My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1986/09/03 Council Minutes
>
Council Minutes
>
1986/09/03 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2020 11:38:22 AM
Creation date
9/29/2020 7:34:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Minutes
Date
9/3/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
351 <br /> • <br /> September 3,1986 <br /> The regular meeting of the Everett City Council was called to order <br /> . et 8:30 a.m., September 3, 1986 in the Council Chambers of the <br /> Everett City Hall, President Gipson presiding. Upon roll call it <br /> was found that Mayor Moore and all councilmen were in attendance. <br /> minute°of the meeting held August 22,1986 were approved ae printed. <br /> . MAYOR'S COMMENTS <br /> The Mayor then asked Joe Kozlovski to bring the council up to date <br /> on the restroom problem at the transfer station and suggested that .5A 11 <br /> possibly the council might like to have a workshop on this. Mr. I <br /> Kozlowski said at one time the city decided to build public llUil <br /> restroom in the arcade west of Colby leading to Everpark, bUt <br /> : because of the cost it was not constructed. They had looked into Ail <br /> this egein and the cost of construction would be $61,600 plus , <br /> maintenance costs of about 044,000 per year. If there was a charge 0' <br /> put on the restrooms it was estimated that revenues would be <br /> received in the amount of$6500 per year if the charge was set at vpT, <br /> 2se. 44' <br /> They had also considered renting an area on Hoyt and California and <br /> at Rockefeller and Hewitt for restrooms. The cost of rental and <br /> maintenance for this would be$9o,000:ma there would be the same <br /> revenue expected. A new facility at Everpark would cost about the <br /> same,but the revenues would probably double. <br /> • <br /> The last alternative would be to use the existing facilities and <br /> 'qi1V <br /> allow the public to use the restrooms. There would be no <br /> construction costs but there would be a need for one additional <br /> person plus the maintenance costs estimated to be a total of$42,500 <br /> 11 <br /> but the revenue would again be doubled to about$13,000. <br /> Mayor Moore said he wasn't sure if the city wants the Transit <br /> Terminal at the present location or if a terminal should be I I <br /> constructed at another location. el <br /> COuncilman Stephenson suggested having public restrooms identified. <br /> He said only one store owner had come to the city about this and <br /> perhaps the Downtown Association had some thoughts on it. <br /> Councilman Pope didn't think it was wise to spend $100,000 on ill <br /> restrooms now, but the council should look at possibly finding 1.1 <br /> another location for a new terminal or make the decision tO stay <br /> with Everpark end then talk about public restrooms. <br /> Councilman Ia. felt the city has a commitment for tannic <br /> restrooms. She euggested posting Signs es to where the public <br /> restroome are located downtown a.in the interim allow the use of <br /> the facilities at Everpark• <br /> SOLID WASTE PACIILITY <br /> Mayor Moore commented on the story in the paper this past week-end <br /> /egarding the solid waste study being made by the county. He said <br /> it was a good article and there a lot of concerns addressed In the <br /> • <br /> • <br /> 5 t <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.