HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 01-04 PreMERIDIAN CITY PRE-COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 4, 2000
The special Pre-Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:40 p.m. on January 4, 2000, by Mayor Robert Corrie.
MEMBERS PRESENT: ROBERT CORRIE, RON ANDERSON, CHARLIE ROUNTREE, KEITH BIRD, GLENN BENTLEY
OTHERS PRESENT: BILL GORDON, WILL BERG, SHARI STILES, GARY SMITH, BILL GIGRAY, KEN BOWERS
Corrie: … City Hall, 6:40 p.m. to go over the Pre-Council agenda. Anybody – you want to start on the Consent Agenda (inaudible).
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got a question. It’s for the legal, I guess. On these Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, they are – aren’t those supposed to be individually voted on?
I mean, each Councilman and Mayor’s vote recorded?
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, I believe that you can, since this isn’t where you have the recorded votes are on ordinances and on resolutions where the City enters into a contract,
that’s what the state law requires. But you could, as a rule –
Bird: That’s what we’d always done it in the past, and that’s why I had brought that up. I have no problem with doing this, you know, but I just wanted to make sure we were okay; somebody
couldn’t come back and bite us.
Corrie: Good point. I think we discussed it last time that if they didn’t get those in their packets by Friday (inaudible) weekend, we should pull them off and make sure we’ve got
them to read them because (inaudible) have a chance to –
Gigray: And I have a report on those two items anyway when you find it in order.
ITEM F. New Beer and Liquor License for Morgan W. Richards, Jr., for Fiesta Guadalajara Lounge:
Bird: When, Mr. Mayor, I’ve got another question. On the new beer and liquor license, now I might have missed it, but I didn’t see anything other than just a deal. Do we have the
form back on that, Will? Probably something that I’ve signed, but I don’t know. Don’t we get a form showing – with Chief’s signature and all of us on there?
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, normally, yes, there’s a checklist for the Chief to sign. This is one of these licenses that we’re waiting for the state license to be issued,
and that was issued and we had received a copy today, and you can ask the Chief, but I think he’s satisfied with that application.
Gordon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, we received a copy of the state license late today. I’d already done all the checking that I needed. I was just waiting for the state to issue,
so there isn’t any problems at this time. I haven’t signed those forms yet, but it will be signed tomorrow first thing.
Bird: But there’s no reason we can’t run it right through on the Consent? Do you see any problems with that?
Gordon: No. Absolutely not.
Berg: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Clerk.
Berg: Thank you. Just a point of procedure that we’ve done in the past. In case there is something that needs to be voted on, a roll-call vote on the Consent Agenda, we have taken
roll-call vote as approval of the Consent Agendas so that we are covered. There are sometimes resolutions in the Consent Agenda we need to have roll-call.
Corrie: I think we could go ahead and take a roll-call vote.
Bird: I think that would be smart and then we could cover ourselves; cover all our bases. I just don’t want to get tangled up in something.
Corrie: Well, we need to do it right, make sure we don’t have any legal problems.
ITEM G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Request for annexation and zoning of 150.79 acres of land for R-4 zoning By Bear Creek, LLC – east of Stoddard Road & south of Overland:
ITEM H. Findings of Fact And Conclusions of Law: Request for preliminary plat for proposed Bear Creek Subdivision of 326 single-family dwelling lots by Bear Creek, LLC – east of Stoddard
Road & south of Overland
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, if it – point of information. I have some items that I could, I think, handle in Pre-Council about some agenda items of late communications that I’ve received if
that’s agreeable. Mr. Mayor and Council, I would report on the items under the Consent Agenda, Items G and H, that I had a conversation with JoAnne Butler who represents the applicant.
There may be a couple of items that they may want to open this back up on with regards to potential misunderstanding. She’s not sure that there is, and she just requested that I communicate
to the Mayor and Council that if you would be agreeable to hold
and just continue those items to the next Council meeting, then she’ll know where she is on this, so I told her I would communicate that to you.
ITEM 1. Tabled 11/16/99: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Request for rezone of 7.265 acres for Creekside Arbour Phase II from R-8 to R-15 by William & Lucile Leavell – end
of 5th, north of Creekside Arbour Phase and south of Fairview:
ITEM 2. Tabled 11/16/99: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Request for conditional use permit to construct 16 four-plexes with pool and clubhouse for use by Phase I & II (proposed
Creekside Arbour Phase II) by William & Lucile Leavell:
Under Item, old business, No. 1, I believe that I’ve just handed to you a letter -- I received a communication from Fred Shoemaker who represents the developers in this particular instance.
This particular development had some issues with regards to some conditions. I believe there was a possibility of them entering into some negotiations with some neighboring properties
with regards to access. I don’t believe that that ended up in facilitating their needs through access through neighboring properties. There are a couple of things that he wanted in
the Development Agreement which I cannot reconcile given the pending action at least as we’ve submitted it, and I think the best thing to do would be to request that it be re-open the
public hearings so they can submit a final plan which shows some pedestrian pathway accesses and some access issues there as to whether or not roads would be required to be dedicated
to the public and not – in order to address all those things, we may have to re-open a public hearing. We’re going to have the issues here of Council members going off who heard that,
and that could be a problem here as to whether or not the Council would consider appointing them a special hearing officers to continue to make that decision or whether or not new Council
members would have to familiarize themselves with the entire record on this in order to do that – does pose a problem. I have the letter in front of you that will point out exactly
what those issues are, and you can look at that to see how you feel about that. I just point that out, and I would have gotten the letter to you sooner, but by the time I was able to
read through that, what he had submitted, and go back through what had been submitted and try not to get something where you have to look through three or four different documents to
figure out where the differences are, that’s why this is coming to you at the time that it has. I believe that could affect Item No. 2 as well since that’s that same project.
Corrie: So your recommendation is to table these again and re-open them on a public hearing, then? Both of them?
Gigray: Yeah, although, I think we may want to discuss how that’s going to be done because we have two Council members that heard and were a part of all of
this, part of the decision making. Without some kind of insurrection or going to go off tonight. I do think that the Council could appoint them as special hearing officers in order
because they have heard this too, with the consent of everybody, so that they could be a part of that final decision. That – I’d have to retrofit the final Findings to show that; otherwise,
the new Council members are going to have to – and they can read the transcript of the minutes and the hearings for this particular matter. I think that gets awkward because you get
two people that haven’t been involved in the process before, but that’ll be something for your deliberation, or you can decide that you’re going to go on the record that’s there at this
point in time and leave it alone.
Corrie: So they would be hearing officers as well as the Council (inaudible)
Gigray: Well, it’s so you keep the same decision makers.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree, what do you think about that?
Rountree: I’d be willing to do (inaudible) I’ll affix a satisfactory fee (inaudible)
Bird: You want a consulting fee.
Corrie: You want that fee to –
Rountree: Reflect mileage –
Corrie: -- reflect mileage and time.
Gigray: I think procedure, we can ask procedural questions. Yeah.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I believe the representative of the owner is here. Could we – don’t want to ask any questions that’s not procedural or – is that the way they would – would that be
satisfactory with them? Let’s put it that way.
Knopp: I have a signed Development Agreement here (inaudible – not speaking in a microphone) That’s the only issue (inaudible) if we have to (inaudible) public hearing again (inaudible)
don’t think (inaudible) tax records here from the Leavells on that piece of property (inaudible)
Bird: Do you want to look at this letter that we received?
Knopp: Yeah. I think that’s the one that –
Bird: Have you had privilege to it?
Knopp: I got it – Mr. Shoemaker (inaudible) his office (inaudible)
Gigray: yeah. This is my letter to the Council just trying to contrast the proposed order and decision. That’s what these numbers are here and then what I’ve got here is the Order
and Decision would provide this – and then as you’ll see in italics, the developer proposes to eliminate that. That way you can track it all the way so you’ll know what those issues
are.
Knopp: Like I said, I was – I thought we had everything – everything was (inaudible) in agreement except for that one little triangle piece that (inaudible)
Bird: That comes off of Fairview down there?
Knopp: Yeah, that comes off of Fairview (inaudible) all along, Leavells will (inaudible) We want to annex (inaudible) Leavells just don’t want to go through the expense (inaudible)
to do that. Just (inaudible) because, see, they’ve only got part of it – only part of it is theirs. The other portion of this little triangle is in the property to the west (inaudible)
Bird: (inaudible) right-of-way? Some of it’s right-of-way, isn’t it?
Knopp: We’re just asking, and we’ve asked this all along (inaudible) City to take it in and do whatever they have to to get it taken care of (inaudible) down the road (inaudible).
Bird: (inaudible)
Gigray: Shari, have you got this?
Corrie: Shari Stiles.
Stiles: Was there a question?
Bird: Yes, Shari. I’d like to know what you think – is there any problem annexing that little property there that you can see?
Stiles: Well, the applicant has stated they don’t want to annex it because of the cost and the time to do that. If they don’t do it, then our staff has to try to find time, and I don’t
see that happening in the near future. Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Shari.
Stiles: We had asked Mr. Gigray if it could be considered as an error because it appears to us it’s an obvious error in the previous ordinances that have been passed, and thought that
we could merely amend those ordinances to correct them and to include that area, but apparently, we’ve got some legal requirements that preclude that from happening. So if that can’t
happen, then we would actually have to prepare an application, we’d have to have public hearings, and
the staff, we’re not prepared to do that soon with the workload that we have right now.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I was asked to look at that, and because this is more than just the fact that it was a typo where it was 100 rather than 200 feet or whatever,
I felt that the safest play would be rather than amend the existing annexation ordinance, just leave it alone and just annex this piece and bring it in and zone it and leave it alone.
Because it’s in right-of-way of ACHD and because it’s less than five acres, it seems to me the City would have authority to do it. Whether or not the City wants to do this on its own,
I think, comes under the administration of the Planning and Zoning Director and their staff because they would be the ones that would have to get it going. We’ll certainly prepare the
necessary paperwork that is associated with Council action or P & Z action, but, of course, they have to staff it to get it going. I don’t see a problem with the City doing it on its
own. I don’t know. Maybe at some point we could have enclave days where you could just do a bunch of them around. Let it sit for awhile and then deal with it. Just don’t write any
citations on that part.
Stiles: The biggest problem that we had was that the access into the property would be in the county. It – the frontage of that property is in the county.
Bird: It doesn’t go all the way to Fairview? That little piece doesn’t go all the way to Fairview?
Stiles: It does. It includes the right-of-way and goes to the frontage of the property.
Bird: What’s in the county, then?
Stiles: The little triangular –
Bird: The little triangle, okay.
Knopp: I don’t know if Council’s seen this. This is the tax parcel that we got from the assessor’s office, and that’s what we’re talking about is this little triangle piece right up
here. One of our entrances to the project (inaudible) Phase I of the project. As you can see, part of it’s on (inaudible) 1,000 square feet (inaudible) is to the neighbor to the west
and out into the right-of-way, and this is the tax copy of the tax property tax deals that list this one lists the breakdown and gives the number related back to that parcel. In here,
in ’93 and in ’94, they combined – In ’94 the property bill combined all of these properties. If you’ll read the legal and the description it’s giving here on the parcel number. In
’93, there were – three separate parcels, and they were all, I assume, City. They combined them in ’94 (inaudible) Leavells have been paying taxes on them. As you can see, it’s 1,000
square feet –
Bird: Beg pardon?
Rountree: To the City as well?
Bird: Have they been paying city taxes on them?
Knopp: That’s what they claim.
Bird: Have they got a tax notice? Their tax – tell real fast.
Gigray: If that’s being taxed for the City, then they – the State Tax Commission would have had to received an ordinance that would have included the area, and they would have mapped
it.
Bird: (inaudible)
Gigray: I can’t imagine that it happened. If it is, then it’s already been done, no problem.
Bird: No. They’re not paying City. They’re paying Ada County, emergency, they’re paying the school district; they’re paying all the Meridian City – they are too. They are – 2868,
yeah.
Rountree: Another case for the log books.
Bird: Well that kind of sheds light on it, don’t it? Give it to Clerk. Okay. What do we do now? They –
(inaudible discussion amongst Council members)
Corrie: Should we go ahead and make sure we do the Findings of Facts?
Bird: Are you sure we haven’t got it somewhere? (inaudible) We’ve got it on the City tax rolls (inaudible) It couldn’t be lost in some other ordinance or something, could it, Shari?
Stiles: It could be an error on the part of the county when they put in the original ordinance.
Corrie: It’s an error in our favor.
Stiles: I would still like to go with amending the original ordinances.
Bird: Okay. (inaudible)
Gigray: If it clearly is a separate piece at this point because it isn’t being annexed or whatever, I’m just thinking since we don’t – if we can identify clearly that there is an error,
excuse me, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, if we can identify a clear error and a description that was properly advertised and annexed at the time that it was done so that we can
testify short stepping the notice and hearing requirements so that the record is very clear that this is a technical error change, and it isn’t the case where a property parcel has been
omitted and never included in any advertising or hearing, then possibly we could go that route barring a scorched earth search of all of that, I was thinking it might be just easier,
and then we know we’re clean and everything’s above board and proper, and you can identify when that parcel was identified as not being in the City by staff, this is how it was corrected,
here was the action, and here’s the ordinance of annexation and the zoning and so on and so forth. That’s my feel. If we’ve got clear evidence of an error, we can take a staff report
of the error and prepare the ordinance at the direction of Mayor and Council and proper zoning and do it on the basis that it was an error, and we need to identify what ordinance it
was that was the error. I guess that would be the one we’d be amending. So, I mean, there’s going to be a certain amount of staff work involved just to do that, or we could ignore
it.
Corrie: The way I look at it, we’ve got three choices.
Bird: You should have gotten away from the mike.
Gigray: I mean, legally, you could.
Bird: Legally, evidently, according to the assessor, it is our property.
Gigray: Well, we’re not arguing over that.
Rountree: If we took action otherwise, I’m assuming we’d have to pay them back, the taxes we collected.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, there is a statutory time within which, actually, if they were going to try to get taxes that were not properly – there’s a decision I know
in the 4th District that puts that right close to a tort claim for alleged error on the part, and once – that starts to run, at least that’s the way Judge Smith, in a case that I tried,
that’s what he ended up ruling that they were on notice the minute they got that tax notice, and if they didn’t pick up on it within 180 days, they were done. So you’re in pretty good
shape there.
Bird: Should we go ahead and pass these, then?
Corrie: The recommendation is to –
Gigray: Well, I mean – I think we’re going to have to look at the conditions when you get to them, and I don’t know where Mr. Knopp is in relationship to these things that Fred Shoemaker
submitted because I think it poses some issues over pathways and some other things that I don’t think were part of the record.
Corrie: Come up here and at least get what’s going on on the record.
Knopp: As I indicated earlier, the pedestrian pathway was addressed in the Planning and Zoning Council. They approved in the minutes, and we went over the minutes at the meeting that
allowed and they agreed to provide a path through Phase I. Shari Stiles requested that we delineate that, and I have done that and submitted that to them so we know exactly where that
pathway is. I just wanted that done so that it still wasn’t up in the open, and you’ve got a copy of that, don’t you, Shari? Yeah. I gave you a copy of it. I went through and I verified
Phase I and where it was at and marked it. I’ve got a copy of it in here, so you know, the pedestrian pathway and nothing else is an issue. We thought we had an issue with the entrance
on Fairview Avenue. What we were trying to do – the issue that we had was that ACHD wanted to make that a public road. Down three or four hundred feet to access the property that was
to the west of the Leavells who have put an option on that ground right now and want to buy that and do a Phase III into that. But what I was trying to do was get an agreement with
ACHD where if we could combine the entrances on this development and the development to the west that is existing, that shopping center or little shopping commercial area there, that
ACHD would drop their requirement for the public street and that section would go back to being private because the Leavells are really, for some reason, in their mind, they don’t want
the terminology “public street” on that road coming down off of Fairview. I could not come to an agreement with the property owners next door. They wanted us to foot the bill on all
the expenses plus to tear out and rebuild on their property. My client was not willing to foot the bill for everything and put the entrance on the drive and go through that, so the
negotiations fell through, so we’re back to square one. We’re going with ACHD’s and the public road and the access. We haven’t changed it. So there is no – nothing there to – we’re
just leaving it the same. All the conditions of ACHD is appropriate for this.
Corrie: You haven’t changed anything – Counselor, with reference to either one of these items (inaudible) said, then?
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, when you take action at a meeting based on the record and then direct that I prepare Findings and the reference to those Findings including
recommendations of staff or Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations, I have some very specific language that’s associated with either staff reports or Planning and Zoning recommendations,
and so I prepare those with that language in them. If I change that language, I usually try to send a routing slip to you explaining what’s been changed and why. You know, if there
were inconsistencies in those staff reports to the overall action
the Council took, and that’s what I did in that situation, and so if you want to change the Findings until you adopt them, you can do so, and you can do that based upon the record that
has been presented and the hearing. So I’m going to leave that to your judgment given the information that you have before you as to what you want to do. I’ve prepared some – if you
want them changed, and you decide you want to adopt them tonight, and you’re going to make any changes, you’ll need to reference what changes you’re going to make and which ones so
we can prepare the final set so it matches your decision. What this letter is telling you is how it reads now versus the italicized items or what the developer has proposed.
Knopp: What I’d like to see if this is at all possible, and I think it would – I think it would benefit everybody and clarify everything is that we have addressed the items that were
in question. We did address phasing so that the Leavells could go ahead and occupy the units as they were built, but would have to put a bond or a letter of credit or something on any
unfinished portion of it. So the items we initially had problems with the Development Agreement that was put together by Mr. Gigray initially, I think we have sat down and talked it
out and discussed it. I don’t think there is anything left, but what I would like to see, maybe, is to table it until the next hearing to get together with Mr. Gigray and whoever we
have to get together with to finalize and get the terminology down correctly because, you know, as far as the Facts and Findings, and the most critical thing is to get this piece, triangle
piece, that’s supposedly in question, to have that disappear. To get it – make sure it’s in the City and let us get this Development Agreement signed and so that everybody can get on
down the road with this. I know my client is very anxious to go ahead and get going with this project. So, you know, that’s their biggest concern is right now is that little triangle
piece, and to get that ironed out and maybe some of the documents as far as the property bills and those items that I gave you tonight will get a clarification on that so we can say,
yeah, let’s move ahead; it’s in the City or the City will take care of it. I guess I was under the impression, initially, when it came out of Planning and Zoning Commission that they
were – had directed us to come up with a new legal or exclude that portion of the property to move the process along, and I was under the assumption that we were just excluding it.
We would rewrite a legal, my client went through that expense, it cost him about $1,000 to get that little piece excluded from the legal so that it went through the process correctly,
and nobody understood the – Civil Engineer that we had work on it and the assessor’s office when we were trying to dig up the information on it to come up with this legal, nobody understood,
neither one of those entities understood why we were going through this process. They couldn’t understand why we were directed to go this route. Anyway, we’ve tried to meet all the
different aspects of it, and we would like it to go into the City if it isn’t into the City or if it is in the City already, just prove it and let’s go on down the road, whatever it
takes. Anyway, that’s what I would like to do is to table it to the next meeting, set up a meeting with Mr. Gigray and whoever we have to set it up with to finalize this so that it
doesn’t keep dragging on and get the terminology and everything because the only thing at
this point in time is that triangle piece of property that’s in question. Everything else has been agreed to and resolved and ACHD – we’re going with all of their recommendations; we
couldn’t work – it’ll be a public road for three or four hundred feet down off of Fairview and all their conditions (inaudible).
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I appreciate Mr. Knopp’s comments, but I would recommend the Council not consider a follow-up meeting with the developer, not that we wouldn’t
want to meet with the developer, but I think the point of this at – is that you have directed Findings be prepared, the record’s closed at this point, and I’ve prepared those Findings
based on how I understood your motion, and I am limited on what I can do based on what Council action has been done. We don’t have, I think, the liberty at this point to get into meetings
with developers about appropriate language in Orders that is not a part of the direction that we have from the Council. If we were going to do that, then I think the proper way to go
about this would be then to reset this for a public hearing and re-open this back up since you haven’t adopted the Findings so that additional information could be received by the Council
and that could be in light of the meeting with the developer so that record is made before you and then you could make your decision based on that additional information. If you do
that, we run into this issue about who’s going to decide it because of the change in the Council, so you’ve got to think about that. On the other hand, I think you could, based on the
record that’s been presented before you, and I would treat my letter as informational and a matter for only presented issues anymore than issues would be presented in an argument with
regards to what the Findings should be, and you could decide, if you want to, based on the evidence in the record already presented that you want to make the decision and enter the order
and you could decide whether or not you want to change some of these provisions because you reserve that right always until you make that decision. I would just ask if you were going
to change any of these provisions that I’d know what ones are being changed and in what manner so we can prepare the final document. That’s the way I see it. I think either you continue
it for public hearing, we can have the meeting with the developers, come back and present additional evidence on these issues and then you can close the hearing and make a decision,
or you just decide it on what you’ve got.
Corrie: Mr. Clerk, to re-open the public hearing, do we have to (inaudible)
Berg: Mr. Mayor, yes, we do. It’s not really re-opening the public hearing; it’s just creating a new public hearing and opening that. We’ve closed the public hearing.
Corrie: Okay. Council know what they want to do now?
Rountree: (inaudible)
Bird: With this letter, Charlie, there’s still quite a – I mean, what they don’t agree to, changes of wording a lot on some of these items. Has Shari looked this over?
Rountree: (inaudible)
Bird: They agreed to everything but these in this letter, as I understand it. Lynn? Am I wrong?
Rountree: I heard him say they agree to everything, but the situation with (inaudible).
Bird: Is that right?
Knopp: We agreed to everything except the annexation (inaudible)
Gigray: All right, then, that’s the last item. If that’s the case, it’s the last item – the elimination of 2.13; that’s the one that talks about the annexation.
Bird: Okay. I agree with you, Charlie, then.
Corrie: Okay. Anything else on the agenda that you want to discuss with any staff member? Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: Just does staff has any comments on any of the Findings?
Stiles: I don’t have any – I’ve looked at them so many times that I’m sick of looking at them.
Rountree: Do you know them by heart?
Stiles: Pretty close.
Corrie: Okay?
ITEM E. Order of Decision: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Administrator’s denial of sign permit by Meridian Library:
Gigray: I just note, and Shari brought this to my attention, her review – the Order of Decision, Item E, there will be a correction: Meridian Library District doesn’t appear in the
Order and Decision. It references Idaho Independent Bank which is an error, and that will be changed and submitted. The reason that happened is – I would tell you that I prepared that
order to assure that there was consistency in your action in those two matters because the factual basis in both of them was identical. Your action was the same.
ITEM 14. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
City Attorney – Bill Gigray
1. Request by Seven Gates:
Corrie: Okay. Any other items to bring up? I’ve got one. Bill, what is the request by Seven Gates?
Gigray: This request – the owner of that particular – the applicant met with me in my office and indicated as the letter which has been submitted represents that the wrong plan had
been submitted as part of the record, and, of course, that plan is referred to in the Findings, and that they – he said that was clearly an error on their part, and I don’t see how you
can address this issue other than to leave the action that you’ve taken to stand because you’ve taken final action or it’d take a motion, and I think a motion to re-open the hearing
and also a motion to waive the rules with regard to the time period in which you can reconsider a final action, and then that motion should include to re-open the public hearing to receive
the additional information based upon a mistake affect on the part of the applicant.
Bird: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I believe that, and Shari can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that was over the landscaping, wasn’t it, Shari?
Stiles: Yes.
Bird: And we’ve seen one, and it wasn’t the right one, I guess.
Stiles: It’s what they submitted six days before the meeting, so –
Bird: Yeah. I know.
Gigray: Here again, we’re going to have old Council, new Council issues.
Corrie: Okay. Anything else? Okay. We’ll have a motion to – I guess we need a motion to close the Pre-Council.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Pre-Council and go into regular session at 7:30. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK