Laserfiche WebLink
. . • <br /> 78 <br /> • <br /> February 6,1980 <br /> councilman Michelson said he wanted a commitment from PUD that they <br /> would do all that they cou],tO help get the 75%funding,and Parker <br /> Williams,Attorney for PUD,felt sure,in his opinion,that they <br /> would do what they could. <br /> Bud hrom,of the Water Department,stated that if the level of the dam <br /> •, <br /> •• <br /> were raised.0 feet the water would be so turbid that it would require <br /> •• immediate filtering. <br /> Mr.Jones said that after a major construction program of this nature <br /> it would take 5 years to get the quality we want in the water. <br /> Dick CL Cs Stated it NC economically advantageous to build now. <br /> This commitment would allow us to go after government funding. <br /> Moved by Councilman Langus,seconded by Councilman Baker,that the • <br /> City will commit to build a filtration plant if the City obtains 75A <br /> of project construction costs from sources other than City water system <br /> users. <br /> Roll was called with all Councilmen voting yes,except Councilman Gipson, <br /> who voted no,and Councilman Aldcroft,who was excused. <br /> Motion Carried <br /> • <br /> • The meeting then recessed to the Council Chambers. <br />•! COUNCIL BILL NO.801-7 <br /> FINAL READING: <br /> I AN ORDINANCE repealing the existing Nonforming Use • <br /> Section 5.B of Ordinance No.3572 of the Everett <br /> municipal Code,Title 19,EMC 19.56 and adopting <br /> these revised Nonconforming Use Regulations. <br /> • <br /> • Dennis Gregoire pointed out some changes to the ordinance He said in <br /> Section 1 J No.2 an additional paragraph to be labeled(e)should be <br /> • added reading as follows: 4The Planning Department shall propose a <br /> recommendation on tn.proposed expansion INC the Board/or Hearing <br /> • Examiner 10 days prior to its hearing.. Section 1 J No.4(6)should be <br /> • changed to read: 4A decision shall be rendered at this hearing unless <br /> I r there is a need for additional information... • <br /> Also in Section 1 J No.5 both(a)and(b)should be changed so that it <br /> would read as follows: 4(al Any action by the Board of Adjustment on <br /> non-conforming use expansion may be appealed to the City Council(or <br /> • Hearing Examiner with jurisdiction)udthin 10 days of the Board's action.. <br /> 404)NOV action by the Hearing Examiner hiith jurisdiction)on a non- <br /> • conforming use expansion may be appealed to the city Council within 10 <br /> • <br /> • days of the Examiner's decision.. <br /> • <br /> • <br /> • <br />