Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12132004 . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF DECEMBER 13, 2004 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session this thirteenth day of December, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers at Building 204, Fort Worden State Park, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, and Michelle Sandoval. Freida Fenn arrived at 6:35 p.m. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, Finance Director Michael Legarsky, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Ms. Robinson made the following corrections to the minutes of December 2,2004. Page 1: Mr. Masci is listed twice, both present and absent. His name should be struck from the list of those present. Page 3: fourth paragraph from bottom, first sentence, "$24,000" changed to "$25,000" regarding payment to state parks for waiver of parking fees. Motion: Mr. Koljf moved to approve the minutes from December 2 (as corrected) December 6 and December 9, 2004. Mr. Masci seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. Ms. Fennarrived at 6:35 p.m. ORDINANCE 2888 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2005 Mr. Timmons reviewed the budget summary, and noted first reading was adopted on December 6 after a public hearing. Council continued discussion on December 9. He added that the net budget (without internal transfers) totals $25,681,000 and that $12 million (roughly half) ofthat total is for capital expenditures. . City Council Special Business Meeting Page 1 December 13, 2004 Public comment: . Nora Porter: spoke in favor of continued funding for Fort Worden parking fees; stated that continued lobbying will take place to attempt to convince the legislature to exempt Fort Worden from parking fees in the future. She added that the Fort Worden Advisory Committee is working on a business plan for Fort Worden. Bill Medlicott: former L T AC Committee member stated that the Ft. Worden Advisory Parking Subcommittee has done little to raise funds to defray parking costs except ask for money from the City and County. He stated that this is an inappropriate use ofLTAC funds which should be used to put "heads in beds." He added that those renting accommodations or attending functions at the Park do not have to pay parking fees; nor do those parking around the parade ground. He added that passes may be earned for volunteer hours at Fort Worden. He stated the City budget is scraping the bottom ofthe barrel and he does not support using City funds for this purpose. . Bob Sokol: stated he was appalled to learn there is an attempt to raid L T AC reserves for Fort Worden parking fees; he stated that the reserve is similar to banked capacity and is targeted for special needs in the future. He added there is not unanimous support for free parking on the Ft. Worden Advisory Committee and the proponents have not made a clear case for using public money. The number of visitors to Fort Worden has been increased by the addition of the Commons and the many people (Rotary, Chamber, etc.) who attend meetings there - not because there is free parking. He added that expanding the City and county economy will do far more to increase jobs than providing free parking at Fort Worden. He said the LTAC reserves are not a toy box full of money for City Council members to play in. Motion: Mr. Koljfmovedfor adoption of Ordinance 2888 with the following amendments: General Fund money not be used for funding $5,000 for EDC or for Fort Worden parking ($25,000); the resulting $30,000 savings would be left in the Council's budget for consideration some time in the beginning of 2005 and that the appropriation for the Lodging Taxfunding be increased by $20,000 earmarked specifically to pay for Fort Worden parking during the year 2005. Ms. Robinson seconded. Mr. Kolff stated he appreciates the information some Councilors brought from the County Health Department and Jeffco Community Network. He believes these are worthy of consideration next year and added that anything that involves the County as a partner should wait until the new Commissioners are seated and we can look at how we can collaborate and what an appropriate contribution would be. He referred to material in the packet included by Mr. Watts that reconfirms the opinion from the State Auditor clarifying that the use of L T AC funding for the purpose of in-lieu parking contribution is consistent with the intent of the legislation concerning the use of these funds. In answer to Ms. Fenn's question, Mr. Kolff confirmed that the intent of his motion is that funding of$25,OOO will still be earmarked in the budget for Fort Worden Parking but . City Council Special Business Meeting Page 2 December 13, 2004 . that amount of expenditure would be added to the General Fund and paid from the L T AC fund. Mr. Timmons stated that the City signed a contractual agreement to provide $25,000 per year in support of free parking out of the total cost of $65,000 per year, leaving $40,000 to come from other sources. The first year it was funded from the General Fund with the condition that if a shortfall from other sources occurred, up to $5,000 would be taken from L T AC. The Council previously voted to increase this contribution by an additional $1,363 from the General Fund in 2004 to make up for higher than anticipated shortfall. Ms. Fenn asked for clarification that the motion is to move the $25,000 for parking into the council contingency and in effect pay it out of the L T AC fund - from reserves if necessary. Mr. Kolff stated his motion gives L T AC the authority to spend $20,000 over what is listed in their appropriation; they can do all the programs currently budgeted and when they come to the Fort Worden parking requirements as set by Council they would use any money remaining in their budget or tap their reserves. . Mr. Timmons stated this is a matter of semantics; this would draw from the L T AC fund reserves to make up the difference between the currently set revenues and expenditures in the LTAC fund. Based on this year and income in the form of the back payments from the state, the LTAC fund balance is approximately $149,000 based on what we know today; the motion would reduce that by $20,000. Mrs. Medlicott asked ifthis would leave the $25,000 in the General Fund budget designated for the City's agreed-upon amount for Fort Worden parking, and instead of making that expenditure, the money would be appropriated from L T AC reserves, leaving the $25,000 appropriation in General Fund monies. Ms. Robinson noted that the $25,000 would be designated to the Council's 2005 budget, and would not be free floating in the General Fund. Mrs. Medlicott stated this has not been discussed with the L T AC Advisory Committee and has not been recommended within their budget for 2005. She stated she vehemently opposes Council action to direct L T AC to go into their reserves, which are by definition for emergency expenditures and were used for increased marketing after 9/11, and which funds are now scrupulously guarded for Hood Canal Bridge repair mitigation. She stated that the motion suggests that the Council ignore the L T AC Advisory Committee and by Council decision take this from L T AC reserves. Ms. Robinson asked for clarification on whether Council is required to send proposals regarding L T AC funds to the L T AC Committee for a recommendation at least 45 days ahead of the final decision. . City Council Special Business Meeting Page 3 December 13, 2004 . Mr. Watts stated that the state legislature did require that LTAC advisory committees be established and that they make recommendations prior to expenditure by the City Council. The question is whether L T AC has made a recommendation that the Council can act upon. He said when L T AC submits a proposal to the City Council - which they have done by recommending an LTAC budget - their recommendation is not binding on the Council but is their recommendation on how the budget should be set. The question is whether Council should send this back again. L T AC doesn't have a veto or authority to spend money, only to make recommendations. Council could send this specific proposal back to L T AC - then state law gives L T AC 45 days in which to act; they can recommend either way and then the Council could take action on that recommendation. He stated that remanding this issue to the LTAC is best practice, and would avoid the legal issue and would also respect the work of the committee. Mr. Benskin stated that this would remove the dilemma of spending General Fund money for Fort Worden parking and would be an opportunity to reduce expenditures from the General Fund. He stated he is listening to concerns about L T AC not having due process in this matter. He suggested that since some other items are coming back for further discussion in February, the budget could be approved with the caveat that this issue goes to LTAC for its consideration and recommendation. He added that if the general amount of money available is set, the Council can discuss later the specific expenditures to non- profits and at the same time consider the recommendation from L T AC in regard to parking money. . Ms. Sandoval stated she would rather list discussion items that everyone has regarding budget items and do a round robin on each item because the public is confused enough; she would also like an opportunity to point out this evening what is missing from the budget so the public understands this is not a fully funded budget. Amendment: Mr. Benskin proposed an amendment that the LTAC committee be requested to review anßxpenditure of$20, 000 out of their appropriation for Fort Worden parking and to report back to the Council after their January meeting and make any required adjustment to the budget at that time. Mr. Koljf seconded. The motion carried, 4-3, with Masci, Medlicott and Sandoval opposed. Ms. Fenn stated that the Transportation Committee's recommendation for the base street fund was $399,000 and the amount listed is now $170,000 more than that. She wonders if there might not be money better spent. She stated an alternative for that funding would be to add money to the capital facilities budget for a sprinkler system in City Council Chambers. Mr. Clow stated that there is funding of $42,000 for a sprinkler system for the basement and first floor which was an additive item in the bid process. This did not include piping for the second floor; he stated that the City's intent is to negotiate with the contractor during the construction process. A rough idea of cost would be $50,000. . City Council Special Business Meeting Page 4 December 13, 2004 . Ms. Fenn suggested that $50,000 be transferred from the Street Fund to the City Hall project. She stated she is also concerned about the $750,000 shortfall for the City Hall/Annex project. She stated that the City needs to get the Transportation Plan written before more money is put into the street fund. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved to transfer $85,000 from the $170,000 street fund allocation to the City Hall capital fund, specifically for piping on the second floor and other renovations to help fund the shorifall. Mr. Koljf seconded. Mr. Benskin stated he heard last week that the sprinkler system was in the budget. Mr. Timmons replied that the discussion centered around the fact that there were value engineering items the City wanted to trade for that but there wasn't a specific number for putting that second floor pipe in and a specific cost estimate hasn't been made. He added that the big issue in cost is not so much the asbestos abatement plan and ceiling removal but the cost to restore the plaster finish. . Mr. Masci stated that the street fund is a state mandated subject; he appreciates the consternation about the $750,000 shortfall for City Hall/Annex but does not believe funding should be transferred. He stated there are citizens in this town who think it will be a nicer, calmer town if we keep the potholes. He stated this is a somewhat nearsighted view as far as public requirements are concerned. He said that to raid the Street Fund as other councils have done is convenient, just like raiding L T AC funds. He added that large amount of money are needed to keep the streets up to snuff; he hates this idea because the administration is finally allocating funding for streets, but just in this process it has gone from $300,000 for projects to $170,000. He stated that this is wrong and if money can be found it should come from some other program, as the people want the streets fixed. Ms. Sandoval stated her intention to vote against all proposed amendments when the Council hasn't had a full discussion of what's on the table. She stated that it is impossible to know what the total effect of all amendments will be as she doesn't know what is on everyone's list. She added if she could hear all proposed changes she could determine where to go with each amendment. Ms. Robinson stated the Council had the opportunity to deliberate last week and no one brought any issues forward except for getting stuck on the allocation of the $5,000 which had been designated for EDC; she stated it seemed the Council was in general agreement and were just going around about that issue. Mrs. Medlicott expressed agreement with Mr. Sandoval, saying none of this has come up for discussion before and these appear to be last minute personal wishes; she will also vote against any amendments. Vote on motion to amend ($85,000 from Street Fund toward City Hall) failed, 1-6, by voice vote with Fenn in favor. . City Council Special Business Meeting Page 5 December 13, 2004 . Mr. Masci stated this is what always happens, that the crux of the matter is to balance the checkbook and the Council is arguing about methodologies. He spoke against raiding L T AC funds; he stated money needs to be found for many worthwhile programs, but he will not support reallocation in a shell game to get L T AC money into the General Fund. He stated that the state should have to pay penalties interest and fines on the money they mistakenly held back from the City related to Fort Worden taxes. He noted another $132,000 in funding will be available because of new construction in 2005 and that although $70,000 must stay in the Utility Fund, $62,000 can be allocated to cover some of this. He stated he understands the Council will be massaging the budget over the next couple of months, but the current discussions are forcing him not to support the budget, as he does not like last minute conditions. Ms. Sandoval referred to the information provided regarding L T AC funding asked for a clarification that this money can be allocated to anything that supports tourist activities. Mr. Watts stated that in a 1998 amendment by the state legislature, the requirement that tourism promotion could only be used to promote overnight visits was repealed by the legislation. The current law is that L T AC money may be used for two broad categories: tourist related facilities, and tourism promotion. He stated the term tourism promotion is very broad and no longer limited to advertising for overnight guests; that is why the State Auditor said that using the LTAC dollars for payment of in lieu of parking fees is a legitimate use because parking fees support and promote tourist activity in the Port Townsend area. . Ms. Sandoval stated that in the end the Council makes the decision and funds can be used for parking, not specifically for heads in beds so should not be categorized that way. She stated she is uncomfortable extending the City's participation much farther but nevertheless as a Council member she has committed to the time frame of the contract. She added that the City has a park plan they barely fund and so for $25,000 the City in essence gets another park; she also added that she will stand behind the contract because if parking fees are not subsidized, the impact to the neighborhood will be severe. She asked Mr. Clow to estimate an upper limit of funding within which the City can get all the work associated with that funding completed in a year. Mr. Clow stated that given the projects currently planned, he believes the staff can execute up to $250,000 worth of street work. This would include asphalt, chip seal, and tiering. An additional $180,000 over the $170,000 is reasonable. Mr. Clow clarified that the about $400,000 of the street budget is base operations and maintenance; the $l70,000 is additional and is the amount dedicated to street improvement projects. Mr. Timmons added that one of the streets programmed for the $170,000 is behind Henery's, asphalt must be done now to coincide with the sidewalk. There is a $65,000 project from McDonald's to Sims Way. He added there is also a tier match proposal with . City Council Special Business Meeting Page 6 December 13, 2004 . Jim McCarron to do side streets and additional paving at the same time his project is paved. He noted that part of the $170,000 is set aside for tier match. Mr. Sandoval stated she would support Arts Commission as proposed in the preliminary budget. She also added she is not opposed to funding drug education but it seems that the Council is going in the opposite direction of adding spending rather than subtracting, particularly when there has been no request. Mrs. Medlicott stated she wishes to clarify that she is totally in support of subsidizing parking at Fort Worden but believes there are many vehicles for doing this that do not tap municipal funding. Vote on motion as amended (to hold $30,000 in the Council budget from proposed EDC and Fort Worden parking allocation, and request LTAC recommendation on $20,000 LTAC allocation for Fort Worden parking): motion carried, 4-3, by roll call vote, Masci, Medlicott and Robinson opposed. RECESS Mayor Robinson declared a recess at 8: 1 0 p.m. for the purpose of a break. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 8:25 p.m. . ORDINANCE 2884 AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING THE SUM OF $511,972 TO THE GENERAL FUND; $58,654 TO THE STREET FUND; $758,200 TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND; $407,269 TO THE WATER/SEWER FUND; $139,227 TO THE EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND; $7,000 TO THE FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND; AND MAKING FINDINGS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY Finance Director Michael Legarsky stated that the ordinance has not changed since Council passed the first reading on November 22,2004. There was no public comment. Motion: Mr. Koljfmovedfor adoption of Ordinance 2884. Mr. Masci seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by roll call vote RESOLUTION 04-063 . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH CERTAIN GOVERNMENTAL, NONPROFITS AND OTHER ENTITIES CONSISTENT WITH FISCAL YEAR 2005 APPROVED BUDGET City Council Special Business Meeting Page 7 December 13, 2004 · Mr. Timmons reviewed the packet material, noting that that authorization for other contracts will be brought forward after the first of the year. A typographical error was noted, and Main Street funding will be removed from under the "Lodging Tax" heading. Motion: Ms. Fenn moved for approval of Resolution 04-063. Mr. Masci seconded. Friendly amendment to correct typo by Mr. Benskin accepted. Motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. RESOLUTION 04-064 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, TO PARTICIPATE IN A DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Mr. Timmons stated that the City has been invited to participate in a deferred compensation program with the Washington State Department of Retirement Systems; there is no employer match requirement and no cost to the City to offer this plan and will give employees a choice of deferred compensation plans. Motion: Mr. Masci moved for approval of Resolution 04-064. Mr. Benskin seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. · RESOLUTION 04-065 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH JEFFERSON COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO.6 FOR JOINT OPERATIONS UNDER THE COMMAND OF THE FIRE CHIEF Mr. Timmons stated that the District #6 attorney has reviewed the draft contract in the council packet and suggested changes and a new draft incorporating those changes has been distributed to the Council this evening. Mr. Watts stated that three of the four changes could be considered as minor, or housekeeping changes. The substantive change is the change from shared liability to a mutual hold/harmless clause, with each side responsible for their own negligence. He also stated that this is a reasonable change and staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute the contract in substantially the form ofthe 12/13/04 draft. Motion: Mr. Masci moved for approval of Resolution 04-065. Mr. Koljf seconded. · Fire Chief Mingee clarified the boundaries of District 6 in answer to Ms. Fenn's question. She then asked whether the proposed site of the County's industrial park on the southern side of the airport is within the boundary. Mr. Timmons stated he believes that acreage City Council Special Business Meeting Page 8 December 13, 2004 . does fall within District 6. Chief Mingee stated that a portion may be bisected by District #1. Ms. Fenn asked if District 6 were already staffed at levels to serve industrial areas like Glen Cove. Chief Mingee stated that there is one staff firefighter at the station every day until 7 p.m. and after that, they depend on volunteers. He stated he does not believe there have been provisions made within the department in anticipation of development of an industrial area. Ms. Fenn asked about the length of the trial period specified in the proposed contract. Chief Mingee replied that the length is one year, with a provision that by September 30 there will be a recommendation from the joint board as to whether or not to proceed further. Ms. Fenn asked if fire districts are considered an urban level of service under GMA planning. Mr. Watts stated that urban level of service is not a term defined by GMA but that levels of service are to be determined by the various municipalities required to plan for GMA. The requirement is that to designate a UGA there must be adequate provision for various GMA planning goals and how those levels are provided can be by fire districts, special purpose districts, etc. . Mr. Timmons stated that in looking at a fire district, the determination of whether an urban rather than a rural level of service is provided would be in the context of the apparatus used by different units - apparatus used to fight a house fire would be different from apparatus needed for a fire at Safeway or the Paper Mill. He stated that there is an index for various levels of fire service. Ms. Fenn stated she is inclined to support the motion but is worried that an attempt to merge or consolidate the two departments could be leading us in the direction of industrial and urban growth outside the UGA of Port Townsend and the newly designated UGAs in Port Hadlock. She does not think the City should support a violation of GMA planning to support a land bank or designation of industrial uses on the 80 acres south of the airport. She will be considering this issue over the course of the contract next year. In answer to Ms. Sandoval's question, Mr. Watts explained that the initial proposal for shared liability no matter which party was at fault has been changed at the request of Fire District #6's attorney who felt that since Port Townsend has considerably more employees, the chance for Port Townsend to be responsible for liability is greater than that of the District's. The way the contract reads, whichever party creates the liability, that party's insurance would be responsible. Vote: the motion carried unanimously, 7-0, by voice vote. . City Council Special Business Meeting Page 9 December 13, 2004 . TAPPER HOME OCCUPATION DIRECTOR'S APPEAL Mr. Masci recused himself from the matter as a former owner of the property. Ms. Sandoval recused herself as a former real estate representative ofthe Tappers. Mr. Masci and Ms. Sandoval left the room. Mr. Watts noted that the matter is before the Council in connection with an appeal to the City Council of a Director's Interpretation of the City's home occupation code. Recommended action is to refer the matter to the City Hearing Examiner for purposes of conducting a hearing, and making a recommended decision to the Council, with Council making a final decision based on the record developed before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Watts added that he has a close relationship with one party and will not be advising the Council in any way on the legal merits of the case. Public comment Dr. Bruce Tapper spoke in support of sending the issue to the Hearing Examiner; he added that he hopes the issue of grandfathering land use can be extended one year past the time of the decision because of the difficult of being able to sell the property without the issue being resolved. . In answer to Mr. Benskin's question, Mr. Watts outlined the process, stating that if the Council adopts the process, the file will be transferred to the Hearing Examiner and he is available to hear it expeditiously and has indicated he would probably schedule a pre- hearing conference for purposes of setting a schedule, and fleshing out the issues. Next, the parties would come before the Hearing Examiner and he would hear evidence presented by the parties, a process that could take an entire day. He would then prepare a recommended decision based on what he hears, summarize testimony and relate the evidence to the legal issues. The recommended decision would come back to the Council with the file and Council could determine whether they wished to adopt the opinion, alter it, or send it back to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Benskin asked for an opinion about the extension of the grandfathered period. Mr. Watts stated that Council doesn't have the authority to do that without a Code amendment and no such amendment is before the Council; a proposed amendment would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission first. He added that Dr. Tapper is free to make that request before the Hearing Examiner and, if it is included in the recommendation, Council could either adopt interim regulations or, if there is time, go forward with the Code revision. . Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to refer the matter of the Tapper appeal to the Hearing Examiner for fact-finding hearing, report and recommendation to the City Council; following Hearing Examiner recommendation, parties may submit written argument only to Council addressing Hearing Examiner recommendation, and Council makes a final decision. Ms. Robinson seconded. City Council Special Business Meeting Page 10 December 13, 2004 . Ms. Fenn asked about the comparative costs. Mr. Watts stated the Hearing Examiner's hourly rate is about $50/hour and estimated that 10-15 hours would be billed; the cost is borne by the City, offset partially by the appeal fee ($200). Because Mr. Watts will not be advising the Council, if the Council were to hear the appeal, an attorney would be hired for that purpose, and the rate would be about $250/hour. Ms. Robinson stated that she talked with Mr. Watts when the issue came up as a Council agenda item and he encouraged referring the matter to the Hearing Examiner for fact finding; she believes it is a potentially politicized matter and that it would behoove the Council to get an outside fact finder. Mr. Kolff asked if the question of the appeal has to do with the grandfathering of number of visits and type of practice as opposed to whether the current owners have the property as their residence as well as their home occupation. Mr. Watts stated there are a number of issue involved, including whether a grandfathered use established by Geoff Masci before the Code change, whether that transferred to the successor and also whether or not a grandfathered use was lost by the successor as a result of claimed discontinuance for a period of one year or more. Mr. Kolff asked if there is a question as to whether the Tappers actually live in the home. . Mr. Watts stated it is clear they don't live there now but in order to lose a nonconforming use you have to have discontinued the use for 365 days so one of the appeal points is whether that has been lost by them not living there. Mr. Timmons stated that because there are differences of opinion on many issues, that the Hearing Examiner can gather facts; Council's decision would be similar to a closed record hearing. Ms. Fenn asked ifthe matter did not involve the Hearing Examiner, what would be the process of fact finding and presentation to the Council. Mr. Watts noted that the process would be an evidentiary hearing before the Council; the council would hear arguments from both sides and have to render an opinion and determination. Mr. Timmons noted that the Hearing Examiner would be much more cost effective than having an attorney sitting in throughout the hearing at $250 per hour. Mr. Benskin stated that he believes turning this over to the Hearing Examiner is a good idea; he noted that he has participated in some of Mr. Good's decisions and that he is thoughtful, thorough, and very fair. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 5-0, by voice vote. . City Council Special Business Meeting Page II December 13, 2004 . . . FUTURE MEETINGS Motion: Mr. Masci moved to approve that the balance of December Council meetings are cancelled and the new temporary location of Council meetings shall be the Cedar Room in the basement of the Waterman & Katz Building. Mr. Benskin seconded. Mrs. Medlicott asked what the cost would be to the City of vacating the Fort Worden reservations for 2005. Ms. Kolacy replied that a cancellation fee might apply; maximum cost would be about $120. Vote: motion carried, 6-1, by voice vote, Fenn opposed. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Attest: ~~~ City Clerk City Council Special Business Meeting Page 12 December 13, 2004