to be heard.
Mr. Paul Roy, 830 Alder Street, stated he had lived in Edmonds for 30+ years, and was -of
the opinion that moving the plant from Dayton to Pine Street would not be the answer. He
felt the "unknowns" were too numerous, and the money should be spent on the upgrade to
avoid the odor. He stated that a survey of the community some years ago indicated that the
community felt it should be left where it is, and hoped the Council would do the practical
thing.
Ms. Evelyn Jasper, 224 Third South, #301, stated she owned the five-plex building behind
the Treatment Plant, and in 10 years only one of her tenants had ever complained about the
smell. She was in favor of leaving the plant where it is.
Mr. Jim Korbein, 11333 Makah Street, Woodway, stated he lived across from the existing
salmon hatchery, and felt that in view of facts presented the Pine Street site could not be
justified since it would be so expensive. He added that the negatives outweigh the
positives, and he would leave it at the Dayton location and was opposed to the Pine Street
location. He added that if community acceptance is a priority, it should be taken into
consideration, as the Pine Street site is a pristine area, enhanced by the wetlands.
Mr. Jimmy Riecken, 721 14th Way S. W., (Westgate area) reviewed the situation with the
cemetery and the Sewage Treatment Plant, stating they have .both existed many years, and
people still built around them. He stated that the residents survey of 1986 confirmed that
the Dayton Street location was the one that the people wanted, and hoped that the Council
would spend a minimum of the taxpayers' money, and leave the plant at Dayton.
Mr. Dick Hill, 1242 Coronado Place, was present, stating that he was the President of the
Edmonds Council of Concerned Citizens. The Board of Trustees of this organization has been
doing research on the proposed moving of the plant to Pine Street, and after looking into
more of the facts, the worse it seems. He spoke of the view from the Edmonds City Park,
and felt it would effectively ruin this park, and wished to address the visual aspect. He
felt it should be left where it is.
Mr. Alan Mearns, 20315 - 92nd West, spoke regarding what he felt to be a third alternative
which had not been discussed, and that was to build "neither plant". He urged the Council
and citizens to read a report entitled "Marine Environmental Data", which he had obtained
from the Library, and reconsider responding to the state and building the plant. If we
have not harmed the water quality, and we meet the water quality criteria, he felt there
were environmental benefits to be derived by not building.
Ms. Lynn Dimmick, 213 Elm Street, has lived in Edmonds for 30 years. She expressed concern
about the stream, stating she never had felt that the existing sewage plantwas bad to look
at, and really could not see taking out what is there. She wished to have the existing
site improved, but leave the plant there.
Ms. Irene Nagy, 371 - 4th Avenue South, stated she was raised in Budapest, and that the
sewage treatment plant was in the middle of the city, and no one ever. objected, and she
felt the odor would not be objectionable to anyone, and if it would cost less to leave it
where it was it would help ease the burden on senior citizens on limited incomes.
Mr. Richard Schaertl, 811 Somerset Lane,stated he was opposed to the $3.5 million dollar
cost overrun, etc., to a project in which the real estate is owned and under control of
construction deadlines. He felt that the environmental aspects would be too great. He
questioned why you would leave a neighborhood in which you have been accepted, and go into
one where you are unwanted. The Sewage Treatment Act was intended to upgrade, and not
relocate.
Mr. David Webb, 920 Dayton Street, stated he felt the earlier speakers had expressed his
feelings quite well in favor of leaving the plant where it is.
Mr. Sid Locke, 110 Pine Street (cater -corner from the plant), felt that what he had not
heard anyone say, was that while there were objections to the height of the proposed plant,
no one had addressed the fact that Union Oil can build a tank up to a height of 48'. He
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3, August 25, 1987
asked the consultant about pumping all of the sewage, and asked about pumping outfall. Mr.
Culp explained that Mountlake Terrace flow comes in by gravity from the east, and Edmonds'
flow is too low to go by gravity, and must be pumped by high tide one-half of the time.
Operating costs are factored in --it is not just capital, and show the differences in
pumping, and the differences in labor.
Mr. Jeff Palmer, 17510 - 76th Avenue West, had comments on the process, and stated he felt
the Council should take some decisive action. He asked that they start focusing on the
citizens of Edmonds, the smell, the view, and utility work in the community. Other
communities get all the benefits, but the costs of mitigation should be spread and shared
by the other entities or participants.
Mr. Jack Station, 217 Alder Street, stated that he lives 150' from the plant across the
street, and that the smell never lasts long, and most people with whom he has spoken feel
the same way, that they wish the plant to remain where it is.
Council Member Jaech read a letter from Eunice Wickstrom, 328 Third Avenue South, "Edmonds
City Council: In regard to Edmonds' Sewer Treatment Plant, I say leave it where it is and
get on with updating this plant. It is costing plenty each day and more so as we hold it
up. Why should a sewer facility cost $39.1 million. Why what real estate or developer
wants the 2nd and Dayton ground to build on. Sincerely, Eunice Wickstrom".
Council Member Ostrom stated he had received 12 letters from citizens, all of whom support
leaving the plant where it is, and one letter stating they were in favor of the move. He
also received a petition with 12 signatures of people who live in close proximity to the
plant in favor of leaving it where it is, as well as one phone call in favor of leaving it
where it is.
Council Member Nordquist stated he had received a letter from Elizabeth Mathay indicating
that she favored leaving the plant where it presently is, and also received word from
Dorothy Cribbs who opposed moving the plant from its present location, as well as a letter
from H. Dunnigan, and a memo from Mrs. Olson, both writing in favor of keeping the plant at
its present location, and against moving it.
Council Member Wilson stated he had received letters both for and against the proposal,
which he would give to the Clerk.
Council Member Hall stated she had also had similar correspondence to give to the Clerk.
Mayor Nauqhten acknowledged the oresence of Scout Troop 301, who were to receive their
Civics Badges for attending a public meeting.
The public hearing portion of the Special Meeting on the Secondary Sewer Treatment Plant
was closed at 8:55 p.m.
Council Member Jaech synopsized the events leading to the public hearing, noting that the
results that came from the other site (Pine Street) were predictable, since moving the site
would cost money. Since everyone around the plant wants it to stay, and from the
testimonials given, cost and environmental factors being considered, and the unknowns which
would need to be addressed, and further that the additional property was purchased with the
full intention to have it if we were forced to go to secondary sewer treatment (which has
been the case), COUNCIL MEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OSTROM, TO FORMALLY
ANNOUNCE OUR INTENTION TO LEAVE THE SITE FOR THE SECONDARY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT WHERE IT
PRESENTLY IS, AND CONTINUE TO PROCEED WITH THAT, AND DISCONTINUE SPENDING MONEY ON OTHER
SITES.
Council Member Hall stated she had not received a recommendation from the Mayor until this
point.
Mayor Naughten replied that if the Pine Street site proved out to be buildable, his feeling
was that it is a better site location -wise than Dayton in looking 20, 30 or 40 years down
the road. He further stated that if this is going to cost more money now that we have the
facts, that the City should go back to the people and poll them and give them the new informa-
tion, letting them decide.
Council Member Hall stated she agreed with Mr. Riecken, inasmuch as we should "spend the
minimum". She -added that she had spoken over the weekend with professionals who have built
sewage treatment sites, and the feeling was that the plant is doing fine. Since the EPA
and DOE have stated that our section must be cleaned up, have we improved since earlier
readings were taken? One of the professionals with whom she spoke stated that less monies
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4, August 25, 1987
could be used, and felt that $40 million was too high, and that an upgrade could be
accomplished for less. She emphasized that she hoped that people would really question the
cost and refuse to pay the $40 million, and further that she did not like the bulk of the
buildings on the Pine Street site, and still had some unanswered questions.
Council Member Wilson felt there were misconceptions on the costs of the products, and
using their figures. He asked Mr. Culp if Edmonds' share is $4.3 million (comes out to
$2.90/month). Since at present we are not asking for other entities to equally carry their
share for piping, land costs, pumping or other fixed costs, are we carrying the whole load,
to which Mr. Culp replied that no contributions to the $4.3 million in the $2.90 had been
asked of other entities.
Council Member Wilson further questioned that if we go to other entities for money, and
happily we will, the excess costs would be down from $2.90 to approximately $1.50, and
whether within that figure if the Pump Station figured in, to which Mr. Culp replied that
the pump station is figured into the $4.3 million. The difference between $42.5 million
and the $39 million is the total difference in the project and costs including all the
pumping facilities and all the force mains -- a difference of $3.5 million. The Edmonds'
share was greater than the total difference because Edmonds would be the only ones using
the pumping stations and was added to give the $4.3 million.
Council Member Wilson reiterated his question of the fact that in the $2.90 they (other
entities) are not contributing, but at the $1.50 amount they are contributing, stating that
now we are down to an increased cost of $1.50 to the ratepayers --almost anybody can live
with that amount. He cited that currently there is a committee functioning in this city
that looked at the present site for beautification, and the number they are kicking around
is $900,000. In addition, now, to anything read in the newspapers, there is additional
cost and will probably be $2 million.
Council Member Wilson's next question to Mr. Culp was how much even if it was $1 million,
of that $1.50 would $1 million represent in cost, to which Mr. Culp replied "about $0.70
for every million dollars." Council Member Wilson stated that if you moved the plant and
did not spend the $1 million, you are down to $0.75.
Council Member Wilson took it a step further, mentioning the swap with Metro, which would
enable us to dump off effluent to the eastside -- not our problem any more. According to
Council Member Wilson's calculations, the cost savings in the next 20 years in looking at
this very serious scenario, would be $1.1 million dollars on the Ballinger lift station,
approximately. There are three miles of pipe upgrade down Edmonds Way which will need to
be done for increased flow with preliminary estimates of costs to be $1.5 million, but this
could be low based on $800,000 cost for projected outfall. Using the projected figure of
$1.5 million, that is $2.7 million dollars saved. The Ballinger Station upgrade would cost
about $300-$400,000, and the redundant force main on Highway 99 would cost $200,000. There
is a low key scenario there in 20 years of saving $3.1 million if the plant was moved, and
if the swap (Metro) was done, making it cheaper at Pine Street.
Council Member Wilson noted that there is some risk involved with the EIS, but that with
regard to aesthetics, that the plant site is 20'-25' below the road level, and would be
relatively easy to screen. A wall of trees could hide the plant entirely. He stated that
he was disappointed in the amateurish job done on the appraisals.
Council Member Ostrom stated he felt that the figures could be shown to prove anything, and
that most of it was conjecture. Regarding asking other entities to participate in costs,
he did not feel that they should have to pay for the plant being moved. Regarding
mitigation costs, he noted there is a committee working on sites and sounds, and that a
committee would need to look -at that as well.
Council Member Ostrom expressed the opinion that the fact is that someone wants the plant
moved, even though most people who were surveyed do not want it moved. A decision made a
year ago and pressures should have no bearing, as this issue was resolved a long time ago.
Since he had no doubts, he desired to vote on the motion.
Council Member Dwyer spoke regarding the question of costs, and stated that two weeks ago
an extensive report on Pine Street from Culp had been received outlining the costs to
Edmonds for the Dayton location ($39 million), and what is really important to the
ratepayers is the $18,253,000 for the Edmonds' cost. Regarding the Pine Street location
($42,515,000),- the Edmonds cost is $22,544,000 (a 23.5% increase), if we sell the Dayton
Street site. If we don't sell it, the increase to Edmonds ratepayers is 31%.
Regarding the cost of the plant being less than $39 million, as alluded to, Council Member
Dwyer asked that those who felt it could be built for less please bring someone to the
meeting who can show the Council how to build it cheaper.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5, August 25, 1987
With reference to the site, Council Member Dwyer listed reasons for leaving it where it is
to be: 1) The costs; 2) it is accepted where it is; 3) the status of the permits, as we
are already on line and everything is going fine; and 4) that is where the people want it
to be (the survey, public hearings, etc. bear this out).
Council Member Hall spoke with regard to looking down the road to the future, and posed
some questions such as if Union Oil sells the property, will it be "condo terrace"? Can
the Planning Department come before the Council to show the zoning in case Union Oil sells?
She felt that the citizens have spoken and that $40 million is still a problem, with a
contractor being able to do the job for $15 million.
Council Member Nordquist stated that the record is in, and there are those who want to
delay, but the city cannot afford it. He felt it would be an ecological disaster if the
Pine Street site is pursued.
Council Member Kasper stated with the negative declaration on the EIS, the city felt _
obligated to study another site as well as Dayton Street. He read a statement as follows:
"As you know, no EIS was ever completed on either Dayton Street, but Mr. LaTourell, our
Master Planner in 1978, stated that if Dayton Street was to remain the treatment site when
the new plant was built, it would require a full EiS. To me the issuance of a negative
impact study was a mistake. There is no doubt in my mind that Dayton Street has a higher
economic impact. From a cost standpoint they are probably.really a wash. However, from a
social and tax impact, Pine Street in my mind has the least overall impact when the expense
of cost and maintenance are measured over time. However, in my studying closely the new
404 Section of the "Clean Water Act", as well as the "Environmental Protection Act", both
Acts now require us to choose the site that least damages the habitat. There can be no net
loss of site'saquatic functional value without compensation. This gives us a new unknown
cost potential. On top of this unknown, Section 404 requires, regardless, the using of the
site if a less sensitive alternative is available. We have this alternative site in the
existing Dayton Street site. Therefore, I feel that regardless of economic impact, we must
stay with the Dayton Street site. However, I also feel all entities should share in all
costs to make Dayton Street as palatable to the citizens of Edmonds as possible."
Council Member Kasper further stated that to him, the Pine Street location looks right.
Within the last few months requests to get a site which will not damage the ecology
have been emphasized, and from this standpoint he felt that the Dayton Street site was the
better alternative. He stated he had a problem with the motion, since it does not mandate
that other agencies who will fully benefit are not obligated to participate. COUNCIL
MEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALL, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT
OTHER ENTITIES SHALL PAY FOR THE MITIGATION FOR THE SITING OF THE DAYTON STREET PLANT,
NECESSARY TO MAKE THAT SITE COMPATIBLE, CONSIDERING TREE REMOVAL, LANDSCAPING, ETC., SUCH
COSTS SHALL BE BORNE BY ALL ENTITIES WHO PARTICIPATE. Mr. Hahn stated he believed they had
taken care of this aspect at their May 26, 1987 meeting. The other jurisdictions are
awaiting a decision.
Council Member Wilson noted that only five months ago the Pine Street site became
available, and working within time constraints precluded some of the preliminary work. He
stated he felt the town deserved better. He mentioned that two of the present Council
Members had been on the council at the time of the decision in 1978. There were those who
knew of the site.
Council Member Nordquist explained that the Secondary and Primary Treatment were two
different issues. In 1978 the Council stated that it was too expensive because they wanted
to have two sites and run a big pi a back and forth. The Council stated at that time that
it was too expensive, concluding that it is all in the record.
Council Member Ostrom spoke with regard to the amendment, and stated he did not want to
vote for it because the Council should be voting on the motion approving the site of the
plant, and then talking about the mitigation process.
Council Member Hall disagreed, stating she felt it was the cost of doing business. All
those that enter in and have letters of understanding should understand it. These letters
are with Ronald, Woodway, and verbal from Olympic.
Council Member Ostrom explained to those present at the meeting that the City of Edmonds
does have memoranda of understanding with the other entities. He desired to discuss these
points at a work meeting, rather than this meeting.
A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION WAS TAKEN, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS
WILSON, HALL, AND KASPER VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS NORDQUIST, DWYER, JAECH AND
OSTROM VOTING NO. MOTION TO AMEND FAILED.
THE MAIN MOTION THEN PASSED, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS DWYER, HALL, KASPER, OSTROM, JAECH, AND
NORDQUIST VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBER WILS014 VOTING NO.
The meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
These minutes are subject to September 8, 1987 approval.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6, August 25, 1987
CQU LINE G. P RRET, City Clerk . R NAUGHTETa Mayor
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING
7:00 - 10:00 P.M.
SPECIAL MEETING - COMMITTEE MEETING FOLLOWED BY PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE WORK MEETING
(Fourth Tuesday of each month)
AUGUST 25, 1987
1. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE
7:00 p.m. - Frances Anderson Center - Conference Room 201
Agenda:
(A) STATUS UPDATE ON COMPUTERIZATION OF PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAM RECEIPTS
AND EXPENDITURES
(B) STATUS UPDATE ON COST COMPARISON OF CITY'S BENEFIT PROGRAMS
(C) DISCUSSION ON FORMATTING OF SIMIANNUAL REPORT OF THE CITY
(0) REVIEW WARRANTS, PETTY CASH, AND CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURES FOR JULY/AUGUST
2. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITEE
7:00 p.m. - Small Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building
Agenda:
(A) REVIEW REQUEST FOR RESTRICTED PARKING AT INTERSECTION OF 84TH W./218TH S.W.
-BECAUSE OF SIGHT IMPAIRMENT
3. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
7:00 p.m. - Large Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building
Agenda:
(A) REVIEW OF PROPOSED ROAD REHABILITATION BOND ADVISORY BALLOT
8:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M. -- Large Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building
1. APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM TO AUGUST 4, 1987 MINUTES (REQUESTED BY COUNCILMAN
WILSON)
2. HEARING ON LOCATION OF SECONDARY SEWER TREATMENT PLANT, AND COUNCIL DECISION
The three City Council committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and
staff only, and are not public hearings. All committee meetings, however, are open
to the public.
L
PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE