HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-0502 REG MINMINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
May 2, 1995
CALLED TO ORDER
Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers.
Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Winthrop and Thompson were present.
Councilors
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the Regular meeting of April 18, 1995 were accepted as amended with the following:
Page 1, Mayor's Appointments, paragraph 2: should state appointees serving more than two "terms" rather
than "years".
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Presentation of Mayor and Council's annual James M. Ragland "Volunteer Spirit" Community
Service Award.
Donna Daniels was presented with the James M. Ragland Memorial "Volunteer Spirit" Community Service
Award by Mayor Golden.
2. Mayor's proclamation designating the week of May 14-20 as "National Emergency Medical
Services Week".
Mayor Golden read proclamation designating "National Emergency Services Week" which encouraged the
community to observe this week by recognizing the cooperative efforts of Ashland's emergency medical
services teams.
3. Mayor's proclamation designating the week of May 14-20 as "National Historic Preservation
Week".
Mayor Golden read proclamation designating "National Historic Preservation Week" which called upon the
people of Ashland to recognize and participate in this observance.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Departmental Reports for March and April, 1995.
3. Memorandum from Director of Public Works regarding public hearing on May 16 by DEQ on
Ashland WWTP upgrade.
4. Letter from State Division of Audits congratulating the City of Ashland for receipt of GFOA
"Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting" from 1993-94 Annual Audit.
5. Quarterly Financial Report ending March, 1995.
Councilors Winthrop/Hagen m/s approval of Consent Agenda. Voice vote: all ayes. Motion passed.
_I'UBLIC HEARINGS
Request to amend the Procedures Chapter 18.108 of the Land Use Ordinance; reconciling other
sections of the Land Use Ordinance and the Municipal Code to these amendments; amending the
appeals process and making the Planning Commi.c, sion the final decision maker on most land-use
decision; amending the variance criteria and other sections in the Land Use Ordinance; and
repealing Resolutions 73-38 and 88-20.
Planning Director John McLaughlin spoke regarding how the process of this amendment to the Land Use
Ordinance started from the Council goal setting session when Planning was asked to clarify the process and
limit the appeals that come before the Council in an attempt to reduce Council workload, expedite the
process, making it a clear, more objective process. Planning Department looked at the procedures and took
all the actions that are quasi-judicial in nature, all actions that are criteria based in there decisions, not
policy setting but criteria based on the ordinance and said that the Planning Commission would be the final
decision maker on the majority of these actions. The Planning Commission deals with similar actions on
monthly basis, and are trained to make these types of decisions. The Council would hear appeals on zone
changes and annexations that would involve actions on individual parcels. All other appeals would go to
LUBA after the Planning Commission decisions.
On policy matters of comprehensive plan map amendments, ordinance changes, things that are of major
consequence in how the city grows and develops in the future would come before the Council for final
decision. Clarification on issues were also made during this amendment procedure.
Handed out information on past appeals for the last 3 1/2 years; 10 appeals filed; 7 heard by council (3
decided by mediation or dismissed); 4 Type II's; 5 Type I's; 1 Building Permit; 1 appealed to LUBA (City
decisions sustained); 2 PC decisions overturned by Council (one based on a redesign by applicant).
Director McLaughlin asked Council for direction in regards to what they would like and not like to hear in
regards to the appeal process. The recommendation was that the Planning Commission make the final
decision on all quasi-judicial appeals.
Councilor Reid commented on not being able to hear new evidence. She felt people would compare it to
the legal system where someone who may be guilty, got off on a technicality. She feels it is the wrong to
deny new information in this process.
Director McLaughin explained that when there were appeals or an option should the council decide to hear
appeal, the recommendation was that these actions be heard "on the record". Right now on appeals, all
new information can be heard, the decision of the Planning Commission becomes a recommendation and
the hearing process begins over entirely new. All new information could then be presented and decision by
council is a completely separate decision from the Planning Commission. Recommendation is that the
Council hear all appeals "on the record", all issues and points would have to be raised before the Planning
Commission. There would still be a Public Hearing, but the testimony would have to be limited to items
already placed in evidence or testimony already received. He stated that if there are two sides to an issue
that are looking to be adversary, it would make both parties present their complete cases before the
Planning Commission. Knowing that there may be an appeal, one side could not present just a portion of
their evidence and come back to City Council to delay or expedite, by introducing new evidence,
addressing issues that are going to be raised, or raise new issues that they know developers could not
address at that meeting. The Planning Department position is that all issues be raised before the Planning
Commission so all would clear before coming to the Council. The Council decision then would be to
support the Planning Commission's decision, over-rule their decision, remand the Planning Commission
decision or make a decision with additional conditions based on evidence already on record. Planning felt
this would be a way of expediting the process, if everyone knew that all information that was going to be
heard, was in the Council packet.
Councilor Winthrop reported that there were several bills in the legislature that could effect opportunities to
appeal and how land use actions would be heard.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:30 p.m.
Don Greene/375 Normal Ave/In favor of amendment to ordinance and feels that the Planning Department
has two distinct parts; 1) political process and 2) technical process.
Cate Hartzell/881 E. Main/In opposition of amendment to ordinance, feels mediation is significant along
with citizen involvement. This amendment forces the Planning Commission into a litigation situation.
Does not agree with explanation by Planning Department regarding history of appeals. Does not
understand why council feels this appeal process needs to be eliminated.
Jack Blackburn/805 Oak St/In opposition of amendment to ordinance and feels that the appeal process for
Type II should be kept. He would like to see the Council left in the appeal process.
Susan Hunt/220 Nutley/In opposition of amendment to ordinance she feels citizens should have access to
elected officials. Handed out letter from James Moore/1217 Park Street/also in opposition of ordinance
change.
Barbara Ryberg/373 Vista/In opposition of amendment to ordinance and brought with her a petition of 23
signatures stating that this amendment undermines the democratic process.
Debbie Miller/160 Normal/In opposition of amendment to ordinance, feels that when appeal does not reach
Council it is not a complete process. She feels that the elected officials should have input and citizens
should be able to bring appeals to Council.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:53 p.m.
It was confirmed for Councilor Hauck that all Type III appeals come before the Council for final decision
and that one of the proposed changes would be that certain types under Type III would only come before
the Council if they were appealed, otherwise would remain with the Planning Commission.
Director McLaughlin clarified that Type III is any zone change, annexations, ordinance amendments, map
changes, neighborhood plans, site design standards, any kind of changes of this nature are all Type III.
What this proposed amendment would do is to divide these into two categories, Type III and Legislative
Amendments which would better reflect what the Oregon Statutes state.
Councilor Reid questioned City Attorney Paul Nolte regarding a letter received from Richard Cottle
commenting on the proposed procedure amendment.
Attorney Nolte stated that in the letter by Mr. Cottle he commented on a case evolved out of Jackson
County vs. Clark which changed land use as to how courts interpret local ordinances. Prior to this case the
courts said would interpret local ordinances. The Clark case states that; No, it is those that write the
ordinance, that can interpret their ordinance and tell the court what it means, then the court will abide by
that interpretation unless it is clearly wrong. The courts have used this case to decide that it is the
"elected" officials interpretation which the courts will listen to and they will not listen to an appointed
body. By not allowing appeals to the council, would lose benefit from the Clark vs. Jackson County
because if the Planning Commission has to make an interpretation of the ordinance the court would not be
necessarily bound by it. It has to come through the Council before the court would listen to the Council
interpretation unless it is clearly wrong.
Councilor Winthrop would like to consider the idea of changing procedure in that those appeals that are
heard are heard "on the record" with public testimony but not introducing new issues. He doesn't feel
Council is able to make overall as good of decisions as the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission is more involved and more aware of process, he is in favor of small, low impact decisions are
handled through the Planning Commission level.
Councilor Laws felt that the Council should walt until after the Legislative Session to make their decision
on this proposed amendment. He does agree with limiting appeals to what is "on the record".
Councilor Reid questioned Attorney Nolte regarding the technical legalities that would blind the council to
relevant information that could come forward.
Altorney Nolte stated that the way the ordinance is proposed, the Council has the ability to send back a
decision, when new evidence comes to life, that was not available at the time of the Planning Commission
hearing. The Council would not hear the new evidence, but send it back to the Planning Commission
stating that there seems to be new information that they need to consider before the Council hears it. New
information would have to be shown to the Council indicating that the new evidence did not exist or was
not readily available at the time of the Planning Commission hearing. Steps would have to be taken by
Council to determine whether it is material enough and if it would really make a difference before sending
it back to the Planning Commission.
Councilor Reid concerned that the Planning Commission is acting without the guidance of the City Attorney
when the records are "set" before it comes to the Council. Attorney Nolte stated that the staff is well
versed in the law and Planning Director John McLaughlin attends all Planning Commission meetings.
Councilor Reid suggests to Council that there be no action taken on this proposed amendment that they
should leave the ordinance the way it is and wait until the legislature has met. She favors using the
information presented along with further research of hearing appeals "on the record" and is not ready to
support amendment at this time.
Mayor Golden cautioned Council regarding basing their decisions on what the legislature does.
Councilors Winthrop/Hauck m/s to take no action at this time, but to wait until conclusion of the
legislative session, sometime this summer and then put the proposed amendment on the agenda for
Council consideration. Voice vote: Laws, Hauck, Hagen, Winthrop, Thompson, YES; Reid No.
Motion passed 5-1.
2. Request to amend the Land Use Ordinance of the Ashland Municipal Code, modifying front yard
setbacks in the R-2 and R-3 districts and encouraging porches.
Planning Director John McLaughlin spoke explaining that this is the same proposed amendment which was
approved by Council for the R-1 zone. He does recommend a change on page 1, Section D, 3rd line down
"minimum set-back of 10 feet" from the front property line rather than "8 feet". This is the same issue
raised on acquiring public utility easements along the front 10 feet of properties and being consistent in not
encouraging people to build inside easements.
This amendment is for all R-2 and R-3 zones excluding historic district, historic district can still use lesser
set-backs as provisioned in the ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:10 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:10 p.m.
It was clarified for Councilor Thompson that the rear set-back for two story buildings is 20 feet and three
story buildings are not allowed in the R-2 zone. If three story building in R-3 zone, the set-back would be
30 feet. He questioned whether it would be a hardship on a property owner for a three story building to go
30 feet from the rear line if they were providing open area somewhere else.
Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s approval of amendment to second reading. Roll Call vote: Hagen,
Hauck, Thompson, Winthrop, Reid, Laws, YES. Motion passed.
**note by City Recorder**
Proposed amendment of the Land Use Ordinance modifying front yard setbacks in the R-2 and R-3
districts previously motioned on by Council was presented for Public Hearing only. Proposed
amendment wffi be submitted as an agenda item at the next council meeting for f'wst reading and
approval by Council to second reading.
PUBLIC FORUM
Business from the audience not included on the agenda.
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Request by George Hutchinson, et al regarding traffic signal at North Main and Maple Streets.
City Administrator Brian Almquist reviewed letter received from O.D.O.T. concerning various issues
relating to the N. Main/Maple project. They requested comments on two issues regarding project timing
and the traffic signal. He reported that the city has been requested to commit to a 50% match ($65,000) of
funds for the signal. He indicated that the Ashland Hospital Administrator Jim Watson would recommend
that the Hospital Board fund $16,250, presuming the City would fund an equal amount. The remainder
($32,500) would be requested from the developer of the Retirement Center.
Administrator Almquist also reported that O.D.O.T. reported that they would not be willing to support the
project without a left turn lane. It is their view that "Installing a signal at this location, without providing a
left turn lane, could actually increase accidents due to the additional vehicles stopping at this location" and
are adamant on this point.
It was brought to the Council' s attention by Administrator, that the City entered into a contract with
O.D.O.T. for this project in 1990, at the urging of the Hospital Board and full support of Mayor and
Council. He felt that in consideration of the time and sums spent by the State to this date, if the City were
to withdraw its support for the project, the remaining funds would likely be diverted to other projects
elsewhere in the State, and O.D.O.T. would be highly reluctant to enter into future cooperative agreements
with the City of Ashland.
It is recommended by Administration that the City Council support the early completion of this project to
minimize future accidents, to control costs, and to avoid possible longer period of disruption later in the
year. Also, that the City Council commit to a 50% match for this project ($65,000), subject to an
agreement with the Hospital Board and the Retirement Center developers.
DISCUSSION:
Susan Downs/563 N. Main; Read letter proposed to O.D.O.T. which states an opposition to widening to
North Main.
Councilor Winthrop noted that the memo from O.D.O.T. gave him new perspective on this issue and felt
that it would be a win/win situation of a proper intersection with a light for the City.
Councilor Laws did not an feel it is an ideal situation with the widening of the streets but since a contract
had been made and if a wrong decision was made, it was made previously not presently and the decision
could not be changed in good faith given the circumstances.
Mayor Golden discussed the problem regarding the widening of the street, which may be in the actual
design. She felt possibly that there may be a medium set between O.D.O.T. and the City regarding the left
turn lane, signal light and still try to save some of N. Main from being widened.
It was confirmed by Administrator Almquist that the funds for the signal, if allocated, would come from
the Street Fund Operating Contingency.
Councilors Winthrop/Hauck m/s to thank Oregon Department of Transportation for their flexibility
in their willing to work with the City in inehalling a signal light along with the widening of North
Main, and that the funds for the signal be taken from the Street Fund Operating Contingency,
subject to other matching funds as indicated by City Admini~rator. Voice vote aH AYES, motion
passed.
Discussion:
Administrator Almquist confirmed for Councilor Hagen that comments from O.D.O.T. had been that the
project would be constructed as designed. Going back and doing redesigning would require further
investment of State money and possibly push the project further down the list of projects to be done.
Councilor Hagen stated that the City should look at this project as an opportunity to underground power
lines along North Main. With cooperation from O.D.O.T. in possibly timing the signal light with the other
lights could benefit traffic speed and pedestrian traffic. He does have a concern with the design, in that the
long term plan is to improve a six foot wide bicycle path from Valley View Road to Maple Street and
would narrow back down in the historic area. Because this area would never be widened to accommodate
bicycles, bicycles and pedestrians would still be fighting for the same space. He questioned how his
request of space ahead of both the left turn lanes becoming a planted median strip, could be presented to
O.D.O.T.
Mayor Golden felt that staff could be directed to look at new designs dealing with issues brought forward
by Council. She questioned Council if they would like part of the motion to include a look at the design
between now and the beginning of construction.
Councilor Winthrop stated that he did not want these possible adjustments to delay the project unless they
can be accommodated and seems appropriate to staff, he wants to move forward on this project.
2. Memorandnm from City Administrator regarding guidelines for annual pay comparisons.
Assistant City Administrator Peggy Christianson brought to council the requested fourth option which is a
Comparable Position Survey. This approach would identify and survey top management positions within
the Northern California, Oregon and Washington region which are comparable to top management positions
in the City of Ashland in terms of size of department budget, number of employees, extent and type of
services provided, etc.
Council directed staff to do survey on items #1,//2 and//4.
6
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Proposed ordinance on camping on public streets and related issues.
Presentation by Assistant City Administrator Peggy Christianson and Police Chief Gary Brown on the
proposed ordinance. It was reported that the consensus of the work group was that the city should enact
the proposed ordinance in conjunction with proactive measures to support social service programs for the
homeless. With the adoptions of the ordinance, it is recommended that the City Council direct staff to
provide a monitoring and feedback process which results in periodic reports back to the City Council on
what impacts are being felt in the community as a result of the ordinance and referral program.
Recommendations to City Council included; 1) Approve the proposed ordinance revisions on restricting
camping in public places and restricting disorderly conduct, offenses against persons and property and
public liquor consumption. 2) Approve the proposed resolution which affirms the City of Ashland's
commitment to the right of all persons to use public streets and sidewalks and to be treated equally
regardless of their economic or living conditions. 3) At budget adoption, approve the Budget committee's
recommendation to provide $127,890 of funding in FY 95-96 for programs in Ashland which aid the
homeless. 4) Direct staff to implement (via Bike Patrols, Retired Service Volunteers, Central Areal Patrol
Program and other mediums) a more proactive education and referral program about the services available
within the region for the homeless. 5) Require a monitoring and feedback process resulting in periodic
reports from staff to the City Council (possibly 3-4 months) on the impacts of implementation of the
ordinance.
Chief Brown reported on significant increase of incidents and service directly related to transients and
numerous complaints from citizens and visitors. Increasing numbers of aggressive panhandling and concern
by citizens regarding camping in neighborhoods. He spoke on enforcing the law regardless of economic or
living conditions, that enforcement will be made in the "spirit" of the law.
City Attorney Paul Nolte spoke regarding a disorde~y ordinance which provided penalties for pedestrian
interference; offensive physical contact; prohibiting open liquor containers; prohibit use of fountains and
monuments; camping prohibit; sleeping on benches or within doorways; removal of campsite; and
resolution affirming the right of all persons to use public streets and sidewalks to be treated equally
regardless of their economic or living conditions.
Assistant Administrator Christianson spoke on the social obligations that the City should consider. She
stated that the Budget Committee had recommended funds which would aid the homeless and in addition to
the Budget recommendation, staff could be proactive in providing information and referrals to transients
and the homeless.
Councilor Winthrop commented that he does not feel there is anything in this ordinance that directly
challenges any type of life style.
It was confirmed by Ms. Christianson for Councilor Reid that vouchers for camping need attention and
development. She is working with I.C.C.A. and Director Sue Crader on this matter.
Bob Rasmussen/1530 N Mountain/Vice President Chamber of Commerce; read letter from President
of Chamber of Commerce, Michael Gibbs requesting the City Cmmcil to enact a "No Camping
Ordinance" within Ashland.
Brian Brinson/homeless/Opposes camping ban, challenges the people in need.
Patricia Haely/400 Almond/In favor of No Camping Ban; spoke on negative personal experience with
transients. Has been burglarized and is concerned with safety.
7
Arian Goodwin/1565 Siskiyou #1/Opposes No Camping Ban, offered as an alternative proposal, a
permanent place for camping for transients and homeless. Feels that the homeless are the ones who
deal the most with the negative aspects being spoken of.
Susan Hunt/220 Nutley/In favor of No Camping Ban; spoke on camping in watershed area and the
safety aspect.
Shannon Riley/Opposes No Camping Ban, felt ban would leave transients and homeless with no where
to go and no shelter.
Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview/In favor of No Camping Ban; Concerned with warming f'wes, she has
reported recent f'wes in the watershed.
Jeffery Galvan/homeless/Opposes No Camping Ban, would like to take part in the decision process.
Feels that everyone needs to help one another.
Charles Blimey/homeless/Opposes No Camping Ban.
Joy Paz-Novak/208 N Mountain/Opposes No Camping Ban, concern for people involved in camping
ban because this is the only means of living they have. Would like to see homeless shelter in Ashland.
He feels ordinance is extreme and that there needs to be more of a balance to meet everyones needs.
Would like Council to appoint committee to look more indepth into this issue.
Barbara AHen/510 Guthrie/In favor of No Camping Ordinance, feels it is a safety issue.
Michael Washington/508 N Main/Opposes No Camping Ban, feels this ordinance is targeting a certain
group of people. He would like Council to look at the problem of why these people are homeless
rather than putting a ban on camping. Suggested Council write San Obispo County which has a
program with much success.
Debbie Miller/160 Normal/In favor or No Camping Ban, feels it is a safety issue.
Sue Crader/1650 Clay/Opposes No Camping Ban, feels that to put a ban on camping without offering
an alternative is a mi.~mke. Camping vouchers are temporary and she suggests that the City
designate a place for transient and homeless camping.
Daniel Rueff/256 Tolman Creek Rd/Opposes No Camping Ban, feels that the public should be able to
camp on public !and and Council should work on problem of helping the poor.
Ken Williams/13 N Main #2/Opposes No Camping Ban, spoke on personal experience in dealing with
homeless that had no place to go.
John King/spoke on personal experience of being homeless.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:45 p.m.
Councilor Winthrop stated that he does not favor creating shelters or special camping areas as funding is
being provided through ICAA to help deal with this problem.
Councilor Reid requested clarification from Chief Brown regarding difference of "spirit" of the law and
"letter" of the law. Brown explained that the intent is not to prosecute but that the ordinance will be
enforced generated by complaints.
Councilors Reid/Hagen m/s approval to continue past 10 p.m. Voice vote: all ayes. Motion passed.
Councilor Hauck suggested bringing the proposed ordinance back in two weeks for approval of 1st reading
by Council.
Resolution No. 95-13, A Resolution Affirming the Right of all Persons to use Public Streets and Sidewalks
and to be Treated Equally Regardless of their Economic or Living Conditions, was read by Administrator
Brian Almquist.
Councilors Hauck/Winthrop m/s approve adoption of Resolution #95-13. Roll Call vote: Laws, Reid,
Hauck, Hagen, Winthrop, Thompson, YES. Motion passed.
2. Request from Director of Public Works concerning request for dedication of Dogwood Way
(a private street) and sidewalks.
Public Works Director Steve Hall spoke requesting direction from Council in relation to require of
sidewalks and this specific project.
Council direction was to leave this as a private street and if property owners were willing to bring the street
up to City Street Standards at their own expense, then the Council would consider the request for
dedication. Staff was directed to find out who the property owner was at the end of the hammer head and
if they would consider a pedestrian easement.
3. Request by Councilor Winthrop for Council support of HB3458 that establishes procedures for
local governments and state agencies to collaborate on regional planning.
Councilor Winthrop provided copy of HB3458 and requested support by Council. He felt that this bill
would provide an optional mechanism for local communities to get together and work on regional problem
solving involving Land Use with the LCDC. It would allow greater flexibility in meeting State
requirements, but LCDC would still have to approve any changes to Comprehensive Plans. Medford City
Council felt it would weaken control on growth.
Councilor Reid stated that she would like more information before giving support.
Council agreed with suggestion by Councilor Laws that they endorse the concept of collaboration between
local communities in a more flexible manner where appropriate, than the present law permits. Not to
endorse this Bill specifically because it may have some technical flaws.
Councilors Laws/Thompson m/s to table this matter at this time. Voice vote Laws, Hagen, Thompson,
YES. Reid, Winthrop, Hauck, Mayor Golden, NO. Motion denied.
Councilors Laws/Winthrop m/s to endorse concept but not endorse the language of HB3458. Voice
vote all AYES. Motion passed.
4. Sewer connect request by M/M Clarence Gunther, 1021 Clay Street.
Public Works Director Steve Hall presented recommendation that Council approve request for sewer lateral
with following conditions; 1) Property Owner meet all requirements of AMC 14.08.030, Connection-
Outside City, Inside Urban Growth Boundary. 2) Property owner not be allowed to connect existing home
to sewer lateral until after the annexation of their property to the City of Ashland.
9
Correction on fourth paragraph of memorandum, should read as follows: With this approval, partitions of
the property would "not" be allowed as specified in AMC 14.08.030.F.
Councilors Laws/Hauck m/s to approve sewer connect request by M/M Clarence Gunther, 1021 Clay
Street. Voice vote all AYES. Motion passed.
DISCUSSION:
Julie Schwartz/237 Almond/Requested that it be on record that she opposed connecting any new sewer
connections to the City.
5. Sewer connect request by Wayne Zurfleugh, 180 Crowson Road.
Public Works Director Steve Hall presented recommendation that Council approve request for sewer lateral
with the following conditions; 1) Property owner meet all requirements of AMC 14.08.030, Connection-
Outside city, Inside Urban Growth Boundary. 2) Property owner sign agreement to participate in the cost of
constructing future sanitary improvements in Crowson Road. 3) Property owner agree to connect to sanitary
sewers in front of 180 Crowson when they are constructed.
Letter from Jackson County was provided stating that the existing system was failing and that there is no
other location on the lot with enough physical space available for installation of repair system.
Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to approve sewer connect request at 180 Crowson Road. Voice vote
Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Winthrop, YES. Thompson abstained. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution transferring appropriations within the 1994-95 budget."
Councilors Hauck/Winthrop m/s approve adoption of Resolution #95-14. Roll call vote: Laws, Hauck,
Hagen, Winthrop, Thompson YES. Reid, not present. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Not permitted, time constraint.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
b~~a C~ristens~n, Recorde~
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
10