Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 12.06.1983Minutes of the City Council of Laurel December 6, 1983 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 Albert Ehrlick at 7:02 p.m., on December 6, 1983. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Lonnie Kellogg Bill Brennan Marvin Carter Susan Carter Duane Behm Rob Harris Fred Feuerbacher, III Bob Gauthier COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: none INVOCATION: Invocation given by Reverend Holt. MINUTES: Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 15, 1983, as presented, seconded by Alderman Harris. Carried. CORRESPONDENCE: Received a letter of resignation from Larry Peterson as Civil Defense officer. Motion by Alderman Harris to accept Larry's resignation, seconded by Alderman Brennan. Motion carried. Received a letter from merchants of the Schessler building supporting the Council's motion for 1-hr. parking. Received a letter from Montana Department of Highways asking for assistance in basic requirements of Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). Received the minutes of November 16th~ November 22nd, and November 30th from the Interlocal Cooperation Commission. Received a letter from the Laurel Community Ed regarding the feasibility of offering additional summer classes. Received a Notice of Public Hearing on State Authorization to Administer Federal Hazardous Waste Management program to be held in Helena December 19, 1983, at 10:00 a.m. in the Cogswell Building. The City Clerk has put copies in mail boxes of the Revenue Sharing bulletin showing where Congress approved three-year extension of Revenue Sharing. Received a copy of the Service Plan for the Yellowstone County Law Enforce- ment Agency. CLAIMS: Claims for the month of November, 1983, were reviewed by the Budget/ Finance Committee and recommended for approval. Motion by Alderman Gauthier to approve the claims for the month of November, seconded by Alderman Behm. Motion carried. CAROL KUKES appeared before the Council concerning Ager's Auction Service. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter to grant them a temporary City license for December 10, 1983, until the committee has a chance to meet, seconded by Alderman Brennan. Motion carried. JACK MARTIN - ZONE CHANGE: Appearing before the Council was Richard W. Heard, Attorney at Law from Columbus, MT., representing Jack Martin. Richard said we're not here to argue, we're here to ask for help. When Jack came to our office the last part of October~and brought the materials concerning his zone change procedures which he had initiated back in March, I assured him, as City Attorney in Columbus, that City government moves slowly. He agreed with me at that point. To just run this by you quickly, and we will not tie up your agenda for a long time, Jack did apply for a zone change back in March. It was put in the paper page 2 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel so he assumed it was correct and noticed that when the hearing commenced he was .- advised that you couldn't get a zone ehange for just B lots. You have to have a block by the existing ordinances. So then he proceeded before the Board of Adjustment. In the process of getting that scheduled the Board was advised, apparently, that zone changes couldn't be gra'nted by the Board of Adjustment any longer. They had to be handled by the Council, so he didn't get the matter resolved on that basis. Then this fall the matter was brought to the Council, as I understand. And if anything I give you of my recollection of what Jack told me isn't correct, please stop me because I'm not trying to mislead. I'm just trying to capitalize the information I do have. When the matter came before the Council, after you had allowed him to go back the first time for the most recent vote, I understand it was 5 votes to grant the variance for the one block area consisting of two half blocks along First there and two votes against; and at that point there was some question of whether 20% of the people in the adjoining area had protested the change. Jack asked me to review those materials and review the protest form you used and the vote and the proceedings. It was my opinion at that point in time that the protests were insufficient, were not proper and allowable not because of the 20% requirement, but the form of protest used and the way they were lodged. And I felt that a~:that point, without a 20% protest, that the 5--2 vote granted his varianee request~ And I so advised him. And I advised that if it really wasn't handled~that way, that he did have redress be- yond the Council to the courts. The Council is the highest administrative agency, and if it couldn't be granted there, or upheld because of opposition or anything, then we could go to the courts. And I want to tell you honestly, Jack said I don't want to do that. He said I'd like you to just come and talk to the Couneil. They have been very fair ~ith me, and what I want to do is just have somebody that's not involved explain to them my side of it. That's why I'm here tonight. Like I say, the things dragged on from Mareh until now. The things that strike me as inequitable(at least some of the procedures that have bogged this thing down)first is my understanding that the Planning Board voted not to grant the zone change and that the information was made clear to the Council and everyone that the zone change requested from Residential to Residential Profes- sional was so that Dr. Wheeler can contemplate putting a dentist office in that house on the corner by the Post Office and City Park. One of the persons on the Planning Board is another dentist who, I thi~, had a -- if not a legal, a moral obligation just to disquality himself from that proeeeding. And when you don't vote for or against the competition, you disqualify yourself and you let the rest of the group vote. I think that's just concept of fair play. When the matter went before the Board of Adjustment, I understand that Mr. Bradley is allowed to be a voting member of the Board or the Planning Board. And yet he is also the Attorney for the City here. It seems to me that Jack's attorney wasn't allowed to vote on the Board. I seriously think that the City Attorney should disqualify himself from voting and certainly give adviee to the boards and agencies, but to have voting rights seems to me to be a little bit unfair. Like I s~, you had some changes in your procedures. Jack advises me, in checking at City Hall and around with other property owners, that variances for that property owners individual lots have been granted in the past. And now that pro- cedure is no longer available, so the new citizens now have to ask that whole block of land of which they only own 2 or 3 or 4 lots be ohanged for their needs. And in that regard I think the Council ought to consider on the advice of the City Attorney. Reviewing a recent case from Forsyth, MT, where the Montana Supreme Court said that for a zoning ordinance of any kind to be upheld, it must be fair and reasonable and have some standards on which the people that object to the ehange can base their decisions; and to require a square block of land to be changed to ehange the use for 2 or 3 lots seems to me to be questionable. You page 3 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel may want to review that for the future for the town of Laurel's good. One of the other things that was brought out, that we found out when we investigated the matter, is that perhaps some of the people who protested were given some information that may have been the basis for their protests that probably wasn't totally accurate. People get scared when there's any suggestion of change, iThe first thing that comes up - it will raise your taxes. I have a letter here which I would be glad to leave with the Council. I wanted clarifi- cation on that point; and I asked David Ferguson who is the Area III Manager for Department of Revenue Headquarters in Billings for the counties surrounding Yellowstone, if a zone change for that one block that,s in question here tonight would raise the property taxes for any person having a house or residents in that block that didn't change it to a professional use, that or rent it to a doctor, lawyer, accountant or whatever; and he assured me in writing that there would be no change in property taxes. And I would be glad to leave that with you. The other thing that I think is important in this matter -- being an outsider, just driving down your street in Laurel here, it seems to me that's the street where Laurel is going to grow. If growth follows the U. S. Postal facilities so you can go to businesses on the way to the post office. It looks to me like it's up the street. I had Jack prepare a little map which I'd be glad to leave with the Council tonight, which shows that the boundaries of his proposed change would adjoin on the south a block of land that's now zoned Residential Professional. I mean it would touch the existing Residential Professional on his same side of the street on 1st Avenue. I'm sure that's an appropriate classification for that block of land. In fact, I think the City Attorney's family has some land on that block. You know that's the kind of property you want for profes- sional offices and made available for the professional people. I really think that if anything, the people in the particular half block in question, the two half blocks on 1st Avenue, stand to benefit if they're your constituents in your ward. Because if I had an older residence used for residential purposes and found it hard to sell an older house in Laurel, because people don't like to buy an old house because the insulation, the wiring and the plumbing, you might be able to sell it to a chiropractor, a dentist or a doctor to remodel and make into a pro- fessional building. So I really think that the people in the area involved stand to gain from this action that 5 of the Council members thought was good for the town of Laurel the last time it was voted on. It seems to me that in all actions by State agencies and City governments there's some politics involved. I see this in Columbus and we all read about it in the Gazette at the Billings level; but it seems strange to me that when Mr. Martin's matter was presented to the Council and 5 people voted to grant that zone change, 2 against, that the majority of the elected officials thought that was good for the town. Some 12 days after the Council meeting, the Mayor saw fit to veto that action, and I'd like to read you the last sentence out of that veto. I'm sure it's on file with the minutes of the City Council. It says the veto is further made to avoid future possible litigation on the question of the validity of the protest received. Well, I seriously disagree with that, your Honor. It won't avoid litigation -- your veto by itself -- and it seems to me that if the veto was to be exercised it would have only been fair play that it be exercised that night at the meeting. This man has tried to follow the procedures laid out, and he's run into quite a few roadblocks. And it seems strange that when the Council voted to grant this, then the Mayor {singly) decided to veto that action for one reason or another. The reason that we're here tonight on behalf of Mr. Martin is that we'd like to ask the whole Council to vote on this matter. We'd like to ask you first to vote to override the veto which is the first meeting we've had since the veto was in place, and it takes 3/4 of your number. You have a full 8 here tonight, so it would take 6 to override the Mayor's Veto. If 6 of you feel that the veto was inappropriate page 4 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel and vote to override the same, then we would ask the Council to vote tonight on the question of granting the Zone Change. There was not a full Council last time, and yet 5 out of 7 felt it was an appropriate action. We feel that -- being an outsider just driving up that street, I think that's where the town of Laurel is going to grow. I think some of the nicest development control is professional in with your residential. Professional people keep the same hours as post offices and most working people 9--5 or 8--5. So you don't have night time traffic like bars or other things that wouldn't be allowed in the Residential Professional Zone it's asked for. And so for this reason we would ask that you reconsider this matter tonight and override the veto and grant Mr. Martin his zone change. I would like to say that both Dr. Wheeler and Mr. Martin are here tonight and they would certainly be glad to answer any questions as if I did not come with them for the presentation, and I'd be glad to try and answer any questions; and if there are none we'll sure let you get on with your meeting. Do you have any questions? Any questions to Mr. Martin? James Meyers~ 415 1st Avenue. What was wrong with the petition? Richard Heard With the protest form? I think the printed form lacked what the statute of the State of Montana requires. Since this is an administrative hear- ing, I don't want to debate the merit of the Laurel printed form. If we do that we'll do it in court. James Meyers Well, I think it should be gone to court because we had the 20%. Richard Heard The question is 20% or not really is immaterial if you don't override the veto. If the veto stands, all the other that preceded it is imma- terial. So that's really the first issue that you have before you tonight is whether you let the veto stand in place or not. Thank you very much! Fred Feuerbacher III Mr. Mayor, I have a couple questions. Since Cal is here, maybe he can answer them. Cal, what control do we have over what goes in after- wards if we grant the two blocks and why was the ordinance put~in that way? I mean what next professional do we have control besides of the type of building and the parking? Cal Cumin In RP Zone (Residential Professional Zone), anything that is allowed in an RP Zone can go in there. Fred Feuerbaeher III Who determines what's a professional what? Cal Cumin It's in the ordinance. The type of uses which are allowed in Laurel's RP Zone include: accessory uses, ceramic shops by special review, child care center, churches, places of worship, Sunday school buildings, etc., animal clinics, dwellings, single family, 2 family, multi-family and excuse me -- single family only, Office buildings, professional government and private office buildings in which no activity is carried on catering to retail trade and no stock of goods is maintained for sale is allowed by special review in an RP Zone, public parking is allowed, parks, playgrounds, playfield, community center buildings, public agency operated neighborhood buildings, this type of thing is allowed, public utility service installation by special review is allowed. That's it. Fred Feuerbacher III If we change that two-block area, then that means, except for the type of building and the parking, we don't have -- if they fall in any of those categories they can go in. Cal Cumin Yes, except for the special review as noted. Fred Feuerbacher III I can see why the two-block area was in, but I can certainly see where I would disagree with it. Because I think that it takes it out of our hands afterwards. I don't think we have any control over it, and I think we just went through that situation with Asphalt Supply. page 5 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Joe Bradley Excuse m~ Fred, it's not a two-block area. It's a one-block area. Cai Cumin The reason for that one,block area minimum size is, I think, sound reasoning. Referred to that you have equitable rules in which to follow and that is one that is established. It's not something that just came up. It is designed to take some of the pressure off the City Council on dealing with indi- vidual lot zone changes which are basically illegal and referred to as "spot zoning." It requires, if you're going to go out in the middle of an area in which the zone you want does not exist in any contiguous area, you have to have at least a block area to do that whether you own the land or whether you have 12 other people that own the land with you is immaterial. The City has established the fact that if you want to buy in an area where a zone does not exist and start a new zone, you have to have at least the size of a City block. Now that's not unfair. The other side of that is that if you are contiguous to a zone, if you're next to a zone, you can have just one block, you can have 25 feet zoned, as long you're next to something. I think the intent of that is so you don't have zones scattered all over the place. If you didn't have a minimum size zone you'd have anyone coming up with his lot stuck up.here and all his neighbors agree and every- body thinks it's a great idea and he wants to put in a Kwik-Way. Now where you're confronted with that, even though it's not a good planning practice, so you put a standard on that; and that is.if someone wants to go out in an area that does not have a zone change and start a new zone, they have to have at least a block area. Discussion on zone change. Richard Heard Commented about spot zoning in Laurel. You have a half-block on 1st Avenue, the street we're talking about right now immediately south of the area that's requested for change. It's where the chiropractic clinic is and the half block south from there; and that's already in RP. This would make the next two half-blocks contiguous to that same classification. What's strange, we colored the RP in red, and you have a medical facility up here north of your school, RP. You've got a chiropractic clinic and some other property owned behind your commer- cial that's RP for professional persons; and we're asking that the two blocks on the same side of the street as the two RP you now have be made continuous. So you'd have continuous RP On the east side of 1st Avenue. That sure does strike me as spot zoning. What's spotty about it is across the street and all up the west side there is no RP, yet for some time you've had half block of that. That goes back to the old thing, that fair is fair. Cal Cumin Mr. Mayor, I was not referring to that fact that this would be creating spot zoning. I specifically referred to someone with a 25 ftl lot that was off by himself, that would be spot zoning. What I would like to bring up here, all these issues of whether the City is going to go up 1st and whether we have enough zoning for this and enough zoning for that, that's the function of the Planning Board; and you've got their advic~e. They have gone over that extensive study and all of this has been addressed carefully. You've had Planning Board reviews; it's been through here, several public hearings, that kind of thing. The only thing that I would like to emphasize is, as your advisor -- your Planning Board advisor -- is watch out for that 20%. The Planning Board feels that you have the valid 20% and this law says you only have to have it on one side. I think we've had it on all four sides. That's the issue. The law says you can not give -- this Council can not give -- a zone change if you've got a valid protest which is 20% on any one side unless by majority of the Council. All this other stuff about whether the City should go up 1st or not is a separate question. All I want you to worry about is that one. page 6 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Richard Heard I'd like to address that question. The Planning Board recommends~ to the Council, the Council votes,and the statute says the Council can override the 20% if it does exist and there's a question about that or the Mayor would not have taken time to draw up his veto. But whether it does or doesn't, if 6 of you think tonight it's good for the City of Laurel to have this change and you so vote that will be the law. Thank you. Comments from the audience about traffic in that area since the Post Office went in. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter to override the Mayor's Veto, seconded by Alderwoman Sue Carter. Upon taking a roll call vote, Aldermen Brennan and Gauthier voted "NO" with all other aldermen voting "YES." Motion carried 6--2. Discussion on what is legal, and the City Clerk has checked signatures of protest. Joe Bradley brought up the fact of what is the proper form that should be used in a protest. The City is in a funny position here, unbeknown to me the City secretary in the letters giving notice of the public hearing has been in- cluding one protest for a change and one protest against. That goes to every- body. It's a letter notifying them of a public hearing. She's been using a form that was originally intended as just a list of people who attend the meetings. I believe the wording on the forms says something like the following persons will appear at the meeting in protest of the petition. But our problem is that she sent them out. I didn't know it at the time, so these people received those and they presumed that they were petition forms and used them and brought them back. Jack Martin, himself, used the same form to gather signatures in favor. We may be getting into some problems with ignoring them if that's what you do. I don't know but they may have been mislead about the use of those petitions, because if we had mislead them they might have had a chance to form their own petitions and do it correct. The question is whether the Council is going to ignore the petitions that the City sent out itself. The City had been accepting them in previous hearings of those natures. We've been doing that for quite a while. Richard Heard I think Joe's explanation is perfectly accurate. I think the form that was sent out does not meet the requirements in t~e State of Montana for pro- tests against this type of action. So the question isn't do you have 21% or 19%, it's to the people who signed the form. Did they sign a protest that's recogniz- able under the statutes of the State of Montana which supercedes the ordinances of Laurel; and I think Joe will tell you and if you just ask the protest form is not sufficient. And that's the problem, but you can cure the problem because if you vote to override it that question's moot. Then if it isn't overriden, then the question is if they're not, if the protest form is insufficient, then Mr. Martin's change was granted when the vote was 5--2 because there was not a proper protest in place to stop the 5--2 vote. Someone from the audience asked to have the correct form so they can sign what they are supposed to sign. Richard Heard The protest period is closed, your Honor. Mr. Martin is not responsible for the City's form. Joe Bradley I didn't mean to say that that's a bad form. I'm not prepared to say that. The statute does set a statute on protest petitions. I think arguably this could be used as a valid protest. That's a legal question. If there was a suit, it would be settled by a judge. But right now the question is that the Clerk has made his report, whether you are going to accept that report or not. Lonnie Kellogg If we accept it then what vote would it take to change it? page 7 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Joe Bradley It would take 6 votes in order to grant the variance but -- to grant the zone change, but I think it should come in the form of a motion to reconsider your previous vote. If accepted that vote didn,t get 6 votes; and it is a vote and it's entered in the minutes and you can't just ignore the fact that you took a vote. Fred Feuerbacher III I, myself, would like to take a look at that ordinance. I can see Cal's point. But still, as he stated before, they are trying to take the pressure off the Council, whatever you want to call it; but once they do that, we really don't actually have control over what professional business goes in there. That's my opinion. Some of the people that I talked to in this area, and I went down to talk to some of them, were not against what Mr. Martin was doing for that one place, but over changing the two-block area. What's to come next? There are some that are definitely against it and some that are for it. How does the Council stop what's next? I think we run into that same problem when we do Home Occupa- tions. Discussion on what to allow in an RP Zone. Motion by Alderwoman Sue Carter to reconsider the previous vote of October 18, 1983, seconded by Alderman Harris. More discussion on what to accept first. Alderwoman Sue Carter withdrew her motion and Alderman Harris withdrew his second. Motion by Alderwoman Sue Carter to accept the Clerk's report and enter it into the minutes of the protest hearings, seconded by Alderman Brennan. Motion carried. Motion by Alderwoman Sue Carter that we reconsider Mr. Martin's zone change, seconded by Alderman Marvin Carter. Division of the House: Alderman Brennan "NO" Alderwoman Sue Carter "YES" Alderman Harris "YES" Alderman Behm "YES" Motion carried 5--3. Alderman Gauthier "NO" Alderman Kellogg "YES" Alderman Marvin Carter "YES" Alderman Feuerbacher "NO" Motion by Alderwoman Sue Carter that we grant Mr. Martin's zone change, seconded by Alderman Kellogg. Division of the House: Alderman Brennan "NO" Alderman Gauthier "NO" Alderwoman Sue Carter "YES" Alderman Kellogg "YES" Alderman Harris "YES" Alderman Marvin Carter "YES" Alderman Behm "YES" Alderman Feuerbacher "NO" Motion defeated 5--3 (6 "YES" votes were required). Richard Heard Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your time. Fred Feuerbacher III said at this time I think maybe we should consider this ordinance. Why it was changed. SID #108 - AWARD BIDS: The bid opening was held on November 15, 1983, and was referred to the Street & Alley Committee on November 17, 1983. RESOLUTION NO. 2037 RESOLUTION RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING SALE OF BONDS FOR SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 108. page g Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Motion by Alderman Kellogg that Resolution No. 2037 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Behm. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2038 RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION IN SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 108. Motion by Alderman Kellogg that Resolution No. 2038 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Brennan. Motion carried. ORDINANCE OF ANNEXATION - MURRAY HEIGHTS was presented by Larry Herman. ORDINANCE OF ANNEXATION NO. 761 EXTENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA, TO INCLUDE LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 9, BLOCK 12, MURRAY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, SECOND FILING, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA. Motion by Alderman Kellogg that Ordinance No. 761 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Marvin Carter, Upon taking roll call vote, all aldermen present voted "YES." Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2039 CHANGING THE BOUNDARIES OF WARD THREE TO INCLUDE CERTAIN TRACT, TRACTS AND PARCELS OF LAND AND DIRECTING CERTIFI- CATION OF THE ALTERED BOUNDARIES. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter that Resolution No. 2039 be passed and ad. opted, seconded by Alderman Feuerbaeher. Motion carried. RESOLUTION ACCELIERATING DELINQUENT SID TAXES: Joe Bradley presented the follow- ing resolutions: RESOLUTION NO. 2040 ACCELLERATING ALL PAYMENTS UNDER SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 98 ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES. Motion by Alderman Brennan that Resolution No. 2040 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Feuerbacher. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2041 ACCELLERATING ALL PAYMENTS UNDER SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 100 ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES. Motion by Alderman Feuerbaoher that Resolution No. 2041 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Brennan. Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 757 (2nd READIHG): ~ : Motion by Alderman Behm to remove Ordinance #757 from the table, seconded by Alderman Harris. Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 757 (2nd reading) AMENDING SECTION 17.76.010 H, OFF-STREET PARKING, OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE. Motion by Alderman Kellogg that Ordinance No. 757 (2nd reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Marvin Carter. Upon taking roll call vote, all aldermen present voted "YES." Motion carried. pa e 9 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel ORDINANCE NO. 758: ORDINANCE NO. 758 (2nd reading) PROVIDING FOR FEES TO BE CHARGED BY CITY UPON RESTORING OR REPAVING EXCAVATIONS AND ADDING SECTION 11.04.025, FEES REQUIRED FOR RESTORATION BY CITY, TO THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE. Motion by Alderman Brennan that Ordinance No. 758 (2nd reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Marvin Carter. Upon taking roll call vote all aldermen present voted "YES." Motion carried. RESOLUTION SETTING FEES AND BILLING RATE FOR CITY RESTORATION OF EXCAVATIONS: RESOLUTION NO. 2042 SETTING FEES AND BILLING RATE FOR CITY RESTORATION OF EXCAVATIONS. Motion by Alderman Behm that Resolution No. 2042 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Feuerbacher. Motion carried. ORDINANCES NO. 759 AND 760 regarding refuse fee and failure to pay fee. ORDINANCE NO. 759 {lst reading) AMENDING SECTION 8.12.048, REFUSE FEE INCLUDED WITH WATER BILLING, OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE. Motion by Alderman Kellogg that Ordinance No. 759 (lst reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by 'Al'derman Harris. Upon taking roll call vote, all alder- men present voted "YES." Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 760 (lst reading) AMENDING SECTION 8.12.050, FAILURE TO PAY BILL, OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter that Ordinance No. 760 (lst reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Brennan. Upon taking roll call vote, all aldermen present voted "YES." Motion carried. NOTICE TO VACATE ALLEY: Block 1, of Sheets Subdivision - John Yonkaitis. This matter was refer~ed to the Street & Alley Committee. JIM KAERCHER~ HKM - WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT: Jim said what he would like to do is give the Council a monthly report of the progress on the Wastewater Treat- ment Plant. The construction started, officially, October 13, 1983. He will give a report in writing and also report to the Council personally. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Garbage Committee minutes of January 26, 1982, through November 15, 1982, were presented for review. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter to enter into the record the Garbage Com- mittee minutes of January 26, 1982, through November 15, 1982, seconded by Alder- man Kellogg. Motion carried. Garbage Committee minutes of November 21, 1983, were presented and reviewed. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter to enter into the record and approve the Garbage Committee minutes of November 21, 1983, seconded by Alderman Brennan. Motion carried. page lO Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Alderman Behm was excused to return to work before the vote was taken on the above motion. Fire Committee minutes of November 14, 1983~ were presented and reviewed. The committee recommends the establishment of a Truck Committee to study the feasibility and the recommendations of ISO and report back to the Fire Committee. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter to establish a Truck Committee to study the feasibility and the recommendation of ISO and report back to the Fire Committee, seconded by Alderman Harris. Motion carried 6--1 with Alderwoman Sue Carter voting "NO." Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter to enter into the record and approve the Fire Committee minutes of November 14, 1983, seconded by Alderman Harris. Motion carried. Park Committee minutes of November 29, 1983, were presented and reviewed. Motion by Alderman Feuerbacher to enter into the record and approve the Park Committee minutes of November 29, 1983, seconded by Alderman Harris. Motion carried. Cemetery Board minutes of November 28, 1983, were presented and reviewed. Motion by Alderman Harris to enter into the record and approve the Cemetery Board minutes of November 28, 1983, seconded by Alderman Feuerbacher. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter to amend the motion and award the bid to Ace Electric, seconded by Alderman Harris. ~ Motion carried. The original motion made by Alderman Harris~ as amended, was carried. Street & Alley Committee minutes of November 23, 198B, were presented and reviewed. At this time Alderman Marvin Carter presented the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 762 (failed on first reading) ADDING SECTION 10.68.035, ONE HOUR PARKING, TO THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter that Ordinance No. 762 (lst reading) for one-hour parking be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Brennan. Dr. Mike Wheeler was present to oppose this change~ on one-hour parking. Lonnie Kellogg, as a businessman, also agreed with Mike Wheeler. Gary Temple of S~c~ri~y'F~d~ral Savings ~ Loan voiced his opinion in favor of the one-hour parking. Discussion regarding one-hour parking and 10,minute parking zones. If you change it in one area, please look the whole situation over first. Roll call vote was taken on the original motion to approve one-hour parking: Alderman Brennan "NO" Alderman Gauthier "NO" Alderwoman Sue Carter "NO" Alderman Kellogg "NO" Alderman Harris "NO" Alderman Marvin Carter "YES" Alderman Feuerbacher abstained Motion was defeated 5--1. Motion by Alderman Marvin Carter to enter into the record the Street & Alley Committee minutes of November 23, 1983, seconded by Alderman Brennan. Motion carried. page ll Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Police Committee via Alderman Brennan presented a plan on rental of the City Jail. The following resolution was presented: RESOLUTION NO. 2043 ADOPTING GUIDELINES AND POLICY FOR RENTING CITY JAIL SPACE TO RECEIVE PRISONERS FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS. Motion by Alderman Brennan that Resolution No. 2043 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Harris. Motion carried. MAYOR'S COMMENTS: City Clerk stated he received a phone call from Dave Halland, from the Election Department. They are looking for a new polling place for Ward 3. Dave was approached by some citizens of maybe having the polling place at the FAP Complex. They would like to come up with a new polling ~lace by January 15, 1984. It was suggested that Dave Halland come up here for the next Council meeting on Decem- ber 20, 1983, and discuss this matter with the Council. Alderman Brennan regarding oonsolidation stated that last night the Fire, Ambulance and Police Committee people met with Lorraine Schardt, representing ICC, at the complex to give her a tour of the facility. There will be a public hearing in Billings tonight December 6, 1983, in one of the Judge's chambers. The committee was informed by Lorraine last night that there would be no changes regardless of what came out of the hearing. The committee came up with a lot of problems that Lorraine was not aware of and they chose to completely ignore. The way it looks right now, it will be very expensive for the City of Laurel. Motion by Alderman Brennan that the City Council go on record as opposing the consolidation, seconded by Alderman Kellogg. It was suggested that a resolution be drawn up and list why the City of Laurel opposes this consolidation, have it ready for the next Council meeting. At this time Alderman Brennan withdrew his motion and Alderman Kellogg withdrew his second. Joe Bradley stated he would like to bring something up at this time that kinda disturbs me. Dick Heard insinuated a little bit, I can't legally advise you if I'm a member of the City-County Planning Board too. Almost everything we do in the City-County Planning Board will eventually come before the City Council. As an appointed member to the City-County Planning Board I'm required to take positions and vote for or against things as I see the best interest of the City. So I want you to decide, if you don't think you can trust my legal advi£e when it comes before you then I shouldn,t be on that committee. So, I think that's something you should think about and you should just let me know and I shouldn't be on that committee if it's going to cause a problem. I don't think it's ever caused a problem in the past. My father was on the committee too, and I think Larry Herman was when he was City Attorney. It's been a policy but it's an argument that he made. I want to leave that up to you. If any of you have a problem you should tell me and I'll resign from the board. Mayor Ehrliok stated he feels Joe has done a real good job as far as he's concerned. The Mayor reminded everyone of the Public Utilities meeting at 4:30 p.m. at City Hall on December 13, 1983, and also City-County Planning Board meeting at City Hall on December 8, 1983, at 7:00 p.m. Fred Feuerbacher III r~nded everyone also of Community Ed meeting coming up. There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m~ ~ ~.~ - Donald L. ackmann, C-~ ~ Approved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, this 20th day of December, 1983. Donald L. Hackr~PAnn, City Cle~rk --