COMBINED SPECIAL MEETING/WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2016 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 211 WEST ASPEN AVENUE 6:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING |
|||||||
1. | CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Nabours called the Special Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held May 31, 2016, to order at 6:00 p.m. NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
|
|||||||||
2. | PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MISSION STATEMENT
The audience and City Council recited the Pledge of Allegiance. |
|||||||||
3. | ROLL CALL
Others present: City Manager Josh Copley and Interim City Attorney Sterling Solomon. |
|||||||||
4. | PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS | |||||||||
A. | Public Hearing, Consideration and Possible Adoption of Resolution Nos. 2016-21 and 2016-13, and Ordinance No. 2016-22: Public hearing to consider proposed amendments to Flagstaff Zoning Code, Chapter 10-50 (Supplemental to Zones), Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards), and other related amendments in Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures and Enforcement), Chapter 10-80 (Definitions) and Chapter 10-90 (Maps); consideration of Resolution No. 2016-13 declaring the proposed amendments as a public record; and adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-22, adopting amendments to Flagstaff Zoning Code Chapter 10-50 (Supplemental to Zones), Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards), and other related amendments in Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures and Enforcement), Chapter 10-80 (Definitions) and Chapter 10-90 (Maps), by reference, and consideration of Resolution No. 2016-21 to adopt the Flagstaff Sign Free Zone (Zoning Code Amendments - Sign Standards; adopting the Flagstaff Sign Free Zone) | |||||||||
Mayor Nabours stated that staff has requested an additional week to look into a few more things and provide the Council with a more up to date draft that incorporates recent changes in law. Councilmember Putzova requested information and clarity on how the current proposal stands and how it effects access to speech in creating three different categories based on the types of land one does or does not own. Mr. Soloman stated that the information will be provided to Council in advance of the meeting so they have time to review the information. |
||||||||||
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to postpone item 4A to the regular Council meeting of June 7, 2016. | ||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 | ||||||||||
B. | Public Hearing, Consideration and Possible Adoption of Resolution No. 2016-19 and Ordinance No. 2016-26: Declaring the "2016 Amendments to City Code Title 7, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 7-04, Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service” a public record and adopting said revisions to Chapter 7-04 "Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service" of the City Code by reference. | |||||||||
Public Works Director Andy Bertelsen stated that he and staff are available for any questions should the Council have any. | ||||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to adopt Resolution No. 2016-19. | ||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 | ||||||||||
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to read Ordinance No. 2016-26 by title only for the final time. | ||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 | ||||||||||
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE, TITLE 7, HEALTH AND SANITATION, CHAPTER 7-04, MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE, BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED “2016 AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE TITLE 7, HEALTH AND SANITATION, CHAPTER 7-04, MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE.”; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, AUTHORITY FOR CLERICAL CORRECTIONS, SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE | ||||||||||
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to adopt Ordinance 2016-26. | ||||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 | ||||||||||
5. | REGULAR AGENDA | |||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Cooperative Contract: Enter into a contract with RBC Capital Markets, LLC of Phoenix, Arizona to purchase Bond Underwriting Services. | |||||||
Management Services Director Rick Tadder provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: CITY OF FLAGSTAFF DEBT ISSUING ITEMS DEBT ISSUING UNDERWRITING SERVICES Mayor Nabours asked if bonds are issued to the City with specific designations on what projects they will be used for. Mr. Tadder stated that the bonds are designated to specific projects with specific amounts. Mayor Nabours asked when bonds are purchased from the City if the purchaser specifies which bonds they want based on project type. Mr. Tadder explained that when the City puts bonds out for purchase it is done as a lump sum of the projects for general obligation bonds; it is not specific by one project or another. Mr. Tadder continued the presentation. DEBT ISSUING GENERAL COMMENTS DEBT ISSUING GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT DEBT ISSUING REVENUE DEBT Councilmember Oravits asked why such a large amount is being requested and if it was anticipated that a large number of projects would be done this coming year with regard to the Road Repair and Street Safety Project. Mr. Tadder explained that a portion of the request is for next year’s projects and the other portion will be reimbursing the funds that were already put into the project. Councilmember Overton asked if the City will pay the bonds off early if the sales tax collected exceeds the projections or if it will roll the revenue into other projects. Mr. Tadder stated that in general, the money would roll into other projects but there will be discussions and negotiations with the underwriters to determine which direction makes most sense; additionally, the City could also look at issuing less debt the next go around by using those excess funds. Mr. Tadder continued the presentation. DEBT ISSUING REMAINING AUTHORIZATION |
||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to approve the purchase of Bond Underwriting Services through RBC Capital Markets, LLC of Phoenix, Arizona for a fee of $100,088 utilizing a cooperative purchase agreement through the State of Arizona, Contract #ADSP013-036403. | ||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 | ||||||||
B. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-28: An ordinance of the Council of the City of Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona, approving and authorizing the sale and issuance of City of Flagstaff, Arizona general obligation bonds, series 2016, in the total aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $18,200,000 and all matters related thereto; prescribing certain terms and conditions of such bonds including the delegation to the Management Services Director of the City to designate the final principal amount, maturities, interest rates and yields and other matters with respect to such bonds; awarding a contract for the purchase of such bonds; ratifying preparation of a preliminary official statement and approving the use and distribution thereof and approving the preparation of a final official statement and the execution, use and distribution thereof (General Obligation Debt Authorization - Open Space, Core Facility, and Watershed Protection) | |||||||
A written comment card in favor of Ordinance 2016-28 was submitted by Karen Malis-Clark. | ||||||||
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to read Ordinance 2016-28 for the first time by title only. | ||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 | ||||||||
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2016, IN THE TOTAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $18,200,000 AND ALL MATTERS RELATED THERETO; PRESCRIBING CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH BONDS INCLUDING THE DELEGATION TO THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OF THE CITY TO DESIGNATE THE FINAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, MATURITIES, INTEREST RATES AND YIELDS AND OTHER MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH BONDS; AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SUCH BONDS; RATIFYING PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND APPROVING THE USE AND DISTRIBUTION THEREOF AND APPROVING THE PREPARATION OF A FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND THE EXECUTION, USE AND DISTRIBUTION THEREOF | ||||||||
C. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-29: An ordinance of the Council of City of Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona, approving the sale and execution and delivery of not to exceed $10,000,000 aggregate principal amount of pledged revenue obligations, evidencing proportionate interests of the owners thereof in a purchase agreement to acquire and construct street improvements and ongoing preservation of street conditions in and for the City; approving the form and authorizing the execution and delivery of such purchase agreement, a second trust agreement, a continuing disclosure undertaking, an obligation purchase contract and other necessary agreements, instruments and documents; delegating authority to the Management Services Director of the City to determine certain matters and terms with respect to the foregoing; authorizing a contract for the purchase of the obligations and ratifying preparation of a preliminary official statement and approving the use and distribution thereof and approving preparation of a final official statement and the execution, use and distribution thereof (Revenue Bond Debt Authorization - Road Repair and Street Safety) | |||||||
Moved by Councilmember Karla Brewster, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to read Ordinance No. 2016-29 for the first time by title only. | ||||||||
Vote: 7 - 0 | ||||||||
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA, APPROVING THE SALE AND EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF NOT TO EXCEED $10,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF PLEDGED REVENUE OBLIGATIONS, EVIDENCING PROPORTIONATES INTERESTS OF THE OWNERS THEREOF IN A PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE AND CONSTRUCT STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND ONGOING PRESERVATION OF STREET CONDITIONS IN AND FOR THE CITY; APPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF SUCH PURCHASE AGREEMENT, A SECOND TRUST AGREEMENT, A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE UNDERTAKING, AN OBLIGATION PURCHASE CONTRACT AND OTHER NECESSARY AGREEMENTS, INSTRUMENTS AND DOCUMENTS; DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OF THE CITY TO DETERMINE CERTAIN MATTERS AND TERMS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOREGOING; AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND RATIFYING PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND APPROVING THE USE AND DISTRIBUTION THEREOF AND APPROVING PREPARATION OF A FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND THE EXECUTION, USE AND DISTRIBUTION THEREOF | ||||||||
D. | Direction on Recommended 2017 League Resolutions | |||||||
Assistant to the City Manager Stephanie Smith provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: 2017 LEAGUE RESOLUTIONS FUTURE COUNCIL ACTION POSSIBLE POLICY STATEMENTS CONSIDERATION LOCAL CONTROL LOCAL REVENUES FOREST HEALTH TREATMENTS GUNS IN PUBLIC FACILITIES ENERGY FINANCING DISTRICTS HOUSING TRUST FUND RESTORATION Councilmember Overton suggested adding “and opportunities” to the end of the Local Control statement. He also offered that he would like to see the statement on Forest Health Treatments be more aggressive; he feels that there are more opportunities with ADOT for cleanup of right of ways and weed thinning. Advocating and expanding the idea of preventing the grass fire from starting in the right of ways could be partnered with the forest health concept. Councilmember Oravits stated that the same could be said about the dead and dying trees along I-17. Vice Mayor Barotz added that she would like to include the wording “to prevent catastrophic wildfire.” Ms. Smith suggested the language of “advocate for investing in state right of way clean ups and treatments on state owned land in and around cities and towns to prevent catastrophic wildfire and improve overall forest health in Arizona.” Councilmember Putzova stated that she feels that the local control item has been a part of the resolutions for some time and the State legislature keeps restricting the local control and the League does not seem to take any steps to enforce or protect local government authority. She recommended adding language that is more specific about including legal action to strengthen the statement. Vice Mayor Barotz asked what authority means in the context of the State Shared Revenue item. Ms. Smith stated that authority means the ability for the Council to impose fees. Vice Mayor Barotz suggested that the authority and existing funding be split up or clarified that they are different because protecting existing state funding is different from protecting local authority to pass legislation that generates revenue. She suggested “protect existing state funding and the authority of cities to generate revenue through local legislation.” Councilmember Overton stated that the energy financing district item has been submitted for a number of years but never seems to get any traction. He asked if there was something in the language that could be modified to garner more interest. Ms. Smith explained that the League’s approach this past year was to build a coalition from the private sector rather than go the legislative route and that coalition has not yet taken off. The League does have it on its municipal policy statement focusing more on work from the private angle. Councilmember Overton asked if the statement should be reworded to be more supportive or accepting of those efforts. Mayor Nabours stated that one of the problems with this is that there is no other city that is very interested, there is not a big push for this as a result. Ms. Smith offered that she could work with Richard Travis to develop language that is more conducive to the progress or lack of progress on the issue. The end goal is that these kinds of projects can be funded through alternative means. Mayor Nabours suggested two additional items be added to the list; the first is that the state law regarding signage needs to be clarified in light of the Reed case and in regard to signage and right of ways. The second is for the State to make whatever changes necessary to give cities the option to allow city council and mayoral candidates to obtain signatures online as the state offices are allowed to. Councilmember Oravits stated that he would support those items and added that he would also like to lobby for changing the formula that is used to calculate the number of signatures required for City Council or Mayoral seats. The signature requirements could be a stumbling block for some because the signature requirements are based on the last election. Now that the elections are consolidated there will be a much higher signature threshold. When you look at the legislature or county board seats there is a much smaller threshold for signatures. Vice Mayor Barotz requested information on how the calculations are done so they can understand the context. Councilmember Putzova stated that she would not support this change because candidates run at large and are appealing to the entire electorate whereas the legislature or county board seats are partisan elections. She feels that the formula is appropriate for the type of race. Councilmember Evans requested more information about the cost of obtaining signatures online. She also asked for information on how many signatures could be collected electronically and how people without access to the internet would participate in the petition process. Councilmember Putzova asked if there is another way to get clarification on the sign issue; she asked if it is something that the City can ask the Attorney General to clarify. Mr. Solomon stated that the City can always ask for clarification from the Attorney General’s office. Mayor Nabours asked if it is an issue that the City wants the League to work on. Ms. Smith added that the League resolution process sometimes results in the League adopting policies into their annual statement that involve seeking clarification or building coalitions. There are four Councilmembers in favor of adding the suggestions to the recommendations. Ms. Smith stated that she will be back before the Council at the meeting of August 16, 2016 to seek direction on resolutions prior to the League annual conference. A written comment card in favor of the recommended League Resolutions was submitted by Karen Malis-Clark. |
||||||||
6. | Adjournment
The Special Meeting of May 31, 2016, adjourned at 6:59 p.m.
WORK SESSION
|
|||||||
1. | Call to Order Mayor Nabours called the Flagstaff City Council Work Session of May 31, 2016, to order at 6:59 p.m. |
|||||||
2. | Preliminary Review of Draft Agenda for the June 7, 2016, City Council Meeting.*
* Public comment on draft agenda items may be taken under “Review of Draft Agenda Items” later in the meeting, at the discretion of the Mayor. Citizens wishing to speak on agenda items not specifically called out by the City Council for discussion under the second Review section may submit a speaker card for their items of interest to the recording clerk.
|
|||||||
Councilmember Putzova requested additional information on the Legends agreement; specifically the performance of the previous agreement, metrics to tie to the agreement and what kind of additional sales tax revenue is realized due to the partnership/agreement. She would also like to get clarification on the clause in the agreement that states Legends will work in good faith to find an alternative location for an LED message board; she would like to know what that clause legally means and would like to understand what happens if they do not find something. Economic Vitality Director Heidi Hansen addressed Council stating that staff will have that information for next week. She added that the clause Councilmember Putzova was discussing is an extra bonus that the city is looking at; a thermometer was created down in the Cool Zone that shows real time temperature in Flagstaff and staff would like to be able to use that thermometer somewhere else in the Legends District. Because of the good relationship between the City and Legends, they are looking for the City to partner with another group in the valley to use the thermometer so it does not go unused as the City moves forward with another promotional tool. Councilmember Putzova stated that she would like to get the legal interpretation of that clause. Ms. Hansen stated that she will include that information as well as specific information about how well the Cool Zone has done in that area. |
||||||||
3. | Public Participation Public Participation enables the public to address the council about items that are not on the prepared agenda. Public Participation appears on the agenda twice, at the beginning and at the end of the work session. You may speak at one or the other, but not both. Anyone wishing to comment at the meeting is asked to fill out a speaker card and submit it to the recording clerk. When the item comes up on the agenda, your name will be called. You may address the Council up to three times throughout the meeting, including comments made during Public Participation. Please limit your remarks to three minutes per item to allow everyone to have an opportunity to speak. At the discretion of the Chair, ten or more persons present at the meeting and wishing to speak may appoint a representative who may have no more than fifteen minutes to speak. |
|||||||
Tina Caskey and Kurt Brydenthal addressed Council regarding directional signage in their neighborhood. They asked why the signs had been installed and requested that they be removed and placed in a more necessary location. They indicated that they will send Council and the City Manager photos of the signs via email. Linda Webb addressed Council with concerns about public involvement and citizen participation. She feels that there are a number of things that hinder public participation and encouraged the Council to do better by including the public more before the time of approval and listen to their comments. Charlie Silver addressed the Council with comments about ambiguous requirements in state statute regarding protest procedures in zone change requests. |
||||||||
4. | Nestle-Purina PetCare Aroma Assessment and Mitigation | |||||||
Business Retention and Expansion Manager John Saltonstall stated that the City and Nestle Purina are currently in a development agreement that has been extended allowing the City and Nestle to develop a strategy to address the odors created during Purina’s production process. Through the course of this effort Council has asked about the progress; Mr. Saltonstall introduced Amy Kerr, the Factory Manager of Nestle Purina, who provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: PURINA IN FLAGSTAFF MEET PURINA PURINA IN FLAGSTAFF 40+ YEARS IN THIS COMMUNITY 300+ ASSOCIATES MAKE POPULAR PET FOODS ACTIVE IN THE COMMUNITY AROMA ASSESSMENT/MITIGATION OVERVIEW OF FACTORY AROMAS ASSESSMENT/MITIGATION PROJECT COLLECT DATA SAMPLING DISPERSION MODEL ID SOURCES EVALUATED SOLUTIONS PROPOSED SOLUTION Mayor Nabours asked how many plants Purina has and if odor is an issue at any of the other factories. Ms. Kerr stated that there are 26 plants in operation; she indicated that another plant does have the installation of a unit but that was required due to state regulations not community aspect. Purina is a good community partner, when the plants were originally built in the various locations they were built remotely and as communities grew and developed they have encroached into the area and there have been some complaints that have come from a couple of the plants. Purina is looking for opportunities to install this and the Flagstaff plant is leading the charge due to the interest from the community. Mayor Nabours asked if there is a way to measure the aroma that comes from the facility. Ms. Kerr stated that the study went onto the top of the facility and captured air emissions. That air is put into a panel to determine a dilution threshold. There are panelists who smell the samples after being diluted to determine the odor strength. Mayor Nabours asked how long the first step in the approach will take. Ms. Kerr offered that Purina is in the process of engineering now and if they get the capital funds they will hopefully start the installation process in early 2017. Mayor Nabours asked if they anticipate a noticeable change after the first stage to which Ms. Kerr stated that there should be a noticeable difference. All the exhaust that is coming off the extruders will be going through a long exhaust pipe reducing the odor. Councilmember Overton asked if they looked at any unintended challenges. Ms. Kerr stated that the study looked at dispersion and the higher it gets into the air the greater the dispersion is going to be. Wind, temperature and humidity are all factors and it is hard to determine what it will be on a day to day basis. Councilmember Overton stated that he feels that Purina is moving in the right direction and he hopes that there are good results early on in the process. Councilmember Putzova stated that the investment to go to the first phase is $430,000 and the Council is considering an extension of the tax credit; she asked what the value over that first year is and what the City would give up to get that. Mr. Saltonstall stated that right now, based on the current development agreement the annual savings to Purina is $400,000 annually. Based on the presentation the presence of Nestle Purina has a $54 million benefit to the Flagstaff community. Councilmember Brewster asked how long they anticipate needing to get the odor under control. Ms. Kerr stated that she anticipates that the first phase will have a nice impact but believes that the second phase will be needed to get a good result. Phase two is included in the capital investment proposal for 2017. Councilmember Putzova asked if Purina would pursue the aroma reduction solution as a good community partner even if they did not get the extension of the GPLET. Ms. Kerr stated that their goal is to be a good employer and make a good impact on the community. They have already invested a lot into the solution and she feels that they would likely continue forward but there is an added incentive with the tax credit. |
||||||||
5. | FY17 City Manager's Recommended Budget Recap | |||||||
Mr. Copley addressed Council stating that he wanted to give a brief recap of the budget and get some direction on remaining items from the April budget retreat. He provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: FY17 BUDGET PRIORITIES FY17 TENTATIVE BUDGET Councilmember Putzova asked how the projected revenues have changed since the discussions in April. Mr. Copley explained that staff takes a conservative approach of approximately 2% and this year the City actually realized a 4% increase which resulted in approximately $2.2 million that was available. Mr. Tadder added that staff has not updated the projections since the April retreat; the numbers will be re-evaluated when the year is closed out. Councilmember Putzova offered that if the Council has the opportunity to discuss allocate the additional funds if there will be any additional revenues that show up after. Mr. Tadder explained that there is not another opportunity to look for additional funds prior to the Council adopting the budget in June and that the numbers provided in April are the numbers to be included in the budget. Mr. Copley continued the presentation. COUNCIL DIRECTION ON UNAPPROPRIATED FUNDS Councilmember Oravits asked if the proposed building fund would be used for building maintenance and unexpected repairs. Mr. Copley explained that the City already has a building catastrophic fund to deal with major events to buildings. The proposed funding would be more for new buildings and major renovations that would not fall within the catastrophic realm; it could be used to fill the gaps in funding for the courthouse, public works facility or building a new fire station. It is another resource and opportunity that Council can tap into when needed to fund or leverage dollars for building. Councilmember Putzova stated that since the City is in the middle of trying to fund the new Public Works yard, maybe this money can be dedicated to that project specifically instead of having to sell land. She feels that a savings account is not the right direction when there is a need to come up with additional funding for a project. Land is valuable and the longer the City can hold on to it the more valuable it will become. She would recommend using the money for current needs and save the land for a later time. Mr. Copley explained that the monies would not be earmarked for specific projects and Council would have the ability to utilize the funds for specific projects if they chose to do so. A majority of Council is in favor of the proposal from Mr. Copley. |
||||||||
6. | Review of Draft Agenda Items for the June 7, 2016,City Council Meeting.*
* Public comment on draft agenda items will be taken at this time, at the discretion of the Mayor.
None |
|||||||
7. | Public Participation None |
|||||||
8. | Informational Items To/From Mayor, Council, and City Manager; future agenda item requests. |
|||||||
Councilmember Oravits requested information on the ADOT sign recently put up on Milton across from Target. He would like to know if the City had any input on the sign, its purpose and its placement. Councilmember Oravits also requested information about the calculation used to determine the number of signatures needed on municipal nomination petitions. Councilmember Putzova added that she would like information on any other barriers there may be for the public to seek council office. Councilmember Evans stated that she sent an email to Legal requesting background information on the new location for the Public Works yard; she requested information on how the City obtained the property and any special considerations that may be on the property. |
||||||||
9. | Adjournment The Work Session of the Flagstaff City Council held May 31, 2016, adjourned at 7:54 p.m. |
||||||
↵
CERTIFICATION
I, ELIZABETH A. BURKE, do hereby certify that I am the City Clerk of the City of Flagstaff, County of Coconino, State of Arizona, and that the above Minutes are a true and correct summary of the Meeting of the Council of the City of Flagstaff held on May 31, 2016. I further certify that the Meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
|