Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20140106 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION January 06, 2014 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Business Sustainability Goal Discussion II. Housing Fee in Lieu Discussion III. Residential Housing Mitigation IV. Request for Executive Session - C.R.S. 24-6-402-4(b)(e) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Work Session: Best Year Yet Goal #10 DATE: January 6, 2014 BACKGROUND: The City’s Best Year Yet plan includes a goal regarding business diversity. The purpose of this work session is to gain clarity on the goal and strategies to achieve it. The number and scope of potential strategies are broad. Narrowing the efforts will enable staff to focus on Council’s priorities. THE GOAL: #10. By August 31, 2014 help insure the livability of Aspen for future generations by identifying strategies to expand business diversity and enhance business sustainability by reducing business start-up obstacles. CURRENT EFFORTS: Business Navigator. City staff is developing a web-based navigator for local businesses and others conducting business within the City. This site provides information on how to start or relocate a business with the ability to apply for and obtain a business license, sign permits and most other City permits. It will connect with the City’s online building permitting software, as well as the City’s business licensing software. One set of pages is geared to new and prospective businesses not familiar with the local business license process and should serve as a resource for local commercial brokers. Additional pages are geared toward explaining the City’s land use, building and engineering permit processes. A final set of pages will walk applicants through the Special Events permit process. Roll-out is expected by March 1st. Welcoming New Businesses. City staff is developing, in cooperation with Aspen Chamber Resort Association, a welcome package to give out to all new businesses opening in Aspen. A few times a month, this package would be given out to new businesses by local officials, perhaps by the mayor or council members, and a representative from ACRA. The packet would include information on accessing City documents and how to fill those documents out. SUGGESTED EFFORTS: Expanding Retail to the Mixed-Use Zone. The Mixed-Use zone allows retail operations within historic buildings only. The MU zone is primarily Main Street, but also includes properties east of Spring Street downtown and the Jerome Professional building (under construction). P1 I. Permitting retail in all buildings in this zone may create new opportunities for retail start-ups. The lease rates would reflect the non-prime locations. If this is pursued, staff would discuss the potential with the HPC – the allowance for historic buildings is an incentive although staff believes the value of the incentive is marginal. Aspen Brand Aspen enjoys a high profile and international identity as a luxury resort. Like any brand, the Aspen brand is susceptible to degradation through complacency. Businesses reliant on strong identity constantly evolve their identity to stay current and fresh. This is especially prevalent in retail fashion as each season presents a challenge to be cutting-edge while still true to the brand legacy. This effort would focus on the Aspen identity and attempt to broaden what Aspen is known for. Some areas may need little emphasis – like epic skiing and happening nightlife. Other areas may need extra effort – such as healthy living and business innovation. A more selective approach to special events would be necessary. For high-profile events, Aspen would look to ensure each relationship broadens and strengthens Aspen’s long-term identity. In particular, Aspen would seek relationships that bolster a high quality of living and a respect for Aspen’s past. This effort should also support eccentric, quirky, only-in-Aspen activities. The unusual and sometimes bizarre happenings are part of the Aspen identity. Off-season capture-the-flag and townie rides ending at the Brewery add to a funky vibe that’s been here since the 70’s. The City may be able to assist these “events” as part of an overall strategy. This includes the Mayor’s recent efforts regarding outdoor gear and previous efforts to secure the bike race. “Tested in Aspen” could become an important status within the outdoor gear manufacturing realm and an example of mutually beneficial cross branding. Having Aspen known for where the world’s best outdoor gear is put through its paces can have long-term benefit to our sustainability as a resort and to local businesses. The near term could involve a master plan or visioning document related to branding and a strategy for special events – both sophisticated and quirky. Brainstorming with local businesses regarding identity and branding ideas is also suggested. Commercial Space within New Lodges. Commercial space within lodge properties are usually limited as “accessory to the lodge operation.” A coffee shop, for example, could be an on-site amenity for lodge guests but could not be open to the general public. This can become an obstacle and many see it as unproductive. Staff believes the City should remove this limitation and allow commercial spaces within lodges to function like other commercial/retail spaces. This will also assist the City’s lodging efforts. POSSIBLE EFFORTS: Selective SCI Rezoning. In April 2013 staff presented various options to City Council regarding rewriting or rezoning the SCI properties. The SCI zone has long been a difficult zone to manage – the list of uses is very specific and antiquated. Staff must review the business plan of each new operation and P2 I. prospective business operators are usually left wondering why the City is so restrictive. New businesses express their frustration with: “why are you so anti-business,” “but my business serves locals,” “all the other places are way too expensive,” etc.. Staff supports a rezoning of the Obermeyer Place development to Neighborhood Commercial. This would enable SCI spaces within Obermeyer to house a broader range of businesses, including offices. The SCI spaces in Obermeyer have struggled to find tenants, some of which have been mostly vacant since inception. Staff has discussed this with the Obermeyer Place HOA board president but has not heard back. The same approach could also be beneficial for the North Mill properties located along the river. These buildings are mostly professional offices and staff often receives requests for additional professional offices in this location. The City would need to consider whether a simple rezoning to Neighborhood Commercial, which allows free-market residential, would encourage a redevelopment and if such redevelopment would be desirable. Public/Private Redevelopment of SCI Properties. The SCI properties along North Mill Street are redevelopment candidates. The City has previously explored rezoning options to adjust the types of allowable businesses. This effort was met with significant concern about the effects on existing businesses. (also see “rewrite of SCI,” below.) Redevelopment of the property could be an opportunity to create small business start-up spaces ranging from quasi-industrial type operations to professional offices. The property enjoys good access and low topography to minimize the effects of larger structures. This would not be a small undertaking. Determining the types of businesses, types of spaces, potential transition planning for existing businesses, and negotiating with the property owner would be complicated. Redevelopment of Zupancis Parcel. The 540 Main Street property was originally purchased to assist the Fire Station in their efforts to relocate to Main Street. It has since been seen as a potential expansion opportunity for County Administration. The County is currently considering options that do not involve the Zupancis property. The property has never been considered as a long-term city asset – proceeds from the sale of the property have been earmarked for City Hall renovations. The City’s long-range plan is to relocate the parking department to an expanded building along Rio Grande Place. The property has been informally considered in various discussions for affordable housing, a lodge, a commercial incubator, or as a mixed-use development. The City could undertake an effort to identify an ideal development program for the property, provide a basic level of development entitlement, and then either sell the property or pursue a development partner. This would not be a small undertaking as the City has little experience as a “redevelopment authority.” Development of the property would need to consider the historical assets currently at the rear of the property, access from Main Street, and proximity to adjacent development. “Unbinding” Existing Commercial Spaces. Some properties are burdened with approval conditions dating back to the original approval. The conditions were responsive to issues of the time but, in staff’s opinion, may no longer be P3 I. relevant. Many of the lodges, for example, have commercial spaces that only allow retail accessory to the hotel operation and often include a specific list of allowable uses – travel agent, car rental desk, sundry store, gift shop, etc. Staff often must deny business proposals because they don’t fit the specific list of uses or burden the new business with unworkable limitations. For example, a gym within a hotel may be limited to being a hotel amenity and able to offer memberships to the general public. If these spaces allowed general commercial uses, many more businesses could locate is these spaces. These limitations are usually specified in an Ordinance and within a development agreement – making for a cumbersome process to modify them. City could search for these outdated requirements and encourage property owners to seek modification. Each request would need to be reviewed on its own. Encouraging Commercial Expansions The process and mitigation requirements to expand an existing business space can be prohibitive. “Lowering” the requirements for new commercial space may enable some expansions. The City recently amended the code to permit small expansions (up to 500 square feet) without requiring mitigation. One property has utilized this provision. This concept should not be expected to lower lease rates. Selective Public/Private Partnerships. City staff could seek-out opportunities for commercial expansions and contact property owners. Opportunities may exist within existing structures or may involve new development. This is a very different role for staff and the community is not used to seeing staff “drumming-up business.” However, some opportunities for additional or higher quality commercial space may exist. Cooper Street Basement. The basement of 508 E. Cooper contains a commercial space, currently vacant. The project was approved through a settlement agreement which requires this space be rented to a restaurant with a limitation on the prices of food. The 1,800 s.f. space is unfinished with a tenant finish estimate of roughly $1 million. The landowner has not been successful in their attempt to secure a tenant. The City has the right to request proposals and “name a tenant for consent by the landowner.” City staff would like to know if a request for proposals should be drafted and advertised. If the City were to issue an RFP, staff recommends the proposals initially be forwarded directly to the landowner for their consideration. PREVIOUS EFFORTS: Wholesale Rewrite of SCI. In April 2013 staff presented various options to City Council regarding rewriting or rezoning the SCI properties. The SCI zone has long been a difficult zone to manage – the list of uses is very specific and antiquated. Staff must review the business plan of each new operation and prospective business operators are usually left wondering why the City is so restrictive. New businesses express their frustration with: “why are you so anti-business,” “but my business serves locals,” “all the other places are way too expensive,” etc.. P4 I. Business owners currently operating in the SCI district are very fearful of zoning changes and their expected redevelopment of the properties. Many of the businesses report that they are on month-to-month leases. During the last effort, current business expressed their frustrations with: “why is the City trying to kick us out,” and “why is the city encouraging a redevelopment.” Staff does still believe a wholesale redefinition of SCI is needed. Many of the permitted uses aspire to a bygone era. The current zoning does, however, provide a safe-haven for nearly- extinct but needed businesses – like the laundromat. Staff suggests the any rewrite to allow new uses be done in coordination with a redevelopment or partnership redevelopment. Specific development incentives could be offered by the City in exchange for protecting certain uses or creating specific types of commercial spaces in a new development. (Also see selective SCI rezoning and Public/Private Redevelopment, above) Defining and Regulating “Locally-Serving.” The community has had some version of a ‘locally-serving-commercial’ aspiration for 40-some years. The stumbling point has always been around definition – deciding who’s in (and not). Most-recently, the City installed a two-year moratorium with the aim of defining locally-serving commercial uses. The City looked at business quotas, special reviews by a new board to determine what businesses can open, ways to prohibit “chain” stores, ways to regulate non-local ownership, ways to regulate price-point, ways to dictate products, ways to prohibit “high-end” or “luxury” brands, etc. The City even researched direct subsidies for some essential business types. As part of this effort, the City contemplated quotas or limits on jewelry stores, fur stores, and galleries. None of the concepts gained community favor and many in the community started to question if this was a legitimate role for local government. One idea that gained mediocre support was for the City to open its own store and sell whatever it decided to sell. After two years the City lifted the moratorium with no changes to the Code. Eventually all locally-serving discussions return to a fundamental question of definition – who’s in and who’s not in. Does a jewelry store qualify? Does a ski shop? The question gets tougher with real examples – is Peach’s locally-serving? Is Pitkin County Dry Goods locally-serving? The gas station, the Wheeler, Ute Mountaineer, etc.. Most of the work staff has done on this topic has been a way to deflect the core question of who’s in and who’s not in. Staff does not recommend pursuing this concept again. Previous efforts have been a quagmire and repeating the effort is likely to produce the same result. Plus, limiting certain business types may not be in-line with Council’s goal of minimizing business obstacles. P5 I. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THROUGH: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager FROM Tom McCabe, Executive Director, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager DATE: January 3, 2014 MEETING DATE: January 6, 2014 RE: Fee-In-Lieu Mitigation Methodology _____ Summary Staff seeks to clarify Council’s desires regarding how to calculate the fees for housing mitigation. Previous Council Action: The City Council and County commissioners directed APCHA to conduct research and provide a methodology to calculate fee-in-lieu values as one of several options to offset the affordable housing impacts to the community that result from development or re-development of commercial or residential property. At least two previous work sessions have been held on the subject. Background: The County Commissioners and City Council directed APCHA to recommend a methodology to calculate fee-in-lieu (FIL) mitigation rates. A city fee-in-lieu mitigation option has long been in place as one of several available to offset the employee housing impacts that result from development or re-development of commercial and residential property. The current city FIL rate is thought to be so un-realistically low that it is, for all but fractional mitigation obligations, not an option the city customarily offers. The impact mitigation methods currently used by city and county are distinctly different. The county doesn’t use a FIL method at all, but instead uses a development impact fee that it finds defensible. Neither fee is thought to generate a realistic amount of revenue to help offset the costs incurred to produce the additional employee housing needed as a result of the additional employees that are generated by most development. P6 II. 2 The city and county desire to use one method for both jurisdictions and directed staff to see if one method could satisfy their several needs. Through an RFP process, RRC Associates and Reese Consulting, Inc., were contracted to work in cooperation with city and county staff, to compare various methods, and to recommend one to adopt. Commonly used methods were examined and resulted in a recommendation which fulfilled the goals of a defensible methodology, transparency, easily updated, and compatible with both City and County land use codes. The scope of work also required the consultants to create an excel-based computer program that incorporates easily obtained data which staff can use to annually update the fees. The full report details the examination of all approaches known to be in use in Rocky Mountain communities, and the logic involved to reach the recommendation to use the Market Affordability Gap (MAG) method. The report states that this method is the most commonly used approach for calculating the fee-in-lieu as a means for satisfying affordable housing mitigation requirements in Rocky Mountain communities. The report identified nine towns and counties that base their fees in lieu on the gap between market prices and prices that are affordable to the targeted population. They are: Basalt, Crested Butte, Mt. Crested Butte, Eagle County, Glenwood Springs, Gunnison County, Jackson and Teton County Wyoming, Park City Utah, and Vail. County Response to Date At formal discussions before the County Commissioners several comments were made by Commissioners and county staff in support of the MAG method, including:  The city and county would be looking at the same market forces, the same limitations that anyone is confronted with; there would be a common focus  The method is easily understood and utilizes data sets which are continually collected and complied by local (county assessor) and federal (HUD) entities which in turn reduces the costs associated with establishing and updating the fees, and which increases the defensibility of such fees  The method provides each jurisdiction fee setting flexibility  The method is fair  The method would be firmer footing for going forward  The method would represent current market capitalization  The method should be brought back legislatively to put into the county code City Response to Date The city discussions focused on the relative merits of two of the several methods that were examined by the consultants; the Market Affordability Gap (MAG) method and the Development Cost Affordability Gap (DCAG) method. Additionally, public comment questioned the appropriateness of assessing the commercial and large residential mitigation rates, or any P7 II. 3 mitigation at all, to modest expansions of single family homes and duplexes. As an example of regulation that provides for that perspective, Summit County, Colorado uses a sliding scale for residential development which assess no fee for residential development under 1500 square feet, and increases incrementally up to the top assessment of $2.00 per SF for residential development over 5000 SF. A few variations of the DCAG method are still in use in Colorado, in fact Aspen has used it for a long time, and as an early leader in employee housing programs, its lead was followed by others. Since then, most jurisdictions that still have an active employee housing program, have adopted other methods. The complexity of using the DCAG method, and the possibility of having each component of it challenged, are thought to be the reason that few still use it. Without regular and costly updates, DCAG fees become less and less a reflection of the true community impacts of development. As long as those fees are un-realistically low, there are no complaints. Discussion Some pros and cons of each of these approaches are as follows: Market Affordability Gap Methodology: Cons  Need to update each year  Tends to make the numbers look very large Pros  Defensible  Data is readily available each year  Naturally includes market equilibrium related to cost-to-build versus cost-to- buy  Housing office staff can produce the annual update  Currently used by Basalt, Crested Butte, Mt. Crested Butte, Eagle County, Glenwood Springs, Gunnison County, Jackson and Teton County Wyoming, Park City Utah, and Vail. Development Cost Affordability Gap Methodology: Cons  Need to update each year  Data is not readily available each year  Tends to make the numbers look very specific to small sample size of projects  Tends to cause confusion about what's included in the number versus what's not included in the number  Housing office staff cannot produce the annual update on its own and needs outside help  Proven to be difficult to update Pros  Defensible P8 II. 4 The task assigned to the city and county staff was not to establish a specific fee but to recommend a realistic, understandable, flexible, and easily updated method that could be used with confidence; a method which presents a range of fees that are empirically rational and which allows the elected officials of each jurisdiction to tailor for their community by determining what development to apply the methodology against and what percentage of mitigation is to be required. Comparison of Fees Under the Two Methods The current FIL requirements are: Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4 Per FTE $283,864 $237,500 $224,094 $139,890 The fee required for the construction of an exempt single-family home or duplex unit shall be calculated as follows: “Average of the Cat 2 and Cat 3 payment-in-lieu fees as specified above, divided by 3000 square feet X the net increase in FAR of the new structure will equal the payment-in-lieu payment for replacement structures. The formula assumes that for every 3000 square feet of new single-family or duplex floor area, the public will be required to provide housing for one moderate income employee. Currently that amount is $237,500 + $224,094 divided by 2 = $230,797 divided by 3000 = $76.93 per square foot.” Market Affordability Gap Methodology: Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4 Per Affordable Unit $826,528 $696,892 $591,107 $418,260 Per SF of Affordable Unit (per unit gap/850 sq ft) $972 $820 $695 $492 Per FTE (per unit gap / 2.0 FTEs per unit) $413,264 $348,446 $295,554 $209,130 The numbers in the above table have been changed from the consultant’s report in order to better compare to the Development Cost Affordability Gap methodology results in the tables below. It compares now to the units that were built at Burlingame Ranch Phase II (852 sq feet on average) and reflects the number of FTEs in those units (2.0 not 1.6). P9 II. 5 Fees are calculated based on the difference between the market price of housing and the price that is affordable for households with incomes in the targeted categories. This Market Affordability Gap method involves a step-by-step calculation utilizing County Assessor data (sales of condominiums and other improved residential properties) and median income figures published by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Development Cost Affordability Gap Methodology: The first part of the table below uses highly conceptual cost estimates for two properties the city has contemplated developing as rental properties. The higher land costs associated with these two properties highlight the variability of a potential fee due to land cost differences. P10 II. 6 The second table uses historical information for BG2 and reflects a much lower land cost component. Each uses a sales revenue amount per FTE at each category level as taken from the 2013 APCHA Guidelines maximum unit sales price table. (Even though there are no Category 1 units being sold at Burlingame Phase II, this calculation shows what that subsidy per FTE would be at the Category 1 level.) Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Market Affordability Gap methodology as the method for determining the fee in lieu – subject to whatever decisions Council makes regarding percentage of mitigation required and how much mitigation need is generated by various kinds of development. Request of Council: Staff asks for city council direction on the following: 1. Is there council support for the approval of the Market Affordability Gap method as recommended? 2. If not, and if the development cost methodology is instead preferred, how shall staff overcome the difficulties which have been encountered historically in trying to utilize this methodology? Council discussion on how and/or whether to assess against residential homes will follow and will be facilitated by the City’s Community Development department. P11 II. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Work Session: Single-Family and Duplex Mitigation DATE: January 6, 2014 BACKGROUND: The City requires the redevelopment (“scrape-and-replace”) of single-family and duplex properties to provide housing mitigation. Because these projects affect existing development, the mitigation requirements are lower than for new development. Mitigation options for these projects include providing an off-site affordable unit, payment of a cash-in-lieu fee, providing an affordable housing certificate, or building an ADU on the property. An ADU is an accessory dwelling unit that must be separate from the main house and may on ly be rented to a local worker. There are approximately 150 to 200 ADUs, most of which were built as a result of this mitigation requirement. Occupancy of these units is estimated to vary between 20 and 30 percent, much lower than desired by many. A few factors contributed to staff requesting Council direction. 1) The ADU option has been criticized for not providing enough actual benefit to the community’s housing dilemma. The AACP, and other ongoing community discussions have suggested elimination of this program. The AH Certificate program, which didn’t exist until recently, is now the mitigation option preferred by APCHA. 2) Eliminating the ADU option will leave the cash-in-lieu option and the housing certificate option as the two likely choices for developers. As the cash-in-lieu rate adjustment discussion is not settled, staff is hesitant to proceed with a code amendment. Staff is not comfortable saying “it’s this number now, but it’s going up and we don’t know what that new number will be.” 3) There is no process currently for a homeowner wanting to retire an ADU and eliminate the deed restriction on their property. The deed restriction in particular is often a discussion point during property transactions and it appears there would be interest in a program to “unwind” existing ADUs and relive a property of the deed restriction. 4) The previous discussion to revise the single-family/duplex mitigation requirements was criticized by the development community as having a weak basis for defining the impacts to be mitigated. This basis can be bolstered, but requires the purchase of outside expertise. RECOMMENDATIONS: Community Development is seeking direction from City Council. Following are the points that need discussion and staff’s recommendations for proceeding: P12 III. 1. Continue to require affordable housing mitigation for single-family and duplex development. Development in Aspen brings impacts and the community has imposed various requirements for those impacts to be mitigated or lessened. Continuing the mitigation requirement would be in keeping with community expectations for new development and with expectations for residential development since 1990. This first question is fundamental to the remaining questions. If the community no longer needs or wants to require mitigation for the expansion of single-family and duplex development, staff can proceed with code amendments and the remaining questions are irrelevant. 2. Base the residential mitigation requirements on employee generation associated with homes. Any mitigation system used by the City will need empirical documentation on the number of employees generated by single-family and duplex homes. This could include employment impacts associated with initial construction, associated with ongoing maintenance and operation, and potentially public safety services. Documenting employee generation impacts is a specialized expertise well beyond staff’s capabilities. This is typical and there are consultant firms who specialize in impact fee strategies. Initial outreach suggests a “bare-bones” study would be $12-15,000. A comprehensive analysis will cost $30-35,000. The cheaper study would rely on data collected through other studies, both here and elsewhere. The downside to this would be that some of the data may be called into question as either old or not reflective of Aspen conditions. The more expensive option would include collection of current Aspen data, likely through a homeowner survey. Given the importance of the study being able to withstand public scrutiny and potential court scrutiny, staff believes the extra cost for high-quality work is justified. If this option is desired, staff will request a supplemental budget adjustment and proceed with the procurement process. 3. Assess mitigation requirements based on a project’s net increase in Floor Area. Much of the City’s impact fees are now based on Floor Area. This simplifies developer estimates and the City’s review of building permits. This also has some built-in discounts – some areas do not count as Floor Area, such as garages, basements, and storage. The current system is based on “demolition.” This requires constant monitoring of quasi- demolition projects. Impacts to the community are experienced regardless of the process of construction. Staff recommends mitigation be required upon an expansion of Floor Area, independent of whether demolition occurs as part of the construction process. This would bring the housing impacts section of the Land Use Code into alignment with how all other impact mitigation is treated in the City – based on net expansion, not development technique. 4. Explore a sliding scale or outright exemptions for small homes. In previous discussions, the Council was interested in minimizing mitigation fees for “small” projects. Setting a Floor Area P13 III. threshold under which no mitigation is required is a potential way to minimize financial impacts on the construction of small homes. Staff suggests more empirical data be collected and a sense of actual fee potential be determined before pursuing specific fee reduction options. 5. Eliminate voluntary-occupancy ADUs as a mitigation option. The option of providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit has been widely criticized for providing little actual housing benefit to the community. Actual occupancy of ADUs is estimated to be 20-30%. Remaining options would be cash-in-lieu or the certificate program. Also remaining would be the development of an ADU which is deed-restricted and sold through the APCHA sales program. Voluntary-occupancy ADUs could still be built, but would not longer provide a property with a mitigation credit. 6. Enable a simple process for retiring existing ADU deed restrictions. The existing ADU inventory does have a role in the overall housing inventory. While occupancy is low, simply eliminating existing ADUs will have a detrimental effect on the housing stock. In previous proposals, staff suggested an administrative process for vacating existing deed restrictions with a cash-in-lieu or certificate mitigation. Removing an ADU from a property would continue to be at the option of the property owner. P14 III. NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING At the request of Mayor Skadron, there will be a special City Council meeting Monday, January 6, 2014, at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 130 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado. The agenda for that meeting is: Request for Executive Session—C.R.S. 24-6-402(4) (b) and (e) conferences with City Attorney 4&�� "� )6i�c Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Notices delivered to: Mayor Skadron Councilman Daily Councilwoman Mullins Councilman Romero Councilman Frisch James R. True, city attorney Steve Barwick, city manager EXECUTIVE SESSION Date January 6,2014 Call to order at: I I. Co 'ncilmembers present: Councilmembers not present: [� nn Mullins F-1 Ann Mullins Steve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron Adam Frisch ❑ Adam Frisch [ rt Daily F-1 Art Daily Romero ❑ Dwayne Romero II. Motion to go into executive session by /� y ,_. ; seconded by •Z Other persons present: AGAINST: FOR: [a'Ann Mullins ❑Ann Mullins [teve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron Adam Frisch ❑ Adam Frisch [��jcrt Daily ❑ Art Daily Dwayne Romero ❑ Dwayne Romero III. MOTION TO CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF: C.R.s. 24-6-402(4) (a)The purchase, acquisition, lease,transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest bGConferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions. (c)Matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations. (d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism, both domestic and foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law; &Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators; (f) (1) Personnel matters except if the employee who is the subject of the session has requested an open meeting, or if the personnel matter involves more than one employee, all of the employees have requested an open meeting. IV. ATTESTATION: The undersigned attorney, representing the Council and being present at the executive session, attests that the subject of the unrecorded portions of the session constituted confidential attorney-client communication: The undersigned chair of the executive session attests that the discussion s e e s ss on were limited to the topic(s)described in Section III, above. Adjourned at: