Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-2003 Study SessionDublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 14, 2443 -Council Chambers Present: Mayor McCash Vice Mayor Boring Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher Mr. Kranstuber Mr. Lecklider Mr. Reiner Ms. Salay Ms. Brautigam Mr. Smith Mr. Ciarochi Mr. Stevens Mr. McDaniel Mr. Hammersmith Mr. Gunderman Ms. Newcomb Mayor McCash called the study session to order at 7:15 p.m Brief Discussion of Study Session Format Ms. Brautigam stated that because City Council has not held previous work sessions, she would like to make a suggestion for the format. The main purpose of the sessions is to encourage dialogue between staff and Council members; it is not designed to be a public hearing forum. It is a public meeting and the public is welcome to attend. Staff will present issues that are of concern or in working status, and Council will have the opportunity to provide input and direction. She recommended that public comment not be a scheduled part of the work session agenda. Mr. Kranstuber agreed, noting that all formal Council action on topics discussed in work session will be deferred to a subsequent public meeting with public comment permitted. Mayor McCash stated that he agreed, noting that the public can provide input to Council subsequent to the work session. Mt. Auburn Study Mr. Stevens, Economic Development Director stated that when the division's budget was reviewed, there was discussion about funding an updated economic development strategy. At that time, Council requested that when the time came to move forward, staff seek final direction from Council. He will make that a matter of practice. Mr. Stevens indicated that his presentation would cover the following: the Mt. Auburn Study; future economic development issues; draft RFP for preparation of an economic development strategy update. Mr. Stevens noted that the Mt. Auburn Study is the City's current economic development strategy. It was adopted in June 1994 and has been the economic development guide Study Session Monday, February 10, 2003 Page 2 far the City during the past nine years. Recommendations from the study were for management of the development process; promotion of business development and expansion; and enhancement of Dublin's attractiveness as a place to do business. In terms of management of the development process, one recommendation was to identify how and where the City wanted to grow and then move towards a visioning and community plan process. The Community Plan was adopted three years later. Some examples of implementation that occurred following the consultant's recommendations: • Immediate implementation of a full-time economic development staff. • Creation of a permit review center as a "one stop shop" for citizens seeking a commercial building permit. • Utilization of a zoning and land use policy to foster an attractive community. • Resolution of traffic congestion -Dublin's businesses no longer identify this as a problem. • Implementation of a one-page newsletter to the business database to keep them apprised of upcoming community events. • Development of an economic development database to track the buildings in town, the companies housed in those buildings, and the available office space. • Establishment of Nineteen (19) TIF's. As a result of Council's implementation of an economic development strategy, businesses have been attracted to Dublin, and the income tax revenue has grown significantly. He noted that the Study recommended utilization of TIF's rather than tax abatements, and that has worked well for the City. Future Issues • The study discussed building the tax base for the City, its operations, and the Schools. The property taxes, which come from the commercial tax base, benefit the schools; the income tax is the primary source of revenue for the City. It enables Dublin to provide the "quality of life" amenities its residents value - parks, pools, and bikepaths. The City has reached $50 million annually in income revenue; the focus now is to maintain that tax base. He doesn't anticipate the escalated growth that occurred over the past few years continuing, but the focus should be on maintaining a positive income tax growth. Another issue is increased competition. Many Class-A, high-end office buildings now exist throughout Columbus. There is such a high vacancy in downtown Columbus that property owners are becoming very aggressive in rental strategies. They encourage companies to relocate to their property by tactics, such as: paying the moving costs, buying out the previous lease, and offering a low rental rate. Yesterday's issue of The Coiumbus Dispatch mentioned the high vacancy rates in the Crosswoods area (off Route 23) in Worthington. In addition, other communities now offer amenities such as Recreation Centers. In the new attempt to attract businesses, communities have become threats to neighboring communities in inducing businesses to relocate or expand elsewhere. Study Session Monday, February 10, 2003 Page 3 • He commended Council on its leadership in supporting the Columbus America Campaign. It is hoped this focus on regional economic development will result in bringing companies to the Greater Columbus area. Dublin is very competitive because it has a much to offer to new businesses and its employees. Draft RFP for Economic Development Strategy Update Mr. Stevens stated the Mt. Auburn Study was adopted nine years ago, and a need to update the City's economic development strategies exists. A RFP for a new study has been provided in Council packets. It reflects the intent to focus on retention and expansion strategies, i.e., what can be done in the next ten years to keep the existing businesses. It is important to have individualized responses to businesses and to deal with the public's mindset about government bureaucracy. He invited Council's input on the RFP. Mr. Reiner inquired if the City has a game plan to deal with aging office buildings, which will become less attractive? Mr. Stevens responded that this would be a new consideration for Dublin. While it is typical for maturing cities to deal with redevelopment issues, Dublin has not yet had to focus on this. He stated that the entire "canvas" of the building is important. It is essential for the City to maintain its landscape code, so that the building owners will be encouraged to maintain their buildings appropriately within a maintained setting. Premier rents/leases are being paid to be located in a premier community. He agreed that this is something the City may want to study. Mr. Reiner stated that the area north of S.R. 161 and west of Avery is designated green space, but it is exposed to a major thoroughfare. Exposure along that highway is of high interest to larger commercial businesses and office businesses. It is a curious strategy far the City to have taken some of its best real estate and set it aside as green space, when it could have been prime office/commercial sites during the next ten years. There is a large amount of land behind that site that could meet the green space requirements. He encouraged the City to re-think that portion of the Community Plan. Mrs. Boring stated that if the City emphasizes high-quality buildings, which it has in recent years, they will not "age" quickly. For instance, Metro Center buildings are aging, but they continue to be attractive. Mr. Stevens agreed. The Ashland Chemical campus is over 30 years old, and is of high quality. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what role government can play in discussion with developers, such as Duke, about their reinvestment in updating their buildings. The City has some control over the external conditions, but the internal conditions are more difficult for the City to address -are the buildings keeping pace with the new styles in working environments? Mr. Stevens stated that it is important to work with the business when it moves in -what can the City do to offset some of its moving-in expenses? In view of the income tax revenue that the business will generate, would the City want to do an incentive? The developer would also be interested in participating in that discussion, as he would Study Session Monday, February 10, 2003 Page 4 benefit from leasing his building. While it is possible to work with the developer, it is often more effective to work with the business locating in that building. The City can offer an incentive to offset the cost of locating the business in the older building in Dublin versus a building in another community. Based on the income tax revenue that business is anticipated to generate, the City can offer a payback to offset the cost of improvements to the buildings. The developer may be happy to participate because they want to facilitate the lease. The City provided an incentive to CheckFree to offset the cost of the generator required in the old Frigidaire building. The City has to be able to respond in creative ways by asking the businesses what they need. Mr. Kranstuber referred to page 518 in the Mt. Auburn study, which states that tax incentives do not work. They are not the critical factor in location decisions when other factors may be equal. He stated that he has a procedural question about the end product of that strategy. There are value judgments that would need to be made and would rise to the level of community planning issues and value judgments by City Council. He is concerned about leaving this in the hands of a consultant. Where are City Council's value judgments inserted in this process? Mr. Stevens responded that he envisions the process including City Council. In the development process, the consultant forms a steering committee and involves community and business leaders. It must be a Dublin strategy; Dublin does not do traditional economic development. Dublin does tax-based solidifying and building, which is different from some communities who are interested only in attracting jobs for the people who live in the community. Mr. Kranstuber stated that these are value judgments that the public body must make and Council must adopt. Mr. Stevens stated that in discussions with the public body, the consultant should be able to determine and incorporate those value judgments in the document. There will also be drafts of the document, and Council will have the opportunity to modify the direction, if necessary. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if it would be possible to state the City's values on same issues from the beginning, so that the recommendations will incorporate those parameters. Mr. Stevens agreed. Mayor McCash stated that Item #2 of the Community Profile states that the analysis will incorporate the 1997 Community Plan and the 2000 U.S. Census. The Community Plan will assist in focusing on the City's policies regarding development. This will be a balancing of those ideals with tax abatements, etc. This process will require study sessions with Council to ensure that the consultant's economic strategy will not deviate from the City's development standards. Mr. Kranstuber stated that it will be Mr. Stevens' responsibility to ensure that this stays on that track. He does not want to be faced at the end of the process with a product embraced by the business community that Council is forced to say they cannot support. Study Session Monday, February 10, 2003 Page 5 Council, as opposed to those who by profession must work with a limited focus, has the responsibility of considering the greater good of the entire community. Possible points of disagreement exist -- the sign code, tax abatements, and more aggressive TIF's. It will be necessary to have a strong process so that Council will not have to reject the product at the end. Mayor McCash stated this is what makes Dublin different. There is an opportunity to balance corporate versus community need. Once the community policy is determined, it becomes the Economic Development Director's job to explain and implement it. Mrs. Boring stated that the values that were set in the Mt. Auburn study remain valid. Unless others consider them obsolete, she suggests that the guidelines of the Mt. Auburn study be incorporated in Item #2. She indicated a concern with one reference in point #2 of the Strategic Plan, which states "...the strategy should also include a plan for area agencies to become more business-friendly by amending policy, practices and regulations." What is meant by area agencies? There are some issues on which it is necessary to take a firm stance because it affects community image. Also, in Item #4, it says, "...examples of incentive packages that have been offered by other communities." She does not want to emulate other communities' strategies. Dublin is totally different. Mr. Stevens agreed that Dublin is different. However, as the City's Economic Development Director, he is interested in being aware of what "tools are in the toolbox." Although it may not be necessary to mention them in the study, he is interested in knowing what is available in other communities.. Other communities are using many strategies Dublin is not using and, at this point, does not need. However, it may be necessary to be aware of the options at some future point. Mr. Reiner stated that one of the points mentioned in the plan is "management of the development process." From his experience, he suggests that is best accomplished by monitoring the balance of land uses in the community, which affects the tax revenue. This requires a controlled overview. Mr. Stevens stated that the management of the development process is a significant factor in the Mt. Auburn study. This new study is an update and will not invalidate the previous study. The retention and expansion of today's tax base is the focus of the update. Mr. Reiner stated the retention and expansion of businesses must be complemented by intelligent planning and zoning of the community. Mayor McCash stated that a balance is necessary. A key factor in attracting businesses is the necessity of reasonable City regulations. How rigid can City regulations be before they discourage businesses from locating in Dublin? If businesses begin to select other communities over Dublin, the City will be financially impacted, and will find it necessary to offer tax abatement concessions. He is also concerned about the issue mentioned earlier -what to do about the aging buildings or redevelopments, such as Dublin Village Center. Should the City reinvest in that center as a retail, office, or business use to bring Study Session Monday, February 10, 2003 Page 6 that area back to arevenue-producing category? It probably generates more money for the school district through property taxes than tax revenue for the City. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the update of the Mt. Auburn Study would indicate what percentage of the land use goals have been achieved, and their results. Also, will it suggest how to build the next level of redevelopment upon those goals already achieved? It is important to discuss more than the vacant land. Mr. Stevens stated the study will address how to avoid tenant vacancies in what is already built. In reference to Dublin Village Center- it is important to have a retail component in the community. Mayor McCash stated that is important to focus on how to redevelop such areas. Is there an accessibility or signage issue that contributed to the vacancy? If so, does the City remain passive in its policies, or does it do something proactively to change the situation? Mr. Kranstuber suggested that Mr. Stevens study the minutes from the Community Plan workshops. There was extensive discussion on development versus density issues. After lengthy discussion, it was decided that a lower density per acre was desired for the community, even though it meant less income. Although 18 units/acre generates more money than 12 units/acre, if the desire is to create a community, it is necessary to balance the residential with the commercial. Cardinal Health reflects that decision. Initially, the discussion was for commercial development on both sides of Emerald Parkway, but the final decision limited it to one side of the highway. If that change in direction had not been made, the level of traffic at the Emerald ParkwaylCoffman Road intersection would be much higher. Some communities have focused on profitable office parks; other communities have created attractive residential areas, but they have no revenue to support services. Because establishing a balance in Dublin was thoroughly discussed, along with fiscal and traffic studies, he encouraged that those discussions be reviewed and those decisions be incorporated into this current RFP. Mr. Lecklider questioned if there really is a dearth of office space. There appears to be a lot of developable land to absorb new office development for the next few years - Perimeter to the east, Avery Square to the west, Emerald Parkway to the east and also between Shier- Rings and Rings Roads. Mr. Stevens agreed that Dublin is not built out. However, there is so much office space in the Columbus area that developers now hesitate to build new buildings based on the assumption that there will be tenants. There was a time when Duke could begin a spec building, and by the end of construction would have it fully leased. There is less speculative investment now. The prime corridors for development are along I-270. He does not see the section of land between Riverside Drive and Sawmill being developed in the near future. Because the cost of the land and the allowable density do not match, it is unlikely a developer will make that investment. There is not currently a shortage of office space in the area along I- 270 close to Woerner-Temple. However, the Tuttle Crossing area is at 95 percent of its capacity. If the economy improves, there will be a shortage in that area. The economy has slowed to the extent that Dublin will not see Study Session Monday, February 10, 2003 Page 7 investment in new commercial office space because of the oversupply in the greater Columbus area. Mr. Lecklider stated that his observation is that there is adequate land elsewhere in Dublin to be developed before it is necessary to focus on land in the S.R. 161/U.S. 33 area, and it could be years before that inventory is depleted. This study should focus on what level of economic development is needed to sustain the current level of services. Perhaps Mr. Reiner is correct -- an additional 50-100 acres may be needed for future office, and in that case, it would be prudent to reserve some land. However, this study may indicate that the City has more than enough space to sustain a community of 50,000, assuming that is the level to which Dublin will grow. Mr. Reiner stated that the City's obligation is to plan for future generations. It does not want to be a city that developed only between 1980 and 2010. It is desirable to always have some capability to expand. There is no harm in having land in reserve for future generations to avoid the problems that Upper Arlington is experiencing. He encouraged the City government to annually participate in this type of planning. In the years in which single family housing increases, what effect does that have on the City's revenue and its ability to buy land? A progressive government recognizes a recession, and to maintain the quality of life for its community, establishes a moratorium on single-family residential construction and aggressively focuses on raising revenues. It is necessary to manage the City in a manner similar to that of a good company manager -with an eye on the economy. Mr. Kranstuber stated the current plan will continue to work, assuming that the nation's tax structure does not change. The City would be in serious difficulty, however, if local income tax was eliminated. Ms. Salay stated that there is a large amount of designated residential, 1-2 units/acres in the Community Plan land use map. She suggested that some of that land would be better used as commercial/office use. The Community Plan probably needs to be updated. Assuming that the City completes the residential development in the Community Plan, and the commercial development occurs per the plan, what will be necessary to maintain all of that? Ms. Grigsby responded that this is part of the anticipated benefit of the update of the economic development strategies, as well as the Community Plan. It forces the City to focus on future economic development. Ten years ago, the City was enjoying its share of development, and perhaps did not immediately need an economic development strategy. Yet, focusing on a strategy made the City aware that retail was desirable, that the businesses were in need of office supply stores and restaurants to meet their employees' needs, and it forced the City to begin to look ahead. Dublin now will be entering a new phase, one in which it will focus on redevelopment. She noted that the previous study was a lengthy process. A development oammittee was formed, which included school and business representatives. Regular updates were provided to Council. Study Session Monday, February 10, 2003 Page 8 Ms. Brautigam stated Council has provided staff with many ideas regarding changes needed in the RFP. She suggested that an amended RFP be returned to Council at a future meeting, with those changes highlighted. Staff will attempt to have that ready for the March 3rd meeting. She suggested that the RFP include a statement of community values that will not be compromised; this should prevent anyone from being misled. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that an earlier statement of Mr. Kranstuber reveals one factor that distinguishes Dublin from other communities and that is the integration of business and community. There are other communities that have similar amenities now, such as recreation centers, but attention to how the economic piece integrates with the community is really Dublin's hallmark. If that could be captured in the RFP, it would be what Council desires the Mt. Auburn update to reflect. Dublin has accomplished this, but how can it be maintained? She referred to the competition noted between communities. How active is Dublin with the Columbus Chamber of Commerce? How active should individual Council members be on the Chamber's committees ar with the Columbus America campaign? Mr. Stevens responded that in 1999, the Greater Columbus Chamber formed a regional partnership, and community development representatives from aseven-county area were invited. Dublin has been very involved, but the partnerships still lack effectiveness. He encouraged Council members to become involved with the Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce. Council would be educated on the business issues facing Columbus companies and companies throughout the nation, and would be more cognizant of the issues facing decision makers in the Columbus area. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher requested that when staff becomes aware of opportunities for representation on committees or groups that they inform Council. In addition to elected representation, there could be the possibility for government representation. Mrs. Boring stated that it has been noted previously that the McKitrick property is too costly for the density that Dublin allows. Is that a reflection on Dublin's density policy? Mr. Stevens responded that it is not. Due to Dublin's success, the price of land is high throughout the City. When developers look at the cost of various sections of land, they determine if they would obtain the desired return on their investment. The City could raise the density, and it would make a difference. However, he is not making a value judgment eitherway -that the land price is too high or the land density is too low - he is simply pointing out that it is unlikely any development will occur on that property in the immediate future. This is a potentially desirable site for commercial development through which the City would be able to acquire a tax base in the mare distant future. In essence, it is being banked, as Mr. Reiner suggested, for the future -banked by the current market forces assisted by the City's density requirements. When it is needed in the future, the City has options to pursue. Eventually, that land will receive a market price that fits the density and then it will be developed. Mr. Reiner agreed that there is not a concern if the land is not developed for a time. The owner is not concerned. Eventually, a corporate giant may target the property. Study Session Monday, February 10, 2003 Page 9 Mr. Stevens indicated that he had received sufficient feedback to proceed with the second draft of the RFP. Discussion Regarding Legislation to Permit Executive Sessions for the Purpose of Economic Development Matters. Ms. Brautigam Hated that in the budget workshops there was Council discussion regarding the fact that Council is often unaware of what is happening in the economic development work of the City, as many of the details in the process of negotiation must be kept confidential. Under the City's current policy, staff can only discuss these matters in an open session, which would be contrary to the wishes of a potential applicant. To allow this discussion to occur in executive session, legal staff has prepared a draft ordinance to authorize Council to add economic development matters as a topic for executive session. Mr. Smith stated that when the City amended the Charter in 1996, a provision was included that would allow Council, under its home rule authority, to establish additional topics for executive sessions. The Charter also provided that an ordinance must be approved to authorize this. Mr. Smith stated that other cities have passed similar legislation. The purpose is not to hide the inducement or development agreement from the public; it becomes public upon passage. The purpose of the additional executive session topic of economic development is to allow discussion to occur regarding the company's financial condition and growth plan -- confidential issues which would be unfair to share publicly, particularly at a time when the company may be bidding in more than one community. This is a legal option which is available to Council. A copy of the draft legislation can be provided to Council in their next packets, if they are interested in pursuing such legislation. Mr. Lecklider inquired if this is one of the authorized exceptions to the Open Meetings Act. Mr. Smith responded that it is not; however, the City has the authority under home rule to authorize it. There is case law that substantiates that. The Open Meetings Act or statute recognizes six different matters that may be discussed in executive session: personnel, property acquisition, litigation, collective bargaining, matters to be kept confidential according to Federal or State laws, and security issues. However, under the Home Rule provision of the Ohio Constitution, municipalities have the authority to exercise all powers of local government and to adopt and enforce regulations that are not in conflict with general laws. There are two or three communities in Central Ohio, which have passed similar legislation. In the past, Council has expressed frustration with the negotiation process which is often far along when they review it. Mr. Lecklider stated that he recognizes the utility of the ordinance. He inquired if the other Ohio communities which have enacted similar legislation have had it in place for a period of time. Study Session Monday, February 10, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Smith responded that the time period would predate the City's Revised Charter, as the discussion referencing those communities occurred during the Charter review meetings. Mr. Lecklider inquired if legal staff is aware of any appeal reaching the Supreme Court level. Mr. Smith responded that he had not researched that question Mayor McCash stated that he is undecided about the issue. Dublin is not a strong mayoral form of government. Council members are part-time. The City has afull-time Manager and Economic Development Director. It is important, however, that some discussions occur with the Council, as the policy-making body, to ensure that the agreements under development are consistent with the policy direction. He indicated that he is not convinced of the wisdom of establishing this as another reason to enter into executive sessions. Council has tried to ensure that the City's business is conducted in the public eye, particularly regarding land use issues. This could make the agreements appear to be "done deals" transacted behind doors. When it is made public, there is opportunity for public discussion. However, the citizens' perception would be that their input is received only to meet the requirement for public input opportunity before the agreement is authorized. He understands the difficult balance of observing corporate confidentiality along with the discussion regarding potential expansion or relocation, but he is not ready for this step in Dublin's city government. He does not believe that it is essential for City Council to became more involved in micromanagement of these issues. Council should instead rely upon conveying policy direction to the City Manager and Economic Development Director. A successful system operated under Mr. Foegler, a previous Development Director, who was skilled at providing an appropriate level of information to Council without revealing company names or specifics. Council members were comfortable with the information and the level of understanding. Mrs. Boring stated that since the Mt. Auburn was done in 1994, a lot has been accomplished without having economic development as an executive session topic. Until recently, Council was able to obtain general information on bottom-line figures. Mayor McCash noted that between 1994 and 2002, the City has doubled its income tax revenue. Ms. Salay stated that one Council member recently expressed that by the time economic development agreements are brought to Council, they were far along the road. It was difficult for Council to avoid appearing negative to the corporate and private citizenry, if they disapproved the project. Maybe it would be good to have the "opportunity," even if not often used. Mayor McCash inquired if this is the solution to that problem, or is there a different problem? Is it a failing of Council to convey its policy direction clearly to staff, or is staff not communicating to Council early enough in the process to obtain Council direction on various issues? Study Session Monday, February 10, 2003 Page 11 Ms. Salay agreed that Council members are part-time. In the past, perhaps there was not a concerted effort to ensure that direction was consistently given. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she has expressed concern about receiving information about economic agreements in the final stages. Very little is communicated to Council. Although she is not certain this legislation is the answer to that situation, there clearly needs to be some method of communicating details. Recently, there have been only brief memos indicating that Mr. Stevens is communicating with "ABC" Company. Sometimes Council has not even been aware of that until a company has applied to the State far job credits. She added that, while Council does not require the level of information that staff has, a better communication level with a certain amount of detail is needed. It is not appropriate that the elected representatives of the community learn this information in Business Firsf. There have been instances in which she has received calls from the public before she has had an opportunity to read about it. There are benchmarks in Mr. Stevens' negotiations at which time some communication should be shared with Council apprising them of what is on the table and what is happening. Not all the discussion is in regard to effects on the tax base and traffic patterns. There were a couple of occasions in the past year where Council was aware of agreements after the fact, i.e., the City had to pay tax dollars to a billion dollar company due to a provision in an economic development agreement. The Golf Course agreement was one example of the poor level of understanding that Council has had recently regarding the details of these contracts. Mr. Kranstuber stated that much of the earlier soccer stadium negotiation occurred outside Council's purview. In the final phase, Council members were forced into entrenched positions, while in reality, Council members were probably not that far apart in their views. It is good that staff drafted this document, and perhaps in the future it will be used. In the previous administration, there were some issues that should have been resolved within the context of existing law. Although the new City Manager has not been tested in these issues, she appears to be sensitive to the democratic process and will work with the elected body. He trusts that she will not move in a direction that Council and the community does not desire. Even without this proposed legislation, perhaps the current system will work better than it has recently. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the economic situation is different and future negotiations will be more difficult. Different kinds of concessions will have to be made than have been made previously. Maybe that is the type of discussion that will occur in Council work sessions. If a "laundry list" of possibilities to work with is developed in work sessions, staff then has the direction without the specificity. She considers this to be an important issue and is the reason she was interested in having an economic development update - to establish a framework for future agreements. Mayor McCash stated that Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher has offered some good points. During the past two years, those important benchmark communications have not been present, and that communication is vital to allow Council to address issues early in the process. That type of communication once existed -- some Council and staff members remember Study Session Monday, February 10, 2003 Page 12 it well. He suggested that a less aggressive approach than legislation would facilitate better communication. Mrs. Boring agreed that the majority of Council members believe legislation isn't necessary. Mayor McCash stated that at this time, legislation would not be pursued. However, Council's direction to Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Ciarochi and Mr. Stevens is to ensure that the benchmark communications are established in the future. If staff needs clarification of a policy approach, this should be brought to Council's attention. Mayor McCash moved to adjourn to executive session at 8:45 p.m. far discussion of land acquisition matters. He noted that the meeting would be reconvened following executive session only to formally adjourn. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. The meeting was reconvened at 10:30 p.m. and formally adjourned. Clerk of Council