Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 11.24.2020NOVEMBER 24, 2020 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 Tom Nelson at 6:35 p.m. on November 2020. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHER STAFF PRESENT: Emelie Eaton Bruce McGee Richard Klose Scot Stokes Heidi Sparks Richard Herr Iry Wilke (@ 6:55 p.m.) Don Nelson Nick Altonaga, Planning Director Mayor Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. Mayor Nelson asked the Council to observe a moment of silence. MINUTES: Motion by Council Member McGee to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 10, 2020, as presented, seconded by Council Member Klose. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All five council members present voted aye. Motion carried 5-0. CORRESPONDENCE: • Beartooth RC&D November Correspondence. • Laurel 2021 Urban Allocation Correspondence. COUNCIL DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: • Growth Management Plan Mayor Nelson stated this is the time and place set for the public hearing on the City of Laurel's Growth Management Plan. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Mayor Nelson opened the floor for public comment and asked that Staff present the item. Nick Altonaga, Planning Director, stated this is the final version of the Growth Management Policy. This project started about a year ago, in January of 2020. Since then, he has put a lot of work into it. Various groups have reviewed this plan, including Beartooth RC&D and the City/County Planning Board. The goals and objectives are set up to move the City forward in the next 4 to 5 years. This plan should need updated in the future and not a full overhaul. KLJ has been very helpful throughout this process. They assisted with some of the background research. Mayor Nelson stated that copies of the rules governing the public hearing were posted in the council chambers. Mayor Nelson asked three times if there were any proponents. Steve Simonson, Beartooth RC&D, stated he had reviewed this plan is in frill support of the plan. Mayor Nelson asked three times if there were any opponents. There were none. Mayor Nelson asked Staff to respond to any relevant questions. There were none. Council Minutes of November 24, 2020 Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. CONSENT ITEMS: • Claims entered through November 20, 2020, totaling $48,764.18 A complete listing of the claims and their amounts is on file in the Clerk/Treasurer's Office. • Approval of Payroll Register for PPE 11/1/2020 totaling $198,495.03. • Approval of Payroll Register for PPE 11/15/2020 totaling $202,286.64. • Council Workshop Minutes of November 17, 2020. The Mayor asked if there was any separation of consent items. There was none. Motion by Council Member Eaton to approve the consent items as presented, seconded by Council Member Klose. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All five council members present voted aye. Motion carried 5-0. CEREMONIAL CALENDAR: None. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: • Budget/Finance Committee Minutes of October 27, 2020. • Budget/Finance Committee Minutes of November 10, 2020. • Tree Board Minutes of October 15, 2020. • Public Works Committee Minutes of October 19, 2020. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (THREE-MINUTE LIMIT): None. SCHEDULED MATTERS: • Resolution No. R20-78: A Resolution of the City Council Authorizing the submission of a Big Sky Economic Development Trust Fund Planning Project Grant Application and to Commit the Matching Funds Required by the Creating Agency. Motion by Council Member Sparks to approve Resolution No. R20-78, seconded by Council Member Klose. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All five council members present voted aye. Motion carried 5-0. • Resolution No. R20-79: Resolution Authorizing The Mayor To Execute An Agreement With Beartooth RC&D Economic Development District. Motion by Council Member Herr to approve Resolution No. R20-79, seconded by Council Member Sparks. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All five council members present voted aye. Motion carried 5-0. • Resolution No. R20-80: Resolution Of Intent By The City Council To Adopt The 2020 City Of Laurel Growth Policy Creating A Thirty (30) Day Public Comment Period. Motion by Council Member Sparks to approve Resolution No. R20-80, seconded by Council Member Eaton. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All five council members present voted aye. Motion carried 5-0. • Resolution No. R20-81: A Resolution Granting A Variance To The Laurel Subdivision Ordinance Development Requirements To Approve The Proposed Krieghoff Loop As Currently Designed To Not Align And Continue The Existing Right -Of -Way For Mulberry Avenue Located South Of The Proposed Goldberg Sporting Estates Subdivision Motion by Council Member Klose to approve Resolution No. R20-81, seconded by Council Member Eaton. 2 �Ta� Council Minutes of November 24, 2020 Scott Aspenlieder, Performance Engineering, and representative for the developer, stated he would keep this short as they had a lengthy public hearing on this. This variance here, in particular, is most important to the layout of our development and our subdivision. We feel like we did the right thing in aligning that intersection with the large commercial approach as opposed to the dead-end. street of Mulberry. We got adequate separation to not cause traffic interference with the crossing of lanes and those types of things. The way we feel is that it is the safest and does meet all the requirements outside the direct alignment with Mulberry. It will be best for the development, best for the neighbors, and best for the community from a safety perspective. He appreciates Council's consideration on this and hopes that Council approved this request. Council asked for clarification if City/County Planning Board did not recommend approval for this variance. It was clarified that was what was brought forward in the public hearing. Council questioned how much of a delay there would be should this variance not be approved. It was clarified that it would most likely delay the project about a month. Redesigning the water and sewer connections will be the most time-consuming adjustment. A vote was taken on the motion. All six council members present voted nay. Motion failed 0-6. Resolution No. R20-82: A Resolution Granting A Variance From The City's Subdivision Ordinance Development Requirements To Approve A Thirty (30) Foot Right -Of -Way Dedication Along Yard Office Road And A Fifty -Six (56) Foot Wide Private Internal Road For Goldberg Sporting Estates Subdivision 4th Filing. Motion by Council Member Eaton to approve Resolution No. R20-82, seconded by Council Member Klose. Scott Aspenlieder, Performance Engineering and representative for the developer, stated as he outlined last time with respect to the 30 -foot right-of-way dedication. As it's currently constituted, he doesn't feel like there is even a variance request here. Mr. Altonaga acknowledged there is an 80 - foot right-of-way, which is your design standards and subdivision regulations for the classification of Yard Office Road technically and legally; I don't think there are any grounds for a variation as it sits. But what we are willing to do is dedicate an additional 30 foot; we want to make this a safe intersection and safe transaction as we enter our subdivision. It's only good for us as well as it is for the public. I think technically, legally, we do not have grounds to have to dedicate anything because we meet the requirements as it sits today. So, what we ask for today is a compromise. The Planning Department is asking for a 40 -foot right-of-way dedication. What we have offered to give up is 30 feet because we know we can design Yard Office Road with all utilities and turn lanes that will be required to turn onto the property. We don't feel like there is a need for an additional ten. The want for one does not justify the request. And looking into the future does not justify what you are asking for. On that subject, we have given more than what we legally have to. He asks for your consideration on the 30 -foot right-of-way dedication. As for the internal road, the plan to build this road to City standards. A 56 -foot wide road is plenty for two-way travel, plus street parking on both sides. Plus, it is done all over Yellowstone County and is easily navigable. We also do not want something that would be difficult to navigate, or the community navigate it would be a detractor for the people and the businesses we want to come here. Again, we want to do the right thing here. We ask that you waive it to make it a workable situation. What we have asked for does not create any problems or harm to the community. I would again request your approval and consideration for this variance request. There was no council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All five council members present voted aye. Motion carried 5-0. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: None. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS (ONE -MINUTE LIMIT): None. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Council wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Council gave their condolences to Riley Hutchens' Family. 3 Council Minutes of November 24, 2020 Council asked for an update on West Railroad at an upcoming Council Workshop. MAYOR UPDATES: Mayor Nelson echoed Council and wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Mayor Nelson stated there are no agenda items for next week's Workshop. Because there are no items to discuss, the Workshop and following Council meetings have been canceled. UNSCHEDULED MATTERS: Mayor Nelson declared May 4, 2021, as Arbor Day and read the Arbor Day proclamation. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Council Member Eaton to adjourn the council meeting, seconded by Council Member Klose. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All six council members present voted aye. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m. Brittney Moo an, Aminisvtrative Assistant Approved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, this 22"' day of December 2020. Thomas C. Nelson, Mayor Attest: Bethany Langve, k/Treasurer November 10, 2020 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, was field in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Tom Nelson at 6:30 p.m. on November 10, 2020, COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT OTHER STAFF PRESENT: Emelie Eaton Bruce McGee Scot Stokes Richard Klose Iry Wilke Heidi Sparks Richard Herr Don Nelson Nick Altonaga, Planning Director Mayor Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. Mayor Nelson asked the Council to observe a moment of silence. MINUTES: Motion by Council Member McGee to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 27, 2020, as presented, seconded by Council Member Klose. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All six council members present voted aye. Motion carried 6-0. CORRESPONDENCE: ® Airport Authority Minutes of August 25, 2020. • Airport Authority Minutes of September 22, 2020. COUNCIL DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: o Public Hearing — A Resolution To Approve The Conditional Use Of The Property Located At 1009 East 611 Street In Laurel For The Construction And Operation Of A Union Meeting Hall At Such Address Within The City Of Laurel. Mayor Nelson stated this is the time and place set for the public hearing on the City of Laurel's A Resolution To Approve The Conditional Use Of The Property Located At 1009 East 6th Street In Laurel For The Construction And Operation Of A Union Meeting Hall At Such Address Within The City Of Laurel. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing and asked Staff to present the item. Nick Altonaga, Planning Director, read the attached Staff Report. Mayor Nelson opened the floor for public comment and stated that copies of the rules governing the public hearing were posted in the council chambers. Mayor Nelson asked three (3) times if there were any proponents. There were none. Mayor Nelson asked three (3) times if there were any opponents. There were none. Mayor Nelson stated that he would not have Staff respond to questions as there were none. Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Council Minutes of November 10, 2020 • Public Hearing — Goldberg Sporting Estate Variance #1— Street Connectivity. Mayor Nelson stated this is the time and place set for the public hearing on the City of Laurel's Goldberg Sporting Estate Variance #1 — Street Connectivity. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing and asked Staff to present the item. Nick Altonaga, Planning Director, read the attached Staff Report. Mayor Nelson opened the floor for public comment and stated that copies of the rules governing the public hearing were posted in the council chambers. Mayor Nelson asked three (3) times if there were any proponents. Scott Aspenlieder, Performance Engineering, stated he is representing the Developer, Goldberg Investments. He stated they feel they have put forward what they believe is a pretty solid case in relation to why they feel the variance is supported, why it meets the requirements of the City, and why they feel it is the best long-range situation as far as this development is concerned. The big thing with the alignment of Mullberry is a one block long street that does not connect to anything at this stage of the game, off of E. 81h. Mr. Altonaga noted in his staff report that there may be future plans off of E. 7"', but from a development standpoint, it is impossible for us to know what the City may or may not see for development for that end of the City when there is not a capital improvement plans in place, and nothing noted to us. And quite frankly as we modified our layout to try and create connectivity and connect to the commercial portion of the development. And modify that plat so that the commercial part ties to the residential part. So you have a tie from Yard Office Road through the development to E. 8th. We have done everything that we can. The alignment from our standpoint, just strictly from a technical standpoint, you want to minimize intersections and minimize traffic conflicts. It's even acknowledged in Staffs Report that this alignment would align with a more utilized approach into Cotter's Sewer Service. That is used by a commercial business. It is used quite frequently; there is a lot of traffic there. It's a more safe situation to align this intersection with Cotter's Sewer Service than it is to align with a dead-end road that services four residential lots. Maybe sometime in the future could tie into E. 9th or E. 7th. Even at that point, if E. 7th is built out ten years down the road, you still have a safe intersection there where people can come off the subdivision, turn onto E. 8th and down Mullberry and go onto 7th if they want to try and spit traffic on their way into the City of Laurel. There is no real good argument to dispute the fact that it is a safer intersection if we can align our road to the commercial entrance to Cotter's Sewer Service. From our perspective, this is the best situation; it creates a better situation for the existing house that is located in the Southwest corner of that is going to stay. You won't have a residential road coming right down your kitchen window to that house, which ends up staying there. We have put forward what we think/feel is a good safe proposal for the community to consider. And something that frankly is going to help from a traffic standpoint for the residents of the area and the residents of East Laurel. That's the case he guesses he would make on this variance. He thinks this is the best they can do. It fits and meets all the requirements, and he doesn't think it is justified at this stage of the game to try to align this with a road that dead ends and serves four residential lots, on the off chance that maybe someday in the next decade E. 7th ever gets built out. Mayor Nelson asked three (3) times if there were any opponents. There were none. Mayor Nelson stated that he would not have Staff respond to questions as there were none. Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. • Public Hearing — Goldberg Sporting Estate Variance #2 — Right-of-way, Dedication, Road Width. Mayor Nelson stated this is the time and place set for the public hearing on the City of Laurel's Goldberg Sporting Estate Variance 42 — Right-of-way, Dedication, Road Width. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing and asked Staff to present the item. Nick Altonaga, Planning Director, read the attached Staff Report. Council Minutes of November 10, 2020 Mayor Nelson opened the floor for public comment and stated that copies of the rules governing the public hearing were posted in the council chambers. Mayor Nelson asked three (3) times if there were any proponents. Scott Aspenlieder, Performance Engineering representing the Developer Goldberg Investments, stated Nick covered a whole lot of ground there, and as you can see, this 10 foot of right-of-way along Yard Office Road can be a little bit confusing. Ten feet to most people doesn't sound like a lot, but as you're taking 10 feet through a commercial corridor. The value of that starts to add up significantly. He stated he wanted to touch on a whole lot of points here with respect to this 10 foot of dedication on Yard Office Road. The first thing he would say is, as a Developer and as an applicant, the only thing they can do is to try to submit to meet your, the City of Laurel, your standards. Yard Office Road, as you annexed it in has 80 feet of right-of-way. Yard Office Road in your Transportation Plan developed in 2014, is designated as a commercial collector requiring 80 feet of right-of-way. When we had this conversation early on, he stated he doesn't want this to be misconstrued or miss represented, but when we had this conversation early on with Forrest Sanderson, the contract planner at the time. What we talked about very, very explicitly and specifically with he and Kurt was that we would considering giving some additional right-of-way along Yard Office Road; however, I don't feel like technically we need to submit a variance because Yard Office Road already has the right-of-way width required by your plans and by your standards. So we would consider it given that there is a disputable you have 30 to 40 feet of that right-of-way that is used for a drainage ditch. We would consider giving you an additional 30 feet, giving you a 70 -foot -wide, even considering as stated in Mr. Altonaga's staff report a 40 feet of that 80 feet is used for a drainage ditch, which again is not my issue; we meet your standards as designated in your own documents. We would consider going ahead and dedicating an additional 30 feet to make sure we could incorporate sidewalks, any kind of widening, an additional turn lane on Yard Office Road if it determined that was required by the traffic study as we go through the design on this. That's how we ended up here. I don't feel professionally; technically, we even have this as a variance request because technically, we meet your requirements as stated in your own standards and documents. So as we talk about donating an additional 30 feet, we still give you; if you take that 40 feet off that Mr. Altonaga has said is used for drainage, we still have 70 feet. That road is already built, if we are being honest, Yard Office Road may be widened, and that extra 30 feet would definitely help in the widening of that road. But you are not going to see a complete destruction and reconstruction of Yard Office Road even at an arterial width; in the worst-case scenario, we have to put a center turn lane in to get in and out of the layout we've provided, and we've proposed for Yard Office Road to get into the commercial portion of our development. In the worst-case scenario, we put a turn lane in, a center turn lane. That's a three -lane wide road with a sidewalk on our side that we would be responsible for building. Seventy feet, taking into account for what's already there is more, more, more sufficient width to be able to accomplish that and make that happen. The additional 10 feet, to be able to see it align with what may have been dedicated 50 years ago to the north on a County subdivision which is not going to be annexed into the City of Laurel in anytime in the near future. Should not be the reasoning for asking for an additional 10 feet. Again remember, we are giving you an additional 30 feet that personally and professionally I don't think we necessarily need to dedicate to meet your requirements as they are written in your own documents. But we are willing to dedicate the 30 feet because it will make it a little easier and a little better and more presentable for our own development. But the additional ten feels arbitrary and capricious; it doesn't feel like it is based on any sound math, science, or any firm logic on how that road would ever be developed. So that's why were are here talking about 10 feet of right-of-way. Ten feet on commercial property adds up to a significant amount of money. If we are responsible, and as we develop this out, we are going to be responsible for paying for the improvements to do the things we need to make sure traffic can get in and out sufficiently as dictated by the traffic study as part of the subdivision process. We are confident that if we dedicate another 30 feet of right-of-way, giving 110 feet of right-of-way along the frontage of our development on Yard Office Road, we will easily be able to handle, and guess what? if we can't, we can always dedicate another 10 feet of right-of-way at that time. It seems arbitrary and capricious to be asking for that at this point without any justification and without us, even at this point, to go through the traffic study to say this is what this would look like to safely travel the development. So I guess that's how I would address; there is a lot to unpack there, that's how I would address our variance request number two. The fact that I don't think we should have even been here with a variance request is first and foremost. With respect to the 56 -foot right-of-way width internal for commercial on Perazzi Way, 56 -foot width for a right-of-way dedication for an interior commercial street is standard in the City of Billings; it's standard in a lot of other jurisdictions. It's more than enough to allow for parking on the street plus allow for two lanes of traffic to traverse that easily; with that being a private road at this point in time, we can easily make sure that the sidewalks are incorporated and fit with a boulevard walk. We are not intending to Council Minutes of November 10, 2020 deviate from a boulevard development. We also, as the Developer, I guess I would ask you all remember, we also as the Developer want to make this easily traversable. We want to make this user friendly because the business we are trying to attract here are not going to want cars pulling in or pulling over so another car can go by so they can traverse cars parked on the street. These widths are proven their true; they are easily navigable in multiple jurisdictions surrounding the City of Laurel. I think we can that very easily and very comfortably in this development. I don't see this as any kind of hardship, I don't believe it creates any kind of burden for the residents, and I don't see that it is anything that we as a Developer can't navigate to make this a user-friendly development and not only friendly for the residents and citizens but also for the traveling public. So that's the case I would make. The only other thing that I want to make sure that we address and this pertains to variance 1, 2, all three of the variances. There was a note in there with respect to a recommendation coming from the Planning Board that there needs to be a three-month cooling -off period per se. We have talking to Mr. Altonaga offline after the Planning Board. There is nowhere in any kind of statue both at the City level or at the State level that requires a cooling -off period. There is no need for that. If the variances are approved, then we can obviously easily move forward. If anyone of the three, two of the three, or all of the three are denied, we can make the adjustments very quickly and be right back in with our subdivision application. The only thing that we are up against at that point is making the modifications to the plat and get it back in to keep the subdivision process going. I guess I want to make sure that that is not something that is under consideration by the City Council. I would ask Mr. Altonaga to address that as well. We don't feel that is appropriate, nor is it necessary. The Planning Director stated that, like Scott had mentioned, we had previously discussed that. Those recommendations, I had written those in just as a place holder; I believe both the Public Works Director and Contract Planner had thought that there were caveats in our code. He stated that he had checked and did not see anything. He had just included it as a place holder. As Scott had mentioned, it's not necessary for a cooling -off period, a minimum timeline for resubmittal. Like Scott said, whether denied or approved that we could move forward within the next month or so with the next Planning Board cycle. He thanked both Scott and Tony for calling in tonight. There was a little bit of confusion for Planning Board for the public hearing. Scott and Tony were not in attendance. There was some confusion with the public notice and the correspondence we had back and forth. I am happy they were able to tune in tonight to provide that extra information and response. Mayor Nelson asked three (3) times if there were any opponents. There were none. Mayor Nelson asked Staff if they needed to respond to any additional questions. The Planning Director stated he understands all of Scott's responses, especially to the right-of-way dedication widths. What we have on the books is what we have on the books. Technically that's what we are going off of. They meet a lot of those requirements. From my point of view, looking at futureproofing about getting that 10 feet to make sure it's on the books and we have it ready to go down the line. We have gone back and forth for months on this, on different designs and alternative plans and things like that. That's my one thing I know specifically what is in and on the books is there, and I definitely understand those concerns, that that is what they have gone off of for months prepping their plans and prepping their plats. But just from our point of view, looking at going past that a little bit as to what's going to be adopted soon for our growth policy update and possible future developments along Yard Office, which we see as a major area of the City to seek new development and annexations into the City. I am hoping that at some point in the near future, that High Point Subdivision will annex, but that will be a whole another development process. As Scott said, that's nothing that would happen very soon. We are planning on different situations—Thanked Scott for being here and providing his responses to my findings. Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. CONSENT ITEMS: Claims entered through 11/6/2020 in the amount of $303,579.97 for October 2020; in the amount of $3,413.96. for November 2020 A complete listing of the claims and their amounts is on file in the Clerk/Treasurer's Office. 0 Approval of Payroll Register for PPE 11/1/2020 totaling $198,495.03. The Mayor asked if there was any separation of consent items. There was none. 4 Council Minutes of November 10, 2020 Motion by Council Member Eaton to approve the consent items as presented, seconded by Council Member Klose. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All six council members present voted aye. Motion carried 6-0. CEREMONIAL CALENDAR: None. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: • Cemetery Commission Minutes of September 29, 2020. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (THREE-MINUTE LIMIT): It was questioned if Council would be voting on the three variance requests tonight or if those will come back at a later date. It was clarified that Council would not be voting on those tonight. That those would come back once Staff is not denying those or if Council decides they would like to bring something forward against Staff and City/County Planning Boards recommendation. It was further questioned if no action is taken, the variances are denied. It was stated that was correct. It was further questioned that wasn't the process that was understood as Council was the governing body. It was asked if the Council could give a response, so the Developer knows how to proceed. Mayor Nelson stated he would follow up with the Developer in the morning. SCHEDULED MATTERS: • Resolution No. R20-76: A Resolution Of The City Council Adopting The Updated 2020 Yellowstone County Hazard Materials Response Plan. Motion by Council Member Sparks to approve Resolution No. R20-76, seconded by Council Member Klose. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All six council members present voted aye. Motion carried 6-0. • Resolution No. R20-77: A Resolution To Approve The Conditional Use Of The Property Located At 1009 East 6th Street In Laurel For The Construction And Operation Of A Union Meeting Hall At Such Address Within The City Of Laurel. Motion by Council Member Klose to approve Resolution No. R20-77, seconded by Council Member Eaton. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All six council members present voted aye. Motion carried 6-0. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: None. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS (ONE -MINUTE LIMIT): None. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: The November Public Works Committee meeting has been canceled. Veteran's Day is tomorrow. There will be a ceremony at 2:00 p.m. at the Laurel Cemetery by the VFW and American Legion. The ceremony will be brief. Council Members thanked all veterans for their service. MAYOR UPDATES: None. UNSCHEDULED MATTERS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Council Member Eaton to adjourn the council meeting, seconded by Council Member McGee. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All six council members present voted aye. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. 6i Council Minutes of November 10, 2020 Brittney norma , Administrative Assistant Approved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, this 2411' Day of November 2020. C onus C. Nelson, Mayor Attest: Bethany Langve,e W i asurer