Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 07.01.1986Minutes of the City Council of Laurel July 1, 1986 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Bob Gauthier at 7:00 p.m., on July 1, 1986. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ervin Wood Chuck Dickerson Donna Kilpatrick Donald Meyers Mel Krug Rob Harris L. D. Collins Norman Orr COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: none INVOCATION: Invocation given by Alderman Krug. MINUTES: Motion by Alderman Meyers to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 17, 1986, as presented, seconded by Alderman Orr. Carried. CORRESPONDENCE: Received a thank you note from Carol Wood for flowers sent to her by the Mayor and City Council. Received a letter from Mrs. JoAnne Ross, 7907 Hillcrest Road, protesting paying more for a seasonal swimming pass than the City residents. Received the June newsletter from the MLCT Insurance Trust. Received a report from the Laurel Reserve and Auxiliary Police. Received a request for $2,000 of Federal Revenue Sharing money from the Senior Helping Hands Program. Received a letter from Scott H. S~anaway of Herndon, Harper & Munro, forwarding copies of a letter dated June 27, 1986, from Asphalt Supply. Received a report from Ed Wadington, President of Energy and Environmental Measurement Corporation, regarding Asphalt Supply. GARAGE SALES: Garage sale fee and permits was moved up on the agenda, after correspondence. Chuck Dickerson said that on June 12th the License Committee met, and it was brought before the committee by Mr. Collins that there was the possibility of perpetual garage sales in the City of Laurel. It was recommended by Mr. Collins at the time that a fee and permit be required to have a garage sale. The committee recommended bringing it before the Council. On June 17th, acting as Chairman of the License Committee, I brought before the Council the proposal to have an ordinance created to charge a $5.00 fee and require a permit for garage sales. It was passed 4--3 to have an ordinance drawn up. On June 26th the Police Committee met and discussed the $5.00 fee and permit. Due to a lack of manpower on the police department and a lack of funds in the police depart- ment budgetto bring the Dog Warden on an extra 8 hours, which it would take to enforce this fee and make sure the permits were posted, a motion was made by Chief Alan Crowe and seconded by Norman Orr that the matter be dropped. Carried 3--0. So, as the Chairman of the Police Committee, it was recommended to Joe Bradley and we recommend to the Council that the $5.00 fee and permit be dropped and no ordinance created. Motion by Alderman Dickerson to accept the Police Committees' recommen- dation that an ordinance for a $5.00 fee and garage sale permit not be created, seconded by Alderman Meyers. Motion carried 7--1 with Alderman Wood voting, "NO." Dan Lowell commented that when something like this comes up the Council should take a look and see that it~s~ not in the best interest of the person proposing it. Mr. Collins should not have ever brought this up because it is in his best interest. He should also have refrained from any kind of voting. ASPHALT SUPPLY RESOLUTION NO. 2180 (tabled i/21/86) REVOLKING ASPHALT SUPPLY COMPANY'S CITY BUSINESS LICENSE. Motion by Alderman Harris to remove Resolution No. 2180 from the table, seconded by Alderman Krug. Motion carried 8--0. Scott Stanaway, from the law firm of Herndon, Harper & Munro, appeared before the City Council on behalf of Asphalt Supply. He spoke in opposition to revoking Asphalt Supply's business license. First, I would just like to briefly state what has been happening over the last few months and what steps have been taken to remedy the situation over there. We have always taken a position of cooperation and we still hope to do that. page 2 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel When the committee first began meeting, there were four main issues that we were looking at: 1. safety of the plant 2. health hazard of the plant 3. quietness and truck traffic from the plant 4. odor of the plant the safety issue I believe you all received minutes from our committee meetings over the last months. If you had a chance to glance over those minutes, you probably noticed that those were the main issues which were addressed. We had the State Deputy Fire Marshall, Tom Selleck, come out to the plant and give a thorough inspection. He found two violations: first, they wanted a loading rod to be grounded - that was complied with; second, vents on some naptha tanks - that also was complied with. In fact in his letter of March 17, 1986, he states, "the asphalt plant has made a real effort in improving their facility making necessary corrections to comply with the codes of Montana." So, as far as the safety hazard, it is completely up to code as far as the Fire Marshall has determined. health hazard We don't have any evidence that there is any health hazard from the plant. quietness of the plant A couple of things have been done by the plant to remedy that problem: First, we sent letters to all the carriers (all the truckers that carry the asphalt material in and out of the plant) requesting them to be considerate of the property owners rights and to try and keep the noise down. Those letters were sent on April 7th and they are continuously sent out with the statements that go to the hauler. Second, we had to move a power pole by one of the gates. There was a problem with the trucks turning around and encroaching on some Laurel resident's property. We had the power company come out and move the pole, at our expense, in order for the trucks to come around without running over anyone's property. As far as making sure that those truckers don't do that, we are trying to remedy that situation by letting them know that there is a problem and to be considerate of the residents' rights. odor problem The plant has done a few things to remedy that problem: First, a charcoal filter£nq system w~ cons~r~lcted~ second, a downward extension of the stack was cons~ru~t~d~ Th~ te~hni~aiiti~s 0f what that does is explained in the letter which you have. Basically what it does, rather than having the steam go up and have the emissions go out in the atmosphere, it goes through a system of elbow pipes where the steam condenses and collects in a tank which collects the water. So rather than steam rising up out of the tank, more of the steam goes down through the system, the odors come out in the water rather than in the steam out of the stack. Finally, the most important thing and which is probably the issue that will be mostly discussed tonight, is the independent engineer's report. Joe Bradley and the committee contacted an independent engineer out of Tucson, AZ, who made the report which you have before you. Basically, what it recommends is what is called a bench test. I am not a chemical engineer. Just to try and make it simple, and you may want to ask Steve Duganz some specific questions, but basically what the bench test is, is they are going to set out a st~elam system whereby they can tell how much of the odor is being collected by a carbon collection system. Ed Wadington, the engineer, stated that the cost of that would be $1,000 to $1,500 and Asphalt Supply is willing to pay that whole cost. I spoke with him today and I told him we wanted him to come out as soon as he could, to do that test. He said that he thinks that he can get here in a week to two weeks, get all set up and do the test. It will take several days to do the testing itself and a few days to get the report out. He said, at the most it would be four weeks, at the least, two to three weeks. In light of that we are on the verge of getting an answer to the problem, by this chemical engineer. Consequently I would like to request the Council to con- sider tabling this motion for four more weeks. Until the independent tests come back so we can solve the problem because i think we are on the verge. In light of that, I guess it comes down to whether the City has a right, given the facts, where we have no safety violations, according to the fire inspector, we conform with zoning requirements, we have no scientifically proven health hazards, given all these facts, the issue comes down to whether or not the City has the right to revoke the bus~ness license to shut down the plant. That eventually has to be litigated. It is as simple as that. page. Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Rob Harris I understand through the meetings of the committee that this engineering was brought up before the committee six months ago. At that time Asphalt Supply did not want any part of it, even though at that point the City of Laurel was willing to share the cost of the engineer. Now you-'re saying we are on the verge of having something. We could have had everything finished by now if that would have happened six months ago. Scott Stanawa¥ Let's just take a look at the minutes, because they do specifically address that. The first meeting of the committee was February 12th and at that time, and I quote "Joe Bradley will check on the possibility of hiring an independent chemical engineering firm." The next meeting was March 19th. Joe Bradley reported that he had no success in locating a local chemical engineering firm to analyze the plant's operation. We did say, since we were going to end up paying all of the cost that resulted from that engineer- ing firm that we did not feel that we should have to pay for the engineer to come up here. Subsequently, we have agreed to that cost. Chuck Dickerson Why so much later? Why a month before this was supposed to come before the Council? Why, all of a sudden Asphalt Supply says, "Okay, yes, let's do it."? Scott Stanaway We were at a stalemate. The purpose of the committee was to try and cooperate and make some progress. The minutes say each time Joe Bradley will check on a chemical engineer to evaluate the problem. Donna Kilpatrick At the March meeting you said that it would not be negotiable. Scott Stanaway I said at this time. Chuck Dickerson So, why should Mr. Bradley continue to find an engineer if it was not going to be negotiable? Scott Stanaway We were looking at a number of areas. One of the areas we were looking at, can the plant move? Our position was we will move if the City wants to pay the cost to relocate. The position of the City was that the City Council probably wouldn't go for that and'won't give any funds to relocate. But yet we went out and we did look for relocation of the plant - looked at plant sites. The same thing was going on about this issue of our engineer. We said that we would not at that time go for paying the cost. Because we had to pay for all of the other costs that had resulted and yet, we were in the~same position on relocating. But we did something about it. We went out and tried to find something. Ail I can say is that the committee was at a stalemate. I can blame it on Joe for stalling and for me not saying before on June 3rd. I said, Scott asked about checking with Ed Wadington. Joe said that he would try contacting Ed Wadington again. Chuck Dickerson But in January the other attorney that was representing Asphalt Supply at the time stood before this Council and said that Asphalt Supply would do whatever it takes to prove to this Council and to the City of Laurel that they are worthy in continuing business in the City. When it was requested at that time, in February, to get an engineer, it was refused. However, he stood here and said that they would do whatever it took. Scott Stanaway It wasn't refused. All we said was that we were not willing to pay the cost at this time. In fact, the minutes did not reflect that. There was a quote of me which says "not negotiable." So I guess, is there another line where I said not negotiable at this time. That's my word against what you want to believe, but I can truthfully say that at that time it was not negotiable. We felt that we were going to have to pay all of the cost from the result of the engineer's tests. So why should we have to pay the beginning cost? It took until June for the heads to crash and for us to back down and say okay we'll pay -- and we did. So I guess now the issue is the test results can be in 3--4 weeks. The litigation question has to go to court. Joe has agreed to stipulate to an injunction. Pending the outcome of that litigation means that the plant will remain in operation until the court decides. We are looking at the situation. Okay we give them four more weeks to get the test results or we say to heck with it we'll let the court decide. In the meantime for the next 2 or 3 years however long it sits in court the plant continues to operate without any more testing being done. Chuck Dickerson Is that the situation, Joe? Joe Bradley I think it would be very likely that the plant would be allowed to operate anyway while the case was being proceeded through the courts. They could suffer some severe economic damages if they were shut down and then it turned out that we shouldn't have shut them down in the Judge's decision. So I think it would be reasonable for the City in any litigation to allow them to continue while the suit progressed through the court. Don Meyers So, four more weeks isn't going to make any difference. Joe Bradley I have a question, Scott. This bench testing now is just pre- page 4 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel liminary to deciding what actual control system would be installed. Scott Stanaway Right. Joe Bradley Are you willing to state here that whatever the results of that test, whichever control system it indicates, Asphalt Supply will be installing it? Scott Stanaway I guess I~ can't answer that because I don't know. I am reading from the report from the engineer and he says that operating costs for the carbon absorbers and scrubber are dependent on the results of the bench tests. So I guess I have to say that it depends on what those results are. He may find out that we have to put in an incinerating system that would be so costly that it would be better moving. No, I can't say that because it all depends on the tests. Mel Krug I would like to go along with what Chuck said. Rod Hartman stood here and said that Asphalt Supply would do whatever it took, and you're saying they didn't want to pay any costs. But yet the ball was in their park. He stood right there where you're standing and said Asphalt Supply would do whatever it took to prove that they were worthy to do business here. Then you turn around and say the cost wasn't negotiable. It seems to me like they would be willing to find someone without leaving it up to Joe alone to find someone to prove their worthiness. The company didn't even know what the cost was, let alone negotiate the cost. That doesn't make sense to me. Scott Stanaway The committee had different people doing different things. One of those things was a chemical engineer and that was one thing that Joe took on from the beginning. I don't want to put the blame on Joe, but look at it this way. Say that we get our engineer and he says do this and it doesn't work. Then we are in the situation where the Council comes back and says sure you hired this engineer that you wanted and it doesn't work and you've been snowing us all along. So this way it was an independent engineer and no, we didn't go out and try to find an engineer. Don Meyers That's exactly what came up at the last Council meeting. That you wanted to make sure that we picked the engineer and they didn't pick the engineer so there wouldn't be any ties. Mel Krug That didn't have any bearing that they couldn't have gone out and looked for one. Don Meyers Why would we want to take their engineer, we were plum against it at the last Council meeting. Mel Krug They could have looked for an independent one. Don Meyers That's fine but still it was brought up right here. You were the one who was talking about it but said we don't want that. We want to pick the engineer. We want to make sure it wasn't a biased opinion. Me! Krug That still didn't stop them from locating one and we could have noted yes or no to accept that engineer. That's what I am saying right now. Don Meyers Well I think that the four weeks that they are asking for -- this Council right here put them in business in the first place. Mel Krug Not all of this council. Chuck Dickerson They didn't either. Don Meyers I was not a member of this Council, but there's members here that did put them in the business. They spent probably $800,000 down there. We went this far. I don't know what liability you think the City has in this but in the end the City is going to be hanging. Rob Harris Either way. Don Meyers Either way. But I think that we went this far that four weeks like they said is not going to matter. That plant is going to operate for the next 2 or 3 years, because it's going to be tied up in court. If it comes back and the court rules in their favor we are going to be stuck with it anyway. Rob Harris Yes, but, Don, the whole thing about this four weeks is that, and I was the one who made the motion to extend for six months, and I took a lot of grief and rift from a lot of people because of that. They were given six months to do this. The engineering was brought up six months ago. At that time it was not even negotiable and now they are asking for four more weeks. It doe~n~'t~make sense to bring it u~ two weeks before it was to come before the Council. To, Okay, now we will get an engineer. That is why we did the six month deal. We tabled it for six months. You had six months to get everything straightened out, and it hasn't been done. Now you wait two weeks before it comes up before the Council and you are asking for four more weeks. Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Scott Stanawa¥ We didn't sit for six months. Rob Harris This Council Scott Stanawa¥ The committee looked at numerous areas and that was one of the areas and Asphalt Supply did not want to go out and put their nose on an engineer who would be subject to having the Council say, well he is brown nosing for Asphalt Supply. We'll get an independent engineer. But I guess the real issue is that you have two options. Either go with the four weeks and maybe get a solution or revoke the license. It ends up in litigation. The plant continues to operate without any more independent testing. Nothing happens for 2 or 3 years. Then who knows. But then, you know, the plant has been operating for 3 more years. You suffer all the expense of the litigation. The whole thing. I guess that boils down to the option of four more weeks or three years. Chuck Dickerson Where do you keep coming up with this figure of three years? Is that a set figure? Scott Stanawa¥ That's just from the time of filing suit to the time when the other ~ide has time to answer. It depends on what court you are in. Trials are backed up in Yellowstone County. I went to a preliminary trial in the last two weeks, and they are not even setting trials until 1987. The courts are just back logged, so that is part of the problem. Second of all, when you are in a big law suit like this, you have to have experts. The City will hire their experts and we will hire our experts and they go look at the plant and do all these things. The experts have to have time to make their The main thing is just the trial system. You have what they call discovery where we ask you everything under the sun: who your experts are going to be, all these type of things. I don't know, Joe, I guess you could say. Isn't three years a ballpark figure? Joe Bradley Oh, I don't know. It would be hard to estimate, but I would guess more than a year anyway. It would be hard to say. Chuck Dickerson Two other questions I would like to ask him, then I'll drop it: (1) Rob just said that it was agreed upon for six months. You just said that it wasn't. It was the committee. The other attorney, Rod Hartman~ stood here and said, when the motion was made for six months, he felt that it would be sufficient; (2) Don't you think at the time when it was suggested that an independent engineer be brought in, that had you not stated that it was not negotiable that an effort would have been made by both the City and you, to have gotten an engineer that could have been here by March or April. To me when you say it's not negotiable, it's just like a union saying we don't want to talk about it. Our mind is made up and that is it. You didn't say not negotiable to the fact that you weren't going to go out and get an engineer. To me, you just meant that it was flat not negotiable. And it is awfuli?strange where an attorney stands up before the Council in January and says we will do enything - we will do anything. And by being not negotiable, to me, that's not anything. Scott Stanawa¥ Well, let me just reiterate. The quote that appears in your minutes -- we didn't have a court reporter taking down everything to exactly what I said, and I said it was not negotiable at this point and it wasn't. I have stacks and stacks here of things that I have done. Calling around to realtors, calling around to the gravel pit out here, going out to Mossmain. We just didn't sit on our laurels. We put in the system at the plant. We put in the grounding system. Y~ur point is well taken. I know what you are saying. But what another attorney stood here and said, I can't, you know. I wasn't here. Chuck Dickerson But that is what the Council went on - the good faith of that attorney standing here in January representing Asphalt Supply. We went on his word. Now we turn around and go on your word saying four weeks. Come back in four weeks. There is another attorney standing here saying, well we need three more weeks. How do we know that's not going to happen? Scott Stanawa¥ I guess we have to look at it as - we thought it would take six months and it didn't. I am sure he said it in good faith and it just comes up that it didn't get it done in six months. Bob Gauthier Joe, do you have any comments? Joe Bradley I won't accept any of the blame for the delay on this engineer. When Scott said it wasn't negotiable it became a low priority item for me, and the minutes do say that I was going to continue checking on it. But it was just for the purpose of completing our minutes, to get the cost and, frankly, we had planned to use that against the company if it ever comes to litigation to show that they wouldn't participate in this cost when it was so low. On June 3rd, I believe that is the meeting when Asphalt Supply changed their mind and Scott said we will share in the cost, we acted on it right away. We got him and got him down here as quick as we could. If that page 6 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel was a misunderstanding on Scott's part, I guess I can't help tha~. But when they said that it was not negotiable, it wasn't really important. I didn't feel and I don't think the rest of the committee felt that it should be the City's responsibility to show Asphalt Supply how to operate its plant. They should share in the cost or we're going to drop it. Other than that and putting that point aside, I think, and this is my legal advice, that it's to the City's best interest to give Asphalt Supply the opportunity to make these tests. Now, it's your decision but that is what I prefer to see. If it is going to be four weeks, we would have to ask Scott today to say that we have definite results in four weeks here before the Council the first meeting in August. They would have to tell us what they plan to do at that time. Which of those systems they are going to implement? Which of those control systems are they going to install? If none, and they decide the cost doesn't warrant it, then that's the time you could vote on this resolu- tion. Rob Harris Joe, even if we vote not to allow the four week extension to do the tests, wouldn't it be in your best interest to go ahead and do the test anyway? Joe Bradley They certainly could, yes. Rob Harris They are going to operate anyway. Joe Bradley I would hope that even during the pendency of any litigation that they would continue to try and clean up the plant. If they could show us or the judge at any time during the court suit that it was operating fine without complaints, anything we are doing could be dropped at that time. Ervin Wood This letter that we have from the engineer - just the engineer he's talking about - the way I interpret that letter, regardless what they come up with it may not take the smell out of the air and do what it's supposed to do. Joe Bradley That's true. The engineer won't say that it will be 100% effective at all times. The most expensive system obviously would be the best system, but that decision is Asphalt Supply's. They can decide whether they are going to move or install a trapping system or whatever they are going to do. That's not the Council's decision. The engineer can't promise them. We don't want him to mislead Asphalt Supply. Let them make the test if that's what they want, if the Council will grant an extension. At that time if they want to install a system, that's fine. But you are not putting your stamp of approval on any system. You are just looking for some action, and if that system doesn't help then you still have the right to revoke their license. They have to make that decision. Is it worth the risk to put it in? Will it help? Will we still have the problems even down the road? Chuck Dickerson Joe, can we make the suggestion tonight that if we don't have any results in four weeks that the City can revoke their license at that time? Joe Bradley Certainly. Chuck Dickerson I mean, instead of waiting for four weeks and then having it come before the Council and then at that time revoke the license. Joe Bradley You mean some kind of respective revocation? It will be revoked in four weeks unless. I would prefer if you just voted on it at that time. I think that would be best. Donna Kilpatrick I would like to say that I took these minutes and the day that you said it was non-negotiable we were all shocked. I remember it so well, and I wrote that down. If you would have said at this time, that would have opened up a whole new avenue. We would have been really excited and you didn't say that, Scott. You said it's not negotiable, and Joe said be sure to get that down. And I got it down. Scott Stanaway I remember that. He said make sure you say that - that it's not negotiable. I remember him specifically saying that. I guess I should have said wait a minute. Bob Gauthier Steve, do you have any comment about the engineer's report? Steve Duganz Just a couple of things for clarification which may or may not help you to make up your mind. I took my own notes on February 12th because I didn't know Donna was going to. I did note on that day that I asked Jim Fletcher, who was financial officer at that time, that when he went back to Denver, perhaps he could call around either to people in the asphalt business or just look in the yellow pages under consulting engineers and get an idea of what it would cost to get someone up here. I think it's kind of obvious that he didn't do that. Ed Wadington was brought up, probably, to my suggestion and the reason being he is the only one I know. To my knowledge there are no other air pollution page7 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel engineers in Billings, Montana, because there is not enough of a problem. I can give you a very brief history of him. His first job was out of the University of Iowa for a health department in Iowa. He then had the job I currently have for several years. Then he went to ITT Ranier, Port Angeles, Washington, where he traveled around the world for about 5 or 6 years as the head of a stack sampling team testing every conceivable type of industry. He wanted to get back to Montana. He worked for Cenex over here for 2 or 3 years. He then went to work for the State Air Quality Bureau for a few years before he formed his own company. He moved to Tucson two years ago and he still has an office here in Billings. He is honest and he is very capable. What he stated I fully believe in. I don~t think he is going to pull any punches. Scott just gave me a copy of the letter and it's the first time I have seen it. But, essentially, he told me the same thing. He said that incineration would be the most expensive and there is no question in his mind that would solve all the problems. However, it would be expensive to operate. He said scrubbers would be the next best possibility. That would not be 100% but it would be pretty good. But then you have a waste- water problem there. They are also expensive and besides that they are temperamental. You've got to have somebody really trained to operate scrubbers because when they go down they go down all together. Then you have nothing. The third, and he said he is not absolutely positive himself that carbon absorbtion would work, but he thinks it will, and it's a matter of this bench test finding out just how much carbon would be needed for the volume they pull through there. He said he is quite sure but he is not absolutely positive how much that will do. If it were to work it would be pretty fool proof. The only thing that would be needed is when the carbon wears out, it would have to be replaced. I guess the easiest way to explain that to you is you get their water pik carbon filters that take odor out of air and water. It's the same principle. This thing would probably work. But again, even as Ed said, there is no guarantee. He thinks that would be the best reasonable alternative - is the carbon filter. Chuck Dickerson You speak about volume through these charcoal filters. Say it is set up for a certain volume. What's to say that the volume won't increase at a later date to where these filters could be out of date and not doing what they are supposed to be doing. Say two years down the road they start pushing a larger volume through there and you have the same problem again because those charcoal filters won't handle that volume. Steve Duqanz That's exactly what would happen, but he would -- right now the mist eliminator is rated as 1,500 cubic feet per minute. I am not sure what the other one is doing -- but he would take them when they are operating at full load and see if that is the highest their flow would ever get. If that flow would ever increase then they would have to add more pollution control equipment. What it would do is design it for the maximum use as they are at this point. If they would ever increase or expand then that wouldn't work. Chuck Dickerson So you would have to have a guarantee that they wouldn't increase the volume once this system was set up. Steve Duganz Or they would have to expand the control system also. Ervin Wood Scott, in your closing remarks you asked whether the City had the right to revoke Asphalt Supply's license. This brings a question to my mind. Does Asphalt Supply have the right to continue making life miserable for the people in Ward One? Scott Stanawa¥ And that is the issue that when -- what I meant when I said do they have a right to revoke the license. I guess I should have said do they have a right to shut down the plant - to declare them a nuisance. Essentially the only one that can sign that is the court. What is a nuisance can only be decided, in the end, by the court or the jury. Ervin Wood Would this go to a court of law or a court of equity? Scott Stanawa¥ I should know that from my first year of law school. Ervin Wood What I am getting at is it wouldn't go to a jury trial. It would go to a District Judge, right? Scott Stanaway If a party requests a jury they have a right to a jury trial. Joe Bradley I think the odor problem is the most serious problem that's left down there. You should note that some progress has been made in the past six months. The first most severe problem that the committee addressed was whether there was any fire hazard down there. That's what we wanted to act on first. We didn't want anything blown up or anybody getting killed down there. We've had several fire calls in the past. For the first month or so we did have the inspection. The State Fire Marshal made two suggestions. Apparently Asphalt Supply corrected those. The State Fire Marshal went back and let us know that he approved of what they had done. page8 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel So that's one of the grounds in the original resolution that really doesn't exist any more. If you are going to pass this resolution you should delete, I think, paragraph No. 3 because that fire hazard probably has been taken care of. Rob Harris I don't want to argue that point and I know that it's been given a clean bill of health from the State Fire Marshal. But never the less, the fire department went and inspected that operation some weeks ago and even though they have a relatively clean bill of health for a fire hazard, the hazard still exists. Joe Bradley This is flammable materials close to a residential area. Rob Harris This is a flammable operation. Joe Bradley Yes, it is. But unfortunately we can't point or fire code that they are violating right now. regulation, to do that. to any State law, We won't be able Scott Stanaway In fact it's zoned commercial. Joe Bradley So I don't know if we have that grounds right now. That ground No. 3 was that they were in violation of fire codes. I don't think we can say that now because they have had a determination from a State expert that they're not. Rob Harris In violation of codes. Joe Bradley Yes. Rob Harris That's correct. Joe Bradley Obviously one of their problems earlier was people who apparently were not trained to run the plant. I don't know if they have solved that problem or not. Have you had any fire calls lately? I don't know if you have. Whether it's a fire hazard or not I suppose it's debatable, but we can't point to any codes they are in violation of. Rob Harris There is still capabilities of 20,000 gallons of storage of naptha, or at least 10,000 gallons. Joe Bradley Unfortunately the second most serious problem was the odor. The third was the noise and the traffic problems. I believe Asphalt Supply has taken some steps there. As far as the noise goes they say that they can't do any more. They say that these drivers belong to somebody else. They come and they really can't control them. They have sent letters and they have done as much as they can. But that problem hasn't been solved. Because the residents are still complaining. The fourth one is the traffic. This would only effect the residents, I think, just across the street from the plant. The way the trucks pull in and out. Various suggestions were made to Asphalt Supply about widening their gate, or re-routing traffic to avoid that. I think the only thing they have done is move a pole and apparently that hasn't solved the problem. One of the members of the committee, Glenda Kaufmann, reported that they are still driving up over the curb and kind of blocking the streets when they come in and out of the plant. I think we have addressed the fire hazard as much as we can in regard to the codes. The noise and traffic they have taken some steps - they haven't been solved fully. And the odor problem appears to be as bad as it ever was. That's where it stands. Don Meyers Has it ever been determined, Joe, if that property is in the City limits? Joe Bradley I believe it is, yes. Although I guess I couldn't point you to anything that definitely states that. Chuck Dickerson Joe~ didn't you make a comment a while back that you could even notice the odor up at your place and there has been some people down on the east end that started to notice it now. Joe Bradley I haven't received any calls, Chuck. Nobody has called and said I can smell the plant. Chuck Dickerson No, but I am saying if I am not mistaken, didn't you recall saying that you kind of noticed it here a couple of weeks ago? And I think a couple of people down on the east end said they could tell it down there. Joe Bradley Yes, that's true. I did notice the smell of the plant on two occasions during the past six weeks or so. Just on two occasions when the wind was blowing north. Don Meyers Can you tell the difference between the plant and the refinery? Joe Bradley I think so because when you do drive by the plant you can smell the same odor. Chuck Dickerson So it's just not the people on the south. Joe Bradley No, the odor is apparently more widespread. The noise and the page9 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel traffic, of course, would be limited to the residents right there. Don Meyers Mr. Duganz, has ~hat ddor ever been Droved to be harmful? Steve Duqanz No. The odor that is there is Drimarilv hydrocarbon of various sources. It's just vaporizing asphalt. A little over a week ago, an indi- vidual by the name of Bill Hooper with the State Department of Health, came through and stayed in the plant itself. He didn't go out of the plant, and measured here and there and got a bunch of hydrocarbons. The thing with hydrocarbons, there used to be an EPA standard for hydrocarbons and it was finally dropped, and the State doesn't have one either because it's essen- tially unenforceable. Because there are so many sources and so many types of hydrocarbons. But to answer your question, to my knowledge the type of odor coming off has never been proven harmful because there are no standards for hydrocarbons. Nuisance, yes. Motion by Alderman Meyers to table Resolution No. 2180 for four more weeks. Motion dies due to the lack of a second. Scott Stanaway What we have it boiled down to is whether the City has a right to shut down a plant that is complying with State standards, is com- plying with all fire codes, that has been granted a permit to do business in the City, has complied with all the zoning requirements, and the truck route is a commercially zoned area. Given these facts, does the City have a right to shut them down? And that is something that will eventually, if this motion is not passed, will have to be decided by the court. In the meantime, as Joe said, there will be an injunction and the plant will con- tinue operating just as it is. We are so close -- just four weeks. I hate to see it .... Chuck Dickerson You know what's so frustrating, Scott. It could have been a lot closer, and could have been right on top of it tonight. Scott Stanaway I wish we could have been. Chuck Dickerson We could have if we could have got this done back in March. Scott Stanaway I wish it could have been but we have the chance to do it now. I guess that is what it boils down to. I appreciate your attention. Doug Poehls - 119 Yellowstone, Laurel He had his say about Asphalt Supply. But I have been meaning to say something about the residents who live down- wind from Asphalt Supply or right around it, even country people north of that smell. You are right. Asphalt Supply has some rights, but we have some rights, too. We have to live with another four weeks of me coming home from work, and we have to close the windows to eat because it smells so bad. Or being on vaca- tion and coming home and your house smells like hot asphalt mix. Granted they've tried ~o solve some problems but with very elementary solutions-to the problems. He said a letter was sent Out to the truck companies saying would you please do this. I deal with truck companies all the time. You can demand them to do certain things. If you tell them, you do this or you won't haul for us. They took very elementary solutions to a very complex problem and all they are doing is putting us off to the end of the season again. Putting us off until the end of July and then they'll say well this is so and they never said that. They will comply with the engineer's recom- mendation of a control system. He never said that. He said he can't say that. Obviously he's a representative of Asphalt Supply and he doesn't make those decisions. But Asphalt Supply bbviousl¥ hasn't told him that whatever the engineer says they will put in some sort of a control. So what's going to happen? So the engineer says yes you need some controls and Asphalt Supply says well we need another three or four weeks to see what kind of system we want in. End of season, they shut down and we have the same problem again next year. Chuck Dickerson Just for the record, is there anyone here from Asphalt Supply tonight? I think the record should show that there was no executive present from Asphalt Supply that could answer certain legalities that were brought forward tonight. Scott Stanaway This afternoon Jim Fletcher, who is the representative from Asphalt Supply, had his plan~ reservation and was to arrive at 4:30. After speaking with my associate, Rod Hartman, after reading the engineer's report which outlined the time frame to install the bench testing system, came to the conclusion that Mr. Fletcher's presence here tonight would not be necessary. He gave me the authority to tell you that we would pay for the cost of the bench testing. I guess we were optimistic that in light of either having four weeks to solve the problem or have the smell continue until the court decides that the City Council would in fact decide to grant page lO Minutes of the City Council of Laurel the four weeks and that is why Mr. Fletcher is not here. Chuck Dickerson Scott, do you know if by any chance why Mr. Fletcher did not take Mr. Duganz's recommendation, when he got back to his home office, as far as calling some engineers to find out what the cost would be? Scott Stanaway I do not know if in fact he did or not. I do not know. Donna Kilpatrick presented and read aloud an Asphalt Supply Committee report as follows: Asphalt Supply Committee report to the Council July 1, 1986. We had seven meetings from Feb. 12 until June 25. One meeting was cancelled because Asphalt Supply had nothing to report. Our primary concerns were: fire hazard, odor/air pollution, emissions on homes in the area, and traffic/noise/widening exit for loading-unloading trucks, and updating building permits for any additions/modifications to the plant. The fire hazard was eliminated when the company satisfied the fire marshal's request for a collapsible lid on the naptha tank. The fire marshal ruled that the plant met all fire codes and that the naptha tank could be stored 500 feet from a residential area if it was not portable. A letter was sent by Asphalt Supply asking drivers to be quiet and not turn radios up during the nighttime hours. We had also asked that the trucks not idle their motors. We asked that BN be contacted for leasing land in the Mossmain Industrial sites. And as of the June 25 meeting, the company had received the forms for applying for a lease. We had hoped early on in the meetings (Feb. 12) that we could share costs of getting a chemical engineer to evaluate the odor problems. However, Asphalt Supply did not wish to participate in the cost sharing and the idea was dropped. Last month, the company agreed to pay half the costs and last Tuesday, a chemical engineer was hired. His report is included in your communications. Building permits had not been updated as of the June 25 meeting. In conclusion, the company did take steps to address the fire hazard problems and to move a power pole that was to aid the trucks in entering and exiting the plant without crossing over neighbors boulevards, etc. But residents in that area report the moving of the power pole did not remedy the problem. Complaints are being received daily on odors, traffic and noise. Ervin Wood On an issue of this importance, I would like to call for a division of the house vote. Bob Gauthier Any problems with that, Joe? Joe Bradley I don't think so, no. I would suggest that you consider deleting that paragraph 3. The way it's worded may not apply. Also, there was the continuing problem of the building permits. They still haven't updated their building permits. We have been requesting Asphalt Supply to do that for months and months. Scott Stanaway (talking to Jim Flisrand) We spoke with you Friday on that and as I understand it, we thought we had it all done and then we wanted updated figures. I mean it's not like we haven't done anything. He has been working on it, isn't that correct? Jim Flisrand This last week, yes. Scott Stanaway Didn't Andy come and talk to you a couple of months ago? Jim Flisrand No, he talked to my secretary. We didn't seem to get together - no appointment was ever made. He was asked to come back with drawings and nothing was brought back to the office. Joe Bradley So anyway what my point was that you could also consider perhaps amending to add a ground that Asphalt Supply has not complied with City building permit requirements. If you think that's appropriate, that's your decision. Building permit requirements regarding to their original permit for opening the plant and in regards to the addition of tanks since then and other modifications that have been made. Don Meyers How come there was never a stop work ever put on it for not having a building permit? Joe Bradley They had an original permit. Don Meyers How come they were not given a stop work like anybody else who doesn't have a building permit? Joe Bradley They had an original permit to open the plant. page ll Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Don Meyers Yes, but they continue to do something and they weren't stopped. How come they weren't stopped? Joe Bradley I don't know if we even knew they were putting those tanks up. Don Meyers Well, before you make a decision I think you should think --- I mean I think of the people on south side, but I am also thinking about the liability of the City. Not everybody on this Council, but it was through this Council that they were permitted to go into business. Nobody seems to listen to the City Attorney's recommendation to give them four more weeks. I think you ought to think about it. Peg Kamerzel What Don just said now, they were given the permission and/or license to go into business as an asphalt rubberizing plant. That is exactly what the application reads. I took the application. That is not what they're doing. Don Meyers We have engineers here that should be checking on these things too. Chuck Dickerson We just got this engineer a couple of years ago and this has been going on for the last couple of years. Don Meyers I am not putting the blame on Jim, but the City has some liability of that, too, Chuck. Motion by Alderwoman Kilpatrick to remove item No. 3, page 2, from Resolution No. 2180 and add Joe's comments regarding building permits as follows: that Asphalt Supply has filed to comply with city building permit ordinances and to pay the proper fees for the original building permit that they were issued and for other construction and installation of additional tanks they have undertaken at the plant since they opened up, seconded by Alderman Krug. Discussion. Scott Stanaway Jim Fletcher and I were in Jim's office last Friday and we were under the impression that all of the building permits were taken care of and all we needed was to give you a map and show measurements and every- thing. And only, didn't he talk to you and told you to have a map. And then isn't it true that between Friday and somethinq happened and you wanted more figures. And that is something we thought we had complied with your request until yesterday. Jim Flisrand I might add that the request was made back in January and February to get the building permits in and just last Friday they came into the office and requested what was necessary for the permits. I indicated that drawings are necessary for any improvements, additions to any construction whatever it might be. The suggestion by Fletcher was that they submit a drawing of the original and what they have now and let it go at that. Submit your drawings and I will consider it. Due to the fact that I have to look over the permits, have to decide whether or not they are allowed or not and prior to submittal to save you some time I tried to detail the drawings more so in a telephone conversation with one of your people. The point is, I was trying to save time for you people, so that you could get it in, in a detailed manner, so that it~ wonld be acceptable right away. Donna Kilpatrick Do you have the drawings? Jim Flisrand I have nothing, no. Joe Bradley So this amendment to add then would be that Asphalt Supply has failed to comply with city building permit ordinances and to pay the proper fees for the original building permit that they were issued and for other construction they have undertaken at the plant since they opened up. Mel Kruq I got one question. I would like to ask Joe in regards to what Don said about the City!s liability with Asphalt Supply. What would be the greater of that or the liability the City could suffer from all the residents taking a law suit against the City? Joe Bradley I don't know. Obviously we're being pressed by both sides. They would like action right now. It is likely, even if I did not agree to a temporary injunction on this, it is likely the judge would grant them one anyway and it would run for the rest of this summer anyway. I don't see how we can stop that. The odds are that they would be allowed to run. That's the rules of injunctions. That the status quo - what's in effect, stays in effect until the judge decides. So that's down the road. As for the immediate question do you want to do this now? I really don't think it's that big an issue. Obviously they could bring suit against the City and they could bring suit against Asphalt Supply. Whether they would win, I am not prepared to say whether they could win or not. Mel Kruq My question was as far as liability. Say we figure dollars and cents. One could be just as great as the other. page 12 Joe Bradley Question was carried 8--0. Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Oh, that's possible, yes. called for on the amendment to Resolution No. 2180. Motion RESOLUTION NO. 2180 REVOKING ASPHALT SUPPLY COMPANY'S CITY Question was called for on Resolution No. 2180, Division of the house: Alderman Dickerson YES Alderman Orr YES Alderman Meyers NO Alderman Wood YES Motion carried 7--1. BUSINESS LICENSE as amended. Alderman Harris YES Alderwoman Kilpatrick YES Alderman Krug YES Alderman Collins YES Joe Bradley Just so the Council knows, I will formally notify Asphalt Supply that the resolution was passed and the next step would be theirs. Don Meyers When can you shut them down now? Joe Bradley When can I? Don Meyers You can't go over and shut them down tomorrow? Joe Bradley I think we have to give them some notice that it's been passed and give them some time to close down and file their suit. If they file their suit the delay enforcement is that if it's unlawful then, of course, it would be time for this injunction. I presume they are going to do that as soon as possible. At this time there was a 12-minute recess. PUBLIC HEARING - WATER RATE INCREASE: This being the time and place advertised, a public hearing was held. Proponents Dave Michael, City of Laurel Public Utilities Director, presented a letter dated June 12, 1986, written to the Mayor and Council regarding the proposed water rate increase and expressing the need for an increase. Opponents Lois Hansen, 320 1st Avenue I don't have a thing one way or another. I just want to find out about the 73¢ per month increase for a single family. That is for water only? Bob Gauthier responded with a yes. Lois Hansen said that means then that it will be another $1.50, approximately, for the sewer, which means that the increase will go to $2.25 instead of the 73¢. Dave Michael said that the sewer rate will not go up. This is just water. Lois Hansen The sewer rate is generated to the water. If I pay $10.00 for water I am going to pay $20 for sewer. So, therefore, if you raise the water rate, it is automatic that the sewer will go up, too. It was explained by several people that the sewer charge is based on water consumption, not on the price, and that there is no sewer rate increase at this time. Joan Hapeman, 512 Idaho questioned the deficit from last year and that the new proposed increase will not completely cover that amount -- saying the City will operate at a loss again. Bob Gauthier responded by saying that we will either operate at a loss or cut expenses. Dave Michael explained that we have utilized some of our reserves, but we can't continue to do that. Joan Hapeman wanted to know if the improvements have been made at the treat- ment plant. Dave Michael said that this is for future improvements. The new system fee would be used for settling basins, pumps, future expansion, etc. Don Meyers said that the original thought on this new system development fee was instead of going back to the original people for more money that when a new development comes in they're going to pay their own way. It will kind of take the burden off Of the rest of the people who have already paid for the system. Cindy Fox We operate the standpipe at 11 South 9th. Is the water rate going to go up for the standpipe? Dave Michael indicated that her rate would go up to 61¢ per 100 cubic feet also. page Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Dan Lowell What I would like to find out is, according to the Laurel Outlook, it said that one of the reasons for this increase is the consumption. Bur- lington Northern's consumption is down, so we have to have a rate increase to bring the revenue up to take care of what they are not using. But yet, when more people come in to town we have to pay more for water because the town is growing more. Would somebody clear it up why it doesn't balance out somewhere. Don Meyers That's why we are going to the system development fee. That money will be set aside to take care of what the City had to put out before. Everytime you keep adding subdivisions up above, we're blowing out lines down below because they can't handle the load -- like we did on 6th Avenue. All that replacement in there. That's a major concern and that's why we went with the system development fee. Motion by Alderman Dickerson to close the public hearing, seconded by Alderman Orr. Motion carried 8--0. RESOLUTION NO. 2218 RAISING CITY WATER RATES AND CHARGES SO AS TO INCREASE TOTAL REVENUES NOT TO EXCEED 12%. Motion by Don Meyers that Resolution No. 2218 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Orr. Motion carried 8--0. PUBLIC HEARING - GARBAGE RATE INCREASE: Proponents Dave Michael presented a report on the proposed garbage rate increase. Jim Flisrand reviewed some of the figures on the report. Opponents Joan Hapeman, 512 Idaho wanted to know why we are operating at a deficit. The Mayor said that we have not had a rate increase in solid waste for about five years. We need a new garbage truck and the compactor at the landfill is extremely costly to operate at this time. We either have to get a new compactor or look at a transfer station. The assumption at this time is that we will run the landfill. If we can save some cost at a later time we will try to do so. Discussion regarding repair costs for the collection and landfill equipment. This year it will probably run about $30,000. The cat at the landfill, which supplements the operation of the ~Dmpactor, is no longer in service. Discussion regarding looking at the alternatives of hauling the garbage to Billings and possibly a transfer station. Currently our lease at the landfill does not allow that flexibility. We have applied with the State, but they have not granted us permission to try anything else with the landfill. They will not allow us to do it with our current landfill. We have applied to the State for a lease north of our present landfill to see if we could try a transfer station there if that could possibly reduce the cost. But at this time we have to assume that we are going to operate the landfill. Lois Hansen, 320 1st Avenue asked if we have considered leasing the garbage operation to someone else. The Mayor said, "Yes, we have." At this time it looks like the cost would be approximately the same as what we are running now. There wouldn't be any savings, presently. But, that doesn't mean that in the future it would not be. Prior to buying all of this equipment, we do plan at looking at these options. Don Meyers said that if we would contract with someone new, 5 vears down the road the price could go way up. We have looked into this, also a transfer site, hauling it to Billings ourselves, which may turn out to something w~ ~ould do. But at the present time our equipment is not set up to haul to Billings. u~tion by Alderman Harris to close the public hearing, seconded by Alderman Meyers. Motion carried 8--0. A resolution will be presented at the July 15, 1986, regular Council meeting. PUBLIC HERARING - ANNEXATION OF BLOCKS 1 & 2 OF MORRIS SUBDIVISION (CITY PARK ON WASHINGTON AVENUE): This being the time and place a~vertised, a public hearing was held. Opponents none present Motion by Alderman Meyers to close the public hearing, seconded by Alderman Dickerson. Motion carried 8--0. page 14 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel ORDINANCE OF ANNEXATION NO. 887 first reading) EXTENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA, TO INCLUDE BLOCK I AND 2, OF MORRIS SUBDIVISION, YELLOW- STONE COUNTY, MONTANA. Motion by Alderman Dickerson that Ordinance No. 887, first reading, be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Orr. Upon taking a roll call vote, all aldermen present voted, "YES." Motion carried 8--0. BID OPENING - GARBAGE TRUCK: This being the time and place advertised all bids received were opened and read aloud. Two bids were received. (1) Johnson Distributing Gt. Falls, MT. Bid Bond attached Brand Name: Wayne Engineering Model: Curbtender Capacity: 25 cy Truck: 1987 White WX-42 GVW: 39,320 Cash Price: $89,437.00 Monthly Payments: $2,842.40 Annual Payments: $32,554.98 Interest Rate: 9.5% (2) Billings Truck Center 827 2nd Ave. No. Billings, MT. Bid Bond attached Brand Name: Heil F-7000 Model: F-7000 Capacity: 24 cy Truck: White WX-42 GVW:~ 39,320 Cash Price: $93,877.00 Monthly Payments: First $2,877.00; Balance $2,852.05 Annual Payments: First $2,877.00 - 3 annual payments of $35,315.64 Interest Rate: 8.0% The bids were referred to the Garbage Committee for review and a recommendation. BID OPENING - QUICK ATTACK FIRE TRUCK: This being the time and place advertised, all bids received were opened and read aloud. Two bids were received. (1) Becker Fire Equipment Co. 1717 E. Yellowstone Bid Bond attached Casper, WY 82601 Cashier's Check in the amount of $3,450.00 Truck: 1986 Ford GVW: 11,000 Total Price: $33,903.00 Alternate Bid Total Price: $34,500.00 (2) O'Donnell Fire Service & Equipment Co. 2405 2nd Ave. No. Bid Bond attached Billings, MT Cashier's Check in the amount of $3,693.00 Truck: 1985 GMC 4x4 (demo) GVW: 11,000 Total Price: $36,931.00 Optional Bid Furnish one GE Lo Ben 2 channel scanner radio or approved equal. $1,276.00 Brand Name: General Electric Model: Ranger BN9B01 The bids were referred to the Fire Committee for review and a recommendation. ORDINANCE NO. 881 (tabled 6/3/86) Motion by Alderman Kruq to remove Ordinance No. 881 from the table, seconded by Alderman Orr. Motion carried 8--0. Motion by Alderman Dickerson to amend the legal description to conform with the Certificate of Survey description, seconded by Alderman Meyers. Motion carried 8--0. ORDINANCE OF ANNEXATION NO. 881 (first reading) EXTENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA, TO INCLUDE TRACT A OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY #2385, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA. Motion by Alderman Dickerson that Ordinance No. 881 (first reading),~ as amended, be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Meyers. Upon taking a roll call vote, all aldermen pre~nt voted, "YES." Motion carried 8--0. ORDINANCE OF ANNEXATION - AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 879 (BAPTIST CHURCH ANNEXATION: ORDINANCE OF ANNEXATION NO. 879-A (second reading) EXTENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA, TO INCLUDE TRACT lA OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY NO. 1894, TRACT i~AMENDED, SITUATED IN THE S½ SE~ NE~ SECTION 8, T2S, R24E, PMM, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA, AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 879 DUE TO A CLERICAL ERROR IN LEGAL DESCRIP- TION. Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Public Hearing - no comments Motion by Alderman Dickerson that Ordinance No. 879-A (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Meyers. Upon taking a roll call vote, all aldermen present voted, "YES." Motion carried 8--0. HOME OCCUPATIONS: ORDINANCE NO. 886 (second reading) AMENDING SECTION 17.44.010 (B) (2) OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING HOME OCCUPATIONS. Public Hearing - no comments Motion by Aldesman2 Dickerson that Ordinance No. 886 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Meyers. Upon taking a roll call vote, all aldermen present voted, "YES." Motion carried 8--0. WAGE INCREASE FOR NON-UNION EMPLOYEES: Mayor Gauthier In the preliminary budget of this year we have put in there the salary and wage increase for non-union employees. They are not part of the negotiating unit. What we used for the preliminary budget figures was the same as what was in the Union Contract, ~'hich is 39¢ an hour wage increase and a $10.00 per month increase in health insurance benefits. Motion by Alderman Meyers to approve and adopt the salary and wage in- crease effective July 1, 1986, for non-union employees in the amount of 39¢ per hour and $10.00 per month in health insurance benefits for those who are eligible, seconded by Alderman Harris. Motion carried 8--0. JUDGE'S SALARY AND CLERK OF COURT: The judge's salary is set by ordinance. He has asked for a $2,000 a year increase. Discussion regarding current salary, hours worked and last time the judge's salary was increased. (approximately 6 years ago) An ordinance will be prepared and presented at the July 15th Council meeting regarding the judge's salary. He has also requested a full-time Clerk of Court. Motion by Alderman Meyers to deny the request for a full-time Clerk of Court, seconded by Alderman Krug. The judge asked that the work hours be doubled from 15 hours a week to 30 hours a week for the Clerk of Court. Alderman Krug withdrew his second and Alderman Meyers withdrew his motion. An ordinance will be prepared and presented at the July 15th Council meeting regarding work hours for the Clerk of Court. APPOINTMENTS: The Fire Department has recommended that Joe Davis be appointed as a volunteer fireman. Motion by Alderman Orr to confirm the recommendation and appoint Joe Davis to the Laurel Volunteer Fire Department, seconded by Alderman Dickerson. Motion carried 8--0. COMMITTEE REPORTS: --Asphalt Supply Committee report of July 1, 1986. Motion by Alderman Dickerson to enter the Asphalt Supply Committee report to the Council dated July 1, 1986, into the record, seconded by Alderman Orr. Motion carried 8--0. --City Council Committee as a Whole minutes of June 17, 1986, were presented. Motion by Alderman Krug to enter the City Council Committee as a Whole minutes of June 17, 1986, into the record, seconded by Alderman Meyers. Motion carried 8--0. --Asphalt Supply Review Committee minutes of June 25, 1986, were presented and reviewed. Motion by Alderwoman Kilpatrick to enter the Asphalt Supply Review Committee minutes of June 25, 1986, into the record, seconded by Alderman Harris. Motion carried 8--0. --Garbage Committee mirutes of June 27, 1986, were presented and reviewed. Pit at Landfill Motion by Alderman Meyers to authorize Dave Bublitz to dig a pit at the landfill in the amount of 65¢Jcu. yd., seconded by Alderman Krug. Motion carried 8--0. Change of Work Hours Don Meyers said that they would like a change of hours when employees go to page 16 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel work at the landfill and for the driver who picks up the business district to 6:00 a.m. The reason is that it is a lot easier on the Bomag to run when it's cooler and by picking up garbage in the business district at an earlier time it was felt that maybe there wouldn't be as many problems with delivery trucks in the alley. Motion by Alderman Meyers to authorize the landfill personnel and the driver who picks up garbage in the business district to start work at 6:00 a.m., upon agreement with the Union, seconded by Alderman Dickerson. Motion carried 8--0. Motion by Alderman Meyers to enter the Garbage Committee minutes of June 27, 1986, into the record, seconded by Alderman Krug. Motion carried 8--0. --Park Committee minutes of June 23, 1986, were presented and reviewed. Pony Ring (not in committee minutes) Donna Kilpatrick said that we have had a request from a lady who would like to put a pony ring in Thompson Park on the 4th of July. Discussion regarding liability insurance. Motion by Alderman Meyers to authorize the pony ring at Thompson Park for the 4th of July only, providing she shows proof of liability insurance coverage, seconded by Alderman Krug. Motion carried 8--0. Motion by Alderman Meyers to enter the Park Committee minutes of June 23, 1986, into the record, seconded by Alderman Harris. Motion carried 8--0. --Police Committee minutes of June 26, 1986, were presented and reviewed. Motion by Alderman Dickerson to enter the Police Committee minutes of June 26, 1986, into the record, seconded by Alderman Harris. Motion carried 8--0. The Police Committee meeting scheduled for July 3rd has been cancelled. Next meeting is scheduled for August 7th. --Board of Adjustment minutes of June 10, 1986, were presented. Motion by Alderman Meyers to enter the Board of Adjustment minutes of June 10, 1986, into the record, seconded by Alderman Orr. Motion carried 8--0. --City-County Planning Board minutes of June 12, 1986, were presented and reviewed. Discussion regarding off-street parking for new buildings or additions to buildings. It has been suggested that $1,000 cash be donated in lieu of a requirement for a 10x20 parking space. This would require an ordinance change. Motion by Alderman Meyers to accept the Planning Board's proposal, seconded by Alderman Orr. Motion carried 8--0. Discussion regarding the necessity to have 6 votes on the Planning Board to make a recommendation. Motion by Alderwoman Kilpatrick to enter the City-County Planning Board minutes of June 12, 1986, into the record, seconded by Alderman Krug. Motion carried 8--0. --Airport Authority minutes for the past several months were presented. Motion by Alderman Collins to enter the Airport Authority minutes of June 25, 1985, July 18, 1985, July 23, 1985, August 5, 1985, August 27, 1985, October 9, 1985, January 14, 1986, February 25, 1986, March 25, 1986, May 9, 1986, and June 2, 1986, into the record, seconded by Alderman Krug. Motion carried 8--0. Public Utilities Committee meeting scheduled for July 7th was moved to August 4tho Garbage Committee will meet July 14th at 5 p.m. POLICE RESERVE: Alan Crowe reported that Eric Adams, Animal Control Officer, has applied for and has been tentatively accepted to enter the City's Reserve Police program. Alan recommended that he be appointed to the Police Reserve & Auxiliary. The Mayor appointed Eric Adams to the Laurel Police Reserve & Auxiliary. Motion by Alderman Meyers to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Eric Adams to the Laurel Police Reserve & Auxiliary, seconded by Alderman Dickerson. Motion carried 8--0. Ambulance Committee meeting scheduled for July 8th has been cancelled. Next Page 17 Minutes of the CitY Council of Laurel meeting is scheduled for August 12th. PURCHASE ORDERS: The City Clerk reported that when you start working on your July purchase orders, leave the account number off at this time. Due to the computer conversion, the account numbers will change somewhat and you will be getting a report as soon as it is available. COUNCIL MEETING: The Mayor announced that there will be a special Council meeting on July 8th at 5:00 p.m., to approve the June claims. The Budget/Finance Committee will meet at 4:30 p.m. that same day. L. D. Collins requested permission to leave the State. Motion by Alderman Dickerson to grant permission for L. D. Collins to leave the State, seconded by Alderman Harris. Motion carried 8--0. Cal Cumin reported the Yellowstone County Commissioners are holding a public hearing tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. regarding the expansion of the Laurel City- County Planning Board area. MAYOR'S COMMENTS: The Mayor reported that we had an employee in the Clerk's office terminated. Instead of advertising, we took the applications which were used when we filled Celia's position about 3 months ago. The Mayor appointed Naomi Bacon to replace Teresa Gremmer. Motion by Alderman Krug to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Naomi Bacon effective July 14, 1986, seconded by Alderman Meyers. Motion carried 8--0. The Mayor reported that Steve Duganz wanted him to make a comment regarding the county continuing to pursue their nuisance action against Asphalt Supply and he will contact them tomorrow. The Mayor also reported that Don Nelson will be moving from Riverside Park on July 15th. It was decided to advertise next week for his replacement. Therei<.being..no!.further~b~siness to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Donald L. Hackmann, City Clerk Approved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, this 15th day of July, 1986.