HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 01-18 PreMERIDIAN CITY PRE-COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 18, 2000
The Pre-Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:40 p.m. on Tuesday, January 18, 2000 by Mayor Robert Corrie.
Members Present: Robert Corrie, Tammy deWeerd, Cherie McCandless, Keith Bird, Ron Anderson.
Others Present: Bill Gigray, Gary Smith, Kenny Bowers, Shari Stiles, Bill Gordon, Tom Kuntz, Will Berg.
Corrie: Okay. I’ll open the special session on Pre-Council meeting at 6:40 p.m., January 18, 2000. Council, your pleasure on the questions. Staff? Mr. Anderson.
Item D. Tabled 1/4/2000: 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 and south of Overland:
Item E. Tabled 1/4/2000: 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 and south of Overland:
Anderson: Bear Creek. What do we do with that? That’s on Consent Agenda, isn’t it?
Corrie: Good question. Mr. Smith. I guess you’re up – I think you sent us a memo the 18th that we need to find out what you had in mind there and what procedures we need from Bill
to – what we need to do, what we should do.
Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. I was just wanting to get a couple of clarifications on the Findings of Fact. I think I listed those on my memo. It was a concern
that I’ve got with some of the verbiage, the meanings of some of the words along with the statement that the Black Cat Trunk sewer fee was going to be $1500 per lot, and that has not
been established absolutely yet. That was an estimate at the time that the testimony was taken. I’d really rather see, hopefully, a different type of language that does not establish
that fee to be $1500. I’m not sure what the number is, but I’d rather have the flexibility at this point to make a final determination in the very near future. I think my other comments
were mostly just my thoughts on some of the words that were used as to whether they were or this project was disturbing to others and whether or not it was going to cause excessive traffic.
I believe it will. I believe that it is disturbing to others. I just wondered if there were better words that could be used. I think this is kind of canned, shouldn’t say canned,
typical language with these for
Findings. I’m not sure that maybe Bill could comment. I think that was the crux of my comments, Mayor, Council members.
Corrie: I think there is a couple places there, too, that acreage was wrong.
Smith: Oh, yes, sir. Correct. For some reason or another, I don’t know where the 150 acres came from, but the legal description has 154 acres as it’s described and as a part of the
Findings. I would assume that perhaps maybe the – I talked to Bruce Freckleton and he thought that maybe the rights-of-way had been taken out of the annexation description to get to
the 150 acres. But the annexation should include the rights-of-ways and should include all of the property in that legal description. Thank you.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Gary, I see in the deal that they’ve got approximately, the developer (inaudible) to pay approximately $1500. It doesn’t say a flat $1500 in this one. They also have
changed it to the owners of Lot 1 have indicated their desire to donate to the public a park. Well, who is Lot 1? Who are the owners of Lot 1? That’s what I mean. Yeah. They’ve
taken – this is the thing that JoAnne sent back to Bill. Bill has sent on to us. Maybe you haven’t seen it, Gary. I don’t know.
Smith: No, I haven’t, Councilman Bird.
Bird: Would you have any problem with it being approximately $1500?
Smith: No, sir. I wouldn’t have any problem with the word approximately being added to it.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. I don’t know how the other Council members feel, but I think we definitely need to take this off of the Consent Agenda and if we want to put it towards the end or
at the end of the other one, or if we have time, run into it, it would be fair to me, but I think there’s some – looks like to me they’re trying to change some stuff that we passed.
If they want to do that, they have to start back through the process as I understand the process.
Corrie: Some of the things, too, Mr. Bird, I think they’re trying to change the preliminary plat that we already approved.
Bird: That’s right.
Corrie: According to Mr. Gigray’s letter, I think that they also want the City to develop the park, park fees.
Bird: Well, that’s what I kind of take it here, too. I don’t – not being a lawyer and the way these lawyers write, it’s hard for us laypeople to understand, but I kind of got that
idea, too, that they might want us to fund that out of our Impact Fees.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as I understand the procedure at this point, you have before you Findings which our office has prepared because you have closed the public
hearing. You haven’t taken any final action, at least according to my records, and I would defer to the City Clerk because he has the official records which means that these Findings
have not yet been adopted, but you have closed the public hearing which means that you’ve closed off the receipt of any new evidence and testimony concerning facts relative to these
two proposals. If you want to go ahead and deliberate and make a decision based on only the evidence that has been presented at the hearings other than argument that would be submitted,
then you can proceed to make whatever decisions you feel the evidence would support. If you want to receive additional evidence on some of the issues that have been raised here regarding
matters about why a requirement to dedicate the park is not advantageous to the developer because I believe of IRS regulations issues regarding the accredit against what I would assume
are Impact Fees for the park for its dedication and development and some of these other matters, it seemed, at least to my knowledge, outside of the motion that was made by Council directing
me to make the Findings. That’s why I recommended in my memo to the Council that if you want to get into these matters that you probably should reschedule this for a public hearing
and someone would need to open it back up for a public hearing and then give notice so that everyone else can appear and testify if they have a position on it. As far as the issues
concerning the Findings relative to infrastructure issues, I had to in this particular one prepare Findings in light of what I felt was the motion made by the Council. We had to work
from the Planning and Zoning recommendations which that motion directly related to. I believe in my memo to the Council specified those areas of the recommendations that I left out
because I felt that they were contradictory because of the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission included all of Public Works’ Comments, some of which I think would
gravitate to a denial of this project. You’re the ones that make the Findings. As long as you feel the evidence produced at the hearing supports whatever Finding you end up voting
for, then you can make whatever changes you want to. Or if you want to delve into these subjects in more particular traffic and other things that have been raised, then my advice would
be open it back up to a public hearing and re-advertise it and re-address those issues at that time.
Corrie: Comments, Council?
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. To understand this a little bit more, if we keep it on the Consent Agenda and approve it as written with the changes that Gary has specified, because they don’t
change content, it’s just corrections, correct?
Gigray: In my view, some of the Findings with regards to traffic issues might pose other issue to the approval of this application which was the heart of the emotion that was made.
I would need specific direction from you as to what you would be advising me to change the Findings so that they were worded in the way that you wanted them worded and which ones.
See, I can’t just make these up. I have to go from the record that is made and from the motion that’s made. That’s what I try to do as best I can. So I need specific directions –
you have, the Council has numerous times in the past made corrections in those Findings, and you just tell me in your motion what those corrections are so when we resubmit them to the
Clerk, they include whatever corrections you’ve requested.
deWeerd: So I guess the technical comments like the acreage and the per-lot sewer trunk line fee if changes to the wording – I guess what I’m asking is if we correct what could be corrected
without re-opening it, they can appeal?
Gigray: Judicial review. The test is whether there’s going to be substantial evidence in the record to support the Finding. If there is, the Court will affirm it.
deWeerd: So we probably should table this until next meeting so that we can look into those things? Look at the –
Gigray: My advice is if you’re going to receive more evidence, testimony and information other than just argument about what is in the record already, I think you need to re-open the
public hearing, and, in fact, if you’re going to hear argument about whether the Findings should say this or the other, I think you should give notice to all parties that you’re going
to entertain such motion so everybody has an opportunity to argue the record as they see it. That’d be like me representing a party in a lawsuit and the judge saying I’m going to hear
final argument and I don’t get invited. It’s a problem. If we’re dealing with technical issues relative to getting just the right acreage or something to that nature, I’m not too concerned
about that as long as we can point the record and know exactly what it is because I’m just following the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, or if we’ve made a typo,
we can correct those things without any big problem. Or if you feel in your analysis of this that there’s a Finding in there that is flat wrong and that you know the evidence supports
another Finding, you can move that that be changed and we do it. But if you’re going to get – You know, I think the line of demarcation is are we getting into new stuff that wasn’t
presented in the public hearing.
deWeerd: Bill, when you do these, do you – when you do the Findings, do you also look at the recommendations back to P & Z or do you take that –
Gigray: Depends on the motion that the Council members made.
deWeerd: I don’t know, Mr. Mayor, if this is the appropriate place to raise this, but as I sat on that side of your bench, I was always amazed that you guys never
knew what P & Z meant in their recommendations. Now I see that you don’t even get their minutes. So I guess now I understand why you didn’t know where P & Z is coming from on their
conditions because you don’t read the transcripts. Is there a reason we don’t have those?
Gigray: I don’t know the answer to that question. That’s part of the record. The only thing that my recommendation to the Council is if you get this process so complicated that you
have to or I have to look at 48 different things in order to draft Findings, there isn’t enough time.
deWeerd: But when it came from P & Z and that’s why even look for it, when it came from P & Z, did P & Z say that we would credit the impact fees to that park? I don’t think we did,
but I don’t have the minutes to refer back to.
Gigray: There are specific recommendations that are Findings and Recommendations from Planning and Zoning and if the Council, and many times has made the motion, that they approve the
project subject to the conditions and Findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, if that’s part of the motion, then I incorporate those verbatim in your Findings. Except in this
case, there were some recommendations included in the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation that included all of the comments of the Public Works of which some I felt were
contradictory to the motion of approval and I, in my memo to the Council, I specified what portion of those recommendations I had left out so that if you disagreed, you’d know what was
not included in your proposed Findings that had been included in the Planning and Zoning Commission’s Findings. Now, the motion is an alternative motion. If, say, it’s a motion to
include the Recommendations of the staff excluding the Planning and Zoning Commission, then that means I have to go through the file and find out where all those are to put them together
in Findings and Decision and Order. That’s always a more laborious process because that – that’s helpful to me if you’re saying just the recommendations of Public Works or you’re saying
the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Administrator, does that include the recommendations of the Ada County Highway District and everybody else, and that’s why I’m thinking
that this process can work a lot better if when those recommendations and Findings come out of Planning and Zoning Commission are issued through the Clerk’s office, a letter goes with
them as well as a position statement so that the staff, the developer and affected property owners can fill out a position statement, and you know what their position is about those
Planning and Zoning recommendations, so you know where the issues are. This needs to be changed, that needs to be changed, and it’s got to be worded this way or that way.
deWeerd: Can this be an item for our workshop?
Corrie: (inaudible) a lot of changes we’re going to have a workshop on all of them.
Gigray: See, at this point, as I understand the process, we get a recommendation or the Clerk’s office gets recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission and its schedules
along with the Mayor for the matter of public hearing before City Council so notice can be given. Then you have a public hearing here. Usually you close those public hearings. Sometimes
you continue them. Then I’m directed to prepare Findings and submit them to you by the very next meeting. I have to go off of my notes in order to make that time table because I cannot
wait for the minutes of the meeting because there’s usually quite a bit of transcript and it takes the Clerk’s office a fair amount of time in order to simply physically type all of
that. So in order for me to get all of that back to you, I have to have that all put together. If I have a motion that’s concise to the record, whatever it is, and if you have a record
before you so you can make your concise motion, the potential for error or whatever is less. If we have broader scope situations with more and more conditions that could be worded different
ways involving more and more information and chances for error or the chances for different interpretations of what a motion should mean are greater and greater.
deWeerd: We just need to work on this process. I guess we don’t need to go into detail about this on this one, but what do we want to do with this?
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I think we have to pull it and get it back open. They’re proposing to change some substance to our motion. Most of the time, what I’ve seen, is we usually include
the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning, conditions of the Planning and Zoning. This one we didn’t a hundred percent, I don’t believe. We had some in there, but they’re changing
too much stuff. I certainly wouldn’t want to see it on a Consent Agenda. I think there’s some stuff in here that they should have the opportunity to respond to because we’re certainly
not – I’m certainly not going to take what they’re outlining and doing it without having another public hearing myself. I think you have to get it, Mr. Clerk, if I’m right, to get it
to an open meeting, we’d have to go to the 15th of February, wouldn’t we, so that we could – be too quick to go to the first, wouldn’t it? So we’d have to pull those two and table them
until the 2/15 and have a public hearing, open them back up to a public hearing. I don’t want – I feel that we’re playing with the substance of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law on both items. What I thought was agreed upon. Then when we get a letter from the Council marking stuff out that we did not agree upon, I’m not going to pass something for that.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, the other option is to approve them the way we felt, we voted, or you voted.
Bird: That’s right. Then as the attorney said, we can go to court.
deWeerd: Judicial review.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I guess the problem with that is we still have some things that aren’t clear on the sewer issues in my mind that I think would be better off to table them.
deWeerd: And re-open it.
Corrie: Re-open on the 15th of February. I agree with that, too.
Bird: That’s (inaudible) fair to both parties and get it right. Because they misinterpreted something (inaudible) or we misinterpreted something, and I don’t think that Bill did.
I think we were pretty clear in our motion.
Item C. Tabled 12/21/99: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law: Request for conditional use permit for 283-lot planned development for proposed Woodbridge Subdivision on 80.83
acres from R-T to R-4 by Woodbridge Community, LLC – south ½ of the NW ¼, section 17, T3N, R1E:
Item D. Tabled 1/4/2000: 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
and south of Overland:
Item E. Tabled 1/4/2000: 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 and south of Overland:
Item F. Tabled 1/4/2000: Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law: request for conditional use permit commercial subdivision mini-storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland Mini Storage
Subdivision By Overland Mini Storage, LLC – 1230 East Overland Road:
Corrie: The other two Items C and F, the two new Council people, were you comfortable with (inaudible) you could certainly pull those off (inaudible).
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I have read all of them, and I don’t know how comfortable I am with them, but I have read them all.
Corrie: Mr. Berg.
Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, these two items were tabled because of the annexation process that needed to be completed before them. Today I did receive a signed Development
Agreement from Woodbridge with the suggestion of review by the attorney before we put it on the agenda, but the process is we need to have this signed Development Agreement and then
approve the
annexation ordinance, and then we can deal with the CUPs. That’s what both of these items involve.
Bird: So we need to pull them to the 1st of February? (inaudible)
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I believe that, correct me, Mr. Clerk, if I’m wrong, that the Development Agreement involved Snorting Bull, was one of the parties, and I
have – there’s been, as it often happens, and this is something that I would like to see get more clarified in the public hearings, these applications where they’re anticipating selling
the property somebody else. We prepare these Development Agreements and then they come back and say, well, we’re selling this to so-and-so, so we’ve got to revise this and put another
party in there, and it’s not really been clear in the public record that’s going to happen. We’ve tried to facilitate that because simply unless the owner was the central part of the
condition which it has not been thus far, but in this particular instance, I have reviewed that Development Agreement. I have reviewed the strike-throughs and they deal with who the
party is and their address and those sorts of things. It looks okay to me unless I’m looking at the wrong one. Will, you can correct me. I would think that would be ready to go and
the Council could then move to approve the Mayor and Clerk’s signature of that Development Agreement and that one could move forward at least to the best of my knowledge.
Bird: How about the – Mr. Mayor, how about the Overland Mini Storage? Same thing on that? Do we have –
Berg: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, that’s the same situation but I have not received the Development Agreement. I guess a point of clarification to the attorney, if I may, Mr. Mayor,
if the Development Agreements can be approved tonight or do I need to put them on the next agenda? I wait to put them on the agenda until I have a signed Development Agreement, and
some of these get lost in the process because of the back and forth of the little changes or the change of ownership. Just for clarification.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, you know, I think the process you’ve been following is fine. We could put the Development Agreements along with the Findings as an agenda
item so when they come back in and if they’ve been signed by the developer, Council could go ahead and approve the City entering into those and maybe what should happen with Item F if
it be continued to be tabled because we don’t have a Development Agreement signed, possibly, the Clerk’s office could notice this developer that this is being held and we need clarification
as to what’s going on here. I can’t remember now exactly why this one hasn’t been signed. Was this a change of ownership?
Bird: So we need to table that?
Corrie: Table Items C and F. Table those two.
Bird: He’s saying we might be able to –
Corrie: C is all right.
Bird: Okay. Leave C on? Table D and E?
Corrie: Right.
Bird: We’re tabling D, E and F. We’re tabling, but in the same motion we’ll move E and F to re-open to a public hearing on February 15, 2000.
Corrie: Anything else on the Consent Agenda? Explanation – anything to talk about?
Item H. Building Inspectors – Contract for Services:
Anderson: Oh. The Building Inspector’s Contracts?
Corrie: Did you get copies of those?
Anderson: Yes. Ask Gary a question?
Corrie: Yes.
Anderson: Gary, on the Building Contract for Services, did you review those and is that the same contract, the same dollar amounts and everything as last year?
Smith: Yes, sir. Everything’s the same except for the date.
Anderson: All right. Thank you.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray.
Item 2. ORDINANCE NO. 853 Solid Waste Collection Services/Franchise:
Item 7. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to LO for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company – Eagle Road and Magic View: Approve
- Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Item 8. Public Hearing: Request for conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in L-O
zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company – Eagle Road and Magic View:
Item 9. Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G (Walgreen’s) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. – NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove:
Item 10. Public Hearing: Conditional use permit to construct a
single-tenant commercial building with a drive-thru window
(Walgreen’s) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. – NW corner
of Fairview and Locust Grove:
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I just might note on the regular agenda, and I don’t know if the Clerk’s office has this, but with Ordinance – proposed Ordinance 853 on the
Solid Waste Collection Services and Franchise, there should be an agreement also with SSI as a follow-up to that ordinance. I believe I have gotten a transmittal from their attorney,
Mr. Freeman, that they have, in fact, signed that agreement, and I think we’ve got a copy of their corporate resolution. That’s an item that the Council if it doesn’t take action on
tonight should come fairly soon and then I would encourage the Council to take a look at Items 7 and 8 and 9 and 10, and the Mayor as to whether or not 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 might be
considered a motion to combine those companion applications for public hearing purposes only. That’s something you’ve tended to do and can speed up the process subject to consent of
the applicants and anybody appearing.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, getting back to – I’ve got one question. On Gary’s proposal concerning the latecomers fee, by approving that, is that the proposal, Gary, that you want to implement?
We don’t have any real facts and figures on there that I can see. You’ve got an approximate and something like that.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Bird, I just wanted to change – propose that change to the policy. There is not specific language that I wanted you to approve tonight,
but I wanted to get your review and your comments concerning the format as far as how we return latecomer fees to those that extend sewer and water lines.
Bird: Mr. Mayor. Gary, don’t you believe that is something that we could take about 10, 15 minutes in the workshop this month and discuss?
Smith: Yes, sir. You bet. Sure could.
Bird: So, would you be offended if we agree with you on this proposal but pull it from the Consent Agenda and bring it to the workshop?
Smith: No, not at all. We’ve got several latecomer agreements in the process of being finalized, determined, et cetera. I just want to get the language straight in those agreements
so that we can return this fund and it will have to be taken care of in the agreement with that particular language or that specific language.
Bird: Maybe City Clerk could get us a copy of each one of the Councilmen and the Mayor a copy of that latecomers fee, generic, I know they’re all different, but the generic agreement
to let us look at when we’re doing that.
Smith: I’ll make you a copy of an example agreement that we presently have approved and under contract, so to speak, that’s operational right now.
Bird: Then we’ll put that on the 28th workshop agenda for a short meeting.
Smith: Okay.
Corrie: That’s fine. Anticipating, you being the Council President, we need to sit down and discuss what we can put on the workshop. We might take a half a day on some of these things
because there’s a lot of ordinances coming up.
Bird: I wouldn’t have a problem with that, Mayor.
Corrie: Okay. Anything else, any other questions that Council has?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: Mr. Gigray, on this Ordinance No. 853, did you say to hold that – you didn’t say that. I just wondered. I didn’t think you had, just the agreement’s coming in. Okay.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, all I’m saying is we have prepared an agreement, we have worked with SSI on the terms and conditions of that agreement. That has been approved
all the way around. SSI has taken corporate action to enter into the agreement, and I’m just saying it is appropriate in my view if the Council wishes to consider it, that agreement
could be approved following the passage of that Franchise Ordinance.
Corrie: Thank you.
Item 3. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning (R-T TO R-4) by Charles Crane – located at 3610 W. Ustick Road:
Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I had a question on Item 3 that public hearing and the request for annexation for Charles Crane. Refresh my memory. What was the deal on that one and what were
we waiting on?
Bird: The road. Ada County Highway District (inaudible).
Anderson: Okay.
Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council and Councilman Anderson, as I remember, the reason that was continued or the reason it was re-opened for public hearing is that the way the
motion had been made on the Findings and the proposed Development Agreement, it required some kind of dedication of roadway to the Ada County Highway District, and I think his contention
was that he was not planning any immediate development, so therefore, that condition shouldn’t be operable until development occurred, and I think there was some language problem there.
It was something that wasn’t directly addressed, I don’t think at the time of the other hearing by him, so it was recommended it be re-opened. Shari may have further background on
that, but that’s how I remember it. I think it centered on that one condition, primarily. It was a condition requested by Ada County Highway District.
Bird: I believe that’s all been straightened out.
Corrie: Mrs. Stiles.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, that is correct. There were some problems because of the zoning that he was given if he were to dedicate the additional right-of-way at this time would
have put his lots below the minimum requirements of that zone. The way that Ada County Highway District comments read was that upon future development he would be required to meet those
conditions, and the way the Findings were that he had to do that immediately. So that was why the public hearing is being re-opened.
Item 5. Public Hearing: Request for vacation of 20-foot emergency access of Mirage Meadows Subdivision to a new access located at the end of Oakcrest Drive by Robert Higgins, et al
– Block 1, Lots 16 and 17 of Mirage Meadows Subdivision and Lots 19 and 20 of Chateau Meadows east located at the end of Oakcrest Drive:
Anderson: Just a question for Kenny on Item 5, the request for vacation of a 20-foot emergency access. The Mirage Meadows Subdivision. The way I read that, do they want to vacate
that whole thing and that it would disappear, but yet, in your comments, it looks like you were talking about they maintain a gate and stuff like that and I was unclear – it sounded
like it was going to go away entirely, but you were talking about a gate that would be kept up.
Bowers: Mayor Corrie, City Council, Councilman Anderson, there is a road right now that runs right by the Chevron Station. It used to be called Dixie Lane. They have to maintain that
road because there is one house back there where a gentleman is living. They are going to use that road, put a gate and that’s where
our emergency access will be used. They will close down the one you’re talking about completely between the two houses – between the four houses, excuse me. They will close that completely.
We will still have where I believe it’s Oakcrest comes in and meets the old Dixie Lane, we’re going to have them put a gate there. We will still have access to the subdivision, Ron.
Anderson: Okay. Thank you.
Corrie: Any further questions? Okay. We can – I’ll entertain a motion to close the Pre-Council meeting and reconvene at 7:30 for the regular meeting.
Bird: So moved.
Anderson: Second.
Corrie: It’s been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:18
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK