Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-17 City Council Regular MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17,1996 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,was held on September 17,1996,at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers pursuant to the notice required by law. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Coleman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Councilmember Surra gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Mayor Richmond led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present:Mayor Coleman Vice Mayor Richmond Councilmember Barker Councilmember Hendricks Councilmember Surra Councilmember Urich Councilmember Durbala Staff Present:City Manager Curtis Shook Asst.City Manager George Hoffman City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney Glenn Gimbut Public Safety Director Robert Galloway City Engineer Gordon Grandy Public Works Director Doug Dobson Development Services Director Larry Harmer Others Present:Planning Manager Jim Nakagawa ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA )Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED;AND THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY BY THE FOLLOWING CITY EMPLOYEES: Cathy Parsley;Detective Corporal Bob Nye;and Officer Randy Eckert. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 1 OF 14 Vice Mayor Richmond SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous,with the exception of Councilmember Durbala on the minutes of September 3 due to his absence from that meeting. The motion carried. AWARDS,PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Tony Vehon presented an award to the city council for the focal point project. The city received a finalist award from the state for the "Best Public Improvement Project for 1995".Tony Vehon thanked all the people involved in making the project a reality. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Mr.Robert Meinecke,8846 East Golden Cholla,Gold Canyon,addressed the council regarding the incorporation of Gold Canyon.He briefed the council on the history of their committee and the future growth of Gold Canyon.He reiterated they would like local control of their destiny.He stated he had received the staff report on September 16,and after review commented about both parties being separated on several issues.He recommended the formation of a joint,exploratory committee,half of which being city staff and elected officials,the other half being members of the incorporation committee,to study the issues and resolve the differences.He believes this would open a line of communication between the two entitities and enable an agreement to be reached. Mrs.Maria Ewell,1330 West Roundup,addressed the council regarding Ordinance No.952.She requested the ordinance to be reviewed and to solicit information from manufactured housing developers,manufacturers and industry people in order to come up with a compatible ordinance that addresses the clean up of the city and still allows affordable housing. Mr.Keith Stachar,1153 North Holmes,addressed the council regarding Ordinance No.952.He requested the council to look at how the ordinance will impact the community.He believes the permanancy and overall appearance of the city can be done in another manner to cause less economic effect on current and future residents. Mr.Keith Gaines,5483 South Pyrite,Gold Canyon,addressed the council regarding Gold Canyon incorporation.He requested the council to consider their thoughts and needs in the council decision,and give the residents of Gold Canyon a chance to vote. Mr.John Pein,6326 East 20th Avenue,addressed the council regarding Gold Canyon incorporation.He lives in the area that would become a county island if incorporation is allowed to go through.He requested council not to allow the incorporation to continue.He read from a brochure entitled "Municipal REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 2 OF 14 Incorporation in Arizona",prepared by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. He commented how the brochure states you need a recognizable community of at least 1500 people,and no federal census has been taken in Gold Canyon to ascertain their population.The brochure also states the community should not include uninhabited or rural farmlands,and he questioned whether the Gold Canyon incorporation area was urban in nature.He state the two processes by which one can incorporate.He commented on the committee for incorporation not being trained in government or urban planning;they just want to control their lives,and his life,but not give him the right to vote for it.He questioned if there are enough people in the community for incorporation and if the community could be considered urban.He had noted when the exploratory committee was mentioned earlier,there was no mention of people who might be opposed to the incorporation being allowed on the committee.He believes the reason his area was left as a county island is because there are few supporters for incorporation in his area. Mrs.Phyllis Rowe,9830 East Palermo,Gold Canyon,addressed the council regarding the Gold Canyon incorporation.She read a letter sent to the Independent.The letter in effect stated the Gold Canyon Incorporation Committee was not allowing out-of-state property owners to vote by law.She believes the voting laws should be changed to allow out-of-state owners to vote on issues that concern their property.She commented on a recent poll taken in her development of Fairway Views which showed 90% of the respondents were against incorporation;however,most of those people would not be able to vote as it stands now.She requested the council to come out to Gold Canyon and see the yellow protest ribbons on all properties against the incorporation,some whose owners cannot vote. Mr.Mark Crandall,9772 East Palermo,Gold Canyon,addressed the council.On behalf of the Gold Canyon citizens against incorporation he thanked the council for their patience,their courtesy,their professionalism in the way they went about the request for incorporation,and he personally thanked the people on the committee who helped him put together a long term study.He stated he is not against incorporation in the future,but he does not believe the area is ready for incorporation for at least a few years.He also wanted to thank the city for allowing his children to participate in the parks and recreation programs at no extra cost. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. PUBLIC HEARINGS PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.967.PZ-96-12 )Development Services Director Larry Harmer stated this item is requested for continuation until October 15. This is because the Planning & Zoning Commission has not acted on this item yet,they will be hearing it next week.He then briefed the council on the item. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 3 OF 14 Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing.There being no one wishing to speak on this item,he closed the hearing. Mr.Keith Stachar,the applicant, addressed the council.He stated he understood the reason for the continuation and looked forward to future meetings on the item. Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing with no one else wishing to speak,then called for a motion. Councilmember Urich MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.967,PZ-96-12,BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 15,1996. Councilmember Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF INSTRUCTIONS TO STAFF REGARDING REQUEST TO INCORPORATE BY THE GOLD CANYON INCORPORATION COMMITTEE )Mayor Coleman stated he would express his feelings first and then open the item up to the other members of the council.Mayor Coleman stated: "I would like to thank staff for their diligence in preparing this report.I know a lot of pressure was placed on you to try to rush the report,and to hurry through,but I think you did a fairly thorough job. There was one section in it on page four that I would like to read because it kind of hits my thoughts and feelings on this.Our city staff interviewed other city management who had,and officials who had had,incorporation requests made of them,and asked them what things that they considered in their decision making.And there were five things outlined and I'd like to read those five things.One is,and the first thing,verification of census threshold,was the first.Second,that the proposed area encompasses a recognizable urban community with common interests supportive of incorporation.The third thing,the proposed area has a recogizable commercial base or other income beyond state- shared revenues.State -shared revenues is a pie which all cities REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 4 OF 14 share from and the more you split that pie up,it affects everyone.And so they look for a recognizable commercial base that would,beyond the state -shared revenues so that that would not be all that they're dependent upon.And the fourth thing,the proposed area has an established downtown school district,post office,utilities,library and other essetial services so as not to require continued reliance on either city or county.And the fifth thing,and to me one of the most important things,and as I reviewed some of the documents attached to this report,really struck me.Number five,a positive relationship between the sponsor city and the area requesting incorporation.Is there an atmosphere of trust?And I read a letter to the governor that caused me to feel like there is a lack of trust on both sides that we would operate in the best interests of each other. One thing I would like to mention also,the Gold Canyon Incorporation Committee has attempted to frame this entire issue as a right to vote issue while dictating to the city,state and other property owners what the terms will be,with little sensitivity to the fact that each have legitimate interests.I liked your idea about forming a committee,but maybe we should do it based on population.And we'd appoint eighteen people and you could appoint two. Anyway,this last thing I think will sum up my feelings,the City of Apache Junction has been placed in an unfortunate position in a very emotional issue involving its county neighbors.Residents in the urbanized,developed areas of Gold Canyon are seriously divided over the issue.County residents outside the urbanized area but included in the map are almost unanimously opposed.The rush to a decision has created unnecessary hard feelings and has pitted neighbors and communities against one another.Without consensus on incorporation within the urbanized area,or with county landowners,council would be choosing the wishes of one group over the wishes of another.And that is an unfortunate position that we find ourselves in. I am greatful the state law does give us the opportunity to review the entire process to make sure that our interests are looked out for,because I don't know where this would have gone without that as far as my community is concerned.And we are concerned.And you are our neighbors.There have been times when I have felt that we had a better relationship.My girls attend school,all six of my daughters attended school at Gold Canyon Elementary. You know,we've been active in the PTA out there,and we do have a lot of common interests.But I just,until,until these,the issues of population,map boundaries and incorporation of rural areas are resolved,I don't think I could vote to direct staff to draft a resolution of support.I just don't think I could do REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 5 OF 14 that.And I'll open it up to anyone else who would like to." Councilmember Surra stated: "The Gold Canyon committee to incorporate,week after week,in letters,calls,news articles and appearances at Call to the Public,has vilified and insulted us,our city,our staff and the city manager.I question the common sense of that kind of activity in a group.It's not how I would expect to court a city that I hoped would clear the way for me if I desired to incorporate. Most of the folks that I know,I think you know,who live in Gold Canyon are far from unreasonable or discourteous.And thanks to them I've recognized that this effort was only to sway,is political effort and not personal.And I know,your honor,that you're going to be relieved to hear that I have survived that onslaught. However,when our residents of Apache Junction call on us to account for the state of our city and the conditions that affect their welfare,it is best to realize that our decisions must have served their best interests,as was our sworn duty when we took office,or we will have failed them miserably.I am sure when,orif,the area of Gold Canyon is incorporated,the residents there, which will include the committee to incorporate,will expect,no probably they will demand,as much from their city officials. After weighing all the information from both the pro and con incorporation groups in the Gold Canyon area and understanding the needs of our city to provide for the future security of its citizens health,safety and welfare,and recognizing that the land areas to assure that future,I must urge that we take no future action on this issue for Gold Canyon to incorporate until the residents of the Gold Canyon area have the opportunity for the necessary dialogue to assure the desire of that entire community. Thank you." Mayor Coleman closed the discussion with no one else wishing to speak.Mayor Coleman MOVED THAT WE ACCEPT THE REPORT AS DRAFTED BY OUR CITY MANAGEMENT,BY OUR CITY MANAGER,AND THAT WE GIVE NO DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE INCORPORATION REQUEST. Councilmember Surra SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 6 OF 14 Mayor Coleman called for a ten minute recess. Mayor Coleman reconvened the meeting.Mayor Coleman recognized Mr.Al Pope,a regular at the council meetings,who had just turned 92 years old and stated he appreciated his attendance and support at the meetings. NEW BUSINESS. CONSIDERATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH APACHE JUNCTION MAIN STREET PROGRAM,INC.FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 ) )City Manager Curtis Shook briefed the council on the item.In addition to the revised services,he is recommending adding Section IV,Reporting Requirements,and Section X,Non- Political Activity to the contract. Mayor Coleman opened the item to discussion by the council. Councilmember Surra stated she had been very hard and vocal on the expectations of Main Street,especially on the funding,but she hoped people understood she has done that as a fiscal responsibility to the city.She added when Tonya Williams was the director, she "sowed some very good seeds"in our community towards economic development in the downtown area,and she has been very pleased with Rayna Barela's development since then.She has every confidence in Rayna's ability. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated during the work session council gave him direction to prepare clauses to incorporate into the agreement.After the meeting Councilmember Hendricks asked for another clause to be prepared.The papers given to council this evening contain the clauses asked to be prepared by full council on one side, the clause requested by Councilmember Hendricks is on the other. Councilmember Durbala asked Councilmember Hendricks if he wanted both statements,and Councilmember Hendricks agreed he wanted the two original clauses discussed by council at the work session only. Councilmember Hendricks MOVED THAT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH MAIN STREET FOR FY 1996-97 IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,000 BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS TO BE ADDED TO THE BODY OF THE CONTRACT.THE FIRST ADDED SECTION IS TO READ AS FOLLOWS:THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THIS CONTRACT AT ANY TIME IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT OR VIOLATION BY MAIN STREET OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CONTRACT. CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEEM THE CONTRACT CANCELED AS OF THE DATE OF DEFAULT OR VIOLATION,AND UPON SUCH CANCELLATION,MAIN STREET SHALL HAVE NO FURTHER RIGHT TO PAYMENT OF FURTHER FUNDS.IN THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION,MAIN REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 7 OF 14 STREET SHALL BE RELIEVED FROM LIABILITY FOR SERVICES FROM AND AFTER THE DATE OF DEFAULT OR VIOLATION,AND CITY SHALL BE RELIEVED OF DUTY OF FUNDING FROM AND AFTER THE DATE OF DEFAULT OR VIOLATION.IN THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION, FUNDING SHALL BE PRORATED ON THE BASIS OF $95.89 PER DAY OVER THE FISCAL YEAR, AND ANY UNEARNED PORTION OF FUNDING ALREADY ADVANCED SHALL BE REFUNDED AND RETURNED BY MAIN STREET TO CITY.THE SECOND SECTION TO BE ADDED IS TO READ AS FOLLOWS:THE WAIVER BY,OR THE FAILURE TO TAKE ACTION WITH RESPECT TO,ANY BREACH OR VIOLATION OF ANY TERM,COVENANT,OR CONDITION OF THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A WAIVER OF SUCH TERM,COVENANT,OR CONDITION ON ANY SUBSEQUENT BREACH OR VIOLATION OF THE TERM,COVENANT,OR CONDITION. Councilmember Surra SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO.96-29, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION AND THE WATER UTILITIES COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FOR THE PROVISION OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE THERETO )City Manager Shook briefed the council on the item. Mayor Coleman opened the item to discussion from the council.There being no discussion,he called for a motion. Vice Mayor Richmond MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.96-29,A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WATER UTILITIES COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA)AND THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,FOR THE PROVISION OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES,BE APPROVED. Councilmember Urich SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. AWARD OF BID FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES FOR CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION COMMUNITY TOWN HALL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 8 OF 14 )City Manager Shook briefed the council on the item.The low bid recommended is from Partners for Strategic Action at $5,750 plus printing costs.The process takes about 8 weeks from start to finish,with the Town Hall scheduled for late October,or,more likely,early November. Mayor Coleman asked if the printing costs were known. City Manager Shook did not have a known cost,but he estimated between one thousand and fifteen hundred dollars, which is well below the next closest bid,which is approximately $9,000 higher. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion and called for a motion. Councilmember Durbala MOVED THAT THE BID FOR THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION COMMUNITY TOWN HALL BE AWARDED TO PARTNERS FOR STRATEGIC ACTION (PSA)FOR A BASE AMOUNT OF $5,750 PLUS PRINTING COSTS. Vice Mayor Richmond SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION OR ACTIONS DISCUSSION REGARDING THE BI -ANNUAL MAY AND DECEMBER CITY-WIDE TRASH PICKUP PROPOSAL )City Manager Shook briefed the council on this item.The intent is to make council aware of some of the problems encountered.They are in the process of formalizing some of the procedures.The relationship with Allied has been good,and it is expected to continue,but with the high level of material the city is bringing in,he believes they are beginning to get concerned.He requested Public Works Director Dobson and Development Services Director Harmer to talk about a couple of aspects that make it a less than effective program. Public Works Director Dobson briefed the council on the history of the program.Since the program started,they have had 9,790 requests for trash pickup.Approximately 69,172 cubic yards of trash has been removed.The last pickup was an eyeopener.We received $5,120 in fees.Allied Waste donated the dump fees,which were $20,000.Public Works costs for labor and equipment were $19,740.The actual cost to the city for the last trash pickup was $14,620 out of pocket.Because of the last two pickups,they are bringing this before council tonight.His first concern is REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 9 OF 14 the size of the piles.They averaged 12.8 cubic yards from each house.A ten -wheel dump truck is 14 cubic yards.However,the problem is not the average person,but some people who collect it.One person had 17 dump truck loads from the property,and it only cost him $10. Councilmember Hendricks asked if the house was in there. Public Works Director Dobson stated there were two houses (house trailers)in it.The next closest had 16 dump truck loads.He stated everyone has gotten smarter on the "neighborhood piles".One neighbor pays the $10 and the whole neighborhood brings over their trash.That's the second problem.The first problem was the cost to the city.With two pickups a year,the $70,000 has to come from somewhere. Another problem is refrigerators and freezers,which we are not supposed to take.This year there were 12 people with them at their piles who stated it was not their refrigerator,someone left it overnight,so the city ended up with those refrigerators.For the landfill to take the refrigerators,the freon has to me removed and it has to be certified that it was removed by a certified technician or repairman.Since no one wants to do that,they leave them in the city right-of-way.His last concern is they start getting calls to find out if it is okay to put trash out for the next pickup as early as five months before the pickup.There is trash already out there in certain locations for the December pickup.The people calling have been told not to put anything out until they see something in the paper saying it is okay to put something out. Development Services Director Harmer stated they are experiencing right-of-way dumping 3-4 months in advance of the cleanups.When everyone pays their $10 fee they are educated as to nothing being put out until two weeks prior to pickup.For people to claim they did not know does not work.They are now using code compliance officers as an educating process,but they are being met with mixed reviews.Some people acknowledge they understand,and were going to clean it up if someone came around and told them to do so,and they do.If the city had not come around, they would have left it lay there.Others are openly hostile.They had put it out for clean up,and if the city does not like it,the city can haul it away now.The city does write them up,but it is not public relations oriented.He has witnessed trucks traveling away from the landfill,stop at someone's pile and dump.He is convinced people are coming from Mesa to dump. He has sat down with others as a committee to start formulating some recommendations to bring to the council concerning possible changes in fees, possible limitations on size of pile for the single fee and where the recharge starts.He would like comments and suggestions from council on what they have witnessed and what they should be taking into account.He is also hoping the press will write an article on the problems the city is having with the pickup.People are taking advantage of the city.He is hoping those people who are understanding and more responsible will do some self -policing.Code compliance is actively pursuing the problem at this time.They are telling the people now that the date has not been set,you cannot put out trash until REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 10 OF 14 two weekends prior to the pickup,and that we don't even know if there is going to be a pickup this year. City Manager Shook stated he believes it has been a good program for the community,and he would hate to see it stopped because of a few individuals.He believes the program will be a challenge throughout the future on a cost basis,unless it is subsidized by the landfill.The committee hopes to have some suggestions when it next comes before the council. Councilmember Barker agreed she would hate to see the program lost as it is extremely beneficial.She believes restructuring the fees is a must,and a limit should be created for that fee.She suggested a fee scale. Councilmember Surra suggested having a separate appliance pickup on a different date.She commented that an empty lot,with no residence,across from her house had an entire pile for the last pickup.There obviously was no fee paid,but the city could not leave it there and it had to be picked up.She knows the city is being taken advantage of by a number of people,but the majority are well-intentioned.She does not want to see the program abandoned. Councilmember Urich suggested a cost of $10 per truckload,or,if you know you have to go back,charge them double. Public Works Director Dobson stated the large truck is 14 cubic yards per load,and average was 12.65 cubic yards. Councilmember Durbala and Public Works Director discussed the total cost per load,which was $40. Vice Mayor Richmond stated she has observed them coming in with truckloads and dumping them.She saw one household bring four pickup loads. Councilmember Surra stated she believes if we had a regular recycling program tied in with the trash pickup people might not accumulate as much. Councilmember Durbala stated a one trash pick-up company could handle the situation in this community. Development Services Director Harmer stated the problems being mentioned by the council show the differences in the community,as you have the single family -small lot versus the acre plus lots that generate tremendous amounts of trash. Councilmember Surra stated that is why the structure would have to be changed. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 11 OF 14 Development Services Director Harmer stated that was why they were reviewing the problem.They had one pile of weeds,brush and construction debris that was literally 200-300 feet long and eight feet high. City Manager Shook commented on his driving back from a meeting,seeing a huge cloud of dirt,and stopping to find a large city truck knocking down a house for an owner,for $10,and of course the owner thought it was a good deal. Mayor Coleman asked if a motion on direction was needed on this item. City Manager Shook stated they did not need a motion,they had enough feedback to attempt to begin a dialogue. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES.TIMES.LOCATIONS.AND PURPOSES Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:00 P.M.AND A WORK SESSION AT 7:00 P.M.BE HELD ON MONDAY,SEPTEMBER 30,1996,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS RESPECTIVELY;AND THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:00 P.M.BE HELD ON TUESDAY,OCTOBER 1,1996,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM. Vice Mayor Richmond SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. INFORMATION AND REPORTS Councilmember Durbala and Councilmember Urich attended the Rural Economic Development Conference and they had some excellent workshops.He brought some information back to share with the council.There is one on the Main Street Program,a loan program put on by the City of Page.There were a number of speakers about how to develop more grants.He hopes all the councilmembers can attend the conference next year in Flagstaff.He believes this is one of the best conferences he has attended for the city. Councilmember Surra stated she has had some dialogue with residents in Apache Villa who are very concerned with the flooding problems there due to poor grading on the part of the sewer district's construction of lines through their alleys.She assured them we would look in to that and have it fixed. Mayor Coleman stated he gets calls from down on Southern all the time about the problem of flooding,and we have to do something about the problem.A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 12 OF 14 public works crew went out and worked on San Marcos and that area and it all floods to one corner lot,which takes care of the problem there. ADJOURNMENT )Mayor Coleman adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m. Consent Agenda Items are as follows: 1.Acceptance of agenda. 2.Acceptance of the Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 3,1996. 3.Recognition of Outstanding Service to the Community by City Employees. ACCEPTED THIS 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER ,1996,BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA. SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER ,1996. ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk DOUGLAS CDLEMAN Mayor CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,held on the 17th day of September,1996.I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 13 OF 14 Dated this 20th day of September,1996. City Clerk // i v REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17,1996 PAGE 14 OF 14