Laserfiche WebLink
14, <br /> -.11 <br /> relieuary 15,1972 <br /> at 7:00 P.M.,February 15,1972 in the Conference A Special Meeting of the Everett City Council was held <br /> I <br /> Everett Y <br /> calledPrehidant Rucker them n,tt I <br /> Aidcroft.Bill Dobler,Carl Gipson,Pete%inch,Bill liangus, Michelson, <br /> Bill Rucker. `. <br /> President Rucker introduced John Aylor of Environmental <br /> concerns Inc.who had been retained hy council to perform <br /> a feasibility'study concerning the possible location of <br /> new police facilities and related Citv facilities. '11 <br /> advised Council that he is one of four partners <br /> in John <br /> which h t <br /> Yesterday t ed9three headquarters <br /> Washington. <br /> . <br /> Everett h ae(within <br /> four <br /> u <br /> b Y lallu <br /> the home office to properly handle their bussunder <br /> the circumstances <br /> wanted o give chance <br /> to cancel their arrangement with him and engage <br /> architect or consultant <br /> rr' <br /> .,. <br /> toperform feasibility s <br /> if they eo wished. Aylfsav h h ed <br /> drawings for the proposed poli <br /> on an hourly e basis f t emus i 5 700) {�.. <br /> d that h e glad t <br /> research e has would provide a s policeone on men ��. <br /> for use by.his-success the operations <br /> study. <br /> After a Council agreed t the <br /> arrangement <br /> t <br /> asibilityt <br /> s uengage faros Environmental Concern,/nc.as <br /> et �.� <br /> firm to supervise construction the police building <br /> if that was their decision feasibility <br /> dtcompleted. Aycthis was acceptable <br /> and that h the summary of background <br /> information <br /> and study.drawingswasoalsuse <br /> agreedwhoever <br /> t chosen <br /> Aylor would work feasibility '. <br /> duringwith the next or <br /> them work co thegoalsa.objectives ofr< tudv at <br /> his reguaruhourly fee. s tentatively <br /> weeks to p <br /> scheduled <br /> che a or 7 p.m.,March 1,inethe Co Conference <br /> Boom <br /> Ater much discussion of ways and goals,s,it <br /> attCouncil o nsuthatheirf decisions would <br /> have to be on the basicp change iooe <br /> City <br /> facilities(to be followed by efalternative <br /> wayto h this purpose ax.the Vtlpoints <br /> y idaiensebeudied <br /> olved in each. (but not necessarily <br /> in order <br /> t of priority.1. Service Ij <br /> 2. public <br /> workized space `yyu <br /> ark. cilities <br /> B. decentralized facilities <br /> 3. Programmed to zedO <br /> lent 4. in <br /> A.citizens <br /> City vs eaisdles <br /> Co ..- .. <br /> 5. <br /> st <br /> 6. it <br /> _._security <br /> SVJse.c fd haAvtiP5i0hdlate12.,do.fdnEej 3'aevelopment <br /> S8. sign and esthetics <br /> ice <br /> A.Start and completion <br />