Mayor Nabours called the Combined Work Session/Special Meeting of October 28, 2014, to order at 6:08 p.m.

The City Council and audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Councilmembers Present:	Councilmembers Absent:
MAYOR NABOURS
VICE MAYOR EVANS
COUNCILMEMBER BAROTZ
COUNCILMEMBER BREWSTER
COUNCILMEMBER ORAVITS
COUNCILMEMBER OVERTON
COUNCILMEMBER WOODSON

Others Present: City Manager Kevin Burke; City Attorney Michelle D'Andrea

Mr. Burke stated that item 15A will be removed because the public hearing for Aspen Heights was continued. The Development Agreement will be discussed at the second read of the Ordinance.

Councilmember Barotz suggested postponing item 15D to the November 18, 2014 meeting because she will not be present at the next Council meeting for discussion. Mr. Burke noted that Roger Eastman will not be at the meeting on the 18th so if there are any proposed changes those should be forwarded to him immediately to get them incorporated before he leaves on vacation. Councilmember Oravits offered concern about delaying the action further, he would rather have the discussion and action as originally scheduled. A majority of Council agreed that the item could be moved to the agenda of November 18, 2014.
 
Mr. Burke also noted that item 15E will be moved to the 4:00 p.m. meeting since it has been vetted out and discussed on several occasions.

Amy Prairie-Litman, resident, addressed Council requesting a bike crossing across the tracks at Old Town Springs.

Andy Fernandez, resident, addressed Council with various complaints and concerns.

Mr. Burke provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

• CITY CHARTER CHANGES
• THE COMMITTEE
• SCOPE OF WORK
• RECOGNITION

Mr. Burke and Mayor Nabours recognized the committee members and presented them each with a Certificate of Appreciation for their service.
 
Councilmember Overton noted that even if the City Council approves the changes they all will have to go before the voters for approval. Mr. Burke stated that the Council decides what goes on the ballot to the voters and the voters decide what to accept into the Charter. Any change to the Charter requires voter approval and items must be voted on individually; this could make for a long ballot. One of the recommendations is to limit the ballot to no more than 20 items and it would be up to the Council to determine what the items should be.

Mr. Burke reviewed the committee's recommendations noting their specific information can be found in the attached handout.

1.  Councilmember Oravits asked if Flagstaff is unusual with a two year term for Mayor. Deputy City Manager Jerene Watson explained that of the 14 largest cities in Arizona, Flagstaff is the only one without a four year term Mayor. Across the state however, about half of the cities and towns have a two year term.

5.  Councilmember Barotz asked if a $100,000 approval limit is common among other cities. Ms. Watson stated that there is a general movement in the state to go to the $100,000 limit. More specific information can be researched and provided to the Council at a later time. Councilmember Woodson stated that the cost of conducting an Request for Proposals is costing more money in staff time and increasing the limit would help reduce and avoid these costs.

12, 13, and 16. Mayor Nabours asked if these three items could be consolidated; he feels that the term of the Mayor and Councilmembers could begin on a date certain rather than set by ordinance. Mr. Burke stated that there is greater flexibility in setting the date by ordinance but it can be established with a date certain.

Councilmember Overton asked if there was a way to rescind the Charter in its entirety and submit a new one to the voters. Ms. D'Andrea stated that it sounds possible but she would need to do some research and follow up with the Council at a later time.

Councilmember Oravits asked for the potential election dates. Mr. Burke stated that the earliest election date would be in May with Council calling the election in January.

Vice Mayor Evans asked for a side by side comparison of the "No Action 11" item regarding the Sale of City Property and the current RFP process.

Mayor Nabours stated that he likes the idea of trying to take the recommendations in chunks over a certain number of elections and letting the voters have a say on all issues. Mr. Burke asked that Council rank the items in priority order to allow staff to know the order in which to start filling the ballots.
 
Mr. Burke then reviewed the list of items that did not make the initial top 20 from the committee.

A break was held from 7:30 p.m. through 7:43 p.m.

Adam Shimoni, resident, addressed Council urging them to get citizen input on the proposed changes prior to putting them on the ballot.

Moran Henn, resident, encouraged the Council to engage the public to get input on this issue.
 
Councilmember Woodson asked what the education process would be moving forward. Mr. Burke stated that if it goes to the ballot there will be outreach similar to the road initiative and the Regional Plan. Between now and then staff can inject these changes into conversations with outreach groups and getting the news out so the public can come out and start looking at the proposal.

Vice Mayor Evans stated that she was not interested in rushing the changes to the May ballot. Some of the changes are core and fundamental items that need further vetting and more discussion.

Planning Director Dan Folke provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

• RELOCATION OF DISPLACED RESIDENTS WORK SESSION
• GOALS OF THE WORK SESSION
• WHO IS IMPACTED BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL CAUSED RELOCATION?
• PARAMETERS
• STATE LEGISLATION SUMMARY
• REGIONAL PLAN 2030
• RECAP OF OPTIONS
• CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• LESSONS LEARNED
• PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
• PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
• REVISED SCHEDULE
• QUESTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT

Councilmember Brewster asked how comparable housing is determined and what happens if none can be found in the community. Mr. Folke stated that there is a definition of comparable housing that includes federal language about decent, safe, sanitary, access to employment and community services and the financial means of the resident. If comparable housing cannot be found the Uniform Relocation Act provides a rent differential. Councilmember Oravits stated that the definition is very subjective with no metric set on what comparable housing and rent is. Mr. Folke stated that the process will be very difficult and it will be handled case by case. The applicant would have to explain why they feel that what they are offering is comparable.

Mayor Nabours asked for the definition of a Relocation Specialist. Mr. Folke stated that it is a single point of contact for residents to go to for information and questions. They are attempting to have a consistent point of contact for those who might be affected by the proposed changes. 
 
Councilmember Overton asked if it would suffice should the developer go through the rezone process and complete the Relocation Impact Report that mirrors state law. Mr. Folke stated that it is a difficult point to determine what is sufficient and comparable. The City will not require anything over and above the minimum. Councilmember Overton noted that if the developer goes above and beyond the minimum that is great but not required; he wants to be sure that there is no false sense of entitlement.
 
Vice Mayor Evans stated that she feels that there is more work that needs to be done. One of the things this ordinance will do is provide clarity. The last rezone issue had challenges with inconsistent information which caused more fear with the process. One of the major things that needs to be addressed is notification. If people are purchasing trailers that cannot be moved, they have a right to know that the park may not be there in six months.

The following individuals addressed Council in favor of the relocation ordinance:

• Adam Shimoni
• Roxanna Denise
• Gabriella Vasquez

The following comments were received:

• Need to work hard on getting this ordinance in place sooner rather than later but take the time to make sure that it is done right.
• I like the idea of a designated point person.
• This is a bandaid to a bigger issue.
• Thank you for arranging translation services. A requirement for language services should be included in the ordinance.
• Support approval of a planning and zoning law concerning rezoning.

The following addressed Council in opposition of the relocation ordinance:

• Susan Brenton
• Jackie Keller
• Guy Ecklund

The following comments were received:

• Concerned that the City is moving too quickly to establish an ordinance. Additional time is needed to allow consideration by mobile park owners.
• There are already relocation requirements in place at the state level.
• Multi-family homes should not be included in the ordinance.

Councilmember Oravits stated that multi-family units should be de-coupled from mobile homes as they are two very different things. Mayor Nabours, Vice Mayor Evans, and Councilmember Brewster agreed.
 
Vice Mayor Evans stated that she would like to see more outreach done; discussions need to take place with mobile home park owners, owners of trailers and residents of mobile home parks and those who have to deal with the clean up of parks that have been closed. Additionally, the community has a right to weigh in on changes of use being proposed in their community. She suggested putting together a diverse group of people to go through the issue and ordinance to see what ideas they may have. Mayor Nabours suggested including Ms. Brenton and her organization in the group as they have a lot of experience in these types of instances.

Assistant to the City Manager for Real Estate David McIntire provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

• REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
• EXAMPLES
• PROVIDERS
• SOME OPTIONS
• NEXT STEPS

Mayor Nabours expressed concern with the term lease and suggested using the word license to avoid any confusion during the request for bids process. Mr. McIntire explained that staff has looked at how other communities have structured this arrangement and typically there is a master lease agreement with the community and supplemental agreements with each affixture.

Mayor Nabours asked if the vendor's intent is to control the entire light pole. Mr. McIntire explained that in some situations the vendor has replaced the light pole; the lease agreement allows them a certain portion of the light pole for their technology but not complete control; however, they would replace the pole should the specs not be up to par. Mayor Nabours cautioned staff to be mindful not to preclude the city's access to the pole in order to work on them.

Mayor Nabours asked about attaching antennas to a building. Mr. McIntire explained that utilizing a building is one of the potential options it is up to Council on whether or not to allow that or stay within the right of way as with other utilities.
 
Councilmember Overton asked what the benefit is to the community. Mr. McIntire explained that the initial idea focused on revenue generation. Any enhancement of communication technologies would be a secondary benefit to the community. 
 
Vice Mayor Evans stated that the appearance and design of any attached technology should be taken into consideration. Mr. McIntire stated that it is unknown the different technologies that could come forward and staff will look at them on a case by case basis
 
Councilmember Brewster asked if there is a difference in revenue generation for right of way versus structure mounted. Mr. McIntire indicated that there could potentially be some variation in revenue based on location, staff would have to look at the device and its impact. Without knowing what the technologies are it is tough to know for sure.
 
The City Council agreed that they would like to take a further look at the request for proposals.

Councilmember Barotz requested information on the public safety issue regarding student housing such as the Grove and Aspen Heights.
 
Councilmember Overton requested additional information on Aspen Height's commitment on the lighting arrangements and traffic implications.

None.

Councilmember Brewster reported that she will be absent next week; she will try to call in for some of the meeting.
 
Vice Mayor Evans requested a memo update on the traffic circle in La Plaza Vieja.

She also requested a report from the Police Department regarding the fees collected on nuisance issues.
 
Lastly, she asked for more information on a pathway under the tracks that connects Old Town to La Plaza Vieja. She would like some additional information on that project. Mr. Burke explained that it is a capital improvement project that has been designed but is delayed due to funding issues.

Mayor Nabours indicated that he had seen some cities with an ordinance that holds owners liable for the acts of their tenants. He requested that this topic be considered for a future agenda item.
 
Mayor Nabours attended the Housing Symposium and found it to be educational and enlighting.
 
Mr. Burke thanked the Council for coming and seeing the new Geotubes in action; he thanked the Utilities Department for their good work in getting them up and running.

The Work Session of the Flagstaff City Council held October 28, 2014, adjourned at 9:24 p.m.

Mayor Nabours called the Special Meeting of October 28, 2014, to order at 9:24 p.m.

Ms. D’Andrea addressed Council stating that there was an Executive Session earlier to go through the various legal points of the agreement and mutual release. Council had asked for some changes to the agreement and the other party has agreed to those changes. The new settlement term is that the City would pay $350,000 on Thursday, October 30, 2014 and hold the additional $200,000 until releases and waivers were received from all the subcontractors, material men and suppliers. This is the only change in the agreement, the rest would be the same as presented.

Moved by Councilmember Mark Woodson, seconded by Vice Mayor Coral Evans to approve the settlement of CV2014-053783, between the City and its contractor, Capital Improvements, LLC and the contractor’s surety, Guarantee Company of North America, for $550,000.00 as amended by the City Attorney. The agreement will contain mutual releases and will require lien releases from all subcontractors, suppliers and materialmen.

Vote: 7 - 0 Passed - Unanimously

The Special Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held October 28, 2014, adjourned at 9:27 p.m.