HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 01/22/2001~~,~
January 22, 2001 Vol. 35, Page 423
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting
Monday, January 22, 2001
Council Chambers
The Petaluma City Council met on this date at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Vice-Mayor Cader-Thompson, Council Members Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
O'Brien, Mayor Thompson, and Council Member Torliatt
ABSENT: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At the request of Mayor Thompson, Jane Hamilton led the Pledge of Allegiance.
MOMENT OF SILENCE
At the request of Mayor Thompson, a Moment of Silence was observed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Beth Meredith, 104 Fifth Street, spoke regarding an upcoming event to take place on
February 16, 2001; a slide presentation and discussion with Chris Field at City Hall in the
Council Chambers regarding environmental issues.
Robert Ramirez, 611 West, spoke regarding an upcoming event at the Phoenix Theater; an
event to celebrate the first anniversary of the new ownership, a social event and meeting to
help chart the future of the Phoenix such as retrofitting, programs, fund raising.
Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke in opposition to across-town connecter at Rainier.
Jane Hamilton, 110 `G' Street, spoke regarding the Lynch Creek bike path and asked
Council to continue the path downtown along the Petaluma River.
~~,~
Vol. 35, Page 424 January 22, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council Member Torliatt:.
• Noted a letter received from the North Bay Area of Realtors association regarding
housing policies; she asked Council Member O'Brien to provide the Planning
Commission with the documents.
Council Member Healy:
® Reported that Supervisor Kerns was the Chair and Bob Jean from Cloverdale was the
Vice Chair on the SCTA (Sonoma County Transportation Authority) Board. Supervisor
Kerns was working towards a ballot measure in 2002 regarding transportation funding.
Council Member Moynihan:
• Thanked the neighborhood at Westridge for their generosity and support for the annual
Girl Scouts cookie sale.
Council Member Maguire:
• Thanked Jane Hamilton for her comments and reiterated Mr. Ramirez's invitation
encouraging public participation at the event.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson:
• Reported on a recent local government forum and conference, encouraged the new
council members to attend, and gave a brief overview of what was discussed.
• Regarding the Lynch Creek trail, she noted that she was happy to hear that the Bicycle
Advisory Committee was to focus on extending it. -
• She noted that the Freeman Gray property on McDowell was sold; she asked City
Management to find out who bought it and what plans they had for the property.
• She attended the Recreation Music and Parks Commission meeting and noted there
was a lot of public participation regarding Oakhill Park. She encouraged the Park and
Recreation Department to continue getting neighborhoods involved with their local
parks.
CITY MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Discussion, Possible Direction and Possible Action Regarding Regional Water
Supply and Transmission Issues with Sonoma County Water Agency Including
Amendment 11 (Eleventh Amended Agreement).
Mayor Thompson introduced Clinton J. Wilson, Northwestern Utility Billing Service
and his partner, Vincent Denietolis, who in addition, serves as a member of the
Santa Rosa Planning Commission.
_~~~^
January 22, 2001 Vol. 35, Page 425
1 Mr. Denietolis gave an overview of a product that was developed with water
2 conservation and efficiency in mind as well as other benefits of the product. He
3 explained how the product worked and answered Council's questions.
4
5 Council Member Healy wanted City Management to obtain information regarding
6 rates.
7
8 PUBLIC COMMENT
9
1o David Keller, 1327 `I' Street, offered suggestions for future planning by
11 implementing a program requiring water conservation and efficiency products.
12
13 Mayor Thompson noted that he asked for the presentation as the City received a
14 number of applications for building apartment complexes.
15
16 Water Resources and Conservation Director Tom Hargis provided background
17 information, a status report, and summary of the project to date.
18
19 Council Member Healy asked if there was a process in place to move forward and
2 o where the leadership was going to come from.
21
22 Mr. Hargis replied no and that perhaps leadership would come from the Mayors'
23 and Councilmembers' Association.
24
25 Council Member Healy asked for clarification of Santa Rosa's reason for
2 6 reconsidering their approval of Amendment 11; he wanted to know if it was because
27 they wanted more water.
28
2 9 Mr. Hargis replied that he understood it had to do with volume of water but was not
3 0 certain.
31
32 Council Member Maguire noted that in January Council moved forward with MOU
3 3 (Memorandum of Understanding), and that the Operating Agreement was signed in
3 4 October; the MOU had to be approved in order for the Operating Agreement to take
35 effect. At the Water Forum, all of the contractors agreed that they needed unity.
36
3 ~ Water Resources and Conservation Supervisor Steve Simmons provided a handout
3 8 from a seminar held June 22, 2000, the Urban Water Management Plan Community
39 Workshop, and presented slides from a handout that addressed. Petaluma's water
4 o conservation programs.
41
42 Mayor Thompson asked if there was a way to measure how much water was saved
43 because of these programs.
44
45 Mr. Simmons replied it was about 8%.
46
(i' ~ H
P~~~~~
Vol. 35, Page 426
January 22, 2001
1 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson asked that Mr. Hargis to provide additional
2 information to the Council about the program.
3
4 Council Member Maguire asked if there was a way to get above the 8%
5
6 Mr. Simmons replied that two tiered rates were a consideration and agreed to return
7 with a report to the Council with options.
8
9 Scott Hess, 100 Union Street, Sustainable Petaluma, read the following remarks for
1 o the record:
11
12 Tonight you will be discussing direction and possible action
13 regarding regional water supply and transmission issues with
14 the Sonoma County Water Agency.
15
16 1 would like to be brief here, because of the constraints of time
17 and place, but I did want to make a short statement of support
18 for the work that David Keller, Pamela Torliatt and other
19 Council Members, past and present, have done to raise the
2 0 awareness of Water Policy in our town and county. Petaluma
21 has taken some dissension for their stand, but we can now see
2 2 that the questions raised about Amendment 11 were valid and
2 3 revealing. We are now hitting several natural ecological limits,
2 4 and we need a new vision for protecting and managing the
2 5 watershed from top to bottom.
26
27 1 am in touch with activists and elected officials throughout the
2 8 county who are deeply grateful that Petaluma has instigated a
2 9 new level of investigation into county water policy. We do
3 0 need to reflect on our relationship with the natural systems that
31 support us and give life to our entire bioregion. The fact that
3 2 the Coho and Steelhead have nearly vanished from our once
3 3 great Russian and Eel Rivers, should be sad and shocking.
3 4 The fact that our waste, carelessness, and disconnection from
3 5 other species, are polluting and degrading our common life
3 6 support system should be a huge wake up call to reexamine
37 our habitual practices and outlook. That is what David,
3 8 Pamela, Matt, Jane, and others were highlighting in various
3 9 ways, it is time now for a new look at our situation.
40
41 In brief, we are still diverting huge quantities of water from the
42 Eel River. That diversion is killing the Eel Watershed and
43 eventually we will have to pay for that unjustextraction. If the
4 4
4 5 SCWA ends up buying the Potter Valley Project as they so
earnestly desire-WE could be sued for huge amounts of
4 6 money for ecosystem damages. This is a great unknown that
~~~
January 22, 2001 Vol. 35, Page 427
1 never gets discussed. 1 have been to meetings with Eel River
2 activists and believe me, they will never give up. They have a
3 just case, they know it, and they will eventually win in one
4 arena or another. If we blindly sign on with the water agency's
5 semi-conscious Master Plan, we will become a party to a grand
6 mistake that will have financial consequences.
7
8 Do not underestimate the power of the fish and their
9 protectors. The fish themselves, do not lobby, and do not play
10 PR games. They simply vanish- and we are left alone with our
11 pollutants, artificial flows, mined out aquifers and gravel bars,
12 and our cement and asphalt world full of short sighted
13 convenience. Eventually- if we care anything for future
14 generations, we will have to repair the damage we have
15 caused to vur river systems. Why not wake up now, and work
16 on protecting the watershed?
17
18 You notice that the Water Agency is already talking about a
19 new half billion-dollar treatment plant. They carefully avoid any
2 0 link with the destruction of our natural aquifer/filter for short-
21 term gravel mining profits. They allude to other reasons for the
2 2 plant- related to our escalating demands-but there is a
2 3 connection and we should acknowledge the reality.
24
2 5 If Petaluma is the first city to stand up and ask the hard
2 6 questions then it is to our credit. Isn't it common sense to
27 focus heavily on conservation and reuse rather than more
2 8 extraction from a severely degraded river system? Isn't it
2 9 common sense to create a real working Watershed
3 0 Management Plan that protects habitat all along our Russian
31 River lifeline from headwaters to the river's mouth at Jenner?
3 2 Isn't it common sense to ask questions about our financial
3 3 liabilities if we are called to repay our debts and damages to
3 4 the Eel River inhabitants, and about the other unknown
3 5 financial costs that come with mechanistic mega projects
3 6 entering an uncertain future?
37
3 8 Pamela Torliatt has spoken to these issues clearly and
3 9 eloquently in recent months. 1 hope you will give her your
4 o whole-hearted support in continuing to do so as she heads into
41 her discussions at the county level. And 1 hope we can give
42 some backing to the bill that has been put forward at the state
43 level by Virginia Strom Martin- AB 38- that will make the
44 directors of the Sonoma County Water Agency an
4 5 independently elected body as they should be. This bill would
4 6 be a great step in bringing the light of public awareness to
`~~~
Vol. 35, Page 428
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
January 22, 2001
an office of great public importance.
One final note; 1 would like to thank councilman Mike Healy for
his recent proposal to ban the use of Russian River gravel in
Petaluma construction projects. It is a wonderful idea and from
what lunderstand- legally possible. Please support him in this
endeavor. Legs be bold enough to LEAD where we know we
.have to go.
Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke in opposition to the pipeline to Marin, the
availability of water and the County's insistence to cut back 15%, and the challenges
to the Potter Valley Project, Amendment 10 and 11 costs incurred by the SCWA
(Sonoma County Water Agency).
Terence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, asked Council to read the EIR (Environmental
Impact Report) prepared for the SCWA; it provided information about the
consequences when there was no water. He added that surface water needed a
treatment plant.
Beth Meredith, 104 Fifth Avenue, spoke regarding the importance of the public's
involvement in the process and the ability to be involved in the dialogue; involving
the public in public forums.
Andy Rodgers, 1151 Debbie Hill Road, spoke regarding the importance of a
regional policy, the importance of education for the community and its
representatives.
Scott Vouri, 1557 Mauro Pietro, spoke regarding Council discussing and developing
a water policy for Petaluma.
David Keller, 1327 `I' Street, spoke regarding how the City was to insure a water
supply forever. Watershed management vs. exploitation of the resources needed to
be dealt with by all the stakeholders - at least 30 - 40 stakeholders were identified.
Identify other stakeholders, deal with other water users, surplus and otherwise, and
try to insure that when there was a reduction of use that the water agency didn't turn
around and sell it somewhere else; he asked why the City didn't get a rebate. He
continued that identification of objectives and goals to the conservation plan; the
water agency needed to establish daily use rates.
John Mills, 1315 `D' Street, spoke in support of the City having a comprehensive
plan regarding gray water and other planning and conservation methods. He
supported a regional approach to water issues.
END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
Recess: 9:05 p.m.
~~~
January 22, 2001 Vol. 35, Page 429
1
2
Reconvene: 9:15 p.m.
3
4 Council Member Maguire wanted a discussion and presented what he defined as
5 the problems:
6
7 ® Peak pumping problems addressed in MOU.
8 Conservation -needed to be pursued.
9 Storage.
1o a Habitat and watershed health/aquifer and infiltration.
11 Cost to ratepayers.
12 ® Process and policy.
13
14 Mayor Thompson:
15
16 ® Did not want the issue to languish.
17 Did not want to be isolated from the remaining contractors.
18 Wanted to send a message to the Board of Supervisors that Petaluma was
19 moving with them, as one unit.
2 0 Noted that he was a supporter of Amendment 11.
21
22
23 Council Member Healy:
24 ® Thought conservation was something that would be ongoing and built based on
25 water resources.
26 ® Was concerned about process issues. There was no process in place and no
27 prospect of a process to bring this issue to closure. SCWA started sending
28 letters for bilateral contracts and was declined by all contractors.
29 ® Environmental community, Santa Rosa wanted more water.
3 0 The CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process was complete within
31 Amendment 11 with all its flaws.
32 ® Agreed about getting the word to the County that Petaluma wanted to be a team
3 3 player. He noted that Petaluma received water from a 39-year old pipeline with a
34 50-year life span. He supported a pipeline just above the minimum and stressed
35 the need for a parallel aqueduct.
3 6 ® Wanted a presentation by SCWA regarding their plans for moving forward.
37 Stated the WAC (Water Advisory Committee) representatives wanted to move
3 8 forward sooner rather than later.
39 . Noted steps were needed to protect the gravel filtration in the Russian River.
40 Regarding Potter Valley, he noted that the City was committed pursuant to
41 Amendment 10.
42 m Thought it was appropriate to underscore the willingness of the City to
43 participate and do so by approving Amendment 11 tonight.
44
45 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson expressed that the City had always wanted to be a
o~ r~
Vol. 35, Page 430 January 22, 2001
1 team player; the long-term issue was conservation. She wanted to address the
2 issue looking at results for the long-term. She noted the following problems with
3 Amendment 11:
4
5 • Storage was needed.
6 Pipeline was necessary but not at the size recommended.
7 Gravel mining was a major issue; the natural system was being degraded every
8 day.
9 • She supported AB 38; the water board should be elected members of the
10 community, not the Board of Supervisors.
11 She thought if the Council was to vote Amendment 11 tonight, it was short
12 sighted and explained.
13
14 Council Member O'Brien:
15
16 Stated conservation was the major issue.
17 • Mentioned that a Department of Health Advisory had indicated an inadequate
18 water supply by year 2010.
19 • Thought prolonging a decision any longer was not the way to go.
20
21 Council Member Moynihan
22
2 3 • Noted the importance of compliance with ABAG (Association of Bay Area
24 Governments) allocations in order to obtain funding for housing.
2 5 • Regarding conservation, he noted the need for improvement.
2 6 • He thought it was time to make decision.
27
2 8 Council Member Torliatt:
29
3 0 • The City needs to protect the watershed and be good stewards of the land.
31 Conservation; identify the finite resources to this area.
32 Water filtration plant; if no water from the dam coming to the collectors one
33 would have to be built; it may have to be built anyway if no commitment to take
34 care of the river.
3 5 • Tiered rates for contractors and citizens.
3 6 • Vision of the Potter Valley acquisition -yes or no far participation.
37 • Water filtration presentation at the WAC meeting -impact to the ratepayers.
38 • She believed in unanimous votes; the Council was split.
3 9 • Development of a water policy by the contractors.
40 Watershed management included renewable water supply. SCWA did not have
41 the approvals to obtain the water - (National Marine Fisheries Services -NMFS)
42 • Mandatory conservation.
43
44 •
• Policy for stewards of the water, not users of the water.
Discuss AB 38 and take a stand on it.
45 • The public forum needed to occur to have input by the public.
.d~~ ~ q~D
January 22, 2001 Vol. 35, Page 431
1 Sewer discharge - if Windsor was to become a contractor, how healthy was it.
2 ® What is happening in NMWD (North Marin Water District) and MMWD (Marin
3 Municipal Water District) -Maybe they did not need more water; NMWD needed
4 more water but maybe there was an opportunity to resolve that issue.
5 Moving water from one watershed to another to be discussed as a policy.
6 ® Gravel mining issue coming up in 2004 for authorization for the Aggregate
7 Resource Management Policy/Ordinance. (ARM) Education first, and then make
8 recommendations.
9
10 Council Member Maguire continued:
11
12 Agreed with Sonoma County Conservation Action Committee about diversion
13 issues.
14 ® Regarding Santa Rosa, the City of Petaluma had brought a greater
15 understanding of Amendment 11.
16 ® He supported AB 38.
17 ® Identification of limits to the resources was needed.
18 Section 7, consultations would become increasingly expensive for the water
19 agency.
2 0 Maximize .mandatory conservation.
21 ~ Storage and conservation.
22 ® Xeriscape.
23 ® He did not support approving of Amendment 11 without a public hearing.
24
25 Council Member Torliatt continued:
26
27 ® A strategic vision was necessary for watershed management.
2 8 Reduce the cost to the ratepayer and practice conservation.
29
3 0 Council Member Healy continued:
31
32 Potter Valley was problematic; it did not come up in the years Amendment 11
3 3 was being developed; he thought the City was committed under Amendment 10.
34 Humboldt County people would not give up on Eel River diversion issues;
35 Governor Davis was going to prohibit selling any generating assets.
36 ® His overall concern was that there was no process in~place and to get closure.
37
3 8 MOTION: Council Member Healy moved, seconded by O'Brien, to adopt
39 Resolution 2001- 024 N.C.S. authorizing Mayor Clark Thompson to
40 sign the Eleventh Amended Agreement for Water Supply By and
41 Between Sonoma County Water Agency, City of Cotati, City of
42 Petaluma, City of Rohnert Park, City of Santa Rosa, City of Sonoma,
43 Forestville Water District, North Marin Water District Valley of the
44 Moon Water District.
45
~~~
Vol. 35, Page 432
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
January 22, 2001
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson stated that this action was an injustice to the public.
Mayor Thompson agreed with Council Member Healy
Council Member Maguire stated that this action played right into the water agency
and explained. He wanted public input before the Council voted on the matter.
Council Member Moynihan called for the vote.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson stated the public was not included; she asked for
another special meeting so the public could be involved.
Council Member Maguire expressed that if the vote was 4/3 it sent a weak
message. He suggested voting the motion down and that Petaluma propose
Amendment 12.
MOTION
PASSED: 4/3/0 (Cader-Thompson, Maguire, and Torliatt voting "No")
Council Member Maguire and Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson left the meeting.
APPROVAL OFPROPOSED AGENDA
2. Discussion and Possible Action to Approve Proposed Agenda for the Council's
Regular Meeting scheduled for February 5, 2001.
Council Member Moynihan wanted a discussion regarding an Investment Advisory
Committee to assist the Finance Director in the evaluation of investment alternatives
to maximize the City's benefits. He wanted it scheduled on an agenda in two weeks
or as soon as possible thereafter. He stated he was not looking for a lot of work on
behalf of City Management; he wanted a recommendation so that Council could
have a discussion.
Council Member Torliatt did not currently support creating another advisory board.
The Council was looking at ways to reduce City Management's workload.
Council Member Moynihan was not sure the result would be the creation of another
advisory committee. He wanted it scheduled on an agenda so a conversation could
take place and the Council could weigh whether or not it was a good idea or not as
other municipalities in the area had done something similar. It made sense to him
to look at it.
Mayor Thompson stated he had no problem with a discussion but he agreed with
Council Member Torliatt that he did not favor increasing the workload of the Finance
Director.
January 22, 2001 Vol. 35, Page 433
1 Council Member Moynihan agreed that might be the case. He asked the City
2 Manager to advise the Council when it made sense to put it on an agenda in
3 consideration of the Finance Director's schedule. If not on the next agenda, place it
4 on a future agenda and advise the Council of that date. He understood that during
5 the Mid-Year Review, by virtue of the way the item was titled, it was open ended
6 enough to allow the Council to reallocate some funds and authorize some funds for
7 things near and dear to his heart, such as the purchase of the ALS equipment for
8 the fire engines..
9
10 City Manager Stouder replied that he was correct. The agenda title referred to the
11 existing ordinance that adopted the budget and was on the agenda as a public
12 hearing in order to allow for amendments to the budget; that was the intent.
13
14 Council Member Moynihan replied that it appeared it was not necessary to have a
15 separate item on the agenda for the purchase of the ALS equipment for the fire
16 engines because it would come under the Mid-Year Budget review. He wanted at
17 some time in the future, if not next meeting, some time in the not too distant future,
18 to bring back the discussion he mentioned at the last meeting about the fire
19 department, the aerial ladder truck and where the City wanted to go with that as far
2 o as staffing and what recommendations the fire department had. If that was
21 satisfactory, he wanted that brought back and he looked to the City Manager to
22 suggest an appropriate date. He also, though he believed it was not something that
23 was going to happen in the near future, wanted the mitigation fee report; he knew
24 the Finance Director needed time to work on it. City Management needed to go
2 5 back and recreate seven years; he wanted to put that on a hit list of future agenda
2 6 items and again, evaluate or revaluate that the money went where it was supposed
27 to go. He added that he thought it was second fiddle to getting out the new budget
28 and he saw that happening afterwards. He did not want to push Mr. Thomas too
29 hard but certainly he did not want to lose that, he wanted to keep that on the radar
3 0 screen.
31
32 Also, at the Council retreat; he did plan to talk about a street repair upgrade
33 program and to budget some time at the next couple of meetings to allow the
34 appropriate people on staff, such as Mike Evert or Jim Ryan, or whoever the City
35 Manager deemed appropriate, to come forward and discuss where the City had
3 6 been. He apologized and stated that he thought Rick Skladzien was the correct
37 person. He wanted to discuss what was necessary to have an adequate
3 8 maintenance program and maybe how to get from where the City was at today to
39 where it needed to be. He wanted it to be more specific as far as a program. He
4 o acknowledged that he knew City Management was hard at work behind the scenes,
41 but he thought it would be good to have a public hearing to get the information out.
42 He wanted to make sure it got the appropriate priority, and from the public's
43 perspective, in addition to making sure the Council was well aware of it and gave it
44 the right priority. He requested the additions to the agenda for February 5, 2000 and
45 then future agendas and asked for Council concurrence.
46
~~~
Vol. 35, Page 434
January 22, 2001
1 Council Member Torliatt agreed with Mr. Moynihan that an update from Rick
2 Skladzien about the City's streets and roads was necessary. She had asked at the
3 previous Council meeting that City Management give a presentation including an
4 update for the public and Council on how the City could finance some of the road
5 improvements and if the City was to go forward with some sort of assessment that
6 they would ask for the public's assistance. She wanted to fast track the completion
7 of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. In addition, she wanted the implementation
8 of the Petaluma River Enhancement Plan scheduled on an agenda and fast
9 tracked.
10
11 Council Member Healy sensed the new process for approval of the agenda for the
12 next meeting spinning out of control. He agreed that all the issues his colleagues
13 mentioned were worthy ones for discussion. However, he acknowledged that City
14 Management was working very hard and there must be an orderly way to bring the
15 items forward. There had to be a discussion at Council's retreat on Saturday with
16 the City Manager on how to accomplish this.
17
18 City Manager Stouder appreciated Council Member Healy's comments. A draft
19 was distributed at place of seven items at the previous meeting that would be
2 o potential City Council agenda items, some were mentioned again and several more
21 have been added. The intent was to be sure that City Management had a list of
22 items the Council wanted scheduled on an agenda that may not be scheduled in the
23 next three to six months. If the proposed list of future items was a good start, City
24 Management would update the Council with information about when they could be
2 5 scheduled with a thorough report.
26
27 Mayor Thompson noted that he was interested in moving street surfacing and street
28 repair forward.
29
3 0 MOTION: Mayor Thompson moved, seconded by Healy to Approve the
31 Proposed Agenda for the Council's regular meeting scheduled for
3 2 February 5, 2001.
33
34 PUBLIC COMMENT
35
3 6 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke regarding the possibility of some members
37 of Council violating fair political practices; he noted conflicts of interests.
38
3 9 MOTION
4 0 PASSED: 5/0
41
42 ADJOURN
43
44 Mayor Thompson adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
45
46
~~~
E7
c
r.
1
January 22, 2001 Vol. 35, Page 435
2 ~.~lark Thompson, Mayor
3
4
5 ATTEST:
7
8
~'' Beverly J. Kline; City CI r
10
11
12
13
14
******