Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/16/2010 Regular Council Meeting Minutes~~ ~~A~A ~~~ REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 11555 W. Civic Center Drive, Marana, Arizona 85653 Council Chambers, March 16, 2010, at or after 7:00 PM Ed Honea, Mayor Herb Kai, Vice Mayor Russell Clanagan, Council Member Patti Comerford, Council Member Carol McGorray, Council Member Jon Post, Council Member Roxanne Ziegler, Council Member REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Honea called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Town Clerk Bronson read the roll call. All Council Member were present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION/MOMENT OF SILENCE Led by Mayor Honea. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion to approve moved by Council Member McGorray, second by Council Member Ziegler. Motion carried unanimously.. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Steve Storzer spoke against the proposed annexation of the landfill, and asked Council to give it further consideration before approving the annexation. PROCLAMATIONS MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS: SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS Council Member Clanagan reported briefly on his recent 10-day trip to the Panama Canal. Council Member Ziegler asked everyone to keep Barbara Johnson in their prayers and. with good thoughts this week. She will be in surgery this Friday. Council Member McGorray concurred with Council Member Ziegler's remarks regarding Barbara Johnson. Council Member Comerford reminded everyone that this coming Saturday is Founders' Day - an important day for Marana. She asked that everyone come out and celebrate all of the events. March 16, 2010 Council Meeting Minutes Mayor Honea reported that he went to Mayor's Innovation Night at the community center. A young person from a school in each of the Pima County cities/towns won an award. Loren Wood won for Marana. She lives in Continental Ranch. She did a study on the mineral content of tap water versus bottled water. She and her parents were there. He also went to the CCIM Forecast last week at Ventana. CCIM is composed of the real estate brokers in the community. The forecast is that there will more empty lease space, more empty apartments, less retail next year. Most of the folks there didn't paint a rosy picture for the next fiscal year. He also attended the Mayors bi-monthly meeting in Pinal County today -mayors from Casa Grande, Florence and Maricopa. Every city and town in the state is dealing with the same thing we are. A lot of town staff went to the OLLIE classes at Heritage Highlands. It's an adult education program through the UA. MANAGER'S REPORT: SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS Mr. Davidson reported on some of the details of Founders' Day. It will be at Ora Mae Harn Park starting at 9:00 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. The parade will be the kickoff at around 9:00 a.m. At 11:00 a.m. all of the booths, park, food and vendors will be open for business. There will be a number of exciting things going on including an opportunity to catch fish out of the swimming pool. As part of the process to redo the swimming pool for resurfacing, we're using it one last time for a fishing pond. Council Member McGorray reminded everyone that there will be wristbands for $10 to use the inflatables this year. In past years, those have been free, but with tough economic times, it was decided that $10 was appropriate for children's events. Council Member Comerford noted that the fishing pond was completely funded by grants. It didn't cost the town anything. Mr. Davidson reported that the Fish and Game provided a state grant. PRESENTATIONS CONSENT AGENDA Motion to approve moved by Council Member McGorray, second by Vice Mayor Kai. Motion carried unanimously. C 1: Resolution No. 2010-27: Relating to the Police Department; approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute the first amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between the Town of Marana, Pima County and other participating jurisdictions regarding the Pima Regional Special Weapons and Tactics (S.W.A.T.) Team C 2: Resolution No. 2010-28: Relating to Community Development; authorizing the Town Manager to apply for funding from the Governor's Office of Highway Safety under the Highway Safety Program (23 U.S.C. Section 402) to fund speed detection equipment and the Marana Police Department's participation on the Southern Arizona DUI Taskforce C 3: Resolution No. 2010-29: Relating to Personnel; approving and adopting an amendment to the Town's Personnel Policies and Procedures, revising Chapter 8 - Termination of Employment, Section 8-1-6 "Layoff and Recall" C 4: Resolution No. 2010-30: Relating to Real Property; approving and authorizing a license agreement with Pacheco Farm Management for the continued use of fields which 2 March 16, 2010 Council Meeting Minutes have been partially dedicated to the Town of Marana as rights-of--way within the future development area surrounding Gladden Farms II C 5: Minutes of the March 2, 2010 regular council meeting LIQUOR LICENSES Motion to approve both applications moved by Council Member Post, second by Council Member Ziegler. Motion carried unanimously. L 1: Relating to Liquor Licenses; recommendation to the state liquor board regarding a Person Transfer and Location Transfer of a Series 6 (Bar) liquor license application submitted by Wayne Lee Hallquist on behalf of Molinitos, located at 3675 We Ina Road L 2: Relating to Liquor Licenses; recommendation to the state liquor board regarding the special event liquor license applications submitted by the Arizona ASA -Tucson on behalf of Mike Jacobs Sports Park, 6901 N. Casa Grande Highway for fundraisers to purchase youth team equipment BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES COUNCIL ACTION A 1: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 2010.05: Relating to Development; approving a rezoning creating the Honea Heights III .Specific Plan Presented by Lisa Shafer and T. Van Hook. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Bill Schisler addressed Council as a resident of Honea Heights with several comments. He agrees that affordable housing is a necessity in Marana. He's concerned about whether this is the right spot. He also noted several issues involving Honea Heights in the past several years. He wanted to know how the sewer would be pumped up from the project when the sewer system in Honea Heights is not yet complete. He also noted that there would be increased traffic on roads that are not in that good a shape. He's also leery about flooding in that area, where he's seen flooding several times during his life. He noted that the project area was initially planned to be a park, and Honea Heights still needs a park. If there is a park within the project, he is concerned about whether people in Honea Heights would have easy access to it. He thought the park could be better placed for all residents. David Morales addressed Council with concerns that this development would be built in a retention pond designed for Honea Heights. He asked Council to consider whether this was their intention. T. Van Hook addressed Council with some of the detail on the funding for the project, identifying a number of funding sources. There is $170K in CDGB funding through Pima County to complete the platting and engineering required to move this project forward. In 2008, the federal home loan bank in San Francisco for $700K agreed to cover either pre-development, development costs, onsite or offsite services. In addition, we have HOME dollars, a federal program for $250K per year under two funding cycles. Those HOME funds have some restrictions. Last year the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted to award the project an additional $600K with general obligation bond funding with some restrictions. That makes $1.2M for the development of infrastructure and other ground work that is required to do the project. March 16, 2010 Council Meeting Minutes Council Member Ziegler asked about Mr. Schisler's and Mr. Morales' comments regarding bank protection. She wanted to know what happened to the park idea and was it supposed to be there? Ms. Van Hook responded that it was her understanding that the original intent was to build housing and a park in that area. Before she came to the town, preliminary work was already underway to prepare the property to build some homes using HOME dollars. The Drachman Institute had already initiated a study to see if there was a better way to utilize it for more affordable housing and to integrate the housing project with the park. Keith Brann addressed Council on the flood questions raised. The project in question is in the Lower Santa Cruz levee-which means the ground on the landward side is lower than the water surface elevation during a flood. The Lower Santa Cruz levee as designed and built by Pima County Flood Control is an accredited levee and was accredited even in the last floodplain mapping. It does contain three feet of freeboard above the calculated water surface elevation and the 100 year storm. The levee itself actually has enough height to survive a 500 year storm. It just won't do it with the freeboard. He explained freeboard as when you have the height of the water -that's how much extra height of levee you have. So during a 100 year storm, the calculated height of the levee should be three feet below the top. Ina 500 year storm, it will be closer to the top but it will not overtop the levee, and that's how that is designed at this time. So when the levee was built, the area in question where this project occurs is a low area. It was some of the floodplain fringe of the river. When the levee was built, it would have created a ponded area, so they had to put in this bleeder pipe which has a flap gate, but the area itself is not a retention basin. But because the levee blocked off the flow from being able to return to the river, they had to put the bleed pipe in. That bleed pipe will be used for the drainage of this project and. it will act more as a metering device to let the water out of any basin that they build. In general, most of Honea Heights drains toward Moore Road, not to the project area. Council Member Ziegler then asked about money. She noted that Honea Heights has been in a bit of an uproar for many years, citing correspondence between the town manager and Mr. Huckleberry. On sewer and water, a piece of correspondence says that the new project intends to connect to the new Honea Heights Colonic system that is currently being constructed throughout the existing Honea Heights neighborhood. Mr. Huckelberry shut this down. We have to figure out a way to make Honea Heights whole first. And secondly, she asked whether the town would actually get the $600K from Pima County general bonds? Ms. Van Hook responded that there are two options. One is that the specific plan funding will have to be broached one contract at a time as those come forward. We can only move forward with the funding with each stage of the project. The Board of Supervisors. has voted to award us those funds. We are, with a couple of other agencies, waiting for contracts from Pima County on those, but there are no indications that they do not intend to offer us that funding. I can only move forward on faith and only encumber funds that we have in hand and have a contract for. Mayor Honea added that the project area is not a retention basin, and that area has never flooded. It did scour in the 1983 flood when there were flood waters in Honea Heights. Scoured means that the water was eating away the bank and caving it in, but there was no standing water. There's never been any standing water on this property. And with the Honea Heights lay of the land, the highest land is right against this project and it drains to the north instead of the south, and there's not even any runoff from Honea Heights in this project either. The only way that any water would get into this project is if it came in through Gladden Farms and that area to run down the levee on the inside of the dike. It's not a retention basin and it never flooded before the levee. Council 4 March 16, 2010 Council Meeting Minutes Member McGorray commented on access to the trail along the Santa Cruz and asked whether the Honea Heights neighbors and the kids who live in this new project are going to have access to the trail without there being a wall or something they have to go around in order to get to the parks in Gladden Farms? Is there anything that would prohibit them from just walking or riding a bike to that trail once this is built? Ms. Van Hook responded that there is no wall on the diagram. The houses that face Sandy Street front Sandy Street. She also noted that this is just a concept plan. In the specific plan, this is part of a redevelopment project of the neighborhood. The neighborhoods integrate and connect at each access point as the streets come down. And houses open onto existing neighborhoods. There are no walls between the two, and trails in between the houses connect as much as possible. As far as the Santa Cruz shared use path that runs up toward the top, what you're seeing are two of the three parcels that the town owns in this area. We have specifically left the parcel closest to the trailhead there -there will be some adjustments for streets and other things -but we've left that parcel undeveloped so that we could integrate the neighborhood in with the Heritage Park and the adjacent farm and allow access when development of the parks and parking areas, they will integrate seamlessly up to the Santa Cruz River path. Council Member McGorray asked if the current neighbors at Honea Heights could walk from their homes through the back to the shared use path. Ms. Van Hook responded affirmatively, noting that the project is trying to facilitate as many access points as possible. Council Member Post asked what happens next after the zoning, platting, etc. Will this go to bid for a builder? Is it a for- profit builder? Ms. Van Hook responded that there are a couple of steps after the platting process. Simultaneously, we will send an RFP for qualified developers for a development partnership to build the houses. There will be specific requirements laid out in the specific plan and any other type of agreement that require building of both market rate and affordable units of a simultaneous nature by percentage and we'll require the building partner to comply with all of the regulations tied to the affordable housing dollars in this project. Council Member Post asked what the target price will be. Ms. Van Hook replied that there has been a pro forma based on houses that would sell in a market rate market starting in the $178K range. Council Member Post noted that a house could be purchased for $120K elsewhere, so where's the affordability? Ms. Van Hook concurred and stated that she was giving Council the base done on the pro forma - a pro. forma based on the available units. Then the developer will bring the building partner into the project and identify for us based on the market rate units will be and what their anticipated costs will be for that. Council Member Post asked what the time frame will be for the project -right now financing is more of a problem for homebuyers than finding a cheap home. Ms. Van Hook replied that in Pima County and in this area, we still have some serious problems of affordability of houses -and not just affordability but attainability. Folks qualify for these houses that may qualify for others, but they don't have a subsidy in place. They don't have the 20% that FHA is requiring as down payment, and therefore, the housing is not attainable. The subsidy that we put into these properties is held for a term and count as that down payment, so the financing mechanism to the purchaser looks a little different. Part two is that we'd like to move forward and get some infrastructure and see what the private and nonprofit builders that are interested in partnering with us have to do, but we have 127 active names on our waiting list for this project - at least 20 of those check in on a regular basis. We're seeing a need and we're still giving tours of the property to local builders -some small, some large -but there is still interest in the community, even with what's happening with existing infrastructure. The builder does not have to pay financing charges while they're not holding the land 5 March 16, 2010 Council Meeting Minutes through the entitlement process. They're not holding the land through the building process. The lot is conveyed at time of closing. So while we have an agreement with the builder, it's not anticipated that the builder will be buying the lot from us and building the house. They'll be identifying a purchaser, going into a contract, building a house, and then we'll be conveying the land simultaneously at the time of closing. Council Member Post asked if we are holding ourselves to the same standards that we would with a private developer as far as streets and traffic and ingress and egress? Ms. Van Hook stated she anticipated that we are holding ourselves to a higher standard because this project will serve as an example to the community on how we can do affordable housing in a proper manner and that we can hold ourselves to a standard that creates a viable community and integrates affordable and market rate housing in away that's positive throughout the community. Council Member Post asked if Ms. Van Hook envisioned any street modification to the existing Honea Heights streets? Ms. Van Hook responded that a traffic study was completed and also interns sat at intersections to do traffic counts which were forwarded to the town traffic engineer with a traffic plan as required under the specific plan. These were deemed acceptable. Council Member Post asked Mr. Braun to follow up. The reason there are no additional traffic improvements on Honea Heights' exiting streets is that the number of trips to be generated by this development when compared with the number of access points to existing Honea Heights is just too many locations where people can come and go, so there is no real concentration of traffic from this project. Some will go to Sanders, some will go to Moore, but the number of options for those people is a lot, so we're not looking at any capacity changes inside Honea Heights. Council Member Post asked how the sewer would be connected. Would the height of the project be raised or pump the sewer? Mr. Braun replied that there will be some fill brought into this site. It is a low area, but from his preliminary review of the projections, it is intended to take the sewer out to Sanders Road and then up Sanders to the Sanders/Moore intersection where they intend connect to the sewer at that point, and that this should work. Council Member Post if it would be cost-effective to bring in that much fill dirt? Mr. Brann responded that he didn't think there were numbers for the actual cost of import or scrape directly from the site itself. Ms. Van Hook noted that when the cost analysis was .done, it was estimated the cost of hauling dirt at two feet times 10 acres, so we have estimated the cost of bringing in fill if required. We hope not to have to do that, but based on some rough estimates, that's what fill was budgeted for. Council Member McGorray asked for a ball park figure for the customer purchasing a project, what would they pay for a home? Ms. Van Hook replied that it's anticipated to be in the range of $50-SSK per house subsidy. The amount of subsidy depends on the income of the family that moves in and a lot of other factors, so we would look at a family of four making at 85% of the area median income and paying just under 30% of their household income on the mortgage, taxes, insurance and a list of utilities as prescribed by HUD -gas, electric and there are a few others. Paying roughly 30% at 85% of area median income. The mortgage would be somewhere in the $100K- $118Krange with a $1,000 down payment. It maxes out at $118K-$120K. Council Member Clanagan asked if that was on a subsidized unit. Ms. Van Hook replied yes. But not all of the units in this development will be subsidized -about 40% of the units will be subsidized. Council Member Clanagan asked how these numbers will work if you can buy a comparable house for a lot less. What is the incentive for a person to pay more in the neighborhood with subsidized housing than going across the street in a standalone home that is unsubsidized. Ms. Van Hook responded that there are a couple of things inherent in the design of this project that would appeal to a certain type of 6 March 16, 2010 Council Meeting Minutes purchaser. Not every purchaser, but a certain type of person who's looking for a mixed income neighborhood or a smaller lot size. There will be certain water conservation measures taken in each home and in the neighborhood. There will be certain energy efficiencies required; recycling; a minimum of solar hot water on each house - so it's a different type of neighborhood - a different choice. Again, it's going to depend on what the market will bear on how quickly the phases of this project build out and what builders come in as building partners. Vice Mayor Kai asked Ms. Van Hook to explain the fill that will be brought in for the 93 house pads. Ms. Van Hook replied that she doesn't have the exact figures at this time. A large portion of the property is at the same level as Sandy Street. Vice Mayor Kai said that if we could get the house sites up to the same level as Sandy it might work, but he has concerns that it's so low. Ms. Van Hook said the main parcel -the largest parcel is at or above the height of Sandy Street. Council Member Ziegler expressed favor for affordable housing although she doesn't think $178K is affordable, but if you're subsidizing with incentives, you might get there. She's also concerned about the number of houses that would be subsidized? Ms. Van Hook replied that at this point 40 houses have been identified - 36.2% of the project. Council Member Ziegler asked about the dirt and whether any will be leveraged out of the Barnett Channel or will we pay for it? Ms. Van Hook said she hopes not to buy dirt for this project. Ms. Van Hook said that to secure the funding they had to make some broad assumptions based on very rough numbers, and she went to CIP in 2008 and asked them for worst case scenarios, and that's what we based our total cost of the project on. Council Member Post asked if some houses are for sale for $180K and then you have some houses that people get in the door for $120K -are you going to stipulate when they put that house back on the market and how long? Ms. Van Hook responded that that would depend on the funding source for each individual lot. She gave an example of a $20K subsidy if that's all the family requires to meet the guidelines. That maybe forgiven over a 15-year period. If it's a $SOK subsidy that maybe over a 30- or 35- year period, so it just depends on how scales and charts are produced. Before entering into any contracts with the building partner, we will come back to Council for policy direction. Council Member Post said that this is not necessarily a subsidy as a second mortgage that's not paid but forgiven later on. Ms. Van Hook replied that that was right. They are silent seconds that are forgivable and come due if certain conditions are met, i.e. if the family fails to live there as the primary resident; if the house were sold. There's a variety of triggers that would require repayment of the subsidy to the town. Council Member Post. So these don't back on the market after a year or two at the $120K range; they come back. on the market at more approximately of the original price, is that correct? Ms. Van Hook replied that is correct in general. If Habitat for Humanity or another like building partner may come in, they have their own restrictions. If another low income family were to purchase the house and the subsidy stay in the house, then it would be retained with the house. Those are contractual obligations, but there is a subordinate deed to the house, and a promissory note for the amount of the subsidy. Again, it depends on how much is leveraged to the individual. Ms. Shafer added a comment to Council Member Post's question on the road section. In the staff report it states they're proposing a 32-foot wide street section which would require at platting to go through Planning Commission and ask for the Commission to approve that which is substandard to our subdivision street standard right now which is 46 feet. That could change, although that is what they're proposing. Council Member Post asked if normally we would make that a private street that belongs to the 7 March 16, 2010 Council Meeting Minutes homeowners association - is that the same case here, or will the town maintain that street? Ms. Shafer responded that the town would be maintaining that street. At this time that is the proposal. Ms. Van Hook noted that it gets a little tricky because we own the street, so we own the property already. When we develop the street, we automatically own it because we own it now. Conveying property to an HOA would be a gift of public funds. Council Member Post if there are funds available for maintaining the streets in the future. Ms. Van Hook replied that she is looking at a variety of funding opportunities to do that. In the pro forma $25 per month was added for that to meet the HUD standards. Normally we don't maintain the parks and streets if we don't own them, and the town will own these, so we are looking at what mechanisms will be available to us to help support those. Council Member Post stated he was willing to go forward as we work through the issues. Council Member McGorray asked if the garages would be single or double and behind the homes in the narrow streets with no parking. Where do you put the cars of the visitors? Ms. Van Hook responded that they are two-car garages per the town's residential design standards. There are designated parking areas for visitors. Motion by Council Member Post to adopt Ordinance No. 2010.05 continue to do good work and keep this moving forward and answering the difficult questions Second by Council Member McGorray. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Comerford commented that Ms. Van Hook has been working on this for four years to secure funds and all the efforts that goes into working on a project like this. Hopefully, this project will turn out the way everyone wants it to. She thanked Ms. Van Hook for her hard work. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION D 1: Legislative/Intergovernmental Report: Discussion/Direction/Action regarding all pending state and federal legislation and report on recent meetings of other legislative bodies Presentation by Steve Huffman who noted that the Legislature concluded their seventh special session today. They were tasked with trying to balance the current fiscal year and next fiscal year's budget. As of today, we have mostly a balanced budget for this fiscal year and the next fiscal year. Mostly, because what they passed was basically borrowing for this fiscal year, some cuts for next fiscal year, but all that could change dramatically based on the results of the May 18 special election. If that election were to fail, the Legislature will have to come in and figure out another billion dollars worth of cuts to make in order to balance next year's budget. A couple of key things out of this session - the one bit of good news is the session started out with the Legislature started out with a proposed $20M cut to cities and towns. It was an odd proposal to shift responsibility for juvenile corrections from the state to the counties and then shifting $20M of city and town money from us to the counties in order to offset the costs that the counties were going to have to pick up for juvenile corrections. We were able to get that amended out of the bill. For us that would have amounted to about $110K to $120K a year in revenue sharing. The one bit of bad news is the Legislature has officially completely terminated the LTAP 1 and 2 programs which were lottery funds that were targeted for 8 March 16, 2010 Council Meeting Minutes transportation and transit programs with local governments. They didn't just temporarily eliminate them -they permanently eliminated them. We still are actively working -there is about four weeks left of hearing bills in the second regularly session. I was working on a bill in Phoenix today that would completely restructure the prime contracting which is construction sales tax money that goes into cities and towns and counties that would have. a significant impact on communities across our state. For example, Phoenix was at that meeting saying that that one change could cost them between $50-60M a year. I'm working with Erik to try to quantify what the impact of that would be onus. We had a good meeting with the chair of the Ways and Means committee today to try to explain the impact of some of these bills that are still floating around on cities and towns, and hopefully will be successful on clearing the decks on some of these really troubling pieces of legislation before the session ends. One other bit of news - it seems to be the pattern now -not only are voters going to be asked on May 18 to vote on a one cent sales tax increase but now they will be asked to eliminate a fairly significant education program called First Things First on the November ballot, so they'll be asking voters to help balance the budget in May and again in November. Council Member Ziegler asked about First Things First. Mr. Huffman stated that they (Legislature) basically referred this to the November ballot asking the voters whether to eliminate this program. Council Member Ziegler asked if First Things First tried to give money to the state to balance their budget. Mr. Huffman replied affirmatively. Council Member Ziegler emphasized that they (First Things First) have a lot of money. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS Motion to go into executive session on E 4 moved by Council Member Post,. second by Vice Mayor Kai. Motion carried unanimously. Council left the dais at 8:04 p.m. Council returned to the dais at 8:21 p.m. E 1: Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03 (A)(3), Council may ask for discussion or consultation for legal advice with the Town Attorney concerning any matter listed on this agenda. E 2: Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3),(4) and (7), discussion or consultation for legal advice with the Town's attorneys and discussion and to consider its position and instruct the Town Manager and staff concerning possible acquisition of certain water infrastructure and accounts and water rights and/or resources E 3: Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3),(4) and (7), discussion or consultation for legal advice with the Town's attorneys and discussion and to consider its position and instruct the Town Manager and staff concerning (1) the lawsuit entitled Town of Marana v. Pima County/Pima County v. Marana (consolidated), Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2008-001131, (2) pending legal issues, settlement discussions and contract negotiations relating to the transition of Marana wastewater collection and treatment to the Town of Marana E 4: Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03 (A)(4) and (7) to consider the Town's position and instruct its representatives regarding negotiations for the purchase of property rights needed for the Twin Peaks interchange project, CIP number 2001-44, from a portion of the property generally identified as Pima County Assessor's parcel 9 March 16, 2010 Council Meeting Minutes numbers 221-04-OOSA, OOSC, OOSD and OOSF and a portion of the property generally identified as Pima County Assessor's parcel numbers 226-08-0160, 0170 and 0180 presently owned by TEP and L&C I-10 respectively and to instruct the Town's attorneys in settlement negotiations and condemnation proceedings relating to the same property rights Cedric Hay asked Council approval as discussed in executive session on Assessor's Parcel 221-04-OOSA, property presently owned by Tucson Electric Power Company, I would ask that approval of a settlement in the amount of $274,316.64. Motion to approve moved by Council Member Comerford, second by Council Member McGorray. Motion carried unanimously. In regard to Assessor's parcel numbers 226-08-0160, 0170 and 0180 property presently owned by L&CI-10 Corporation as discussed in executive session, I would move for approval of a settlement in the amount of $298,647.32. Motion to approve moved by Council Member Comerford, second by Council Member McGorray. Motion carried unanimously. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn moved by Council Member Ziegler, second by Council Member McGorray. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing are the true and correct minutes of th arana Town Co ncil meeting held on March 16, 2010. I further certify that a i~ /sent. ~~~um OS~ ~F' J lyn C. B nson, Town Clerk f ~ ski ~, ~ .-----.a 10 March 16, 2010 Council Meeting Minutes