Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032006 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF MARCH 20, 2006 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in regular session this twentieth day of March 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers in the Port Townsend Fire Station conference room, Mayor Mark Welch presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson, Scott Walker and Mark Welch. Geoff Masci was absent. Michelle Sandoval arrived at 6:34. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Public Works Director Ken Clow, Police Chief Conner Daily, Legal Assistant Joanna Sanders. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA The agenda was reformatted moving item IX. G Potential Surplus Property forward in the agenda due to the number of public in attendance. INTRODUCTION Chief Daily introduced and welcomed new police officer, Jason Avery. He also acknowledged Kay Pownall with a 10-year service pin for her work with the Police Department and announced she recently received her evidence handling certification. PUBLIC COMMENT (Consent and non-agenda items) Darlene and Steve Durfee thanked Council for encouraging the Navy to hold public forums and spoke of her concerns of the military's continued use of depleted uranium in military munitions. Joined by others from the Port Townsend Raging Grannies, they sang a song about health and safety concerns to neighboring communities because of Navy activities on Indian Island. They made available to the Council printed information and a CD with presentations on the topic of depleted uranium. Barbara McColgan Pastore, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, informed Council of the Board's interest in independently raising roughly $30K in City Councii Business Meeting Page 1 March 20, 2006 unbudgeted funds to finish the landscaping at Haller Fountain as a memorial for Steve Corrao She distributed to Council copies of her March 6, 2006 correspondence to Mayor Welch. She asked for Council's endorsement of their efforts. CONSENT AGENDA Motion: Ms. Robinson moved to adopt the following items on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Benskin seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. A. Approval of Bills, Claims and Warrants Vouchers 97229 through 97404 in the amount of $411 ,513.24 Vouchers 320061 through 320069 in the amount of $95,241.83 B. Approval of Minutes: February 27, 2006 March 6, 2006 NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTION NO. 06-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, FIXING THE TIME FOR HEARING ON A PETITION FOR A STREET VACATION Ms. Sandoval disclosed that Tim and Janice Hodge purchased their house from her and they continue to be her clients. She stated that she would not stand to benefit if the street vacation were to go through. City Attorney John Watts noted that this item is before Council to set a proposed hearing date of April 17, 2006. Motion: Ms. Robinson moved to approve Resolution 06-006, fixing the Time for Hearing on a Petition for a Street Vacation. Mr. Walker seconded. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. INTERLOCAL JAIL CONTRACT City Manager provided background on rising jail and medical costs for inmates and the task of the Police Department to begin to look at alternatives to manage and monitor these costs. Sergeant Ed Green explained efforts to explore alternatives to utilizing the Jefferson County Jail for housing misdemeanor inmates. He distributed a chart of 2005 inmate City Council Business Meeting Page 2 March 20, 2006 costs for those arrestees sentenced to Jefferson County jail and encouraged Council to consider this cost saving measure. Ms. Sandoval asked if there had been negotiations with the County andlor Sheriff Brasfield regarding a move to a base rate, how long the rate with Chelan would be set, and if there had been discussions with the County on whether this change would drive up the short-term rates. Mr. Timmons explained that while there have been discussions with Sheriff Brasfield, it is the County Administrator who has control over setting the rates. He noted that the courts have been aggressive in setting the maximum penalty, so that the cost difference in housing one person alone over the year is about $10,000. This is another option for the department to consider in addition to home jailing. There has been Council discussion about the need for a better audit trail and incorporating this into the interlocal agreement with the County. Sergeant Green spoke about the current auditing efforts by the department. He noted the County jail has space restrictions, which could be eased by sending long- term arrestees to Chelan County. The terms of an agreement with Chelan County would be negotiable. The County indicated this change might end up driving up the rates, but it is uncertain how much. Mr. Benskin asked about the variation in the estimated savings. He also asked about transportation costs to and from Chelan County. Sergeant Green responded that the savings is $23.12 per person per day multiplied by the number of days sentenced. The transportation costs would be included in the per day fee. Mr. Walker asked whether there would be any savings for not charging the $1 Olday for electronic home monitoring equipment. He also asked whether housing prisoners in Chelan would make family visits more difficult. Mr. Green said the jail controls the rental of the electronic home monitoring. The judge and attorneys determine who qualify to use the equipment, so the City isn't involved. Regarding family visits, there are quite a few visitorslfamily visits, but the jail would not disclose of the number of visits. He estimates there would be a dozen or fewer inmates in long-term housing. Referring to Sheriff Brasfield's e-mail asincludedinthepacket.Ms. Robinson asked about the reference to an increase in cost of PT bookings. Mr. Green indicated that there is currently no booking charge or charges for other incidental expenses, although the Sheriff has the authority to charge for such expenses. Mr. Timmons clarified that in looking at jail costs and bookings, the vast majority are DUls because the City is only dealing with the misdemeanor offense requiring two to three days in jail. The City is looking at potential savings on the smaller percentage of inmates that are costing the community money. City Council Business Meeting Page 3 March 20, 2006 Mrs. Medlicott asked about additional unanticipated charges such as for City staff transportation to Chelan. Mr. Green restated that inmate transportation costs are included. Only in special circumstances would the City incur additional transportation costs. Mr. Welch asked if this arrangement with Chelan County would preclude the City from using Jefferson County. Sgt. Green said he would encourage the City to maintain the Jefferson County contract if it elects to use the local facility. Public Comment: There was none. Mr. Benskin said he believes the suggested action is premature and that this matter should be referred to Public Safety Committee for further review and consideration as well as returning to Council with a contract. Motion: Mr. Benskin moved to refer this matter of an interlocal agreement with other agencies for housing jail prisoners to the Public Safety Committee. Mr. Walker seconded. Ms. Robinson agreed with Mr. Walker that family visits and a support network is important when faced with crisis and contemplating change. Moving inmates out of the community can be harmful, but can also be helpful. She is willing to support this effort as simply an additional option. Ms. Sandoval agreed this action is premature, but does not believe this matter is ready to go to committee. She too sees this as an option the City Manager is exploring to control costs. While she applauds the concept, she would rather leave it to the City Manager to have further discussions with County Administrator about setting the rates and find out what might happen to the City's base costs. Mrs. Medlicott pointed out that this matter was already before the Council General Government committee and has now come back to Council. She would not support this matter going back to committee. Mr. Walker said it would seem that Mr. Timmons could address these questions through the Public Safety Committee rather than full Council. Vote on Motion: The motion failed, 2-4, by voice vote. Mrs. Medlicott, Ms. Robinson, Ms. Sandoval, and Mr. Welch voting against. Motion: Mrs. Medlicott moved to authorize the City Manager to execute Interlocal Agreements with other agencies for housing jail prisoners. Ms. Robinson seconded. Ms. Sandoval continued to express concern that this action to authorize City Manager is premature until there are further discussions with the County City Councii Business Meeting Page 4 March 20, 2006 Administrator about shared jail expenses. There is not yet a clear idea of what would happen to the base rate or the term of the contract with Chelan. Mr. Timmons responded that the point of contact has been the County Administrator and he has relied on him to share this information as is appropriate within the County. He met with Mr. Fischbach and Alan Sartin about interlocal agreements. This year, the City agreed to produce the interlocal agreements and they were delivered to John Fischbach to initiate the discussions. The County sets the rates and the formulas and they proposed the base rate plus to arrive at the fixed cost of operating the jail. Because the courts set the jail time and have become more and more strict, the City began to look at this option because it was not getting the desired response from the County. This option with Chelan would be used on a discretionary basis. The County could also counter offer and we could use this as an additional tool in determining the best approach for dealing with the individual prisoner. He mentioned potential legislation that would allow a court to charge a prisoner for the cost. Ms. Robinson proposed an amendment to the motion to include tasking the City Manager to continue to engage in dialog with the County. Her request is to make it clear and upfront that there is a desire for continuing dialog, not that she was implying the City Manager was not doing his job. AMENDED MOTION: Mrs. Medlicott accepted the amendment to authorize the City Manager to execute Interlocal Agreements with other agencies for housing jail prisoners and urge the City Manager to continue to engage in dialog with the County on a rate structure. Mr. Walker continued to express concern about the negative effects of removing long-term misdemeanor inmates from this County. Mr. Welch said he believes it is important to support this motion, which does not obligate the City to contract with Chelan. He thinks it is appropriate for the Public Safety Committee to look at some of these options. Mr. Timmons agreed to add this as an item to track with the Public Safety Committee. Vote on Motion: The motion carried 4-2, by voice vote, with Mr. Walker and Mr. Benskin voting against. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES DEFERRAL AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2910, AMENDING SECTION 13.03.110 OF THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DEFERRAL OF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE DEFERRALS City Attorney John Watts briefed Council on the potential change to Ordinance 2910 which would enact amendments to the System Development Charge program for low income persons. The changes were outlined in the material provided in the City Councii Business Meeting Page 5 March 20, 2006 packet. It is expected there would be no more than 3-4 deferrals a year, which would amount to a General Fund contribution of around $20K for deferrals. If the original home buyer stays in the house for 10 years, then after ten years the program would not require repayment. Also, if the original buyer sells to a qualifying buyer, within 10 years, the deferral would stay in affect. Only if the house were sold outside of a low- income eligible person, would the City recover the deferred SDC without interest. The Community Development and Land Use Committee recommended this proposal and the Council approved first reading of the Ordinance last fall. Mr. Walker noted that this would require an individual to go through an organization. Mr. Watts agreed that a single owner would not qualify, because the 501 (c)3 nonprofit is the applying agency and also does the eligibility qualification. Mrs. Medlicott asked about the possibility of raising, but not removing the $15K per year City maximum. Mr. Timmons responded that system development charges would have a budget impact, but it would be manageable. The limit was set somewhat arbitrarily, but it is not believed to be a detrimental budget impact. There was no public comment. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved for second reading and approval of Ordinance 2910, amending Section 13.03. 110 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code Relating to Deferral of System Development Charge Deferrals. Ms. Robinson seconded the motion. Ms. Sandoval noted that she and Mr. Benskin sat on the Community Development and Land Use Committee and they believe that the City needs to take action on the issue of affordable housing. She hopes there are more applications. Mr. Benskin commented that the City is not set up to do the eligibility qualification, so the agency performs this important function. Vote on Motion: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. POTENTIAL SURPLUS PROPERTY (APPROXIMATELY 1.4 ACRES CONSISTING OF TAX LOT 84 AND REMANT OF TAX LOT 63 LOCATED EAST OF WALKER STREET ACROSS FROM THE GOLF COURSE AND ADJACENT TO GRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH) Mr. Timmons reviewed the material provided in the agenda packet. The City would need to do more due diligence and get Council authorization before moving forward with the title review, current survey, resolving conflicts with current uses and access issues, obtaining an appraisal, etc. He recognized there might also be an opportunity to work with adjacent property owners on a resolution of their impacts. Council's acceptance of the recommendation would only put this item into the City's work plan. City Councii Business Meeting Page 6 March 20, 2006 He distributed to Council an aerial photograph of the area. The largest impact from the property is the church. Mr. Walker asked how the City acquired these parcels. Mr. Timmons noted that this is one reason a title search is needed. Mark Dembro, President of Grace Lutheran Church, said members are asking Councilors to vote against this motion. He spoke of their care of this land, which has extensive and multiple public uses. They are not asking for any special permission for parking. He asked how a surplus of this property would fit with the proposed use of "for municipal purposes only." Given the public use of the land, he encouraged saving the City staff time and the public money by not surplusing this land for private development. Bruce Cowan, owner in Block 35 of Webster's Addition, said that while he and his wife are not against the golf course improvements, this land serves valuable public functions. He noted that Cherry Street encroaches on the potential surplus property and there is space for bike lanes, sidewalks and providing further public pathways. He spoke against City Council taking action. If so, he asked that they not spend a lot of money on an expensive appraisal and consider all current and proposed uses. He suggested Council consider other possible funding. Harold Rogers, of 211 Willow, spoke about leaving this area without further development. If it is sold, it should not be sold to a developer, but to those in the area. Jack Hutton, who owns adjacent rental property, believes the property should be left as it is. The most charming areas of Port Townsend are the green spaces. A sale of the property would cause a termination of Cass Street and the church would have to come through Cass to get to their parking lot. There was no further public comment. Ms. Robinson asked about restricted use of the property as mentioned. Mr. Timmons said this would be part of the discovery mentioned earlier. The points made by property owners are good and require further consideration. Ms. Robinson asked what would minimally be required to do further investigations and proposed an investigation of the restricted uses is what she would propose. Mr. Walker suggested an investigation of current uses and perhaps doing more brainstorming of the potential public uses on this property. Mr. Benskin agreed with Ms. Robinson and Mr. Walker. He wonders why this is before Council without some title work. He would support continuing the community use and would like more information about the property before the City begins any sort of process. City Council Business Meeting Page 7 March 20, 2006 Mrs. Medlicott asked to see minutes and be able to read about Council action a year ago. Her recollection is that the action was to surplus the property using proceeds for infrastructure needs at the golf course. Mr. Timmons noted that the Council voted to accept and approve the Committee's recommendations in total but the surplusing of property was discussed as a separate item. The first priority was the Golf Course lease. The reason this item is coming back is because this item is not currently included in this year's Staff work plan. Ms. Sandoval recognized Council approved the previous recommendation by the Task Force. She believes that in the best of both worlds that this is best left as open space and left alone. Because of the needs for funds for the golf course, and the need for parks and open space, street improvements, etc., the community as a whole will have to understand and look at all of our priorities, one of which is open space. She suggested breaking this apart and doing a preliminary investigation including a title review. Also believes there might be an opportunity for win-win by looking at options such as not surplusing the whole piece, but just one buildable lot. A sale of even one lot might provide funding for golf course capital expenditures. Ms. Robinson asked a clarifying question about top tax parcel 1 05. Mr. Timmons provided further explanation that this portion should probably be designated as a right of way. He noted that the property is zoned residential. Mr. Welch said his concern is that with the lack of information there also comes a certain amount of vulnerability. He would support doing preliminary research on deed restrictions, etc. Mr. Walker is concerned that the Task Force recommended selling capital assets for improvements, but believes this should comes from generating revenues at the golf course. He is uncertain why this action should only benefit the golf course. Mrs. Medlicott said since there is concern about incurring costs, she asked for the estimated cost of obtaining an appraisal. Mr. Timmons said he would not recommend a $2-3K appraisal, until Staff finishes due diligence on the future use of property. Because of the significant number of issues, he wants to make sure Council concurs before we start allocating time and resources. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to task Staff with investigating the title and potential deed restrictions on this property and bringing this information, including the cost of survey, cost of the appraisal, and the cost and time frame of a short plat if we decide to create one lot as opposed to selling one piece of property. Ms. Robinson seconded. The motion carried, 5-1, by voice vote with Mr. Benskin voting against. RECESS Mayor Welch called a recess at 8: 15 for the purpose of a break. City Council Business Meeting Page 8 March 20, 2006 RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 8:25 p.m. RESOLUTION 06-007, AUTHORIZING INTERFUND LOAN TO THE FIRE AND EMS FUND FROM THE EQUIPMENT RENTAL REVOLVING FUND Mr. Timmons and Finance Director Michael Legarsky reviewed the packet materials and explained fund reserves and the use of interfund loan transfers. He also provided an explanation of the function of the Equipment Rental Revolving (ERR) Fund, which covers the rolling stock of fire trucks, dump trucks, and all vehicles the City owns. Each department rents the piece of the equipment to the user fund, which puts money into the ERR fund for future purchases. Ms. Sandoval asked about the relationship between this and the next agenda item. Mr. Legarsky said the Interfund Loan is large enough so that the next item on the subject of the ERR Fund would not significantly impact the fiscal nature of the fund. Staff would not do anything to jeopardize the ERR fund. Ms. Robinson asked about the need for these expenditures. Mr. Timmons and Mr. Legarsky responded that the expenses to be covered are part of the costs of the Fire Station building and maintenance costs, including the antennae, which was part of Council's approval of supplemental budget. Mrs. Medlicott asked if this would impact the timing of fire district consolidation. Mr. Legarsky responded that this transfer has nothing to do with the fire district operations. It is strictly a cash flow issue. Mr. Timmons stated the goal is to begin to bring the remaining district consolidation issues before Council in June (transfer of equipment, lease of the building, payroll and personnel issues). Mr. Welch asked what the options are to approving this action - not paying the bill or going for a bank loan, which Mr. Timmons confirmed. Motion: Mr. Walker moved to approve Resolution 06-007, Authorizing Interfund Loan to the Fire and EMS Fund from the Equipment Rental Revolving Fund. Mrs. Medlicott seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0 by voice vote. EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND RATE STUDY Finance Manager Michael Legarsky reviewed the agenda explained the material in the agenda packet on Equipment Rental Revolving Fund and the desire for Equipment Rental Fund Rate Study. City Council Business Meeting Page 9 March 20, 2006 Mr. Timmons explained this ERR fund rate study would provide an opportunity to receive an actuarial projection during fire district consolidation as well as provide an opportunity to look at future scenarios such as whether to manage the vehicles as a rolling fleet within the district and explore mobile technologies. Under consolidation, the City would transfer the depreciated value on fire vehicles, but the accumulated reserves would stay with the City. This value would then support the rest of the City's fleet. Mr. Welch asked if an outside analysis is necessary rather than doing the study internally. Mr. Legarsky noted the benefits of drawing from experience of company working with other cities. Depending on the outcome of the study, he might have to come back to Council with a supplemental budget because of the potential impact to the departments. Mr. Walker asked whether the City expects to gain $20-30K in benefit from the study. Mr. Legarsky and Mr. Timmons responded that with more accurate the information there could be broad financial implication. You want to ensure the formulas the City is currently using are accurate. Mr. Walker asked if there should be any concern for how the Fire District could cover replacement of the rolling stock assets. Mr. Legarsky said typically the district would go out for a bond issue and the voters are very supportive, so he would not be concerned. Mr. Benskin asked where the money would come from to do the study. Mr. Legarsky noted that this would be an expense of the ERR fund. Motion: Ms. Sandoval moved to authorize the City Manager to sign the contract for ERR Fund Rental Rate analysis services with FCS Group. Mr. Benskin seconded the motion. Ms. Sandoval said that given the size of the fund, it is a small percentage to ensure the fund is being run in the appropriate manner. Mr. Welch concurred with the concern of the study cost, but recognized the significant impact to the taxpayer if the City has used inaccurate estimates for equipment replacement. The motion carried unanimously 6-0, by voice vote. WATER/SEWER COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Mr. Timmons explained the material provided in the packet on the subject of utilizing the firm of FCS to perform a cost of service analysis. He noted that there would be further Council policy discussion on the appropriate model to use. City Council Business Meeting Page 10 March 20, 2006 Mr. Legarsky mentioned that Council received a copy of the 2003 contract with FCS when they performed a utility rate study. Another contract would need to be negotiated for the cost of service analysis, which the City has never had before. He said the estimated cost is $25K, which would come from the Water/Sewer Utility Funds. Mr. Timmons agreed to return to Council with the actual cost and review of the process. Motion: Mayor Welch moved to authorize the City Manager to amend the contract for utility cost of service analysis completion with FCS Group and to bring the contract and scope back to Council for review and approval. Mr. Walker seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by voice vote. ORDINANCE 2922, DELAYING THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR BICYCLE HELMET REQUIREMENTS IN ORDINANCE 2906 FOR CITY SKATE PARK Mr. Timmons reviewed the materials in the packet, noting that a provision that was not discussed initially was that mandatory helmet requirements include the skateboard park. While he believes it behooves users to wear safety equipment, there are enforcement concerns. If we have the enforcement provision and then fail to enforce, we would increase the City's liability. He also talked about whether to continue the mixed use of the park by skaters and bicyclists. He is willing to allow the mixed use, but then let the users sort out their issues and bring forward a recommendation if it becomes a problem. He is also recommending lifting the mandatory helmet provision to avoid the confrontation at the initial opening. While the park would open for use, he talked about delaying the official dedication ceremony until the Rhododendron Festival. Mr. Welch asked if there is any jeopardy to not enforcing the recreational immunity. Mr. Watts responded with an explanation of "recreational immunity," which is State law. If there were a helmet requirement and it was not enforced, you might open yourself to potential litigation. Until Council figures out how it would deal with the helmet law overall, it would be better not to have this interim requirement. Chief Daily stated his concern that helmet enforcement would require constant police presence at the facility. Similar to bicycle helmets, he would rather that the first police officer contact with youth not be about a citation for skating without a helmet. Since there is a lot of anticipation and enthusiasm around the opening, he suggested a focus on safety education and examples about how to use the equipment. Ms. Sandoval asked whether the helmet issue applies to bicycles as well as skateboarders. Mr. Timmons said this liability applies to a park facility that is open to the public where there is no fee. Outside the park, Mr. Watts responded that the City Council Business Meeting Page 11 March 20, 2006 Recreational Immunity would likely not apply outside the facility. However, the issue of failure to enforce helmets for skateboarders would apply. Mr. Walker noted that when he was on the Parks Advisory Board, they did a lot of research on the recreational immunities law, and believes it covered any public or private operation as long as you did not charge a fee. He believes this is one of the most broad immunities act in the nation. Mr. Timmons responded that City code currently prohibits skating in the street and on sidewalks. Motion: Mr. Walker moved to waive Council Rules approving the first and second reading of Ordinance 2922, delaying the effective date for mandatory helmet requirements at the skate park; this motion includes direction to the City Manager not to enforce the mandatory helmet provisions in Ordinance 2906 pending action on Ordinance 2922.Ms. Robinson seconded. Mayor noted that this matter is in the Council In Box and at the next workshop meeting where the In Box would be discussed and the Council could consider whether to reconsider the Helmet Ordinance in total. Mr. Watts added that unless and until Council takes some action, the current helmet requirement for bicycles throughout the City would come into effect in 18 months from December 2005. Mrs. Medlicott stated that she is becoming increasingly concerned about skateboard safety not only for pedestrians. She would like to encourage some enforcement of skateboard activities outside the park. Ms. Sandoval stated that she is hopeful that with the opening of the park, the energy will be redirected into the skateboard facility. Vote on Motion: The motion carried unanimously, 6-0, by roll call. Mr. Welch suggested it might be helpful to get youth together in an advisory board to address park issues. Mr. Timmons said there are individuals who are trying to get this together. Mr. Benskin mentioned that he is bothered with recent vandalism at the park. Mr. Timmons noted that similar to Port Angeles, he believes self-policing will begin to work. PRESIDING OFFICER'S REPORT Mr. Welch asked for Council consent on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board pursuing the Haller Fountain project mentioned by Barbara McColgan Pastore. He clarified that they are seeking private funding. Mr. Timmons added that with Council approval to move forward, they would start a capital campaign to make the improvements. City Council Business Meeting Page 12 March 20, 2006 Mr. Walker said he would like to see the City also contribute to this effort. Ms. Sandoval stated that while she is in favor, she would like to know what Council would be approving. Mr. Timmons said there was Council approval of a conceptual fundraising process, so he would recommend Staff return with a written plan and commitment that could then be endorsed by Council before proceeding, which would then authorize the official kick off to begin. Mr. Benskin noted that this would include using the City's tax-exempt status. Mr. Timmons agreed that this be formalized into a structured agreement. This plan would be from Washington Street up the hill, not from Washington Street to Union Wharf, which would be a separate proposal. Staff would return with an agenda item that would describe the plan. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Timmons reviewed the hiring and selection process for the position of Planning Director for which Rick Sepler was selected. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee minutes were included in the agenda packet. SUGGESTIONS FOR NEXT OR FUTURE AGENDAS Reschedule In Box meeting and finish Council Workshop. Joint meeting with the Board of County Commissioners to discuss next steps on a metropolitan parks district and the response by the Trust for Public Lands. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 9:43, Mayor Welch announced the Council would retire to Executive session to discuss pending litigation for approximately ten minutes. He added there would be no action anticipated following the session. RECONVENE The Meeting was reconvened at 9:54. City Council Business Meeting Page 13 March 20, 2006 ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Minutes by: Joanna Sanders Legal Assistant Attest: ~a:i~ City Clerk City Council Business Meeting Page 14 March 20, 2006