Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20100824THE CITY OF ASPEN AGENDA CONTINUED MEETING AUGUST 24, 2010 4:00 P.M. 1. Resolution #67, 2010 — Ballot Question — Lodging Tax 2. Resolution #70, 2010 — Ballot Question — Charter Amendment June Runoff 3. Resolution #71, 2010 — Ballot Question — Charter Amendment No Runoff n. Resolution #72, 2010 — Amending MOU with CU — Given Institute 5. Resolution #73, 2010 — Ballot Question — Given Institute 6. Given Institute Ordinance #48 Negotiation WORK SESSION: Police Department Update; Housing Guidelines Update EXECUTIVE SESSION Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Mayor and Members of Council John P. Worcester August 24, 2010 Tourism Promotion Tax Question the City of Aspen City paprneyS OICce Attached is a copy of a revised version of Resolution no. 67, Series of 2010. If adopted, it would refer of the electors a question seeking to raise the tourism promotion tax by 1 %. The changes to the ballot question are shown on the proposed resolution. The changes are intended to give the city greater flexibility on how it spends the revenues from the tax. cc: City Manager RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AT THE NOVEMBER 2, 2010, SPECIAL ELECTION, A QUESTION SEEKING AUTHORITY TO INCREASE THE TOURISM PROMOTION TAX BY THE LEVY OF AN ADITIONAL I % TAX. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is a world renowned tourist destination; and WHEREAS, the continuation of a healthy tourism industry is essential for the economic well -being of the City of Aspen and the general welfare of its citizens and such an industry requires a continuous investment in the planning, promotion, and development of the City of Aspen as a world renowned travel destination; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it should be the policy of the City to guide a sustainable and coordinated tourism industry in the City of Aspen; and WHERES, the electors of the City of Aspen have previously approved the imposition of a 1% "Visitor Benefit Tax" upon the leasing or renting of rooms or other accommodations in commercial lodging establishments by transient persons to fund tourism promotion and to partially defray the cost of regional transportation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that tourism promotion should be further enhanced, in part, by the imposition of a Tourism Promotion tax upon the leasing or renting of rooms or other accommodations in commercial lodging accommodations by short term visitors and guests; and WHEREAS, in the event that the electorate authorizes the City Council to impose an additional I % Tourism Promotion tax, it is the intention of the City Council to adopt an ordinance imposing such a tax that (a) supplements the existing Tourism Promotion Fund that is separate and distinct from any other City funds or accounts used or maintained by the City for any other purposes; (b) requires the City Council to contract for promotional and marketing services with a professional entity specializing in the promotion, advertisement and marketing of tourism in the City of Aspen such as the Aspen Chamber Resort Association or other similar marketing entity; and, (c) provides for the specific procedures for collection, reporting, enforcement, violations, penalties, and other administrative matters incident to the administration of the Tourism Promotion tax; and WHEREAS, Article X, Section 20(4) of the Colorado Constitution requires municipalities to obtain voter approval in advance of the creation of any multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or in advance of increasing taxes; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 The following question, seeking authorization to impose a Tourism Promotion tax, shall be placed on the ballot at the November 2, 2010 election: CITY OF ASPEN - REFERENDUM 1.0% TOURISM PROMOTION TAX. SHALL CITY OF ASPEN TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $ 1,100,000 (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE, NET OF ANY CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED TAX CUTS) ANNUALLY BY THE IMPOSITION OF AN INCREASE IN THE TOURISM PROMOTION TAX OF 1.0% UPON THE LEASING OR RENTING OF ROOMS OR OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS IN COMMERCIAL LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS BY TRANSIENT PERSONS, COMMENCING ON JANUARY 1, 2011, THE RECEIPTS OF WHICH TO BE DEPOSITIED IN THE EXISTING TOURISM PROMOTION FUND, TO PROVIDE THAT SAID FUND MAY BE EXPENDED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPENDING 100% OF SAID TAX RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING TOURISM IN THE CITY OF ASPEN THROUGH A CONTRACT PA WITH " ° rr rReFE AL ENTITY S: GH "° THE ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION (ACRA) OR OTHER SIMILAR D AA A RVETING ENTITY, AND SHALL ANY EARNINGS (REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT) FROM THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE? [ ] YES [ ] NO Section 2 The City Clerk of the City of Aspen shall take all steps necessary to conduct the election in accordance with the City of Aspen Municipal Code and Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk JPW -8/24/ 2010 -G: \john \word \rectos \ba11ot10 - 11 - b.doc 3 Memorandum TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: August 24, 2010 RE: Amendments to the City Charter the CiN of Aspen City CnsrneY� CICce At last night's meeting you asked for a brief explanation of the procedures that must be followed to amend our City Charter. Section 13.10 of the Aspen home Rule Charter reads as follows: Section 13.10. Charter amendments. This Charter may be amended at any time in the manner provided by the constitution. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as preventing the submission to the people of more than one Charter amendment at any one election. If provisions of two (2) or more proposed amendments adopted or approved at the same election conflict, the amendment receiving the highest affirmative vote shall become effective. Article XX, Section 5 of the Colorado Constitution allows the city council of a home rule municipality to submit to its electorate a ballot question seeking to amend its city charter. Home rule cities are vested with the power to make amendments to their charter. Four -County Metro. Capital Improvement District Board of County Commissioners, 369 P.2d 67 (Colo. 1962). Article XX, Section 9, of the Colorado Constitution reads, in relevant part, as follows: (2) The general assembly shall provide by statute procedures under which the registered electors of any proposed or existing city ... may amend ... a home rule charter.... No municipal home rule charter, amendment thereto, ... shall become effective until approved by a majority of the registered electors of such city ... voting thereon. The state legislature has adopted by statutes procedures for amending a home rule charter. Section 31 -2 -210, C.R.S., reads in relevant part, as follows: 31 -2- 2120., Procedure to amend or repeal charter. (1) Proceedings to amend a home rule charter may be initiated by either of the following methods: (b) An ordinance adopted by the governing body submitting the proposed amendment to a vote of the registered electors of the municipality... (6) If a majority of the registered electors voting thereon vote for a proposed amendment, the amendment shall be deemed approved.... From the above, it is clear that amendments to the charter can be accomplished by adopting an ordinance that contains the proposed amendments and is thereafter submitted for approval by the electors. In addition, the proposed amendment must be approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon. There are a few additional statutes that provide some guidance. Section 31 -2 -211, C.R.S., states that elections held to approve home rule charter amendments should "as nearly as practicable in conformity with the provisions of the `Colorado Municipal Election Code'." Section 31 -11- 103(4), C.R.S., indicates that submission clauses in ballot measures referred to the electorate should be posed so as "to form a question that can be answered by `yes' or `no'." Alternative questions: Members of the public have suggested alternatives to the questions proposed in the resolutions now before you. Most to the criticism of the current versions of the ballot question is that neither question asks electors a straightforward question whether they want to repeal IRV. Unfortunately, the only type of question that we can ask is whether voters approve specific amendments to the Charter. If the City was to ask whether voters want to repeal IRV and the question passed, the City Charter would not have any procedure for the election of Mayor or members of Council. Others have suggested compound questions or two separate questions that first ask the voter whether he or she wants to repeal IRV and then, if the voter agrees that IRV should be repealed, the voter is asked to choose between the two proposed election methods. This suggestion has some logic to it as it gives voters an opportunity to voice an opinion on whether IRV should be repealed. The problem, however, with these suggestions is that it does not follow the established method for amending a city charter. Moreover, these methods have their own inherent problems. In the current political environment in which every decision and action regarding elections is challenged, litigated or criminalized, I am reluctant to recommend to Council that it deviate in any way from the methodology and procedures directed by the state legislature for amending a city charter. [June Run -off 40,6] RESOLUTION NO. TG' (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN A CERTAIN QUESTION SEEKING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ASPEN HOME RULE CHARTER BY AMENDING SECTIONS 2.7, 3.2, AND 3.3 TO ELIMINATE INSTANT RUN -OFF VOTING PROCEDURES FOR THE ELECTION OF MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL; AND, TO REINSTATE THE JUNE RUN -OFF ELECTION PROCEDURES IF CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICES OF MAYOR FAIL TO RECEIVE FIFTY PERCENT (50 %) PLUS ONE VOTE, OR MORE, OF THE VOTES CAST, AND CANDIDATES FOR CITY COUNCIL FAIL TO RECEIVE FORTY FIVE PERCENT (450 %) PLUS ONE VOTE OR MORE, OF THE VOTES CAST. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to eliminate the instant run -off voting procedures for the offices of Mayor and City Council, and to amend the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to reinstate the June run -off voting procedures if candidates fail to obtain at least 40% of the votes cast for the office; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ask the voters to approve the ordinance that seeks to amend the Aspen Home Rule Charter as herein proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: The following question shall be placed on the ballot at the November 2, 2010, election: CITY OF ASPEN REFERENDUM NO. AMENDMENT TO CITY CHARTER — REPLACE IRV WITH JUNE RUN OFF VOTING PROCEDURES. Shall Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2010, be approved? Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2010, if approved, amends sections 2.7, 3.2 and 3.3 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to eliminate instant run -off voting procedures and re- instate previously used run -off procedures in June for the election of mayor and members of Council if candidates for city council do not receive forty -five percent (45 %) plus one vote or more of the total votes cast for the office or candidates for the office of mayor do not receive €ertyf�- percent (5049 %) plus one vote or more, of the total votes cast for the office. There are two ballot questions seeking to amend the City Charter to replace instant run -off voting procedures with alternative voting procedures. You may cast a vote in fa:eF e in one or both questions. If both ballot questions receives a majority of affirmative votesthe .etes Est the question receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall be deemed approved. Yes [ ] No [ ] INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 1PW- saved: 8/24/2010 8F46F2(1F0- 510- ballot90- Nov -hme mnolldoc [No run -off procedure] RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN A CERTAIN QUESTION SEEKING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ASPEN HOME RULE CHARTER BY REPEALING SECTION 2.7, AND AMENDING 3.2 AND 3.3 TO ELIMINATE ALL RUN -OFF VOTING PROCEDURES FOR THE OFFICES OF MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to eliminate all types of run -off elections for the offices of Mayor and Members of Council, and to reinstate the previously used run -off procedures in June for the election of Mayor and Members of Council if the candidates for each office do not receive at least 40% of the votes cast, and; WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ask the voters to approve the ordinance that seeks to amend the Aspen Home Rule Charter as herein proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: The following question shall be placed on the ballot at the November 2, 2010, election: CITY OF ASPEN REFERENDUM NO. _ AMENDMENT TO CITY CHARTER — REPLACE IRV WITH WINNER TAKE ALL VOTING PROCEDURES. Shall Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2010, be approved? Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2010, if approved, would repeal Section 2.7 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to eliminate all run -off voting procedures (including instant run -off voting procedures) for the election of mayor and members of Council; and to amend Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to declare the candidates receiving the highest number of votes to be the winners of their respective election races. There are two ballot questions seeking to amend the City Charter to replace instant run -off voting procedures with alternative voting procedures. You may cast a vote in one or both questions. If both ballot questions receive a majority of affirmative votes, the question receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall be deemed approved. Yes [ ] No [ ] INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 1PW- saved: 8/24/2010 - 510- ballotl0- Nov -no run off a) > L 3 L O c c O o 15 -p D a) o O 0) (0 3 0 a) a) c E a) m o _c _ y U O TA a) _o c T) c U N C a) c 1_ m a) n O a7 0) w N U U a) o X N a) L _ m n m c) - 6 E m > EO N N In Cr N O U p U U 0 LL N c 3 m 5. C - {� E Q3 U (6 N "O O to- 0 7 7 T O T a) '� n N c O co O - c a) •— a) CU 0 > O N d E c co V a) L co N co a) Q. E 0 L 'c a7 o O O in O M = U O L (0 . - V N " o 9 3 E m o 4-• }+ T O n U o w c (n = a) N c O € .7 .V O 0 — - a7 0 Q c 0) O 0) 4 C - c c N 7 c • L O . c + 0 0 a) O O p O �O U a) 8 O. c to o .N ° `o I 1 p o y a) m d O o 0 L L 7 N O" N N a) a) CD ' O c `o - a) 3 a) w E o C 6 � 8 E i a) o e 2 a ) `. O '++ G) C a) o v a) d u) D a te ) 0 c 0 a) a) 3 a) 3 co > y c 0 U o a) O- c L U j c N _ p 3 o N a) rn a) ,_ o co 5 0 = N a) o m o N p o E o C CU d n . '(0 a) (� E o 3 a 0 0 .J O .c c3 2 U o a) in c -o ++ 0 no ° a ° ++ > ° 0 N a c i V c) C ° a) a —c i E < O L a y r o ,, E 4 _ C L o .ca 8 U / co > o w N 2 Q 'S 0_0_ Ct N O W 1 1 1 LL I ` I (n 1 T LL O U p_ c = a) a T O b ° a) 0 g O 4= 2 C a) p c N d p N O c u O c O_ a) O r N 0 N a) L ' O C n) N (1) 0 V O° N 16 O ° -d To .0 o o — o oo o as .° .6 c as 3 G c 0 1 'F't N 0 H o a c LI a)v [ 3 � b a �— ° , G.� O - o b O.�, o E _ O E >, 'd T p o ' o a1 a) U 8 r � p � to Y c N t a) ya 'd 4) o ,d Q..= ° f0 -0 . o.. a) ° O — -6 0 U a s > a o s ° as 4t c o d 'J go b 00 1 G ai m a a) i . U Q 3 Y on t) c ....., a.) m -o c c ® o G1 U o 7.4 o a) e n • w o a'� o c r.. . 0 o .^, S , C cc ' d cn �' O a) i' L ryj a) w U ' a a) fa 0 ° ° ' d C U L 0 ; ;! Fi O O .� M " x 0 0 O u y d) C w c a1 ? .+ 4 W 8 "' id a a) i C =' C E C 1 • U E w c� 4 W C = b , ° O. .2 O 0 a) 0 .0 C 6 a) 'd U v, C 13 O E co C co C d 0 p a O U C L" 15 6) a) a) .6 N z C c j T'O > b G U 3 z .G i b 0 = a) O O 0 g v d c P o ✓ � U V p 0 U Q m ti 0 „ .o = 3 N d A ` W m i n ° 21 m 6. N W . L . � i 'O p a) � ' C C 0 CO 0 • L c c 'd E c 00.a. o 0 _O - d . b ti a) O 0 cd C C 7.1 0" a) c O O b ��' Y a) " na O . 9 ") O y -d ti) as • 3 N O v 48 to 'rte .. O " U �' o 4: 2 C o a() -2 N d, , m T a) CI w 69 l 3 G , ° U SS J 9 l9 «. a) 2 0) 7 a) ° 7 m a) .5 ti G b 4-i C - 0 L c �' —4 0 �_ m 0 ° o a) c 0- c • 7 CD cu 0 t a) 0 cal 0 . 0 0. °, C —°° ° L ^ `� U V 1. 0 O a a' O V CO O T C7 O H y o = 0 I ai 0 Y O CO y 2 m o a t i w a) C c o w ° o c o c O c u C ?. C O R. c w N> L p . '6 'O Q C ,O r N 'b c V ` a) O 0 N ~ °� ° c co E o '" v.0 E C U Q p N © O . d E N r a) 7 u E © ° v, y O 6 0 'a 0 Q U o "O u7 r N y N 0 O 0 o co e / / \ } / / k 0° co 15 }\ 2 ® cp f e k E a \ - 2 0 > a \\ � co u c b 7 m 2 _ k \ _ ! c } C § _ £ 0 CD 2 § \ c ƒ % § [ 7 @ & 2 = _ 0 ! / ƒ E 2 @ d ) co ¥ \ t / k k \ \ \ > E 1.4- ° 2 ° c co oa} ] r o — C \ } \ CO ° C { k ( ° 2 a / CO 0 2 j - \ / > \ — R ; k \ - k k `\k - .0 n \ $ ) 2 \ > m § \ ( f ƒ \ • _ \ Q G G * 2 { -9‘,) \ \ 2 \ \ c 2 / \ \ \ \ \ S \ \ k ) \ g \ \ 0 > / % re • 2 2 t CD '- { / 7 CO f \ ){ E E \ 0 — / \ / § ®2 o • f e } ) 0 - \ © ° § E \ ) 2 f ) \ § e ) ) [ 0 9 % f / ƒ 3 / § \ 1 ( \ / / \ } / a / \ \ f & § ƒ ) a the CiIY of Cspen Memorandum City Cttornev s Office TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: August 23, 2010 RE: Givens Institute - Amended MOU and Ballot Question There are two items on Monday night's regular meeting agenda relating to the Given Institute. The first is a resolution to submit a ballot question to the voters at the November election seeking authority to levy a property tax to purchase the Given Institute. The second item is a resolution which, if approved, would authorize the City manager to execute an amended version of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the University of Colorado. As you may know, we still do not have a signed Memorandum of Understanding with CU regarding the future of the Given Institute. The last formal action by City Council regarding this matter was approval of a proposed MOU that we thought CU would execute. At that time, our concern was the City's ability to verify that CU had, in fact, a firm offer of $17.0 million for the property. This was naturally important to verify as that was the amount the voters would be asked to approve in a bond question. Following Council's approval of the MOU, CU was not able to agree to the language of the MOU that required CU to disclose the offer and eventually disclose the identity of the potential purchaser. The reason given was that the potential purchaser would not agree to that arrangement. I received a letter dated July 26, 2010, from the Dean of the College of Medicine verifying that CU "had received a firm offer from a private owner ... for $17.0 million... without any conditions as to how the University is to use that $17,000,000." The Dean left the country for awhile and I didn't hear back from CU for several days. On August 3, 2010, I spoke with the Dean and he advised me that the potential purchaser had withdrawn his offer, but was still interested in purchasing a smaller parcel that did not include the historic resources on the property. In other words, the parcel containing the historic buildings along with some additional open space would be available for purchase and the historical building was no longer at risk of being demolished. He indicated that he wanted to have a meeting with all persons interested in the sale of the Given Institute and try to work out an amicable solution. The Dean agreed to contact everyone involved and schedule a meeting during the week of August 9 or the week of August 16. No meeting was scheduled. On Monday, August 16, I received a phone call from CU's attorney indicating that their "back- up" purchaser had agreed to make an offer of $15.0 million for the entire property. (That was the first time that I heard that CU had a back -up offer.) The back -up purchaser was willing to agree to the MOU (meaning he would be willing to allow the voters of Aspen to match his offer, etc.) On August 17, I again spoke with counsel for CU and he informed me that the back -up purchaser wanted to make some changes to the MOU between the City and CU. I informed him that their last minute changes made it very difficult for the City to place a bond question on the ballot as the time for such an action was quickly running out. Moreover, the changes that the new buyer wanted to make to the MOU would need to be approved by the Aspen City Council. Between August 17 and August 20, 2010, I attempted to negotiate amendments to the MOU that I thought Council would be amenable to considering. I received the attached MOU as the last and best offer from counsel for CU and counsel for the potential purchaser. This version of the MOU seeks to introduce the potential purchaser as a third party beneficiary of the original MOU negotiated between the City and CU. In that original MOU, the essence of the agreement was that everyone would hold off on any further activity until the voters had an opportunity in November to approve a property tax increase to purchase the Given Institute. The City agreed not to designate the property as historic or rezone the property and CU agreed not to take any further actions to demolish the historic resources on the property. If the voters decided not to approve the ballot measure, CU would then be free to demolish the buildings and sell the property to a private purchaser. The attached proposed MOU would grant to the potential purchaser a ten year period of time in which to demolish the buildings and also be granted a three year vesting of his rights to develop the property under the City's current land use code. In other words, the potential purchaser would be insulated for three years from any changes to the City's land use code that affected his/her ability to develop the property. The reason given to me from counsel for the potential purchaser for insisting on the vested rights periods is that his client is prepared to spend $15.0 million for the property and wants some assurance that when he is ready to develop the land that the City's land use code will not prevent him from doing so. The Community Development staff, including the historic resource officer, has asked me to convey to you that they do not support the amended MOU. Their feeling is that the original MOU was appropriate as CU was willing to allow the community to decide if they wanted to purchase the property. The amendments merely grant to the potential purchaser additional incentives to purchase the Given Institute and speculate on future developments on the property. cc: City Manager Dean agreed to contact everyone involved and schedule a meeting during the week of August 9 or the week of August 16. No meeting was scheduled. On Monday, August 16, I received a phone call from CU's attorney indicating that their "back- up" purchaser had agreed to make an offer of $15.0 million for the entire property. (That was the first time that I heard that CU had a back -up offer.) The back -up purchaser was willing to agree to the MOU (meaning he would be willing to allow the voters of Aspen to match his offer, etc.) On August 17, I again spoke with counsel for CU and he informed me that the back -up purchaser wanted to make some changes to the MOU between the City and CU. I informed him that their last minute changes made it very difficult for the City to place a bond question on the ballot as the time for such an action was quickly running out. Moreover, the changes that the new buyer wanted to make to the MOU would need to be approved by the Aspen City Council. Between August 17 and August 20, 2010, I attempted to negotiate amendments to the MOU that I thought Council would be amenable to considering. I received the attached MOU as the last and best offer from counsel for CU and counsel for the potential purchaser. This version of the MOU seeks to introduce the potential purchaser as a third party beneficiary of the original MOU negotiated between the City and CU. In that original MOU, the essence of the agreement was that everyone would hold off on any further activity until the voters had an opportunity in November to approve a property tax increase to purchase the Given Institute. The City agreed not to designate the property as historic or rezone the property and CU agreed not to take any fiuther actions to demolish the historic resources on the property. If the voters decided not to approve the ballot measure, CU would then be free to demolish the buildings and sell the property to a private purchaser. The attached proposed MOU would grant to the potential purchaser a ten year period of time in which to demolish the buildings and also be granted a three year vesting of his rights to develop the property under the City's current land use code. In other words, the potential purchaser would be insulated for three years from any changes to the City's land use code that affected his/her ability to develop the property. The reason given to me from counsel for the potential purchaser for insisting on the vested rights periods is that his client is prepared to spend $15.0 million for the property and wants some assurance that when he is ready to develop the land that the City's land use code will not prevent him from doing so. The Community Development staff, including the historic resource officer, has asked me to convey to you that they do not support the amended MOU. Their feeling is that the original MOU was appropriate as CU was willing to allow the community to decide if they wanted to purchase the property. The amendments merely grant to the potential purchaser additional incentives to purchase the Given Institute and speculate on future developments on the property. cc: City Manager