|
DRAFT (Contact the town clerk at 919-469-4011 for official minutes)
Cary Town Council Minutes Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:30 PM Council Chambers 316 N. Academy Street, Cary, N.C. Click on the links within this document to see full text minutes. Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Ervin Portman, Jennifer Robinson and Nels Roseland; Council Member Julie Robison arrived late, and her arrival time is noted in the minutes
A. COMMENCEMENT
1. Call to Order (Mayor McAlister)
Mayor McAlister called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
_________________________
2. Ceremonial Opening (Mr. Roseland)
Mr. Roseland provided the ceremonial opening.
_________________________
Mrs. Robison arrived at 6:32 p.m.
_________________________
3. Adoption of agenda (Town Council)
Mayor McAlister announced the following suggested changes to the agenda.
a. Add consent agenda item B.1.d., Consideration of Adoption of Condemnation Resolutions for Progress Energy for the Kildaire Farm Road Widening Project; and
b. Remove public hearing item D.1., 07-SU-003; staff has determined that this hearing may not move forward as the plan is submitted.
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved to adopt the agenda as amended. Mrs. Robinson provided the second. Council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
B. CONSENT AGENDA (click on this link to see the full text minutes of the consent agenda)
1. Regular Consent Agenda (any regular consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the old/new business portion of the agenda, which is item H on this agenda)
a. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the regular town council meeting held on May 10, 2007; the minutes of the joint meeting with Cary and Wake County officials held on May 11, 2007; and the minutes of the budget work session held on May 8, 2007. (Approved)
b. Consideration of approval of the May 2007 tax report. (Approved) c. Consideration of approval of a request to provide a $25,000 economic development grant to Healthways, Inc. as an inducement to add additional jobs in Cary. Approval of this item includes approval of an appropriation of $25,000 from general fund fund balance for expenditure in the Town Council operational budget to be paid to Healthways, Inc., and the following: (Approved) (1) authorization to enter into the terms of the One NC Grant, the Local Government Grant Agreement and the Company Performance Agreement between the Town of Cary and Healthways, Inc. (prepared by the NC Department of Commerce). (Approved)
(2) adoption of a resolution authorizing a Town of Cary incentives agreement with Healthways, Inc., and approval of a contract with the Town of Cary and Healthways, Inc. (prepared by the Town of Cary). (Approved)
d. Consideration of Adoption of Condemnation Resolutions for Progress Energy for the Kildaire Farm Road Widening Project.(Approved)
2. Planning and Development Committee, May 17, 2007 (any committee consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the committee discussion portion of the agenda, which is item G on this agenda) (Mr. Roseland)
a.
FY2008 Neighborhood Improvement Grant Program (PL07-040)
b.
North State Storage Special
Use (PL07-042)
c.
Legacy Crossroads Apartments – Request for Waiver from Thoroughfare
Improvement Requirements
(EN07-114)
d.
Downtown Public-Private Partnerships – Project Information Requested
and Evaluation Criteria (PL07-043)
C. RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of a proclamation designating May 20-26, 2007 as Public Works Week in Cary. (Presented)
Mrs. Robison presented the following proclamation to Mike Bajorek of the public works/utilities department.
PROCLAIMING PUBLIC WORKS WEEK IN CARY, NC
Whereas, public works services provided in our community are an integral part of our citizens’ everyday lives; and
Whereas, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the efficient operation of public works systems and programs such as water, sewers, streets and highways, public buildings, and solid waste collection; and
Whereas, the health, safety and comfort of this community greatly depends on these facilities and services; and
Whereas, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their planning, design, and construction, is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skills of public works officials; and
Whereas, the Town of Cary has dedicated staff in the public works department who work each day behind the scenes to implement the Town’s mission statement, which reads: At the Town of Cary we focus every day on enriching the lives of our citizens by creating an exceptional environment and providing exemplary services that enable our community to thrive and prosper.
Now, therefore, I, Ernest F. McAlister, Mayor of the Town of Cary, do hereby proclaim the week of May 20-26, 2007 as
Public Works Week in Cary
in conjunction with National Public Works Week. Furthermore, I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing our public works services and to recognize the contributions that public works officials make every day to our health, safety, comfort, and quality of life.
Proclaimed this 24th day of May, 2007.
(Proclamation 07-033 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.) _________________________
2. Presentation by Wake County Board of Elections Director Cherie Poucher on the Instant Runoff Voting Method and pilot program opportunity. (Presented; council approved using the Instant Runoff method for the 2007 municipal elections; council directed staff to bring a report back to council outlining the Town funds that will be used to supplement the Board of Elections' voter education effort [these funds will be from the savings realized by eliminating the November runoff election])
Mr. Bob Hall, Executive Director of Democracy NorthCarolina, presented a powerpoint presentation, which is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit B. Wake County Board of Elections Director Cherie Poucher was available for questions.
Mayor McAlister questioned if the instant runoff method honors the one person/one vote philosophy. He suggested that if the council wants to reconsider the need for a runoff that they consider the former method of election (non-partisan plurality) instead of instant runoff voting. He stated aside from his feelings about the issue, the Cary citizens are hearing about this suggested voting change for the first time, and he believes their feedback on the proposed change is important.
ACTION: Mayor McAlister moved to have the Board of Elections conduct voter educational sessions in Cary (on instant runoff voting), followed by a public hearing before the town council, prior to council considering the issue. Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second.
Mr. Hall explained that there is currently a runoff system in Cary. He stated in the instant runoff voting method, everyone has the opportunity for their voices to be heard twice. He stated if there is not a clear winner in the first round, then everyone’s voice is heard the second time. He stated the people who have made their choice for the first two winners have said who they want to win. He stated the other people now get to have a voice in who of the top two vote getters they think is the best. He stated the first round asks who you want to win. He stated the second round asks of the two left who do you like best. He stated the people who have chosen the top two candidates have already indicated who they like best of the two candidates, and the other voters are asked the same question. He stated instant runoff provides for one person/one vote.
Mrs. Robison asked whether the Board of Elections (BOE) considers the second round of ballots differently. Mrs. Poucher replied no, and she stated with the instant runoff it is assumed that every voter that voted for you in October has now gone and voted again, and when they voted again, they voted the same way (for the candidate in the runoff), so those votes are counted just as if they went back to the polls for a runoff election. She stated then you look at the non-runoff candidate ballots, assume there’s only candidate 1 and candidate 2 (the two in the runoff), and the question is who would they have voted for at that time. She stated the votes that would have been cast in November are included with the total of the October votes.
Mrs. Robison stated when people go to the polls in October they will be asked to make their first and second choice, which will result in a more streamlined process. Mrs. Robison stated there are two sets of numbers, just as if voters actually went to the polls twice, but the instant runoff methods saves voters from the effort of going to the polls twice, and the BOE works from the save voter pool that took the time and effort to go to the polls the first time.
Mrs. Robison asked the amount of money that the Town saves with instant runoff voting. Mrs. Poucher stated it will save the Town around $84,000 (maximum amount assuming the Town is responsible for the entire cost of the election). She stated the result would probably be based on a higher percentage of voters determining the majority vote because more of the citizens actually vote in October as compared to the November runoff election.
Mrs. Robison asked the decrease in percentage of voter turnout in the November runoff vs. the October election. Mrs. Poucher stated in municipal elections a 30 percent voter turnout is considered by BOE to be a good turnout. She gave the superintendent of public instruction as an example and stated there was less than 5 percent of the voters that went back to the polls for the second election. Mrs. Robison stated it sounds like with instant runoff, more voters participate in the democratic process. Mrs. Poucher confirmed.
Mrs. Robison stated in the meeting she attended with BOE staff and instant runoff proponents she learned that an observation was that the campaign was less negative with instant runoff. She stated it’s been her personal experience that the runoff election is much more negative than the first election. Mr. Bob Hall stated a candidate in the runoff wants support from the other candidates’ voters, and their second choices could be relevant to them in a runoff; therefore, they do not want to alienate the public and they want to appeal to a broad group of people. As a result, he’s seen that people do not run negative campaigns. He stated when candidates have conversations with people they are more likely to ask people to consider them as a second choice if they clearly favor another candidate.
Mrs. Robison asked if instant runoff pushes candidates to be more broadly connected to the citizens who vote. Mr. Hall believes this is accurate. He stated the whole purpose is to build majorities around the candidates, and because of this, he stated the winner will have more of a mandate.
Mr. Roseland stated the US Department of Justice voter rights office has reviewed and approved the instant runoff method, and he stated this organization is considered the national authority on fair voting. He asked when they reviewed it and decided to support it. Mr. Hall stated a few years ago the State of Louisiana had to have this pre-cleared through the Justice Department, due to their instant runoff system for overseas ballots. Mr. Roseland asked if the pilot approach in which Cary is being asked to participate mirrors the Louisiana model, and Mr. Hall responded affirmatively.
Mr. Portman asked the purpose of changing to instant runoff voting and why the BOE thinks it’s better than the current system. Mrs. Poucher stated Fair Vote and Democracy South were involved in working with the legislature to get the bill passed as a pilot. She stated the BOE thought it would be an excellent opportunity for the Wake County Board of Elections to seek approval from municipalities, and she stated they like to work with Cary on innovations and in this situation, Cary has the election and runoff system that is required for this pilot. She stated the Wake County BOE members unanimously endorsed this as a pilot in which they wanted to be involved. She stated the Wake County BOE will work closely with the State BOE on the pilot.
Mr. Portman stated a few years ago the council changed from the non-partisan plurality to the election and runoff method of election, because they wanted candidates to win by majority vote. He stated the drawback to the election and runoff method is the cost for the Town and the citizens in terms of going to the polling place to vote twice. He stated fewer people vote in the runoff election, and he questioned whether it actually ensures that candidates are elected by a majority of the voters. He stated the instant runoff method seems to have the benefit of majority without a lot of the drawbacks of two elections. In addition, he stated running for office is difficult, and the idea of being in a runoff and having 30 days to raise a lot of money quickly is daunting, and he considers it a drawback in the process.
Mr. Portman stated he would support a public hearing before a final council vote on whether to participate in the instant runoff pilot, but he doesn’t think it’s practical to educate the public before the filing period begins. He asked Mayor McAlister to entertain an amendment to the motion.
Mayor McAlister replied that he stated the motion purposefully to give the public the opportunity to hear the same information as council heard in the one-on-one sessions with the BOE before the public hearing. He declined the amendment to the motion.
Mrs. Robinson stated staff could attach the BOE’s powerpoint presentation to the agenda and people could go to the Web and read it to educate themselves prior to the next council meeting. She stated this would give people the opportunity to provide comments to council before the next council meeting.
Mr. Roseland suggested a follow up motion if this motion fails to dedicate some of the savings from not having a second election to go towards a public education effort.
Mrs. Robison asked if the BOE will be active in financing the public education component. Mrs. Poucher responded affirmatively. Mrs. Robison asked if the BOE can make the decision for Cary to participate as a pilot without council approval. Mrs. Poucher stated yes, but she added the BOE is not interested in doing this. She stated in essence there are more voters going to the polls in October to make a majority decision, because more will go in October than will go in the runoff in November.
Mayor McAlister suggested scheduling a public hearing and in the meantime the BOE can make information available to the public combined with putting the powerpoint presentation on the Town’s Web site. Mrs. Poucher stated before the BOE expends funds on an education program, they want to ensure the Town of Cary will participate in the pilot program.
Ms. Dorrel agreed with Mrs. Robinson’s suggestion to provide the powerpoint presentation appended to the agenda. She stated other links to other information about the instant runoff method can be provided. She stated it would serve the same purpose as a staff report to provide information.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated for full disclosure he’s on the board for the NC Center for Voter Education, which is a sister organization of Democracy South. He asked the Town Attorney if this is a conflict of interest for him. The Town Attorney reviewed the Town’s ethics ordinance and responded negatively.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated this decision feels rushed, and he is concerned that the public is out of the loop. He suggested that the Town provide information to the public as Mrs. Robinson suggested, hear from the citizens, and then council can make a decision.
ACTION: Mayor McAlister amended his motion and Mayor Pro Tem Smith amended his second to provide information to the public as suggested by Mrs. Robinson and to hold a public hearing at the June 14, 2007 council meeting.
Mrs. Robison understood from her meeting with the BOE that the BOE needs a decision soon. Mrs. Poucher stated the BOE hoped to have a decision this evening; however, they respect the wishes of the council. She stated closure tonight would allow them to begin educating citizens immediately. She stated a decision on June 14 gives them a little over two weeks to prepare an education program for citizens prior to candidate filing.
Mrs. Robison feels the council was elected to make certain decisions, and she feels compelled to move forward with this decision now because the extra time required for a public hearing gives people very little time to consider whether they want to be a candidate in the election. She stated runoff elections are expensive. She thinks the council should consider how much opportunity this action gives the ordinary citizen to run for office. She is in favor of having as much time as possible to educate people before the filing period. Mr. Roseland concurred.
ACTION: Vote was called for on the amended motion. Mayor McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Smith and Mrs. Robinson voted “aye.” Ms. Dorrel, Mr. Roseland, Mrs. Robison and Mr. Portman voted “no.” The motion failed for lack of majority vote.
ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved that the Town of Cary move forward to work with the BOE to engage in instant runoff voting in the 2007 election cycle. Mrs. Robison provided the second.
Mrs. Robinson thinks anyone interested in running for council will continue to investigate and pursue whether there will be a regular runoff or instant runoff, and she thinks we owe it to citizens to educate them.
Ms. Dorrel stated campaigns are more expensive each year and the climate gets worse during the runoff period. She stated every year more consultants are involved. She thinks Cary is better off without these three elements.
ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion. Ms. Dorrel, Mr. Roseland, Mrs. Robison and Mr. Portman voted “aye.” Mayor McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Smith and Mrs. Robinson voted “no.” The motion carried by majority vote.
ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to direct the public information officer to coordinate with appropriate authorities and dedicate whatever funds are appropriate to have a successful public education effort from the savings. Mr. Portman provided the second.
Mr. Coleman stated staff will bring a report back to council.
Ms. Dorrel clarified that any Town funds would supplement the BOE funds.
Ms. Dorrel stated this item has been on the agenda since it was made available on the Town’s Web site this past Friday, so to some extent, information has been available to the public.
ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion, and council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS (click on this link for the full text minutes)
2.
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget 3. Parkside Town Commons Developments
a.
ANNEXATION PETITION 07-A-11
b.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
07-CPA-03, Parkside Town Commons
c.
REZONING 07-REZ-06, Parkside Town Commons 4. Citizen-Initiated Annexations (not associated with rezonings):
a.
ANNEXATION PETITION 06-A-01
b.
ANNEXATION PETITION 07-A-09
c.
ANNEXATION PETITION 07-A-15
d.
ANNEXATION PETITION 07-A-16
e.
ANNEXATION PETITION 07-A-17 E. PUBLIC SPEAKS OUT
Mr. Lloyd Hinnant spoke about “DavisandHighHouse.org”, which is a grass roots group concerned about the density proposed at the corner of Davis Drive and High House Road. He stated they have obtained about 200 signatures in support of their efforts, and they have over 4,000 e-mail addresses for residents in the area who want to stay informed about these developments. He urged council to help them with their goals: (1) hold the density of Searstone to that originally approved; (2) either keep the R-40 zoning on the northeast corner or only allow a development that is appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood (similar to Stonecreek Village); (3) council, planning board and staff abide by the objectives of the current land use plan; (4) if possible, reduce the overall density to a reasonable level for the area and the infrastructure; and (5) provide residents with adequate opportunity to review, understand and comment on the plans and proposals. Mr. Hinnant stated the developer for Crosland has lobbied the 13 homeowners who filed a valid protest petition to entice them to remove their petitions. He hopes the council will listen to Cary residents. He hopes everyone will work together to develop a good solution to this important corner in Cary.
Ms. Candy Pitcher stated she recently noticed that her backyard was flooding more than before and that significant soil erosion was occurring. She stated the developer filled in a pond and constructed a poorly designed dam, even though prior to the rezoning the developer assured homeowners that this pond would never be touched. She stated a Town engineer visited her property, and without doing any research of her claims told her there was nothing he could do and suggested she call Progress Energy and the Division of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). She stated DENR told her it was a Town issue and the developer should fix the problem. She stated she invited the developer and the Town engineer to meet her at the damaged site, and several months after the onset of the problem, she was told by the Town employee that the site is inspected monthly, but she is the one who found the problem and forced it to be addressed.
Ms. Pitcher stated the developer and the contractors have repeatedly violated the Town’s noise ordinance in the past month. She stated twice she called the developer and five times she called the police department. The stated the police department continually gives verbal warnings to various contractors instead of dealing with the developer who is responsible for the contractors.
Ms. Pitcher stated based on her experience, she believes the developers have the edge in Cary, and citizens have to fight, whine and threaten to get any help. She stated the Town should find the problems and correct them, and citizens pay taxes for the Town to employ competent employees to help improve the lives of Cary residents. She urged council to follow up to get the details and work to make the changes to improve the Cary community and its community services.
Mr. Larry Ballas gave the council information about the Cary farmer’s market, and he encouraged the public to support the market.
Mr. Jim Pullen distributed information to the council regarding speed limit and traffic calming on Highcroft Drive (see Exhibit E attached to and incorporated in these minutes). He stated this issue will be heard by the operations committee in the near future. Mr. Pullen’s comments were taken directly from the powerpoint presentation, which is part of the Exhibit E.
Ms. Gina Bertolini also spoke about the Highcroft traffic issues. Her comments are included in Exhibit E.
Mr. Jeff Smith also spoke about the Highcroft traffic issues. His comments are included in Exhibit E.
Mr. Brent Miller voiced his opposition to the Town sending an e-mail about the Railhawks via the Town’s e-mail list serve. He is opposed to using public resources to advertise private ventures. He believes this is in opposition to the Town’s standard procedure 116.
_________________________
F. LAND DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION ITEMS (click on this link to see full text minutes)
1.
Rezoning 06-REZ-38, Cary Park Mixed Use
Overlay District
2.
Rezoning 06-REZ-39, Cary Park Mixed Use Overlay District
3.
Rezoning
06-REZ-26, Village at the Park Planned Development District
Amendment G. COMMITTEE REPORTS (discussion items)
Planning and Development Committee, May 17, 2007 (any item pulled from the committee consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.3.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda) (Mr. Roseland)
1.
Rezoning Waiver Request – Piney Plains Tract
(PL07-041)
STAFF REPORT
Ms. Karen Kemerait, of the law firm of Blanchard, Miller, Lewis & Styers, has requested a waiver of the one-year rezoning waiting period required by Sec. 3.3.4 of the Land Development Ordinance for land owned by Wimberly Associates and Piney Plains Office Partners. This 30.3-acre tract is “split-zoned” and presently has two different “base” zoning designations (O&I for the eastern portion and R-40 for the other half). The O&I portion is also covered by the “Crossroads” mixed use overlay district.
This land was the subject of a town-sponsored rezoning to extend the Crossroads mixed use overlay district over the R-40 portion last year. That request was denied by Town Council on October 12, 2006, and the corresponding mixed-use sketch plan for residential development on the entire tract could not be considered.
In response to Council and neighborhood concerns, and based upon discussions with staff, the property owners have since decided to forego residential development and instead pursue office and/or institutional development on the entire tract. This would again necessitate rezoning of the R-40-zoned portion.
At this point, there are a couple of options for the type of rezoning that might be pursued (i.e., extend the mixed use overlay on the western portion or rezone it to O&I). If the waiver request is approved by Council, staff will work with the applicants to ensure the most appropriate zoning action.
Fiscal Impact: None
Staff Recommendation: Staff supports this rezoning waiver request. Per the LDO, a “supermajority” vote of Council is needed to grant this request.
BLANCHARD, MILLER, LEWIS & STYERS, P.A. LAWYERS
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Jeff Ulma, Planning Director Town of Cary 120 Wilkinson Avenue Cary, North Carolina 27512
Re: Waiver Request for the Piney Plains Tract for the Submittal of a New Rezoning Application
Dear Mr. Ulma:
As you know, Wimberly Associates and Piney Plains Office Partners own 30.3 acres of property located along Piney Plains Road, northwest of the intersection of Stephen Road and Piney Plains Road (the “Piney Plains Tract”). The Piney Plains Tract is currently split-zoned Office and Institutional (“O&I”) and Residential 40 (“R-40”). As you also know, the Town of Cary had initiated an amendment of the Crossroads Regional Mixed Use Area plan for a portion of the Piney Plains Tract. In addition, the owners of the property had submitted a zoning application for another portion of the Tract to rezone that part for residential use. The applications for the land use amendment and the rezoning were before the Town Council on October 12, 2006, and the Town Council voted at that time to deny the Town-initiated application to rezone the property. (The Town Council did not vote on the owners’ rezoning application since the Town-initiated land use amendment had been denied.)
The owners of the Piney Plains Tract are planning to submit a new application to rezone a portion of the property that is currently zoned R-40 to O&I. That new application will be substantially different from the previous Town-initiated application that was submitted and denied by the Town Council, as the new application will request a different zoning classification than had previously been requested. As the new application will be substantially different from the previous application, the owners of the Piney Plains Tract are requesting a waiver of the one-year period pursuant to Section 3.3.4 of the Town of Cary’s Ordinance.
I appreciate your attention to our waiver request. Please call me if you have any questions about our request.
Sincerely,
Karen M. Kemerait
Cc: John D. McConnell, Jr. Glenn Futrell M. Gray Styers, Jr., Esq.
ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the waiver request. Ms. Dorrel provided the second. Council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
H. OLD/NEW BUSINESS (any item pulled from the regular consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.1.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda)
1. Consideration of a request by Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith and Council Member Nels Roseland for staff to immediately propose solutions to eliminate tiger mosquitoes in water meter holes. Council may take one of the following three actions according to the Town’s rules of procedures policy: (1) Refer the request to the appropriate committee meeting, at which time a staff report with staff recommendation will be prepared, or; (2) Refer the request to a future council meeting, at which time a staff report with staff recommendation will be prepared, or (3) Decide not to pursue the council initiated request. (council directed that staff prepare a report for the appropriate committee)
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated many citizens have asked staff to look into a potential mosquito problem created by standing water in water meters. He stated staff has shared solutions, but professors at NCSU don’t support those solutions. He suggested referring this issue to the appropriate committee with a full staff report on the scope and seriousness of the problem and the estimated cost for corrective action. He thinks the solution will be minor and will be cost-effective. He stated a recommendation from NCSU’s chemistry department was to drop a small pellet in standing water.
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved to direct staff to look into the problem and report back through the appropriate committee. Mrs. Robison provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
I. CLOSED SESSION (called)
ACTION: MAYOR PRO TEM SMITH provided the motion and Mr. Portman the second for closed session, PURSUANT TO G.S. 143-318.11(A) (5), for the following purpose:
INSTRUCT THE TOWN STAFF CONCERNING THE POSITION TO BE TAKEN BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN IN NEGOTIATING THE PRICE AND OTHER MATERIAL TERMS OF CONTRACTS OR PROPOSED CONTRACTS FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY FERRELL INVESTMENTS LP LTD PTNRP, LOCATED AT 1580 MORRISVILLE CARPENTER ROAD, CARY, NORTH CAROLINA.
Council granted unanimous approval. _________________________
J. ADJOURNMENT (9:59 p.m.)
ACTION: At 9:59 p.m., Mr. Roseland moved to adjourn; Mr. Portman provided the second; council granted unanimous approval (Mrs. Robison was not in the room, so the record reflects an “aye” vote for her).
|