Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 08/17/1981 Kent, Washington August 17, 1981 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 8: 00 o'clock p.m. by Mayor Hogan. Present: Mayor Hogan, Council- persons Bailey, Hamilton, B. Johnson, J. Johnson, Masters, McCaughan and Mooney, City Administrator Cushing, Assistant City Attorney Heavey, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom and Finance Director McCarthy. Also present: Personnel Director Webby and Parks Director Wilson. Approximately 60 people were in attendance at the meeting. PROCLAMATION A proclamation was read by the Mayor declaring the 27th of August, 1981 as Morris "Red" Badgro Day in Kent in honor of his induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. CONSENT B. JOHNSON MOVED that the Consent Calendar Items CALENDAR A through K be approved, Bailey seconded. Motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular meeting of August 3, 1981. STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5H) S. 212th Street Asphalt Overlay (West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway) . ACCEPTANCE of the contract of M. A. Segale, Inc. as complete for the S. 212th Street asphalt overlay project and RELEASE of the retainage upon receipt of the necessary releases from the State. The project consisted of furnishing and placing approximately 2500 tons of asphalt con- crete pavement on S. 212th Street from West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway. Bids — Pavement Marking Demonstration Project (S. Central Avenue etal. ) Bids were received on August 17, 1981 at 10: 00 a.m. as follows: Bidder Amount The Kaspac Corporation $ 71,243. 90 Eterna-Line Corporation 75,094 .34 Cleanosol USA 98 , 331. 30 ARM Construction 107, 267. 28 Engineer's Estimate $140,308. 30 - 1 - August 17, 1981 STREETS Upon the recommendation of the Public Works Director, MOONEY MOVED that the low bid of The Kaspac Corpora- tion in the amount of $71,243. 90 be accepted, Masters seconded. Motion carried. WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5I) Water Shortage Emergency (Ordinance No. 2227) . APPROVAL of the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the Council establish that "Water Emergency conditions prevail as was discussed at the August loth workshop and as provided for in Ordinance 2227. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5K) Variance to Water Meter Ordinance No. 1776. APPROVAL as recommended by the Public Works Committee of the request for a variance to Water Meter Ordinance No. 1776 requested by SDM Properties to serve eight apartment buildings from three 1�" water meters, and acceptance of the Public Works Directors recom- mendation that future variances be tabled until such time as a policy is established. ENERGY CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C) State Energy Code. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2308 adopting by reference the State Energy Code as pre- viously discussed at the July 27 and August 10 work- shops. RAILROADS Railroad Franchise Agreement for Union Pacific Rail- road Lead Track Crossing of S. 196th Street in South- center Corporate Park. The Public Works Director has proposed an ordinance providing permission for, and controls on, operation of trains across S. 196th Street in Southcenter Corporate Park. Union Pacific Railroad requests this franchise to provide rail service to tenants of the Park. Areas of particular interest in the ordinance are included in Section 3 (installing protective devices as prescribed by the City) ; Section 4 (type of crossing material) ; and Section 5 (interference with street traffic) . The proposed ordinance is presented for introduction only and will be presented for adoption at the next regular meeting. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5G) RECREATION Golf 'Course Netting and Fence Project. ACCEPTANCE je of the contract of Cyclone Fence as complete for 2 - August 17, 1981 PARKS & the golf course range netting and chain link fence RECREATION project and RELEASE of the retainage after receipt of the necessary State releases. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5F) 1982 District Court Filing Fees. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the agreement with King County as recommended by the City Attorney establishing the filing fees for 1982. The matter was discussed at the workshop of August 10. REZONE Arrow Development - The Lakes Rezone (RZ-79-14) . Referring to Ordinance No. 2307 modifying the Master Plan Conditions for the Lakes Rezone, previously approved under Ordinance No. 2215, Mayor Hogan noted that she had vetoed the ordinance and that her veto message would be brought back to the Council on September 8, 1981. Green River Partnership Rezone (RZ-80-2) . At the June 1, 1981 meeting the Council considered the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner to approve this rezone with nine conditions . The recommendation was approved on a 4-3 vote. Receipt of a letter from Gordy Guinn, the applicant, was noted at the August 3 Council meeting and the matter was discussed at the August 10 workshop. In accordance with the action taken at the June 1, 1981 Council meeting, MOONEY MOVED to instruct the City Attorney to draft the ordinance approving the rezone with the nine condi- tions previously discussed, plus an additional con- dition, No. 10, providing that no building permits shall be issued by the city until the three lanes of construction of the Kent Des Moines Road have been started. Masters seconded. It was clarified for B. Johnson that this would include three lanes from the West Valley Highway, including the golf course left turn lanes, as specified by the Public Works Department. McCaughan questioned denying the rezone until the road has been put through. It was determined that this had never been done in the past although the matter had been discussed. McCaughan also referred to recent approval of The Lakes property rezone where additional traffic would be generated. Wickstrom noted that verbal notification had been received that FAUS funding was approved and that money would be available for the three lane facility 3 - August 17, 1981 REZONE and that the first phase of the project was scheduled _ to go out for bid in September. Bailey commented that he was not comfortable with the Arrow (Lakes) rezone either. Hamilton questioned whether the Counc 1 would require that all conditions for the Green River Partnership Rezone would have to be satisfied before the ordinance was recorded. The Mayor noted that the ordinance would be presented to the Council September 8 for approval and added that she would probably veto the ordinance. There was no further discussion and the motion carried. STREETS SR 516. Mayor Hogan referred to a letter from Captain Peter Rots of the U. S. Coast Guard regard- ing the Federal Environmental Impact Statement which must be prepared before the necessary permits can be granted for the Kent Des Moines Road bridge. Captain Rots advises that funds for such an EIS might be available in February 1982. McCAUGHAN MOVED to make the letter a part of the record, Bailey seconded. Motion carried. Hamilton suggested that if the Federal Government did not have the necessary funds to prepare the EIS, that the require- ment should be dropped. PLANNING (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5D) COMMISSION Planning Commission Appointment. CONFIRMATION of the appointment of Byron Baker to the Planning Com- mission to fill the unexpired term of Harry Williams until January, 1984. PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E) Reclassification - Traffic Division. APPROVAL of two reclassifications in the Public Works Department Traffic Division as follows: From Traffic Engineer to Transportation Engineer, Engineer III From Traffic Technician to Transportation Design Engineer, Engineer I The reclassifications have been reviewed and approved by the Finance Committee. 4 - August 17, 1981 HOUSING & Proposed Joint King County/Kent 1982 Housing & COMMUNITY Community Development Project for Lower Part of DEVELOPMENT Mill Creek Canyon. Approval is requested to update the existing Mill Creek Park Plan and to construct/ install passive recreational amenities in the lower part of the Mill Creek Canyon. This will be a pro- ject sponsored jointly by the City of Kent and King County. The joint project is budgeted at $110,150 of which $100,150 is from Housing & Community Develop- ment funds and $10, 000 from the Parks Department. The Council reviewed the joint project proposal at the August 10, 1981 workshop. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Hogan. It was noted that letters supporting the project had been received from various King County agencies. There were no comments and B. JOHNSON MOVED that the hearing be closed, J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. MASTERS MOVED that the request be denied, McCaughan seconded. Masters commented that it was her under- standing that' the Senior Center needed a new roof, that the food banks were without food, and that street and sidewalk improvements were needed in the city and that she considered these more worthy projects than the proposed project. Bailey questioned whether any other projects were considered before this project was proposed. Harris noted that the projects referred to by Masters would fall more to the "population" and "needs" funding. He also pointed out that since the proposed area will be one used by both County and City residents it was appropriate to seek joint funding. He noted that no one had proposed the food bank project. McCaughan also agreed that there were more important areas where the money could be used, including improving the Senior Center. He also noted that no response had been received from the Senior Center as to what needed to be done and that the City's attention should be directed to that project. Bailey noted that the Parks Committee had addressed the improve- ment of the Senior Center several times and that plans were underway. In response to questions, Harris noted that the request for the joint funds was due now but that the "needs" and "population" projects would come up later and would be approxi- _. - 5 - August 17, 1981 HOUSING & mately $100, 000. He noted that the Council would COMMUNITY be able to make their wishes known as to how these DEVELOPMENT funds would be expended. B. Johnson contended that the matter had been reviewed at budget time and that other proposed projects could be considered later as "needs" and "population" funding. She suggested that the project proposed tonight was one which the seniors could enjoy. Mayor Hogan pointed out that Kent would be competing with other agencies for this funding and that there was no guarantee that the money would be received. Harris further deter- mined for Masters that the proposed park would be available for low and moderate income families within accessible distance as well as senior citizens and all others in the Valley area. Mooney questioned whether the structure presently being constructed had the authority and approval of HUD. He stated that the original grant of HUD for the purchase of the property required that if anything other than open space was to be on this property, HUD approval would be required. Barney Wilson agreed that Mooney was correct and stated that HUD did not consider this type of development as taking away open space, that this was the creation of a passive park. Mooney asked if the earthwork structure had the approval of HUD. Wilson stated there had been some concern about the retention basin and that IAC which controls the HUD funding had approved the retention basin as long as it was being done in a park—like manner and was available to the public. There was no further discussion and the MOTION FAILED, with Masters, McCaughan and Mooney voting in favor and B. Johnson, J. Johnson, Bailey, and Hamilton voting against. HAMILTON MOVED to approve the request, B. Johnson seconded. The MOTION CARRIED with Mooney, Masters and McCaughan voting against. BUSINESS Revocation of Business License for Roadside Inn LICENSE Tavern. A public hearing has been scheduled for Eh-Ts—meeting to consider the revocation of the Roadside Inn Tavern business license. The following communications have been received and have been filed for the record: 6 - August 17, 1981 BUSINESS 1) Petitions from residents of Bonel Mobile Manor, LICENSE filed on June 23, 1981 and on July 6, 1981, re- questing that the Roadside Inn Tavern license be revoked and that the tavern be permanently closed. The petitions contain 108 signatures. 2) Letter from Mil Pennington, manager of Bonel, received June 23, 1981. 3) Letter from Kent Alliance Church, dated July 21, 1981. Barbara Heavey, Assistant City Attorney, noted that a letter had been delivered today from Victor Hoff, attorney for Pat Chase, owner of the Roadside Inn Tavern, expressing concerns over the hearing. She referred to Mr. Hoff' s concern over not receiving a copy of the written complaint and that therefore his client was not aware of the exact nature of the complaints against the business. Heavey noted that proper notice of the hearing had been sent by the City Clerk to Pat Chase, the licensee, in- accord- ance with Ordinance 1919 and that although the ordinance did not require that a copy of the com- plaint be forwarded to the licensee, she suggested that it would be best for the Council to set the hearing over to correct the procedural error and that the owner be furnished with a copy of the written complaint. B. JOHNSON MOVED that the public hearing to consider the revocation of the Roadside Inn Tavern business license be set over to August 31, 1981 at 7: 00 p.m. It was clarified , that this would be a special meeting of the Council at which time this public hearing will be held. Bailey seconded. Motion carried. In response to questions from McCaughan, Heavey noted that depending upon the action taken by the State Liquor Control Board, the Roadside Inn Tavern could reopen prior to the Council' s public hearing on August 31, 1981. Poop Deck Tavern. Receipt was noted of a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Dowell protesting the request of a license to allow male strippers at the Poop Deck Tavern. The letter also complained of actions ob- served outside the tavern at various times and asked 7 - August 17, 1981 BUSINESS that Kent take action to get rid of such establish- LICENSE ments. MOONEY MOVED that the letter be made a part of the record, Masters seconded. Motion carried. STREET Vacation of a' Portion of 101st Avenue S.E. in the VACATION Massey Short Plat. On July 20, 1981 the Council adopted Resolution No. 932 setting a public hearing for this date on the application of B & R Development for the above described street vacation. A staff report recommending that the application be denied has been distributed and filed. The public hearing was opened by the Mayor. Mr. Ray Schutrop, land surveyor for B & R Development, spoke in favor of the vacation, as did Dan Moorman, property owner to the south. Miles Drake noted that since the plan to use 101st Avenue S.E. for a loop road has been abandoned, that it should be vacated and put back on the tax rolls. Referring to the fact that Crow Road was supposed to be designated as a scenic road, Drake pointed out that it was customary that if access was denied, alternate access should be provided and that this would be expensive. Drake suggested that if the lots in the Kirkham Short Plat are denied access to the Crow Road, they should not be assessed for improving it through the LID. Mel Kleweno, representing Moorman & Clemens, suggested that there were no sound reasons why the vacation should be denied. He noted that the Kirkham Short Plat Appeal is scheduled for public hearing for this meeting also and objected to the fact that the appeal was considered to be related to this hearing on the street vacation when in fact they were two separate items. He suggested that if the Council were hearing only the street vacation tonight that it would be granted, and that the only purpose the City could have in denying the application would be to deny the applicants access to therCrow Road. He stated that the proposed vacation should be considered on its own merits, without linking this matter to the Kirkham Short Plat appeal. Ruth Ruppert noted that she was one of the persons requesting vacation of the street and was administra- tor for the owners of Lots 1 and 2 of the Massey Short Plat who also favor the vacation. She pointed out that their intent was to develop a 1. 7 acre 8 - August 17, 1981 STREET property for 33 units of MRM housing and that the VACATION property would have roads on three sides if the street were vacated and with the setbacks it would only be possible to build 20 units rather than 33 units . She noted that they were participating in LID 300 for the improvement of Crow Road and also noted that there was no longer going to be a Ring Road. She spoke in favor of access to the Crow Road for the adjacent Kirkham Short Plat. Harris noted that the Planning Department staff report included comments from all divisions of the Public Works Department plus the Fire Department, Washington Natural Gas and Pacific Northwest Bell. Based on this information, the Planning Department recommended that the vacation be denied for the following reasons: Said 101st Avenue extension will make the signalized intersection of 101st Avenue and 256th Street directly accessible to that pro- perty lying south of the Massey Short Plat. Said property, which encompasses approximately 16. 66 acres, is presently zoned Office (13. 21 acres) and Community Commercial (3. 45 acres) . The total potential daily trip generation there- from, based on existing zoning, is 5, 053 ADT. With no direct connection to the 101st Avenue and 256th Street signalized intersection, the 104th Avenue and S. 256th Street signalized intersection will take the brunt of this im- pact. Said intersection is already at capacity during peak traffic periods. This impact could be partly mitigated via the use of the 101st Avenue and 256th Street intersection. In response to questions from McCaughan,• Wickstrom noted that there was a possibility that there would be no left turns on Crow Road unless Crow Road and Canyon Drive were signalized. Masters questioned the advisability of adding more traffic to the area in front of the high school and Wickstrom responded that .the signal at 104th and 256th was operating at peak capacity and that this would distribute the load over other available intersections. 9 - August 17, 1981 STREET Using the map, Ruth Ruppert suggested routes which �J VACATION could be used. Upon Masters ' question, Wickstrom noted that some right-of-way had been deeded through the Massey Short Plat. There were no further com- ments and the public hearing was closed. McCaughan expressed the opinion that the Kirkham Short Plat and the street vacation were tied together and that therefore it was necessary to determine access to the Kirkham Short Plat before a decision was made on the vacation. Bailey concurred. McCAUGHAN MOVED to defer action on a decision regarding the street vacation temporarily, Mooney seconded. Motion carried. After the public hearing was held on the Kirkham Short Plat Appeal and that matter referred back to the Short Plat Committee, HAMILTON MOVED to remove the Street Vacation matter from the table, McCaughan seconded. Motion carried. McCAUGHAN MOVED to defer action on the street vacation until a decision was made on the Kirkham Short Plat, B. Johnson seconded. Hamilton noted that if the Council was going to reconsider this item, staff should provide better figures as to the traffic count in the area. He referred to the figure of approximately 5, 000 trips v per day from a 16 acre parcel through 101st S.E. and pointed out that all three lots of the Massey Short Plat have access to 260th or 104th or Crow Road so the only traffic that would be forced to go through the 256th intersection would be from the 3.49 acres in the Kirkham Short Plat. Ruppert asked for clarification as to what the Short Plat Committee would consider and whether she would be advised of the meeting. Harris stated that he would notify her and that the Short Plat Committee would advise the Council of their decision on the Kirkham Short Plat and that the matter would not come before the Council unless the decision of the Committee was again appealed. The motion carried, with Hamilton voting nay. KIRKHAM On June 2, 1981 Mel Kleweno, representing Robert SHORT PLAT Clements and Daniel Moorman, filed an appeal to APPEAL certain conditions of approval for this short plat. (SP-81-7) The public hearing commenced on June 15 and was con- tinued to August 3 and then continued to this date 10 - August 17, 1981 KIRKHAM because of its relationship to the hearing on the SHORT PLAT vacation of a portion of 101st Avenue S.E. APPEAL (SP-81-7) Additional material filed by Mr. Kleweno on August 6, has been included in the agenda packet. This 4 lot short subdivision containing 16.7 acres is bounded on the west by Crow Road, on the north by the Massey Short Plat which was approved about two years ago, on the east by 104th Avenue S.E. and on the south by S.E. 264th. The minutes of the Short Subdivision Committee meeting of May 20, 1981 list the conditions of approval for this short plat. The public hearing was reopened by the Mayor. Hariis noted that the Council had continued this matter because of its relationship to the proposed street vacation of a portion of 101st Avenue S.E. He pointed out that the written material received on August 6 supplied by Kleweno contained different material than that which was presented at the June 15 hearing. Kleweno pointed out that his clients had purchased the property in 1964 and that the -. only issue was to divide the property into four lots, that development or zoning had nothing to do with short platting. He pointed out that one of thepro- posed lots is zoned "community commerical" and the other three are zoned "office" . Kleweno noted that the property currently has paved roads on three sides, sewer service on two sides and water service. He cited the issues of appeal as to whether the city had the right to require the no-protest LID covenants and whether the city had the right to deny access to the Crow Road. Kleweno stated that the applicant recognized that access from Crow Road should be limited and agreed that no access should be allowed within 250 feet of the SW corner of Lot 4 and that there should be only one access from Crow Road to Lot 2 and one access to Lot 3. He pointed out that all the other property owners had access to Crow Road and that this is the first time the city has denied access. He showed a chart illustrating the existing accesses. - 11 - August 17, 1981 KIRKHAM Kleweno pointed out that the owners had agreed to SHORT PLAT deed property as requested by the city for a right- APPEAL of-way at S.E. 260th and 104th S.E. , but that the (SP-81-7) city is asking, in addition, that no-protest LID covenants also be signed for improvements to 104th S .E. and to S.E. 264th. He stated that such cove- nants would force the owners to sell the property. Mayor Hogan pointed out that in all the covenants which have been required, the city had never forced through an LID. Kleweno opined that covenants should be required at the time of development, not at the point of short platting. He stated that Ordinance No. 2224 , covering the LID no-protest covenants refers to "at the time of a building permit" and opined that this did not apply to this situation. He questioned the city's authority to require such a covenant and noted that the Short Subdivision ordinance is silent on the subject. Kleweno noted that State Statute clearly states that under LID procedures, the property owners are clearly given the right to protest the establishment of an LID and further to refuse to pay for the improvements. Moorman noted that the improvement to 104th would be very expensive. Kleweno urged the Council to consider that the applicants were well within the city ordinances in asking that this property be short-platted into four lots. Regarding the Crow Road, Kleweno stated that the city' s Comprehensive Code states that Crow Road should be designated as a scenic roadway and that the city has not defined "scenic roadway" or specified what would be allowed on such a roadway. Miles Drake noted that owners have lost their pro- perty due to high LID assessments. Ruth Ruppert, representing property owners to the north, in the Massey Short Plat spoke in support of Kleweno' s statements, adding she was involved in the Crow Road LID which would cost $16,000 for one side and $85, 000 for the other. She stated that the Kirkham 16 acre tract was too large to develop and should be subdivided into the 4 lots as requested. Barney Wilson stated that the Crow Road is an oil mat road and would have to be improved at the tax- payers expense at the entrance to Mill Creek Park. - 12 - e August 17, 1981 KIRKHAM Mayor Hogan asked how the accesses to Lots 2 and 3 SHORT PLAT would be protected and Kleweno stated that this APPEAL could be made a condition of the Short Plat. In (SP-81-7) answer to a question from the audience, Harris stated that if access was denied the setback require- ments should still be enforced, since as a scenic roadway it would still be a public right-of-way. Upon Hamilton' s question, Wickstrom noted that if the covenants are not placed on the short plat now, the city would not be able to require them at the time of development, since the ordinance exempts building permits for lots subdivided after the effective date of the ordinance. Bailey asked if Kleweno had stated that the owners would make the covenants a part of the conditions of a future sale. Kleweno said he had so stated at the June 15 meet- ing, but that this was no longer so specified. Wickstrom determined for Mooney that none of the Kirkham Short Plat property is contained in any current LID, and that if there was no access from the Crow Road, the owner would probably be excluded from participation in a future LID and the road would remain as is in that area. Harris and Wickstrom explained the provisions of Ordinance 2224 and it was determined there were six accesses to the Crow Road in existence now. Upon questions from the Council, Assistant City Attorney Heavey noted that the Council could consider the subdivision as a whole and as long as access was provided at some point, a specific access could be denied, and further, that the City does have the legal right to require the no-protest LID covenants. She noted that if the Council determined that the traffic generated from the plat would place a traffic burden on the Crow Road, which it could not handle, the city could require that access to other roads be provided. Moorman opined that the plat would not create a traffic burden, since they were not developing, and at the platting stage there is no impact on anything, and no part of the Short Plat ordinance provides for the conditions which are under discussion. Masters noted that LID improvements were proposed on three of the roads surrounding this short plat 13 - e August 17, 1981 KIRKHAM and that the costs of such improvements might be SHORT PLAT confiscatory. Wickstrom noted that Ordinance 2224 APPEAL requires LID covenants for applicants for building (SP-81-7) permits whether in a short plat or not. He pointed out that the proposed LIDS meant that eventually those roads would probably be improved and that LID covenants would help support those improvements. Kleweno noted that he had submitted a legal brief with the August 6th packet of material citing a Washington Supreme Court case which says that muni- cipalities shall not abrogate without clear mandate from the legislature, the right of property owners to protest. McCaughan expressed concern about the traffic problems. There were no further comments and HAMILTON MOVED to close the public hearing. B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. HAMILTON MOVED that this appeal be remanded to the Short Plat Committee for reconsideration. Bailey seconded. Hamilton noted that since the applicant was unwilling to make the commitment to improve the streets in the future, that the Committee will have to make certain requirements a part of the short plat approval . Bailey noted that some legal research should be done with regard to the no-protest LID covenants. Harris noted that the Short Plat Committee would reconsider the matter after Labor Day and that the matter would not come to the Council again unless the Committee's decision was again appealed. It was pointed out that the only time Short Plats came before the Council was in the case of an appeal. It was determined that the interested parties would be notified of the date of the Short Plat Committee meeting. Motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL Public Works. Mooney noted that the Public Works COMMITTEES Committee would meet on Wednesday morning, August 19th, at 8:15 a.m. in the fourth floor conference room and would discuss the water situation. Parks Committee. Bailey noted that discussion had been held at the Parks Committee meeting last week regarding the senior citizen center long range plans. Some recommendations were made to the consultants for the Parks Master Plan. 14 - August 17, 1981 COUNCIL Public Safety. B. Johnson reported that the Public COMMITTEES Safety Committee had met prior to the Council meet- ing to discuss with Chief Skewes the project coordin- ator for the jail planning project. The matter will be brought to the next workshop and a report made at the next regular Council meeting as to the name of the person selected and the salary proposed. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5J) LID 288 Segregation Request. APPROVAL of the four segregation requests made by Joel Benoliel, attorney for Jack A. Benaroya Company, for segregation of Assessment #1 in LID288 into 4 individual assessments. The Property Manager has reviewed the request with the Legal Department and has found everything to be in order. All fees have been paid. (CONSENT CALENDAR 5B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through August 20, 1981 after auditing by the Finance Committee at its meeting at 3: 00 p.m. on August 31, 1981. ADJOURNMENT B. JOHNSON MOVED that the meeting be adjourned at 10: 00 o 'clock p.m. , Hamilton seconded. Motion carried. Marie Je en, CMC City Clerk 15 -