My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1980/03/05 Council Minutes
>
Council Minutes
>
1980/03/05 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2020 10:09:19 AM
Creation date
9/28/2020 9:59:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Minutes
Date
3/5/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
119 <br /> March 5,1980 <br /> President reason that 6.5 in Overstreet <br /> thisk if they justifiable loJerry gic <br /> at if'you above significcovers anything more than 6.5 only 208 of the ant <br /> tidehn <br /> rtment <br /> hries say that is enforced ilea significant. nn said this is nore- <br /> quirement <br /> agencies of Gregoire <br /> severalia enndifferent <br /> i sZhrea is av classified <br /> sttthhatwiwetland bbeai <br /> evaluatingathisThere <br /> r quest a that have conflictingpolicies.reviewing and <br /> On motion the meetingrecessed until 1:30 p.m. <br /> • <br /> The regular'meeting of the Everett City Council <br /> at <br /> • <br /> in the Walter E. <br /> Golf Course Clubhouse with all <br /> ll <br /> attendance,a ceptaCouncilman Baker,who was excused. oilmen in m <br /> 1 <br /> SULTAN BASIN FILTRATION PLANT <br /> President Overstreet stated that T get a perspective <br /> • <br /> of the Sultan Basin ent and <br /> be able. omddecisionsow d hbesm that may <br /> Jim Ganges is an Everett employee a optionsdiscuss potential that <br /> although <br /> id act only r h capBruce Jones said that on acity. <br /> as Commissioner <br /> h t PUD was reviewed it wharf.c 29, 99 been added <br /> February <br /> negotiations. tithe letter <br /> we were in <br /> our discussv tneac r s Pfound ositional g g into gng from it were otiatioonns has en. �1.Mr.Jones <br /> stated that when s s builtasimpoundment <br /> • <br /> commitment <br /> reservoir.stage needed a thattime. a but <br /> a <br /> prior <br /> ed henbenefitwer and to increase poWer o that the co constructionnot <br /> • <br /> of phase 1 watwas at least 3 er disruption such as turbidityrom the and <br /> constructwant to take the liquidated damage approach. If a d 1 ath eUD did not <br /> could fiitratio st ofaa as on line they <br /> 10 n dollars wand rr ; e. <br /> he fFrom iltration City's <br /> a 5 wpower,PUD Might e would build. '� <br /> plant. At this pc resolution was adopted,The ld <br /> if we <br /> knowing City's <br /> enitimmediatel` quality effects buten <br /> what-those long-term. l b ow <br /> should the powerproject1 b rt f the'cost <br /> knowing <br /> racilities when <br /> mithatet <br /> of the provide will <br /> betmiadvisors <br /> nanenalong-term <br /> ctewill haeffects i <br /> v <br /> during interim <br /> a to-reduce <br /> wer it short-term project <br /> effects <br /> nnot be <br /> he <br /> tunnel tce of <br /> dobe agreement <br /> ction of aabweas should around they a agency claim <br /> thhewP boldo tow <br /> responsible from some aspect of t project as well as a be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.