Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2017-03-21 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ;C) MINUTES O March 21, 2017 OREGON 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. on March 21, 2017, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, and Manz Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder; Sarah Selden, Senior Planner; Erica Rooney, City Engineer; Jordan Wheeler, Deputy City Manager; Rachael Petersen, Facilities Manager Others Present: Bruce Brown, Uplands Neighborhood Association; Jeff Humphreys, Caitlin Cranley, and Landon Harman, Mackenzie 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Studebaker led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. CITIZEN COMMENT • Jan Castle, 16181 Parelius Circle Ms. Castle, indicating that she spoke as a representative of both PrepLO and the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network, asked that Council replace City Hall with a new building constructed to immediate-occupancy standard. A building constructed to this standard would sustain small amounts of damage in event of an earthquake, she explained, but could be occupied immediately after such an event. In contrast, a building constructed to life-safety standard would sustain damage to a degree that occupancy could not be expected until after repair or replacement had occurred. She emphasized the importance of City Hall as the operations center for recovery of the community following an earthquake event. After touching on cost implications of the two standards in terms of construction, she cautioned Council about the need for clarity and follow-up City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11 March 21, 2017 with the design team. She suggested that the City instruct the team from the outset to design the building for immediate occupancy and Net Zero Energy. 4.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up This item was addressed under Reports of Officers (Agenda Item 7.). 5. STUDY SESSIONS 5.1 Ordinance 2734, Uplands Neighborhood Plan, Transportation System Plan Amendment, and Overlay Code (LU 17-0001) Report and Attachments Ms. Selden introduced Mr. Brown, chair of the Uplands Neighborhood Association Planning Committee. She outlined the three Ordinance components, as outlined in the Council Report and in an accompanying PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Brown reviewed his background with the Neighborhood Plan and the process leading to this near-final stage. In response to Mayor Studebaker's question about the number of active participants in development of the Plan, he noted that 10 to 12 people had served on the Committee itself and larger meetings had attendance of 30 or 40 people. He indicated that neighborhood surveys had produced feedback from a good cross-section of residents. After detailing the public involvement process, Mr. Brown reported that no testimony in opposition to the Plan had been heard at the Planning Commission's public hearing and the Commission had proposed no changes to the Ordinance draft (Exhibit A-1 and Attachments). Those involved regard the Ordinance as being well vetted and achievable. Ms. Selden made reference to the legal notice to all Uplands Neighborhood property owners, as discussed in the Council Report. The primary purpose of developing the Plan was to preserve the many positive characteristics of the neighborhood, Mr. Brown noted. Through the planning process, a few issues needing to be addressed were identified. This had led to a set of 22 objectives for the future, and then to 21 action steps; one of these steps was the proposed code amendment. Ms. Selden noted that the identified action steps in a neighborhood plan were intended to serve as a roadmap over the course of 20 years. Mr. Brown described the spectrum of considerations given to developing the Uplands Neighborhood Plan (Attachment B to Exhibit A-1). The process had led to the Plan's focus on four primary areas: (1) development compatibility; (2) stormwater management; (3) pedestrian safety; and (4) neighborhood capacity building. He discussed the neighborhood character, with its desirable balance of urban and natural qualities, emphasizing that this is one of the driving forces behind the Plan. The large size of many lots contributes significantly to the character; the proposed Overlay Code would help to mitigate effects of some factors that erode it. He discussed the important opportunity to address neighborhood stormwater management issues through the Wembley Park Road Capital Improvement Plan (CI P) project. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 March 21, 2017 Ms. Selden detailed major elements of the proposed Overlay Code, which would apply to the Uplands Neighborhood R-10 Zone. She, with Mr. Brown, responded throughout to Council members' questions. The Code provisions related to: (1) Front Yard Setbacks. To address effects on neighborhood character related to undeveloped right of way and varying setback distances, the proposed standard would be the average setbacks of the closest buildings on the abutting next-door lots on the same block face, with related minimum and maximum setbacks. Standards applicable to abutting flag lots and corner lots were provided. It was hoped that major differences in setback would be avoided as properties redeveloped over time. (2) Flag Lots. The proposed Overlay Code dealt with four standards: (a) The number of allowed lots in the rear would be one, rather than three. (b) The projection of the private access lane through to the abutting developable property would not be permitted. (c) The front yard of the rear house (i.e., the flag-lot house) would be required to face the same way as the non-flag lot front yard at the public right of way. The same setbacks would apply as on non-flag lots. (d) There would be no orientation requirement for the rear house on the flag lot. (3) Impervious Area. The total amount of impervious surface on a lot would be limited to about 50%. In addition, the area between the front lot line and the nearest edge of the building footprint could not be covered by more than 30% impervious surface. These standards support both neighborhood character and the challenges of stormwater management. (4) Structure Design. To address concerns about new uphill development that looms over existing homes, the additional building height on sloping lots would be disallowed; the maximum permitted height would be limited to 30 feet, regardless of slope. Further, additional height allowances for roof forms and architectural features would not be permitted. Finally, the Side Yard Setback Plane would be modified to reduce the roof pitch in such a way as to reduce the height of the side wall at the interior property line. (5) Driveway Approaches. This provision would address neighborhood concerns and questions about the need for two access points with the street from a single residence; included were issues of pedestrian safety, stormwater run-off to the street, and landscaping and parking along the public right of way. The proposed standard would permit only one driveway access point along each lot frontage. Ms. Selden described the proposed amendment to the Transportation System Plan (TSP). This would extend the length of the pathway project on Uplands Drive, as recommended by the Neighborhood Association. As shown in the TSP, the pathway would only go from Wembley Park Road to Ridgecrest Drive. Extending the pathway through to Country Club Road would reflect the real transportation and connectivity needs of the neighborhood, it was felt. Mr. Brown indicated that this location presented one of the neighborhood's most acute drainage/erosion challenges, and the pathway extension could help to resolve that, as well. Councilor O'Neill requested assurance of full neighborhood awareness of the proposal, particularly because of potential effects on property values. Ms. Selden reviewed the process and details related to the required legal notice, including the resulting turnout at the Planning Commission public hearing. Councilor Kohlhoff asked about applicability of the proposed flag-lot standards if an Uplands property owner wished to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Ms. Selden explained that existing standards for ADUs would apply, rather than the flag-lot standards. In brief ensuing discussion, Mr. Brown reported that this had been discussed in a couple of meetings; his sense was that development of ADUs was not currently a high priority of the neighborhood. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 March 21, 2017 Councilor LaMotte expressed thanks to Staff and the Neighborhood Association for their efforts. He commended the Plan as a model for the entire city going forward, noting that it set the stage for addressing flag-lot and public right-of-way issues, among other benefits. Councilor Gudman asked if the Wembley Park Road surface water project that was scheduled for 2019-2020 could be regarded as the backbone for surface water management in Uplands. Ms. Rooney indicated that the project would not resolve all of the issues because of the varied terrain in the neighborhood. She noted that the current D Avenue improvements to pedestrian, road, and stormwater facilities would provide guidance that would next be applied to Wembley Park Road. Ms. Selden confirmed that the pathway project would become part of the TSP when the Ordinance took effect; all of the proposed projects, if not already listed in the CIP, would be added later, likely at the next CIP update. Councilor Gudman asked about the extent of Uplands Neighborhood concerns, compared to some other neighborhoods, given the small number of properties that potentially could be divided into several lots. Mr. Brown indicated that their greater concern was the potential for lot purchases and consolidations that might be driven by economic and other forces in the future. The maximized density that could result might not be of benefit to the underlying neighborhood. In relation to side yard setback standards, Mayor Studebaker asked about the reason for reducing the pitch from 12:12 to 6:12. Mr. Brown explained that it was a matter of massing, resulting in a shorter vertical wall. The goal is to mitigate the relationship of two structures such that their compatibility is not eroded by the looming effect. Ms. Selden reminded Council of the public hearing on the Ordinance scheduled for April 4. 5.2 Forest Highlands Water District Agreement Report and Attachments Mr. Lazenby reviewed background of the City's 1991 intergovernmental agreement with Forest Highlands Water District, as provided in the Council Report. While the agreement will expire on April 28, 2017, Staff did not recommend any Council action at this time; the City would continue to provide water to these properties. However, at some point Council should determine whether or not these customers would be subject to the out-of-city rate paid by other Lake Oswego water customers not within the city. He recommended that the rate decision be deferred until the year- end review of various water rates. In ensuing discussion, Mr. Lazenby confirmed that water service would be provided in the interim as under the current operation. It was anticipated that all of the 77 properties now served under the agreement would eventually annex to the City. In addressing additional questions from Council members, he noted that a significant portion of the City's outstanding bonds for the water system upgrade are secured by "full faith and credit", with the related liability borne only by property owners in the City. Although the Forest Highlands properties outside the City pay the in- city rate, they do not have that obligation, he explained. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 March 21, 2017 Councilor Gudman indicated that he favored making the transition to a new rate, as shown in recommended Option (b) of the Council Report, effective with the expiration of the agreement. Brief discussion followed, with Mr. Lazenby stating that notice would be provided to the affected customers, whatever the direction of Council. Mayor Studebaker moved to proceed with Option (b) of the Council Report to provide water service at the out-of-city rate, beginning July 1, 2017. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. Council Gudman expressed his preference for an effective date coinciding with the expiration of the agreement. Mayor Studebaker observed that the July date would allow time to notify the affected customers and learn about any complaints or other feedback. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, and Manz voting `aye'. (7-0) 5.3 City Hall Rehabilitation Project Report and Attachments Mr.Wheeler introduced Mr. Humphreys, principal on the Police facility and City Hall rehabilitation projects from Mackenzie, and named other members of the project team who were available to provide information to Council. At this study session the team hoped to receive direction from Council on the preferred option and scope for addressing issues with the City Hall building, and perhaps the Council's funding preference. Mr. Wheeler outlined the background leading to Council's request to return with refined cost estimates, as discussed in the Council Report. He reviewed the four options for consideration and discussed a PowerPoint slide that summarized the cost estimates provided (Council Report, p 2-5). Key points included: Option 1 (Replacement of Building Envelope), $7.9 million. Although the hard costs are estimated to be close to the earlier estimate, the $7.9 million includes soft costs and a 35% contingency, essentially to account for any unforeseen conditions that might be found when the skin of the building is removed. Option 2 (Envelope, Voluntary Seismic and Maintenance Upgrades), $7.9 to $22.3 million. The cost estimate is presented as a range because the full scope of the project is not yet known. The $7.9 million would be simply for the envelope, while a full remodel, including numerous systems upgrades (Council Report, p 3), would exceed $22 million. Option 3 (Envelope, Maintenance and Full Seismic Retrofit), $29 million. Cost includes all of the voluntary upgrades related to deferred maintenance as these would likely be incorporated in a construction project on this scale. A range of costs could be considered if decisions were made to omit some items. Option 4 (New Building), $16.8 to $21.2 million. Cost estimate is presented as a range, with the lesser amount based on assumptions that would replicate the existing 40,000-square-foot building. Mackenzie had also analyzed the premium that would be involved for a building constructed to immediate-occupancy/essential services level; depending on various decisions yet to be made, the cost could be up to $21.2 million (Council Report, Attachment 1 (Essential Facility)). City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 March 21, 2017 In discussing comparative benefits and disadvantages of the rehabilitation and replacement options, Mr. Wheeler acknowledged the difficult decision before Council. If the decision was made now, there would be significant opportunity to coordinate the City Hall project with the adjacent Police facility project that is underway. He next drew Council's attention to some funding options (Council Report, p 5-6), highlighting key considerations. Options included: (1) Urban Renewal. It would be necessary to do phased construction. Depending on project timelines, relocation of City Hall staff might be involved. (2) General Fund. Council might consider this option in a Budget Committee meeting. (3) Bonding. The "rent" charged to City departments for transfer to the Capital Reserve Fund is allocated for future repairs to the building. In the forthcoming budget Staff will be proposing an increase to the $250,000 annual amount. This could provide some of the funding for either a repair or replacement scenario. (4) Capital Reserve Fund. Approximately $1 million had been set aside in the 2016-2017 budget process. It could be designated for addressing the needs of this building. In concluding, Staff's recommendation was to make a decision at this time. Along with other benefits, the need to repeat community processes and design work could be avoided with concurrent efforts on the two projects; this would likely be cost effective. Project team members responded to Council questions, beginning with Councilor Manz' inquiry about the expected useful life of the building if only building envelope and repairs were done. While this would address issues related to the exterior and arrest damage to structural components, a greater concern could be the building's performance in a major earthquake, Mr. Lazenby noted. In relation to the new-building option, Councilor Kohlhoff requested clarification about several standards. Mr. Humphreys differentiated the Life Safety and Essential facility levels for a new commercial structure: Life Safety, representing the minimum code requirements and built such that occupants could evacuate in the event of an earthquake or other emergency; and Essential, the higher standard required for policing, fire, and other facilities that provide essential services. LEED certification was not planned, but sustainability was projected as a component of the design. Mr. Wheeler indicated that the intention would be to meet requirements for the LEED Gold standard, in accordance with the City's policy. Also with regard to a new building, Councilor Kohlhoff asked if the cost estimates for the Life Safety and Essential scenarios were reasonably reliable or if there might be additional contingencies that could increase the cost significantly. Mr. Humphreys described how the cost model had accommodated both escalation and other contingencies; Ms. Cranley, the assigned project manager, explained that inclusion of actual data related to the current City Hall had enabled the team to build contingencies effectively into the cost estimates. Councilor Buck posed questions about operational and cost aspects of a building constructed to Life Safety level. With regard to the cost summary for Option 2 (Attachment 1, p 10 of 58), he asked about cost impacts if the maintenance items were deferred rather than done at the same time as the envelope and seismic work. Mr. Wheeler indicated that the maintenance costs could increase with a deferred approach. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 March 21, 2017 Councilor Manz asked about the need for a building as large as the current 40,000-square-foot City Hall, in the event the new-building option was chosen. Mr. Wheeler discussed the current square footage use, configuration, and constraints. While staffing was not projected to increase, Council and the community might want to consider housing other City services at City Hall or relocating staff there from other sites. He estimated that the need could be between 30,000 and 40,000 square feet for a new building. Based on a 35,000-square-foot new building at$21 million, Councilor Gudman asked about the reduced cost of building at the Life Safety rather than Essential level. Mr. Humphreys estimated a 15% reduction, to about $18.1 or$18.2 million. In response to questions from Councilor LaMotte, Mr. Humphreys discussed the reduced amount of the Option 1 estimate in comparison to Mackenzie's earlier projection. He confirmed that the bracketing and bracing entailed in the voluntary seismic options would not bring the existing building to Life Safety level. Mr. Wheeler clarified the composition of costs shown in his report (Council Report, p 4). He confirmed that a proposed new building would provide a professional and safe environment, but not a luxurious one. Councilor O'Neill observed that a key question for Council was whether or not Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA)funds could be used to redo the veneer of the building. Further, any discussion of a new building would require Council to agree that it was necessary to have a building that would perform at the Essential level; that would be the only valid reason for a new City Hall, he indicated. Council needed to focus on this policy decision as it is the reason for the $15 million difference between the cost of the envelope and the full-building replacement options. Mayor Studebaker asked that Council give serious consideration to funding sources, given the pressures on the City's budget, including PERS increases and roads infrastructure projects over the long term. Citizens were not likely to support bonding options in the face of upcoming school bond measures, he opined. Councilor O'Neill observed that citizens would challenge the need for the higher-level seismic standard in a new building. Councilor Buck noted that if only the building skin was replaced, the other components would need to be addressed over time, perhaps at a total cost higher than would be paid for a new building; he asked how the City would then fund these items. Urban renewal funds could be used now for a new building, which he felt was a more justifiable use for the funds than simply improving the exterior. Councilor Kohlhoff expressed support for use of urban renewal funds; it was appropriate to spend the $21.2 million for a new building that would provide a back-up facility for Police operations and a safe place for the community. Councilor LaMotte reiterated concerns about replacing the skin and having to address the building's many maintenance issues over time, with lost economies of scale. He advocated replacement of the building, funded fully by urban renewal. In continued discussion, Councilor Gudman asked for clarification of the report information relating to use of urban renewal funds for repair and maintenance (Council Report, p 5). With specific reference to the envelope replacement (Option 1), Mr. Wheeler likened the project to a façade replacement and thus an appropriate use of urban renewal funds. In contrast, the funds could not be used for repair/replacement of a generator or similar system. Mr. Powell indicated that Mr.Wheeler's interpretation seemed to be consistent with the urban renewal statute, in using the funds to rehabilitate buildings in the district as opposed to doing maintenance. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 March 21, 2017 Councilor Manz asked about timing constraints on the urban renewal funding if Council decided in favor a new building. Mr. Wheeler indicated that the team would move directly into programming and right-sizing issues for City Hall so the design could be coordinated with the Police facility project. Construction would be staggered, with the Police facility under construction in 2019 and the City Hall in 2020. Councilor LaMotte asked about the number of staff members occupying the existing building. He expressed concerns that, even with the voluntary seismic upgrades included in Option 2, the building would not comply with current code specifying a Life Safety level. To him the decision was whether to repair the building to that extent or build new and achieve economies of scale. Council members engaged in further discussion about the structure of the current building. Mr. Harman, the team's structural engineer, confirmed that the building does not meet the Life Safety requirements nor is it in compliance with City code. He compared Option 1, which entailed no structural aspects, to Option 2, which offered some seismic benefit and opportunities to take advantage of construction efficiencies but would not bring the building into compliance. Option 3 would be a full seismic upgrade: gutting the building, rebuilding the major systems, and adding new lateral elements at the exterior walls. He responded to questions from Councilor Manz about expected performance of the current building in a 6.5 earthquake in comparison to a Life Safety or Essential level, discussing variables that were involved in the design. Mr. Lazenby responded to the earlier question about the number of employees working at City Hall: currently there were 80, excluding Police and LOCOM staff. Mayor Studebaker called for discussion to enable a Council decision on the preferred option. Councilor Buck advocated in favor of moving forward with a new building. This was the most fiscally responsible course of action, he stated, reiterating benefits cited earlier. He emphasized that making this a companion project with the Policy facility would lend credence to use of urban renewal dollars in light of the revised plan for the district. Another concern was that simply replacing the veneer now might lead to total costs that were higher in the long run, when urban renewal funding could not be used. Following a short discussion, Councilor LaMotte moved to approve a new city hall to replace the existing city hall due to existing building deficiencies, cost savings, design and building efficiencies, and safety needs. Councilor Buck seconded the motion. While troubled by the prospect of replacing a 30-year-old building, Councilor Manz expressed a preference for rebuilding. She cited the opportunity to leverage monies, availability of urban renewal funding, and concerns about a satisfactory level of seismic safety. Mayor Studebaker stated that he would not be supporting the motion. He expressed reluctance to replace a serviceable building that could be seismically upgraded. Repairs would be required over time, but money could be set aside for these. Voters would challenge the high cost of replacing the current building; even if paid for with urban renewal funds, this would preclude their use for any other projects, and City Hall was not necessarily where the funds should be spent. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11 March 21, 2017 In ensuing discussion, Councilor Gudman clarified that the motion was only to replace the building; it did not specify the structural level of the replacement. Councilor O'Neill noted that a new building only made sense at a high standard of seismic performance. He reiterated the need for Council to consider whether or not citizens believe a high-performing building is important; if it is not, a re-veneer of the building is what they are requesting. Councilor Kohlhoff expressed concern about ability to access urban renewal funds in the future, if that was the chosen funding method. She asked if there would be any protections against loss of funding in the event of future legislative actions, for example. Noting that it was not possible to predict future urban renewal legislation, Mr. Powell indicated that a change was unlikely to be retroactive, and that the City had an established District and Plan. He reminded the Council that, while their discussion of funding methodology was fine, the LORA Board would make the actual funding decision. Councilor Kohlhoff emphasized the importance of moving forward while urban renewal funding remains a possibility. Contrasting a new building to the higher cost of a rehabilitated building that would meet safety and other needs, Councilor LaMotte indicated that he was ready to vote for the new building. A roll call vote was held, and the motion passed, with Councilors Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, and Manz voting 'aye'. Mayor Studebaker and Councilor O'Neill voted 'no'. (5-2) Mr. Lazenby noted that Staff's direction would be to design to a seismic standard that would withstand an earthquake and be serviceable afterward. Energy efficiency and cost containment would be priorities. He commended Council on making a difficult decision and thanked them for the direction. Councilor O'Neill inquired about possible cost savings if a two-story building was considered. Mr. Harman indicated that would be possible. Councilor LaMotte asked whether or not the upcoming community meeting about the Police facility should include discussion of the new city hall. In a brief exchange, it was determined that it would be premature to seek design- related input; however, Mr. Wheeler indicated that it would be useful for citizens to be aware of Council's decision to replace the current building. Councilor Gudman moved to approve building a new city hall at the Life Safety standard. After brief discussion, Mayor Studebaker seconded the motion. A roll call vote was held, and the motion failed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilor Gudman voting 'aye'. Councilors LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, and Manz voted 'no'. (2-5) Councilor Gudman moved to give direction to construct a new building for $15 million or less. The motion died for lack of second. Mr. Wheeler proposed that Staff return at a later date for discussion about programming, right- sizing, and the funding plan for the building. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 March 21, 2017 Councilor Gudman moved that the building be funded entirely with urban renewal money, pending approval of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Board. Councilor LaMotte seconded the motion. A roll call vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, and Manz voting `aye'. (7-0) 6. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor Gudman updated Council on Metro's more outcomes-based approach to the Urban Growth Boundary. This will afford more flexibility to cities, which may prove beneficial in the case of Stafford, he indicated. Councilor O'Neill reported that he and a group had met and reviewed various golf facilities in the local area and in Washington State. They concluded that Lake Oswego's facility is a jewel that offers an opportunity for operational improvement and more creativity. He highlighted the fine building there, which is under-utilized. Councilor Kohlhoff thanked the City for the opportunity to attend, along with Councilor Buck, the recent National League of Cities conference in Washington, D.C. The two had accepted a Local Action Challenge to develop a program to expand residents' financial capability, likely through financial education and coaching. 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS Mr. Lazenby followed up on a Citizen Comment item from the March 7 Council meeting regarding the loss of access to PGE poles along State Street that have been used for hanging banners. At the citizen's suggestion, Staff had considered purchasing poles to be owned by the City. However, their study had raised concerns about the complicated logistics and expenditure of staff time and other resources. Exposure to First Amendment issues that had been faced by other cities with banner messages was also discussed. In announcing that banners were no longer an option in the area, it was found that City departments and public groups were not unduly concerned about losing this avenue of communication. Staff's recommendation was to leave the matter as it stands for a while before reconsidering the overhead banners. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Under authority of ORS 192.660 (2)(f) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. Mr. Powell reviewed the statutory basis for entering executive session and outlined the parameters. The Council met in executive session beginning at 5:55 p.m. The Council reconvened in open session at 6:39 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11 March 21, 2017 Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 0/KAAAi, Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON 1Y1AM 2, 2-0 17 J .1 Kent Studebaker, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11 March 21, 2017