BEAVERTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 18, 2002
CALL TO ORDER:
The Regular Meeting of the Beaverton City Council was called to order by Mayor Rob
Drake in the Forrest C. Soth Council Chambers, 4755 SW Griffith Drive, Beaverton,
Oregon, on Monday, November 18, 2002 at 6. 35 p.m.
Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Evelyn Brzezinski, Dennis Doyle, Fred Ruby,
Forrest Soth and Cathy Stanton. Also present were Chief of Staff Linda Adlard, City
Attorney Mark Pilliod, Finance Director Patrick O'Claire, Community Development
Director Joe Grillo, Engineering Director Tom Ramisch, Operations/Maintenance
Director Gary Brentano, Library Director Ed House, Police Chief David Bishop and
City Recorder Sue Nelson.
Mayor Drake noted Boy Scout Troop 548 was in the audience.
Presentation of Mayors Office Program (General Services)
Chief of Staff Linda Adlard introduced City Recorder Sue Nelson who presented an
overview of the General Services Program.
Nelson reviewed the functions of the General Services Program, which encompassed
the Office of the City Recorder, Records Management, Elections Administration, and
Mayors Office Reception. She reviewed the tasks handled by General Services which
included production of the City Council Agenda, City Council packet and minutes,
scanning and microfilming of City Records, election administration including production
of the Citys Voters Pamphlet, and Mayors Office reception.
Coun. Soth recognized Nelson for her national reputation in the field of Records
Management and noted the City could be proud of Nelson and her vast knowledge in
Coun. Stanton thanked Nelson and expressed support for the electronic record system.
Presentation of Citizen Survey on Solid Waste & Recycling
Adlard introduced Program Manager Scott Keller who presented the results of the
Citys Citizen Survey on Solid Waste and Recycling.
Keller reviewed the results of the citizen survey that was conducted this summer and
early fall. He noted this year the Council adopted a new solid waste ordinance and rate
structure, seven franchises were approved and the haulers converted to automated
systems that utilized the roll carts instead of garbage cans. A citizen information packet
was mailed out to single-family residences in June that explained the new changes and
included the survey. He stated the response to the survey was excellent; 14,991
surveys were mailed out and as of October 31st received 3,008 responses (20.06%
response rate). The responses were still coming in. He reviewed the main findings of
79% rated the garbage service in the top two categories (great and very good);
72% rated the recycling services as great or very good;
65% rated yard debris collection as great or very good;
Over 75% of the citizens said they participated in the recycling program weekly;
Over 80% said they participated in the yard debris recycling weekly;
The adults in the family did 80% of the recycling.
22% said they composted at home;
38% said they would compost at home if they had a compost bin.
Keller noted that the overall rating for the entire program was 92% stating that the
service was good. He noted the survey included a question on changes the customers
would like to see in the program; over 1,500 customers wrote comments about yard
debris recycling, plastic, recycling bins and rates. He said staff was responding to the
questions citizens submitted. He noted staff would continue to monitor the program to
ensure that the service level was consistently high.
Coun. Stanton stated she felt the City could get higher compost participation if the City
could figure out a way to do it with the least amount of odor for the neighbors.
Keller explained METRO still conducted its bin sale and that citizens could be educated
on the proper way to compost.
Coun. Soth spoke on how Beaverton citizens responded to recycling and composting.
He spoke about paper, plastic and yard debris recycling, and noted there was a market
for the material.
Coun. Stanton asked about the leaf drops.
Operations & Maintenance Director Gary Brentano stated the leaf drops were being
conducted on November 23rd and December 7th. He noted that the drop-off locations
were the Operations Center, Sunset High School, and one of the middle schools.
Coun. Doyle thanked staff for the presentation and noted the haulers service was
good. He asked when the City would know the results of how people used the
weekly yard debris service.
Keller said they could request initial observations from the haulers tomorrow. He said
use would probably drop with winter, but in the spring follow-up monitoring would be
Henry Kane, Beaverton, said that part of the 114th Avenue Redevelopment Advisory
Committee met and came up with some inconclusive recommendations that would go
to the Planning Commission in January. He stated there were unanswered questions,
which he listed in his letter to the Council. He said that there were other matters that
should be submitted in a staff report, which was the purpose of the letter. He said he
was continuing to analyze the data. He said the questions should narrow the issue and
give the Planning Commission and Council more information.
Coun. Stanton confirmed that Kane was a member of the Project Advisory Committee.
She asked if he submitted the list of questions to the Committee.
Kane replied he had not submitted anything to the Committee though he made his
comments at the meetings.
Coun. Stanton asked why he was not running this issue through the committee.
Kane said a decision would have to be made on the Committees recommendation. He
said he thought a good part of his concerns would be in the staff report.
Coun. Soth noted that a short time ago the Council heard a presentation on the Bull
Run Initiative, which was Portlands proposal for region-wide ownership of Bull Run
water storage and transmission assets. He said the Council authorized Beavertons
participation through Phase III. He reported that at last Thursdays meeting, Phase III
was postponed indefinitely pending determinations on various financial matters. He
said the group would probably meet in January, after Portland conducted further analysis
of the issues.
Coun. Soth reported that the League of Oregon Cities had its annual business meeting
and sessions, which he said were very informative.
Coun. Soth congratulated Mayor Drake on his election as President of the League of
Oregon Cities, beginning January 1, 2003.
Coun. Soth explained he had been selected as Vice Chair of the Finance,
Administration and Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National League
Mayor Drake congratulated Councilor Soth on his appointment.
Coun. Stanton said that this Wednesday (December 20th), the Planning Commission
would be reviewing the Development Code Transportation Performance Measures.
She said this was important; it would set the standards for traffic review. She noted
this would be a work session, so no public testimony would be taken. She encouraged
anyone who was interested in the traffic levels in their neighborhoods to attend; this
was in preparation for the future public hearing.
Coun. Doyle announced the Citys Annual Holiday Season Open House would be held
on Tuesday, December 10, 2002, in the Council Chambers from 5:00 7:00 p.m. He
noted everyone was invited.
Adlard advised Councilors her assistant would be calling them to schedule individual
meetings to update them on several issues, including fluoridation. She also asked
them to consider serving on the Legislative Committee this year to help guide the
Citys lobbying efforts. She noted that the Mayor, as League of Oregon Cities
President, would be busy lobbying on the Leagues issues, so she would be carrying
the Citys legislative part.
Coun. Ruby MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Soth that the Consent Agenda be
approved as follows:
Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 7, 2002.
Reinstate the Programmer Analyst Classification and Add a New Position
VAR 2002-0007 Tualatin Valley Water Department Operations Center Setback Parking
VAR 2002-0008 Tualatin Valley Water Department Operations Center Setback Variance
CUP 2002-0006 Tualatin Valley Water Department Operations Center Conditional Use
RZ 2002-0018 Kuni Automotive Zone Change
CUP 2002-0017 Kuni Automotive Major Automotive Service Conditional Use Permit
CUP 2002-0023 Kuni Automotive Extended Hours of Operation Conditional Use Permit
Ratify Tentative Contract Agreement with Beaverton Police Association
Contract Review Board:
Authorize Contract Change Order Consultant Services for Community Development
Block Grant Assistance
Contract Award Surveying Services for Cedar Hills Boulevard Improvements Phase 2
(CIP Project 8006B)
Bid Award Sorrento Storage Building (13520 SW Hanson Road) for the Citys Water
Coun. Stanton said she had a minor correction to the minutes that she would give to
the City Recorder.
Question called on the motion. Couns. Doyle, Soth, Ruby and Stanton voting AYE, the
MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)
Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 7:15 p.m.
Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Appeal of Site Development Permit Penalty Fee for Elmonica Condominiums
Mayor Drake explained this was an appeal and reviewed the procedure for the hearing
(in record). He noted the Mayor would vote in the event of a tie.
City Engineer Terry Waldele introduced Engineering Tech Vicki Ervasti.
Waldele gave Council information that showed the site and where the grading and
stockpiling occurred. He reviewed the history of the permit process for this project. He
said that initially the developer applied for a full site development permit, but as it got
later in the season, they wanted to do the demolitan and get a permit only for that, so
that they would not have to wait for land use approval needed for a full site
development permit. He explained that on August 22, 2002, OTAK submitted site
development construction plans for a full site development permit. On August 27 City
staff notified OTAK by fax that the site development plans for the full site development
had been approved and the City issued a demolition permit to Henrikson Construction
for demolition of the old barn. He said on August 28, 2002, City staff and OTAK began
discussing the procedure for a grading-only permit; staff gave OTAK a list of the items
that had to be submitted for that permit. On September 3, 2002, OTAK informed City
staff that it wanted to submit the grading and erosion control drawings from the August
22 submittal plan set, and listed other items that they knew had to be submitted to get
the permit. On September 5 the full site development permit plans were approved and
signed off by the City and other agencies, but there were still a number of other items
that needed to be submitted for the site development permit.
Waldele explained that on September 10, 2002, a City inspector discovered that site
clearing, stripping of ground cover and top soil, stockpiling of the stripped material, site
filling and grading had been performed on the project without a proper City permit. He
reviewed pictures that the inspector took at that time. He explained that none of the
work done had any type of soil erosion control in place. He noted that normally a silt
fence would be in place to prevent soil from washing off the site and into the streams
and storm drain system.
Waldele stated that staff had spent 25-30 staff hours on the appeal and there was no
mechanism in the Code to recover the cost of that time.
Mayor Drake asked him to explain the fine process and the reason for the doubling of
Waldele explained the penalty fee was the same amount as the permit for the project to
discourage this kind of activity, to prevent erosion of the soil and damage to adjoining
Coun. Stanton confirmed that on August 30, 2002, staff sent OTAK an e-mail on what
they would need for a grading permit, that on September 4, 2002, staff advised OTAK
of what was needed for the grading permit, and on September 5, 2002, the site
development plan was approved.
Ervasti explained that on September 3 the City received an e-mail from OTAK that
highlighted everything needed. She confirmed that prior to September 10th no grading
plans or other items needed had been submitted. She stated that the City did not
receive the needed information (grading plans, etc.) until September 18, 2002.
Coun. Soth confirmed that the site development permit would include the grading permit.
He asked if the site development plans had been approved and were waiting on the
Ervasti explained there were several outstanding issues that went with the site
development permit and the land use had not been approved. She said the developer
saw it would be a while before the site development permit would be approved, which
was why he requested the separation and an early grading permit.
Coun. Soth noted a reference in the October 1, 2002, Henrikson letter to the final
permit for excavation and grading was at the City of Beaverton Engineering counter
He said he assumed this was either the site development permit or a separate grading
Waldele said they were confused about that statement because staff had not said that
to Henrikson. He noted if they heard that, it must have come from the developer
or another source.
Coun. Soth asked if they would have had to get permission to bring the material from
the TriMet site to stockpile it on this site.
Waldele said it would have been included in the site development permit, but they did
not want to wait that long; they wanted to do the grading and stockpiling before the full
permit could be issued.
Ervasti confirmed for Coun. Soth that they got the grading permit ten days later, on
September 20, after the stop work order had been posted.
Coun. Ruby asked if there was any grading allowed under the demolition permit.
Waldele confirmed that it was not included in the demolition. He also confirmed that
there was no doubt that there was activity beyond stockpiling of excess materials.
Mayor Drake noted in the pictures of the site that the stockpiling was in one corner and
other work was done on the site.
Coun. Doyle confirmed that the work had been approved as of September 20. He
asked what the penalty would be if someone had the permit but did not do the erosion
Waldele said he thought it was $250.00 a day; they would be red tagged and shut down
until the erosion control was put up.
Mayor Drake explained the City was the agent for Clean Water Services (CWS), which
had been delegated this responsibility by the Department of Environmental Quality. He
noted CWS took this very seriously because of Federal requirements and the City could
be fined if the regulations were not enforced.
Coun. Stanton confirmed the location of the barn that was demolished. She asked if
someone came in for a stockpiling permit, did they have to say where the materials
were being taken.
Ervasti said that if it was inside the City, the City would want to know where it was being
Coun. Stanton confirmed that Henrikson, in its permits for the TriMet site, did not
reference anything about hauling the materials to this site.
Mayor Drake confirmed that erosion control devices were required throughout the
Randy Varin, Vice President, L.S. Henriksen Construction, said he was the contractor
for the Elmonica and TriMet projects. He reviewed his timeline for the Elmonica project
and said the inspector arrived on September 10, 2002, which was the day they started
installing the silt fence. He passed out pictures of the site that he said showed the area
behind the stockpile was deneutered ground, caused by having many trucks driven
over it; he said this was not a stripped area. He said that some of the pictures shown
by staff were not stripped areas but rather areas that had a lot of traffic driving over
them. He said the stockpile was not dirt and rock; he said it was useable rock for this
project. He showed the site plan, noting the area of the stockpile, and said that the
demolition area was larger than anything on the site, including the stockpile area. He
said that there were eight buildings and there was a great deal of activity in the
demolition that deneutered the majority of that ground. He said very little of the activity
with the stockpile caused the deneutering.
Varin continued by saying that Henrikson was not attempting to do any grading or begin
construction; he said what they were trying to do was to recycle material. He said he
was not aware of Beavertons Code requirement that over 50 yards included
commencing grading of a project. He said he thought he was saving the City, the
community and Henrikson the process of sending this material to the landfill. He said
he thought the permit was on the way. He said they did not start the project; they did
no grading work, no compaction, or placing of material. He said that all he did was to
stockpile material which could be used again rather than sending it to the landfill. He
noted that L.S. Henrikisen had 23 years of construction in a professional manner.
Varin said his ignorance of the Code was probably the reason that this arose. He said
he did not think the Code was written with such a huge fine, to condemn a company of
their nature, when they were just trying to recycle material.
Coun. Soth asked Varin how many projects he had done in Beaverton, besides TriMet.
Varin replied that since he had been with Henrikson he had done one or two others, but
he had not gotten this involved in the Code.
Coun. Soth noted that all projects have to have a silt fence installed before any
significant work was done; either grading, stockpiling or anything else. He asked Varin
why the silt fence wasnt installed before starting.
Varin said they had started the demolition process, which does not require a silt fence.
He said that the stockpiling that was done was pure rock, it was the middle of August,
there was no threat of showers or rain, the site was flat and there was no area for it to
runoff too. He said the activities that took place did not create any erosion control
problems. He said he was working under the demolition permit and saw an opportunity
to recycle pure rock and he saw no erosion control problem with that.
Coun. Soth stressed that the statutes required that the silt fence be in place before any
work started. He explained that when rock was piled up, unless it was washed rock,
there would be a certain amount of moisture penetration and run off. He noted this was
not washed rock that was being stockpiled; it was excavation material. He asked Varin
what the developer told him about the status of the permits when the stop work was
placed on the project.
Varin said the developer said the plans had been reviewed and approved; however,
that the City Engineer would not issue anything until the City had the bond. He
said he assumed the bond would be there in a day or so, and he was not completing
any grading activity, he was just recycling material in a stockpile.
Coun. Ruby noted that the City staff was under the belief that they were clearing the
land. He asked if the area they looked at was only a product of deneutering or was
there machinery doing vegetation clearing before the grading permit.
Varin said that where the pile was located, they had removed the grass so it would not
contaminate the rock. He said the area scraped was about 100 feet x 50 feet; it was
not a large area. He said that the other area that staff showed (where the dirt was
fluffed), happened when the demolition occurred and the trucks came in. He said that
a week after the permit was received; the site took three inches of stripping before the
mass excavation could start. He said that the rolling of the trucks during demolition
deneutered more area than anything done to stockpile the rock.
Coun. Stanton asked Varin when he received the permit for the work on the TriMet
site, where had he planned to off-load the material.
Varin replied it would have gone to a landfill. He said there was no cost value savings
intaking it to the landfill or to the stockpile site.
Coun. Stanton said she didnt understand why he did not call the City to let them know
what he was thinking and to ask the City if it would be okay to change locations.
Varin said that on all the jobs he had done, there had never been a requirement to
dictate where he was taking the material. He explained how on other projects they
would do the utilities first, which started with excavation and a stockpile of rock.
Coun. Stanton asked if OTAK told them to start.
Varin said his only correspondence was the developers manager and every indication
was that they would have the permit that week; he did not feel they had a problem.
Coun. Stanton asked if anyone told them to start.
Varin replied no; the developer said they would have the permit that week. He said with
the demolition permit, he assumed activity was okay and he did not think he was doing
excavation. He said that when he was approached by the inspector and told the activity
was unlawful, he did ask what he wanted him to do and if there was a provision for a
stockpiling permit. He noted this was a horrible waste of a resource. He said he was
told he could not get a stockpiling permit, though they did get a mass grading permit.
Coun. Soth noted that it appeared that quite a bit of grading had been done in the area
where the stockpile is located to prevent contamination.
Varin replied that had about 600 yards; that there were about 65 to 70 trucks that ran
over that area to get that material there. He said that activity alone would deneuter the
area and what Coun. Soth saw as grading, was more likely from truck traffic. He said
there was some scraping under the pile area to prevent contamination, but in front of
the pile area the majority was deneutered by the trucks.
Coun. Soth noted that in the area surrounding the deneutered area it was possible to
see the way the trucks were moving and the grass was still in that area. He noted that
Varin still continued to work though the developer had said the permit would be there in
a day or two.
Varin said he did not know he was creating this issue.
Coun. Soth noted the City does act as the agent for CWS and DEQ, and erosion
control was one of the most important regulations of the whole process.
Mayor Drake noted Varin had stated there was no cost savings to dumping gravel
versus driving to the landfill. He asked if they didnt have to pay a fee to dump in the
Varin responded that the load was pure rock and Farmington landfill would take that
material for free, to resell or to reuse it.
Mayor Drake asked where the Farmington landfill was located.
Varin said it was a half mile before Baker Rock.
Mayor Drake asked if anyone wished to testify in favor of the appeal.
There was none.
Mayor Drake asked if anyone wished to testify in opposition to the appeal. There was
Mayor Drake asked for staff comments.
Waldele explained that the construction traffic chewing up the ground creates an
erosion problem. He said it was just not a matter of grading being the problem.
Coun. Ruby asked if the Council had discretion to lower the penalty.
City Attorney Mark Pilliod said the penalty was clear; it was equal to the amount of the
permit. On the Councils authority to allow the appeal in part, he said it was a stretch to
go in that direction. He said the language about the appeals did not speak to cutting
the penalty in half and the Code was not clear on that.
Coun. Soth asked if the City Code or Clean Water Services required erosion control
measures on demolition sites.
Waldele responded that they were not aware of any specific regulation. He said that
any kind of disturbance of a site that created a potential erosion control problem came
under the State statutes.
Engineering Technician Jim Bell explained that a demolition permit had an erosion
control section. He said the demolition permit was for five feet outside of the building
Coun. Ruby asked if the contractor complied with the erosion control requirements in
the demolition permit.
Bell replied not at the time; they were still taking some of the building down and hauling
it off. He said they did put in a gravel entrance to keep the mud and debris from going
out into the street. He noted that silt fences were not put up on a demolition site until
after the building had been torn down.
Coun. Soth asked if truck traffic going into the site to receive the demolition material,
would not have had a significant effect on the disturbance of the ground.
Bell explained at the time they still had stockpiles of debris that were not being hauled
off right away. He said it was when they had the chance to get an end dump in there to
load it and take it out, was when they were doing it.
Mayor Drake noted the bulk of the buildings were on the northeast section. He asked
Bell if he required access out onto Baseline.
Bell said they had to use Baseline for the access point. He noted there were three
chicken coops, two barns, one out building and one garage that came down.
Mayor Drake asked why that area would be stripped when the other area was where
the bulk of the buildings were and they were accessing Baseline.
Bell replied it should not have been stripped.
Pilliod asked Bell if he looked at the material in the stockpile and if he could tell if it was
material brought in from the TriMet project or if there was material that was the result
of scraping on this particular site.
Bell said the rock material was coming from TriMet. He said if you looked at the rock
pile, there were piles on the side where the scraper had come through and dumped it
down, making a clean area for the rock so it would not be contaminated.
Mayor Drake asked Varin if he wished to rebut any of the comments.
Varin said there was no access off Baseline; the only access onto and off of that site
went through TriMets parking lot.
Bell said for demolition of the buildings they were going off of Baseline; Elmonica
access was not allowed on Baseline; it went through the TriMet property.
Mayor Drake confirmed that Baseline was used for the mobilization of the demolition
only; the gravel came in through the TriMet site. He asked Bell if the stockpile was in
the southeast portion, of what benefit was the stripped area in the middle.
Bell said it did not make any sense as to why the scraper was brought in to do that.
Mayor Drake asked Varin if he wished to make any further comments.
Varin indicated he did not wish to testify.
Mayor Drake closed the hearing
Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton, that Council deny the appeal
requested on Agenda Bill 02329, Site Development Permit Penalty Fee for Elmonica
Coun. Soth noted that per the City Attorney, the Council did not have much leeway. He
said that ignorance of the law was no defense. He said he applauded Varin for his
efforts to save a valuable material, but he failed to get the permit ahead of time as well
as install an erosion control fence. He noted it was the responsibility of the developer
and his agent on site to make sure that all of the conditions were fulfilled, as well as the
advice of the engineering firm. He said for those reasons he moved for denial.
Coun. Stanton said she would support the motion because with 22 years experience in
this field, and with OTAK as the consultant, she could not believe that someone would
not know the rules of the game. She noted that the erosion control and permits were
also big issues for her. She said it was a matter of not using due diligence.
Coun. Doyle said he felt the fine was excessive for what happened. He said he felt the
staff did what they needed to do and the Code was strict. He noted Varin had good
intentions but Council was hamstrung by the Code to make a more fair decision.
Coun. Ruby said he would not support the motion, because he was not convinced that
the disturbance of the ground was more than nominal. He noted it was hard to
evaluate if there was any intentional grading work done beyond the deposit of the rock
pile and he chose to take Varin at his word; that that was not what he was doing.
Coun. Stanton said she was supporting the motion because of every other developer
and grader out there. She did not want anyone to think it would be okay to go in and
grade or clear-cut without erosion control devices, or without a permit. She noted she
had seen this happen before in the City and she did not want to reward bad behavior.
Question called on the motion. Those in favor of motion to deny appeal: Couns. Soth
and Stanton (2). Those opposed to motion to deny appeal: Couns. Doyle and Ruby
(2). With a tie vote, it was noted Mayor Drake would vote.
Mayor Drake said he took Varin at face value, but with his experience he felt Varin
knew he could not dump rock and dirt anywhere he wished. He noted Clean Water
Services had been very vigilant in upholding clean water and clean stream standards.
He said this was not the first time a developer did this; there was a similar case with
a local private school beginning work without a permit and the Council upheld that fee.
He noted there was no joy in taking this action, but the erosion control standards were
in place and had to be upheld. He noted that while the weather was sunny on the day
the pictures were taken, a storm could have come up in the afternoon or next day. He
agreed that while the penalty was stiff, it was what was currently in place. He noted
other developers do not begin work before getting permits. He said that for all those
reasons he would support the motion to deny appeal.
The MOTION to deny the appeal CARRIED (3:2): Couns. Stanton, Soth and Mayor
Drake voting AYE; Couns. Doyle and Ruby voting NO.
Mayor Drake said he had instructed staff to revise the Code. They will bring
recommended changes to the Council after the first of the year.
City Attorney Mark Pilliod read the following ordinances for the second time by title only:
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, the Comprehensive Plan Map and
Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located on the East Side of Hocken
Avenue and South of Jenkins Road; CPA 2001-0013/RZ 2001-0014 (Ordinance No.
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map,
By Redesignating Certain Properties to Best Fit with the Current Zoning (Knollhurst
Condos and Highland Hills Townhouse Estates); CPA 2002-0003 (Ordinance No. 4234)
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, the Comprehensive Plan Map and
Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located at 2090 SW Cedar Hills
Boulevard; CPA 2002-0012/RZ 2002-0023 (Ordinance No. 4235)
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, the Comprehensive Plan Map and
Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Property Located at 4985 SW Laurelwood
Avenue; CPA 2002-0013/RZ 2002-0024 (Ordinance No. 4236)
Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the ordinances embodied in AB
02312, AB 02313, AB 02314 and AB 02315 now pass. Roll call vote. Couns. Doyle,
Ruby, Soth and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)
Mayor Drake announced the Budget Committee meeting on the supplemental budget
on Thursday, November 21, 2002, would start at 6:30 p.m.
There being no further business to come before the Council at this time the meeting was
adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Sue Nelson, City Recorder
Approved this 6th day of January, 2003.
Rob Drake, Mayor