Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19711004...... Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 4, 1971 Meeting was called to order by Mayor Eve Homeyer at 4:05 p.m. with Councilmen Scott Nystrom, William Comcowich, Ross Griffin, Ramona Markalunas, Jack WalIs, Francis Whitaker, City Attorney Albert Kern and City Manager Leon Wurl. Minutes Councilman Walls moved to approve the minutes of September 27th as prepared and mailed by the City Clerk. Seconded by Councilman Griffin. Ail in favor, motion carried. Chateau Roaring Chateau Roaring Fork Condominium Proposal - Mr. Nick Coates was present and submitted a Fork Condomini~ plot plan. Request to vacate the dead end alley running east and west between Cooper and Proposal Durant Streets which lies between Lots F, G, H and I in Block 37, East Aspen Additional Townsite. Plan includes the vacated portion to be used for paddle court, sauna, dressing ro~ms, rec- reation room, storage room and a conference room to handle about 120 people. Building would be about 1200 square feet. The alley is 19' wide and the entire property would be fenced and landscaped. Presently the alley serves no purpose, access to the buildings for fire protection is provided. Would be willing to grant easements to the City. It was pointed out on the City map, this alley is not shown as a dead end alley. Council stated their concern that the area never be built upon if vacated. City Attorney Kern stated this could be handled through reserve easements. Mr. Coates stated nine additional parking spaces would be provided. Ail existing trees will be preserved. Councilman Whitaker moved to tmble this request and refer this for recommendation from the Fire Chief, Planning and Zoning Commission, City Engineer and time for review by the City Council. Seconded by Councilman Nystrom. Ail in favor, motion carried. Opera House Opera House Lease - Proposed lease with the Chamber of Commerce was submitted. City Lease Attorney Kern outlined the lease is basically the same as in the past with the exception the reference to the Library has been eliminated. Option was eliminated and to sublease will require approval of the City. Councilmmn Nystrom moved to approve the lease and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the lease. Seconded by Councilman Comcowich. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Griffin aye; Markalunas aye; Walls aye; Whitaker aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. One-Way Street One-Way Street Plan - Mr. Herb Barrel, City/County Planner was present to present the Plan system following review of same with Mr. Bob Leigh of Alan~Vorhees and Associates. Plan ~hows Hopkins and Hyman as the one way system east and west. Garmisch would be one way for one block going south; Aspen for two blocks north; Monarch Street one way south to Durant;~Mill one way north to Durant; Galena two way; Hunter one way south to Durant; Spring one way north; Main two lanes going west and one lane going east; medians on Ma~n Street. Signing and parking not'outlined on the plan. Anticipate median constructiOn in the 1972 construction season per availability of funds. Cost of medians would be about $16,000 per block. Councilman Whitaker suggest the east/west one-way streets not be included, would hate to see Hopkins become another Main Street due to all the residences~on this street; opposed to Garmisch being one way for only one block, feel a loop needs to be created to the No. 1 lift; feel Garmisch has the easiest grade of all streets in traveling towards the mountain~ Councilmmn Griffin pointed out sanding and plowing will take care of getting to the Number 1 Lift. Councilman Comcowich moved to approve this plan as presented and start on it immediately. Seconded by Councilman Markalunas. Councilman Whitaker suggest the plan be modified to show Garmisch as one way all the way to Durant Street. Councilman Comcowich pointed out this is an administrative problem and if the Planner feels it is warranted, he may proceed along that basis. Mr. Barrel stated he hoped to have the plan in operation by Thanksgiving. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Griffin aye; Markalunas aye; Walls aye; Whitaker aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. Council questioned areas of concern and what could be done about posting Maroon and Castle Creek bridges as to their icy conditions and the problems at the corner of Seventh Street and Highway 82. 1214 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 4, 1971 Mr. Barrel explained Mr. Prosence would be in Aspen in the near future to discuss these problems with Council. Happy Hearth Inn - City Manager Wurl reported the counter offer of the City was submitted Happy to Mr. Hines and they have indicated they will accept that offer. Nothing in writing at Hearth Inn this time, details have not been worked out. City Attorney Kern submitted proposed Res- olution calling for the election to sell the Happy Hearth Inn and suggest Council considez the resolution at this time and work out the details during the interim. Mr. Kern outlined that if things did not work out with these people, the election would still settle the question of whether you would want to sell in in the future. Councilman Comcowich moved to read Resolution #20, Series of 1971. Seconded by Councilman Walls. Ail in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 20 Resolution #20 (Series of 1971) WHEREAS, the City of Aspen owns real property and improvements known as the Happy Hearth Lodge, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. AND WHEREAS, the City of Aspen desires to sell said real property and improvements. AND WHEREAR, Section 13.4 of the Charter for the City of Aspen, Colorado requires the approval of a majority of electors viting thereon, prior to said sale. NOW,.tTHEREFOR , BE IT RESOLVED: That in accordance with the Charter for the City of Aspen, Colorado a special election is hereby called for December 7, 1971 in the City of Aspen to determine whether the City may sell the real property and improvements known as the Happy Hearth Lodge, consisting of 5.5 acres, at a purchase price of Five Hundred Thousand ($500,000.00) Dollars. Be it further provided that the special election called herein shall be held in conformity with the Colorado Municipal Election Laws. DATED THIS 4th day,of October, 1971. Councilman Walls moved t'o adopt Resolution #20, Series of 1971 as read by the City Clerk. Seconded by Councilman Comcowich. Roll call vote - Councilmen Whitaker aye; Walls aye; Markalunas may; Griffin aye; Comcowich aye; Nystrom aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 1971 - Councilman Walls moved to read Ordinance #28. Seconded by Councilman Comcowich. Ail in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 1971, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF Ordinance #28 ASPEN, COLORADO, DATED MARCH 6, 1967 TO PROVIDE ZONING FOR THE AREA ANNEXED TO THE CITY Fothergill/ OF ASPEN, COLORADO, BY ORDINANCE NO. 15, SERIES OF 1971, was read by title only by the Cutting City Clerk. Annexation Councilman Walls moved to adopt Ordinance #28, Series of 1971 on first reading. Seconded by Councilman Comcowich. Roll call vote - Councilmen Markalunas aye; Griffin aye; Comcowich aye; Walls aye; 'Whitaker aye; Nystrom aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. Ordinances #25 and 26, Series of 1971 - Ordinances #25 and 26 were considered. Mr. Barrel Ordinances #25 request Council table action on Ordinance #26 until such time as the addition of a 26 paragraph can be included to add square footage limitations to all uses not already covered in the ordinance. Councilman Whitaker stated when this is included, consideration should be given to square footage of a transportation center in the C-C zone. Discussed concern for the established residential areas and the allowing of Commercial CPN - PUD Planned Neighborhood. It was suggested perhaps CPN be allowed in those areas which have not been established. Mr. Bartel explained the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council will be designating the neighborhoods where applications could not be made. Council debated on whether to pass the PUD part of the Qrdinance at this time or to wait until such time as the Planning and Zoning Commission has designated the areas. Council agreed to delete and amend the ordinance by taking out the section of the ord- inance relating to Commercial Planned Neighborhood. Councilman Walls moved to read Ordinance #25, Series of 1971 as amended. Seconded by Councilman Nystrom. Ail in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 1971, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XI OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BY ADDING SECTION 11 OF CHAPTER 1, ENTITLED "PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOP- MENT'', PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (R-PUD DISTRICT); REPEALING AND DELETING R-PC RESIDENTIAL PALNNED COMMUNITY COMBINING AREA DISTRICTS FROM SUBSECTION (A) OF SECTION 3, CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE XI, AND REPEALING SUB- SECTION (D) OF SECTION 5, CHAPTE~ 1 OF TITLE XI, AND REPEALING PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 OF SUBSECTION (B) OF SECTION 9, CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE XI, RELATING TO THE FORMATION PLANNED COMMUNITY COMBINING AREA DISTRICTS was read by title only by the City Clerk. 1215 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 4, 1971 Councilman Walls moved to adopt~Ordinance #25, Series of 1971 on first reading as amended. Seconded by Councilman Griffin. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Griffi~ ay~e;. Markalunas aye; Walls aye; Whitaker nay-; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCES #27.& #29 - City Attorney~Kern~po±nted out Ordinance #27 repeals the leash law ordinance #20 and Ordinance #29 is the substitute ordinanc~ which was.discussed at the last meeting. Ordinances #27 & 29 PetitiOner Stephen Ware was present and stated he felt the petitioners and the signers Leash Laws of the petition feel that the original ordinance is a compromise and may not go along with the substitute ordinance. Feel by enlarging the leash law area is an infringement on their rights. Feel there is an enforcement problem because dogs under reasonable con- trol can be picked up also. Councilman Whitaker stated the old ordinance was not effective, people did not co~ply with the reasonable control and there was not public cooperation. Twenty-three caaes have been heard in municipal court since the ~eginning of 1971 and the average fine was S14.00. Councilman Walls left Council Chambers. Mr. Jay Parker, Dog Warden, was present and stated we need the leash control. Dogs do not know wh~t zone they are in. The job is easier with complete leash law. Phone comptain~ went down during the time the complete leash law was in effect. Main complaint received during the time of the leash law was on barking dogs because they were tied up. As relates to the substitute ordinance, do not go out into the residential zones unless called to go, usually concentrate in the commercial~zones where the real problem lies. Under the RSA, spend all the time in the City unless called into the County. Councilman Walls returned to Council Chambers. Mr. Luther Albright, owner of the dog pound stated veterinarians Dr. Rice and Dr. Schmidt desired to discuss with Council of the leash law. Both were unable to attend this meeting Council indicated they would like to hear their views at the public hearing scheduled on the Ordinance on the 18th:of October. Mr. Jay Parker suggest regulations be put into the ordinance as to the length of leash and type of material used. Karyl Roosevelt reporting for the Aspen Valley Improvement Association stated members of the AVIA would like to take their names off of the petition submitted because they were lead to believe the fine in the ordinance was the issue. Mayor Homeyer pointed out the fines have not changed from the old law to the new. Basicall all ordinances of the City carry a fine of S300 and 90 days in jail. As pointed out by Councilman Whitaker, the law is not enforced in this manner by the municipal court. Councilman Comcowich moved to read Ordinance #27, Series of 1971. Seconded by Councilman Whitaker. Ail in favor, motion carried. Ordinance #27 ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 1971 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 20 (SERIES OF 1971), Repeal of REQUIRING DOGS TO BE ON LEASHES WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN was read by title only by the Leash Law City Clerk. Councilman Comcowich moved to adopt Ordinance #27, Series of 1971 on first reading. Seconded by Councilman Whitaker. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Griffin aye; Markalunas aye; Walls may; Whitaker aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. Councilman Comcowich moved to read Ordinance #29, Series of 1971. Seconded by Councilman Whitaker. Ail in favor, motion carried. Ordinance ~29 ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 1971, AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REINAGTING SUBSECTIONS (A), (B) Lea~hLaw AND (C) OF SECTION 4, CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE VI OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, PROHIBITING DOGS FROM RUNNING AT LARGE IN THE COMMERCIAL, AR AND PARK ZONED DISTRICTS OF THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES THEREOF was read by title only by the City Clerk. Councilman Comcowich moved to adopt Ordinance #29, Series of 1971 on first reading, Seconded by Councilman Whitaker. It was pointed out the ordinance could be amended on second reading to include regulations, as to length of leash and type of material. Roll call vote - Councilmen Whitaker aye; Walls.aye; Markalunas aye; Griffin nay; Comco- wich aye; Nystrom aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. 1216 Regular Meeting Aspen Cit?'-Councit October 4, 1971 RSA & Budgets - Councilman Walls read the following prepared statement: "Due to the controversial:RSA meeting of September 28th, I am moved to make some comments and to offer still one other alternative before we again try to work on the City Budget for 1972. Needless to {ay that what happens in the RSA can drastically affect our City budget for the coming year. First of all let me say that I am appalled at the outcome of this last RSA meeting, In a situation where there :must be complete understanding and cooperation for such an organizatJ in to function, we find petty back room politics, self interest and juvenile squabbling runnin the show. I believe that everyone Of the present City Council ran, during the last election on a platform of metro government. I still belie~e~that ~his is the only way we can logical y move in trying to solve some of our ~major problems, and saving .the taxpayers money. We must however, realize that the RSA is not metro government, but is only the first trial step toward this end, to see if a common meeting ground could be found for the solutions to common problems. ~I'belie~e that to a small degree th~ RSA has been helpfut:towa=d Solutions to some of our problems, but to a large degree I feel that as each year goes by the City looses ground, not only monetarily but also inthe area of attacking problems that .are of mutual interest. For a long time I have been greatly concerned about running the City on sales tax revenues, because this is a shaky mnd-~se~ure~base. (If sales tax is Over our estimate we have a surplus. If it is under our estimate we have to cut back programs and services.) MM concern becomes even greate= When I hear the County Commissioners say that they intend to ~se all-the sales tax moneys for RSA projecbs, this in the end causing the City to raise ad'valorem ta~xes to make up the deficit. Granted some of the City's functions would be ta~ken into the RSA with this move,~.but there would 'be atremendous area of services that would be left out. :I b~elieve that the~'Ci~y'-C~h~hiI~hat i~itially set upRSA 'made a big mistake Whem t.hey..~cu~ th~ mill.-le~ya~d'exp~C~ed.~e"aaleS tax to fund t~e~City. And most especially when at that ,time the County quickly picked up the~cut and added ~t to their mill levy, which really in the end did not save the taxpayers any money at all. During the two and a half years that the RSA has been in existance one would think that the entities that'are~involved would have attained~.a sensitivity toward each others prob- lems. But this is not the case. After alt..t~fs time there exists no real understanding on the part of the County Commissioners about the City's problems~d priorities, but instead we receive a good measure of criticism. The Mayor and myself have been~accused of trying to do the RSA in, which is not true. We are however, as representatives of the City Council on this Boa=d, trying to get a fair shake for the City. I might remind some people that the first time the thought of doing the RSA came up was by a County Commissioner, when he indicated that if the~Hospital were not included in the 1972.budget that he would seriously consider this avenue. Thus it seems that the hospital set the stage for the disa,greement and dissention that we now find. The hospital of course was only the stage setting, it is really the many problems that the RSA generates which causes the real point of disagreement. At this point I would like to outline these problems. 1. The basic ground rules which initially launched the RSA are too vague and are open to interpretation. Agreements that were made, which are not in writing, which seem to have no logical basis. Even the Commissioners can't agree among thems~elves. 2. The lack of ability to establish priorities that the City and County can.agree upon, such as: A. Land use policies in the County which directly affect the City. B. Golf £aeility, either down further in the County, or working with the City on their facility. C. Proposed hospital addition. D~ Police building, which the County wanted the City to help fund the construction, without centralizing our law enforcemen,t depts. E. Recreatisn program~ F. Lighting program. G. Financing policies. H. Bikeways, which have been cut out of the budget of 1972. 3. Lack of total involvement by the City in the decision making process for the airport and the proposed hospital. 4. Lack of accounting procedures which cause problems in: A. Revenue distribution, which causes the City to be in a cash flow bind the major portion of the year until all the allocated RSA funds have been collected from the sales tax. B. The slowness in which-the City is reimbursed for expenses and salaries. C. The problem of spending excess time and effort in accomplishing simple tasks. D. Difference in working policies and procedures. 5. ~roblems with personnel because of: ~ A. Difference in sRlary scale. B. Difference in standards of employees. C. Difference in personnel policies. 6, Problems with policy: A. County governed by Statues, City by Charter. 1217 Regular Meeting As~n~Ci~_Co~i! .................. Qc~b~r ~ 1971 Personnel administration C. Initiation and approval of various projects. D. Project approval and even the solving of minor problems which are complicated by routing through advisory boards and the RSA Board. E. General lack of administrative policies. This now brings us around to the current problem at hand, the 1972 RSA budget. At the start of the RSA budget session it was agreed by all parties concerned that revenues from the sales tax would be the same as this.year for next ($850,000), and that the bgsic budget for RSA be the same for 1972 as we had for 1971 (approxinmtely $502,000) but even this has been warped out of shape because the County~Commissioners have one idea, mainly $800,000 in sales tax which not only throws the City budget out of balance, but is also against what we had originally agreed upon (holding the same budget for 1972 as for 1971.) These problems seem to grow and grow, and any meeting of the minds in trying to work out solutions seem to be further and further away. Therefore I feel that before we can move ahead we must solve these problems." Councilman Walls moved that RSA be suspended, for one year so that we might rework the ground rules on which the RSA was initially founded and that all of the problems be re- solved before we continue. Seconded by Councilman Griffin. Councilman Walls - "I believe that if the County Commissioners are as c~ncerned with the smooth and equitable operation of the RSA as the City is, then they could not disagree with this type of situation. Ail projects which we have committed firm funding would be shared equally (50-50).. Also, that if the County Commissioners do not agree with this sus- pension, then the City withdraw from t~e RSA. Mayor Homeyer stated she agreed with Councilman Walls'. statement. The City did make an effort at the last RBA meeting, $50,000 went into the Airport, less went into Parks and Recreation, City gave in and picked up a bigger share of the Planner's budget. County Commissioners originally agrred would budget on expected sales tax revenue of $85,000 same as for 1971. At the last hour of the RSA meeting, the County Commissioners went back to $800,000. The lISA should have a better foundation of plans. Do not feel it is worth- while to fight constantly. Do not agree with stopping the RSA and there is no reason to think we will not get $850,000 next year in sales tax dollars. Councilman Comcowich stated ~e was disappointe~ but not surprised that Mayor Homeyer, Council~mn Walls and Manager Wurl got together and decided RSA was mo good. Stated that if he wanted to ~ee it disbanded, would try to get someone else to do it. One thing which~the representatives ~hould keep in mind and that is the personality problems may not exist in the future. To say suspend, feel this will be the end a. Md do not feel the RSA will be able to ever get going again. Maybe at the next County election, we may have someone that the City can really work with. Do not wish to see something happen now that could work in ~the future. In reviewing the contingency item discussed at the last RSA meetimg, do not feel the City will loose that muc~. County Commissioners gave the City the information that the 1/3rd 2/3rds would not go up for negoiation for 1972. Feel if the City had gotten into a big hassle, the 173rd ~2/3rd item would not have made it. Feel it wa~ a realistic compromise on the Commissioner's part. Councilmmn Wails and Mayor Homeyer did not dispute the figures which were laid out by Commissioner Baxter of the City coming out a~t S466,700 and the County $335,200. The figure outlined for Contingency is not all that much. The attorneys were-instructed to take care of t~e overage spl~t on a monthly basis, so that concern has been taken care of. Those~who attended the last RSA meeting know~hat the first thing the County-Commissioners did was to withdraw the $50,000 from the hospital. Councilman Walls wanted money back in .Parks and Recreation so they went along with that. The City will not be that much better off without the RSA, it's s project that we are all in together and as Commissioner Sardy stated one of the main things of the RSA was a relief to the taxpayer. Councilman Walls stated he did not agree with dumping the RSA but a suspension for a year to solve the problems. Feel this is the only way in which the problems can be solved, as they will be shoved aside and never resolved. Would like to see the RSA on a better footing Finance Director Beeder stated the City's budget has been based on the $850,000 and the tentative approved RSA %udgets for a specifics.amount, and came up with the City's 2/3rds split of $351,200. If the budget of the RSA is increased in any way it affects the salem C ' tax dollars that come back to the City. With the additional $20,000 ontzngency, the City would get $14,000 less than had been anticipated. Any amount added to t~e RSA budget comes off the top so it affects the City budget. City Manager Leon Wurl stated theze is not considerations given to the revenues generated by RSA, and his figures are not the same as what is reflected in the minutes. Mr. Wurl stated he felt it was his responsibility to point these things out to Council. Served on the original committee that drafted the Local Government Bill, now serving on the committee tha~ is drafting the legislation for that bill.~ The City sponsored the RSA, did ~11 the work and has carried the load ever since. Cannot really say the City people are out to do itin. The things that are supposed to happen with RSA are not happening. The $800,000 limit is insane, no basis for that whatsoever. 1218 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 4, 1971 The City has to consider revenues on what can be seen, to just take off $50,000 ism~t RSA logical Councilman Comcowich stated that if you are going to be conservative do not see that that ~-- alters very much, if RSA had been working on $850,000 would not have cut the budgets as~ much as they were. ~ Manager Wurl pointed out the City has cut back three or four times in the General Fund budgets, this has not been done in the RSA budgets. Councilman Comcowich stated that if the City thinks the County Commissioners are going to cut RSA budgets so the City gets more spill over, there is no way. M~nager Wurl pointed out the RSA budgets have not been cut in proportion to ~hat the City budgets have been cut. -Administration will be submitting to Council something less than $400,000 of what was budgeted for 1971~ Before the City has time to get the budgets pared down, the County Commissioners are saying the City is in trouble. Budgets on the first go around are always submitted on what it is felt each department needs. The $20,000 is going to cut into the City and do not feel the City can do that. In a year when you are on a big economy program, why were not all budgets of the RSA cut back. If the RSA were to pare budgets down as relates to what they took off from the revenues, that would be a different story, but they did not do that. The County's method of budgeting is different than the City's. If you review the Airport budget as submitted, the only thing outlined on that budget were about two lines relating to payment on bmnd issue. It was not broken down as City budgets are. The County's philosophy is a contingency fund and they take from that to fund a project, but the City cannot do that. We budget exactly like every other City in America. Reason for not attending RSA meetings is because at th RSA you get to say only as much as the County Commissioners want you to say, they just do it that way and I cannot do it that way, because it-is not legal. The County Commissioners deal with the RSA one time a month but we deal with it every day, it's an administrative problem to all the City people. Manager Wurl s~tated he would like to see an outline of the problems that the City has with RSA and give them serious consideration and if the County really wants to solve the prob- lems, then they can be solved. If it was felt you could go and say what you felt at the meetings, then would attend. These are personal feelings. Finance Director Veeder stated he would like to make some unbiased comments since he was not with the City at the beginning of the RSA. Stated he was the biggest dismnter of the RSA. After learning how the RSA .was set up and functioning and had to do the daily work for about 60 or 90 days informed the City Manager the RSA was not working. Number of people who say that the.RSA is working say it's saving the City and County money. To date have not seen any presentation as to how it would save money and function on a daily basis. The points brought out by Councilman Walls may not seem like big problems but they are big problems. It just does not work internally. Mr. Veed~r stated he was not against metropolitan government, but do not feel it will be any bene£it until the internal prob- lems are worked out, and in his opinion it is not happening. Feel the City and County will have to start at the beginning and establish an internal system. The RSA needs a · b complete over-haul 3° . You mm~be able to provide more efficient, government but will not save the City any money. City Manager Wurl stated he thought the basis of the basis of the entire problem is the lack of ability for RSA to unite on common goals. At the beginning of RSA the projects under RSA were proje~cts that the City and C0unty were already cooperating on. Now as more projects are a~ded to the RSA, it has created more bad than good. Councilman ComcowichTstated he would take into mind what Manager Wurl and Finance Director Veeder have to say, but this is a policy decision. Administration problems should be worked out. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom nay; Comcowich nay; Griffin aye; Markalunas nay; Walls aye; Whitaker aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. Airport Water Line - Manager Wurl reported Mr. Merrill will be instructed to dig up the Airport Water line at the Airport where mine tailings were used and to do it properly. City is respons- Line ible for inspection, bid for the line was let by the, County who also have a daily in- spector on the job. Budgets - Manager Wurl reported based on the last motion, City budgets will have to be Budgets re-worked and request a special meeting later in the week. Council agreed~ to meet on Thursday at 5:00 P. M. on the subject of City budget. Councilman Walls moved to adjourn at 6:30 p.m., seconded by Councilmmn Whitaker. Ail in favor, meeting adjourned.