Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-27-12 CDC minutesDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, August 27, 2012 — 6:30 p.m. Minutes of Meeting Mr. Reiner, Chairperson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. Council members present were: Mr. Reiner, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Vice Mayor Salay, and Mayor Lecklider. Mr. Keenan was absent (excused). City of Dublin staff members present were: Ms. Grigsby, Ms. Readler, Ms. Ott, Ms. Mumma, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Gibson, and Ms. Puskarcik. Representing the Dublin Arts Council were Mr. Guion and Mr. Pigman. DAC Board Members and staff were also present. Consent Agenda Mr. Reiner moved approval of the following nine consent agenda items: • Minutes of 6 -8 -09 • Minutes of 9 -28 -09 • Minutes of 8 -25 -10 • Minutes of 10 -13 -10 • Minutes of 2 -2 -11 • Minutes of 2 -14 -11 • Minutes of 2 -22 -11 • Minutes of 6 -13 -11 • Minutes of 2 -27 -12 Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mayor Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. Proposed Agreement with Dublin Arts Council Mr. Reiner stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to review the proposed agreement with the DAC. The issues for discussion are outlined in the staff memo. He asked if everyone is in agreement that these are, in fact, the items for discussion. Mr. Guion stated that these are almost all of the issues for discussion. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it is important to bring forward any other issues that need to be discussed. Mrs. Boring stated that she would like further discussion about the five percent issue in the agreement. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher suggested that be discussed under the funding endowment issues. There were no further issues brought to the table. 1. Timeframe. Mr. Reiner stated that the DAC representatives have indicated in discussions that they do not object to removing the expiration timeframe from the agreement, and City staff concurs. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 2 of 22 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for clarification that this means in perpetuity — that the agreement would stand until either party would request a revision. Ms. Grigsby confirmed that is correct. At some point, when the lease term expires in 2026, there are several components of that, such as the funding endowment, triggered by the lease agreement. Once that expires, there will need to be some determination of how the funding will continue. Mayor Lecklider added that it can also be revisited by mutual agreement. Ms. Grigsby responded that is correct. Mr. Pigman stated that there was some discussion around whether the parties should revisit the agreement every three years — not that the agreement expires, but the parties could meet at a regular interval to review it. The proposal was for three years. The DAC would not want the timeframe discussion to preclude discussion about that issue. Mr. Reiner stated that the City's desire is not to revisit the agreement that often. He asked Mr. Pigman why the DAC would want to revisit the agreement in three years. Mr. Pigman responded that the composition of the Board of the DAC changes, and three years is a long period of time. He is not suggesting the agreement be reopened, but just that the parties could revisit the status. Members of the City Council will also change, and another Plan could be adopted. DAC felt it was appropriate to have some mechanism by which the parties agree that on some type of basis, the agreement could be revisited to determine what is working, what is not working, whether the objectives or goals have changed, etc. Mrs. Boring asked Ms. Ott if there is anything in this agreement that would prevent that from occurring, if either party believes it is warranted. Ms. Ott responded that is correct. Mrs. Boring stated that adding a three -year review provision is fairly restrictive. Ms. Grigsby added that when the DAC reps attend Council meetings, they have the opportunity to update them regarding any issues on a quarterly basis. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she prefers not to specify a time period, but perhaps there should be a statement in the agreement that is permissive to do this. This Council composition can change, and it would be a good idea to have such language included. It should be expected that review would occur in the future, and this is a positive thing versus a review when things are not working. She asked if Ms. Readler could draft a sentence to add to the agreement, if everyone is in agreement. Council Members concurred. Mr. Pigman agreed, noting that things change, and such a statement would be acceptable. 2. Funding endowment. Mr. Reiner stated that the DAC has indicated they remain interested in a recalculation of its funding amount and method. He has met with staff on this and talked to Mr. Guion about this as well. He asked if there is interest among Council Members to increase the funding to the DAC. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 3 of 22 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated she wants to hear from the DAC about what they are requesting specifically. Vice Mayor Salay asked what is prompting their request. Mr. Guion responded that there are two issues: 1) the amount of funding required to administer the public art program; and 2) in reviewing the endowment that exists now, it was conceived in 2000 and the population has grown by 50 percent since that time and more hotels have been added. They are suggesting this could be revisited, but if Council believes it is not worth revisiting, that is fine. In view of the changes in the City since 2000, he has suggested this be revisited. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she believes the administrative costs are actually the fifth issue on the list for review tonight. She was not serving on Council at the time the original funding agreement for the DAC was created. What she is looking for from the DAC is the expertise on the subject matter that the City does not possess and does not need to possess, given the fact the Arts Council exists. It is worth it to her to fund the administrative costs, over and above the 25 percent. The other 25 percent, in her mind, was for programming and for bringing the arts to the community. She is not familiar with the administrative costs, and perhaps it could be established with a "not to exceed" method. Ms. Grigsby responded that staff had discussion about an amount up to 10 percent of the value of the art for administrative expenses. This is slightly less than the administrative costs for the last Art in Public Places project, but that is a policy decision for Council of whether the $150,000 set aside for the AIPP program is strictly for the physical art or whether it was to include all costs related to the AIPP. Staff agrees that perhaps this modification should be done for the AIPP program in terms of administrative costs. Ms. Ott noted that the DAC did a good job with their research in understanding what the costs are now for the administrative work versus the costs in the past — for honorariums, jurors, finalists — recognizing it is not a traditional RFP process as is used for most other services acquired by the City. In March, the DAC provided a breakdown of the costs for the last commission. It is clear that they absorbed the administrative costs within their existing budget at that time. Traditionally, these costs have been absorbed in the DAC budget, and this is a policy decision going forward. Mayor Lecklider asked if that is at the crux of the second issue. If the administrative costs of the AIPP program are addressed separately, is everyone satisfied with the current funding formula for the DAC? Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher explained that she jumped to the number five issue as Mr. Guion gave this area as an example. These are two separate issues. Mrs. Boring stated her understanding was that even if the 25 percent of hotel /motel tax revenues was less than the projected amount, the City would pay the DAC the projected amount on the schedule attached to the lease agreement. Ms. Grigsby stated that is correct. Mrs. Boring recalled that it was not specified that if the revenues were less, the DAC would be paid the projected amount. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 4 of 22 Ms. Grigsby responded that was raised as an issue as part of this agreement — that the funding endowment is addressed under the lease agreement, and it indicates that the DAC would be paid based on Exhibit B. Whether it is more or less, this is a guarantee amount that the City will pay. Mrs. Boring asked by what percentage the projection increases each year. Ms. Grigsby responded that the projected increase is two percent per year. When the terms of the lease agreement were discussed, the thought was that the actual hotel -motel tax revenues would exceed the projections. That surplus plus the rent, over time, would help to offset the costs of the debt and the interest on the acquisition of the property and the renovations of the facility. Mr. Reiner stated that this was a secure arrangement for the DAC and a fair thing to protect them. Ms. Grigsby responded that at the time, it addressed a concern about a guaranteed level of funding for the DAC. Mrs. Boring added that for budgeting purposes, the DAC would know what the numbers would be going forward. Mr. Reiner stated that the question is an increased involvement by the DAC in public art. If there is an interest in increasing the funding, one of the methods to do so would be to freeze the rent and only increase it by $2,000 every three years. That would provide the DAC, over the 14 -year lease, an additional $172,000. Is there interest in making this change? Ms. Grigsby responded that staff reviewed this as an option. The City would know what is being committed to, whereas changing the percentage or changing to the actual hotel -motel tax revenue versus projected would be an unknown number. Modifying the rent payments would be a known number. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked for clarification about the change in the rent lease terms. Ms. Grigsby clarified that under the agreement, the rent increases $2,000 per year. The option would be to have it increase by $2,000 every three years versus each year. Mrs. Boring stated that the $75,000 /year for the AIPP program has been in existence for many years. If the City wants a higher level of AIPP program, would the funding be increased for a particular year or would the City consider an alternate way of funding so that there would be an increased amount spent on the AIPP program? Mr. Reiner responded that is a good point. The 161 corridor is a great opportunity for the AIPP program, which could include murals on buildings. It would be desirable for the DAC to have more involvement in the future in public art that people will see every day on their way to work, that is embedded in the edifices, creating more interest in public art in the community. If there is a way to increase their budget to provide more opportunities for public art, and have the DAC more involved in the City's capital program and enhancing the program in an artistic way. Mr. Guion added that the DAC has a mobile enabled site, which can be accessed from a cell phone. Any opportunities that arise to promote or market the public art collection are great, and additional funding would make that possible. Mrs. Boring stated that she recalls the DAC received a grant for the cell phone tour from the City. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 5 of 22 Mr. Guion responded that is true, but the DAC wants to continue the process and develop it even more. Ms. Grigsby added that there was discussion internally, and she had discussion with Mr. Guion, that if there are additional programming needs or specific programs they are considering, the DAC always has the ability to make an application for hotel -motel tax grant funds. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the challenge with that approach is that one can't plan ahead, as they are dependent upon a grant process where funding could be denied. If the funds were available in the budget, one could decide how to use the monies and have a better projection for a long -term plan. She noted that she does not agree with Mr. Guion's statement about the community's growth and the additional hotels, as that is reflected in the increased amount in the base 25 percent. The 25 percent is a portion of a higher number. In 2000, it was $405,000 and in 2011, it was $ 542,000. Mr. Guion responded that the DAC receives 25 percent of the amount of revenue projected — not of the actual. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that these are the monies the DAC received. The projected amount was lower than the actual amount only two times since the agreement was entered into. The DAC funding is keeping pace with the additional beds available in Dublin. Everyone is subject to the challenge of the room night rates versus what was charged five years ago, and the impacts on the overall revenue. Mr. Guion responded that he spoke with Mr. Dring on Friday. It appears that the bed tax revenue is up 9 percent over last year. What he is trying to convey in regard to their funding, is if the DAC were to receive the actual 25 percent instead of projected revenues, they would have received an additional $247,000 over that period of five years. Mrs. Boring stated that Ms. Grigsby has indicated that the excess revenues are invested in the DAC building and in reducing the debt or interest/ Ms. Grigsby responded that the projections were done with the hope that the revenues would come in higher than projected, and the variance would be used toward repayment of the debt and renovations. Currently, the variance totals $361,000 and if this continues for the next eight years, it would total $601,000. Adding that to the rent paid by DAC over the period of time listed is $2.8 million. The principal and interest on the debt is $3.3 million. Therefore, what has currently been received is less than the debt being paid off over the 20 -year period to acquire and renovate the DAC facility. Mrs. Boring stated that would build on staffs suggestions to reduce the annual rent — it would balance out any negative years. Does the City place any of these monies in a maintenance fund? Ms. Grigsby responded that the funds are all in the hotel -motel tax fund, and in the last years in the CIP, the City has added maintenance costs for the art, and the operating budget includes items related to the administration of maintenance of art. Mrs. Boring summarized that over and above these costs, the City is doing the maintenance. Ms. Ott responded that the $3.3 million does not include the additional costs of maintaining the DAC facility. Mrs. Boring stated that she supports the alternative proposal for the reduction in lease payments. This is a good compromise. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 6 of 22 Ms. Grigsby clarified this is the proposed adjustment to the rent so that the rent increases by $2,000 each three years versus every years. Mr. Gerber asked which issue on the list this relates to. Mrs. Boring responded it relates to the funding endowment. Ms. Grigsby stated that this can be noted in the DAC agreement, and it would also require an amendment to the lease agreement. Mayor Lecklider summarized that under this option, the City would increase the rent payment by $2,000 every three years versus annually. This is to account for what perceived need — Art in Public Places Program or general additional funding for DAC? Mr. Gerber responded it would provide more overall funding to DAC. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated this is a small sum in total. Ms. Grigsby stated that over the remaining term, the change would represent $172,000 in total. Originally, in 2026, the rent would be $110,000 annually. Under this scenario, the rent would be $88,000 annually in 2026. There is a bigger variance the further out in the term of the lease. Mrs. Boring stated that this is a compromise that satisfies what the DAC is seeking, yet does not diminish the payments on the building. Ms. Grigsby responded that the modifications would be a set number versus an unknown number if a modification of the percentage of hotel -motel tax revenues were done. If the City were to adjust the percentage to 25 percent of actual, in 2009 and 2010, they would have received less in funding than what they did receive. The DAC will have a solid number they can expect to receive. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated she can support this change, but only if it is accompanied by additional funding for administrative costs as outlined in item five. The rent change is minimal in view of the increase in salaries and benefit costs. Is the administrative fees referenced in number five every other year or annually? Ms. Ott responded that the administrative fee would be based upon the value set for the public art commission. Staff recommends it be a percentage of the art commission. If three commissions are done in one year, there would be three fees. If no commissions are done in a year, there would be no fees paid. Ms. Grigsby added that, typically, the AIPP commission process takes place one year, and the following year the art is constructed. There is generally a two -year cycle for the AIPP program. Mr. Reiner recapped, noting that Council has agreed to increase the rent by $2,000 every three years versus the current annual increase, and this should provide an additional $172,000 of revenue to the DAC over the remaining 14 years of the lease. Council concurred. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 7 of 22 3. Public Art Definition. Mr. Reiner stated that staff has suggested altering the title of this section from Public Art Definition to Art in Public Places Definition to clarify that this definition is only for the use of $75,000 per year for the Art in Public Places acquisition, and is not intended to restrict the use of other endowment fundings for public art initiatives that may be beyond the definition. The DAC would like further discussion on this. Mr. Reiner requested Mr. Guion's input. Mr. Guion stated that there was some previous verbiage that was eliminated from this draft -- "not limited to." Ms. Ott indicated that the DAC's requested revision is on pages 26 -27. On page 33, is staff's proposal. Mr. Guion stated that the reason DAC prefers a more open -ended agreement is that just as the definition of technology is ever - changing, it is important to think beyond the current definition of public art. Adding those words back in would avoid limiting this Council and the Dublin Arts Council in the future. Vice Mayor requested staffs response. Ms. Ott stated that, first, the definition proposed on page 33 is based on several different things. CDC minutes from 2007 made it clear that the community's intent was to have a physical piece of artwork for that $75,000 /year. Second, staff looked at the definitions from 27 other public art programs, to ensure that we were not being too limiting. We tried to incorporate more broad language, but make it clear that the genre still results in a permanent art piece for the City's art collection. This concerns the $75,000 specifically for the art piece, it does not concern the other $400+ DAC receives from the City annually. This addresses what the City gets for that the amount set aside for the Art in Public Places program. There are many opportunities for projects from other funding sources, such as the hotel -motel grant program, for other genres that could be art that occurs in a public location, but this addresses this investment — to ensure that the community's getting back that physical piece of artwork to last generations. Mr. Reiner stated that he recalls that discussion. He believes Council consensus at that time was to gain a physical, permanent embellishment to the community. Mr. Gerber responded that the definition of public art in section 3 on page 33 is pretty broad. If new technologies come along, it should be possible to work within the framework of that definition. Ms. Grigsby stated that as clarified in staffs memo, instead of saying "public art," identify it as "Art in Public Places." That helps clarify the difference. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if #3 and #4 would be combined, because there is Art in Public Places funding. Ms. Grigsby responded that rather than saying public art for #3, we would say "art in public places." Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 8 of 22 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that #3 does not specify a medium; it's more about the process. Mr. Guion responded that it states "art is the design that results in the production of two - dimensional or three - dimensional aesthetic improvements to the municipally - controlled land mass or building." Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired what that meant to him. Mr. Guion responded that to him it means something concrete and physical. However, when you start to set policy that says public art is defined as, then it is that, and it can't be anything else. That is the reason he suggests the language be added, "but not limited to." It is good to remain open, and have an agreement sufficiently flexible to permit things other than what we perceive as public art at this point in time. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if it would make a difference if the "art in public places" definition were to be used, as suggested by Ms. Grigsby and Ms. Ott. Does Mr. Guion object to that? Mr. Guion responded that he has no argument with it, but that definition is not used in the agreement. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it would need to be changed, but if everyone concurs with that definition, the discussion could move forward. Mrs. Boring indicated that she concurs. Mr. Pigman stated that it is a question of what Council wants for their $150,000 with that program. Someone used the example of murals — would they be included in this definition. Mrs. Boring responded that they are two - dimensional. Mr. Pigman responded that they may not be on a City landmass or public building. Are we being too limiting? Mayor Lecklider inquired if there is reservation about including the language, "but not limited to ?" Mrs. Boring inquired if that is added, what control does the City have? Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded that Council has final approval. Discussion about each art piece should be present from the beginning so that if something strange is proposed, Council can indicate that is unacceptable. Vice Mayor Salay stated that she would prefer not to "sell ourselves short" or limit ourselves. Council does have the ultimate say, so if proposed art is not what Council expected or what we believe our constituents expect, then we can say no. She has no objection with the language proposed by DAC. Mayor Lecklider stated that he is comparing pp. 26 -27 of the DAC proposal to page 33 of staff's proposal. What objection does staff have with DAC's proposal? Ms. Ott responded that she believes (e) a different expression of artistic expression mutually agreed upon by the parties is not consistent with the community's discussion in 2007. The discussion of the community was very clear about the project resulting in a physical piece of artwork. Several genres do not result in a permanent addition to the collection. Mr. Gerber responded that is true. Mr. Reiner stated that she is correct -- that was the direction that was given, and he appreciates her protection of that point. We are spending the taxpayers' money, and Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 9 of 22 representing their idea — that there will be something physical out there that is attractive and an amenity to the City. Mr. Pigman stated that he saw that in the minutes, but any idea must be mutually agreed upon by the parties, so if something new and exciting is proposed, it would require both parties to agree. Ms. Grigsby stated that if sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) remain as proposed by staff — with public art defined as "art in public places," and at the end, if it is further defined as "not limited to" the proposed art, then it would have to come back to Council. Mrs. Boring stated that would need to be clearly stated in the agreement, so that there is no question. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher requested an example of a genre that Council might not like or is inconsistent with what staff has written. Ms. Ott responded that it could be temporary art, dance, and poetry readings -- things more of a performing arts nature rather than permanent, visual art. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that would be inconsistent with what the intent is for the use of this money. Mr. Reiner noted that it could also be art that decomposes, such as wood Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that type of art could be included in the other art program, but not in the AIPP program, which is a particular group of money. Her main concern with the PRAC master plan is that requires that the City ensures the continual update of this plan and is inclusive of the Arts Council's participation. She is not sure how religious the City is about updating the plan, etc. Ms. Ott responded that we have been keeping a file for the next update for this particular plan. The plan was adopted in 2009. It is now three years old, and should have a little more life to it before a set of revisions is proposed. Mr. Reiner stated that he can see something different, such as a hologram machine to depict images on buildings — a permanent art exhibit. It would not be a three dimensional piece of art. Would Ms. Grigsby's suggestion for (a) through (d), with the requirement that anything different must come back to Council for consideration, satisfy Council? Mrs. Boring requested that Ms. Grigsby re -state her recommendation. Ms. Grigsby responded that all the language would make clear that this is the Art in Public Places (AIPP) program. The language "is not limited to" could be added to the list of these four, but then anything not on that list would have to come back to Council. Mrs. Boring stated that it is essential to make the intent absolutely clear, so that there is no "wiggle room." Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 10 of 22 Mayor Lecklider stated that when he compares attachment C, DAC's proposal, with staff's proposal, (a) through (d) do not comport. Was that DAC's original draft language? He is confused. He thought we were working off of one agreement, from which there were then redlined versions and proposed language. He does not understand why a, b and c are inconsistent with staff's a, b and c. Ms. Ott responded that staff reviewed 27 other programs at staff level and then looked at what staff proposed last October to determine if what was initially proposed was too narrow. After the DAC submitted their changes to staff in June, staff attempted to improve our definition and provided a compromise definition, which is reflected on page 33. Mayor Lecklider inquired if DAC's response was to the earlier version, and the City has since modified its definition. Mr. Guion stated that the definition was originally developed in 2006, and then was reworked in 2011. The basic 2006 language is reflected in the June 20, 2012 version DAC submitted. However, since that time, things have changed, as reflected in points (a) through (f). The definition was proposed by the City to DAC. He would like to make one over - arching observation, and that is that as a city and an arts council, we should be in partnership for promoting art for residents and visitors. Collaborating and communicating are key phrases, and their proposal is in keeping with those actions. He believes maintaining a partnership should be foremost in our thinking. Mayor Lecklider inquired if DAC finds the language proposed by staff acceptable, with the modifications proposed tonight. Mr. Guion responded affirmatively. Vice Mayor Salay requested that the modifications tonight be summarized. Mr. Reiner stated that the agreement incorporates the new title, Art in Public Places program. It incorporates #5 on page 33, from a through d, with the caveat that any item beyond the definition must be brought back to Council for consideration and approval before moving forward. 4. Administrative costs. Mr. Reiner stated that this item is about the direct administrative costs of the artist selection process for the Art in Public Places (AIPP). The question is if Council wants to fund those? Ms. Ott stated that those costs today are higher than they were when the City initiated the $150,000 commissions early in 2000. The City recognizes that these costs have a larger impact on DAC's budget today, solely on what it costs to pay honorariums to jurors and finalists. There are other administrative costs, as well, but this is the real cost of conducting the business. Mr. Guion agreed. They reviewed the administrative costs for the last three commissions, and the costs for the last commission, with juror fees, travel, etc., was $22,000. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 11 of 22 Mr. Reiner stated that that would cause the quality of the art piece to go down, if that amount of money from the program is used to cover the administrative costs. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher responded that the quality has not gone down, because DAC has had to use their regular funds for the administrative costs. Vice Mayor Salay expressed support for having the City cover the costs of doing the business for this program. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher concurred, but stated that she would prefer to pay the actual costs, rather than adding money per a formula. If the art costs $150,000 and ten percent is added for administrative costs, that would be $15,000. Mr. Guion indicated the administrative costs for the last commission were $22,000 — much more than $15,000. The ten percent is based on the $150,000 art money, when really the project costs much more. The administrative costs go against the total project. Ms. Ott responded that is the same for the City. There are additional costs beyond the $150,000 AIPP funding, which are built into the operating budget for these commissions to pay for other costs, such as installation of the art piece, and ADA accessibility that may be beyond the scope of the artist -- that is assumed in the planning. Ms. Grigsby responded that the ten percent figure is the number the City looks at. When the City does construction projects, that is a reasonable estimate for engineering services and fees. It provides a cap; however, if Council prefers to choose something different, that is fine. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she likes the concept of providing a cap, but the travel costs, which will continue to increase, are her primary concern. Will ten percent be adequate to cover those? She does believe there should be a cap, however, leadership should say that if more than that amount is spent, it must come out of our operating budget. Mr. Gerber inquired if Council would receive the administrative costs beforehand to approve. Ms. Ott responded that if Council desires to pay those costs, she would prefer to meet and work out the parameters of those costs with Mr. Guion. For instance, they would have to work out the billable hours component (staff time versus support staff time — what will be reimbursable). For instance, with this last commission, DAC hired additional staff to assist with the process. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if there would be anything wrong with that. Ms. Ott responded that there is nothing wrong with that, but that is an example of billable hours. The question is whose hours will be reimbursed? Would it be only any additional staff required? Is there an expectation that the DAC leadership's costs should be absorbed within their regular administrative costs, or attributed back to this budget? Those questions would need to be worked out, and that agreement brought back to Council. Mr. Reiner stated that he believes Council wants a cap on these costs, so he hopes staff will explore what percent would be best — 10% or more? Ms. Grigsby stated that 15% would be sufficient. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 12 of 22 Mr. Reiner stated that would set the parameter for the expenses for the project, and it would be fair. Mrs. Boring stated that she supports Ms. Ott looking into those costs and bringing a recommendation back to Council. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she agrees to an extent, but is concerned about the City potentially saying that three hours of an individual's work should not have been charged to this program but to their regular funds. They are professionals and know what it takes to accomplish the job, and that is between the DAC Board and Mr. Guion to manage the process. She does believe it is good to have an understanding in general terms of what is usually covered by the specific fund, and the typical cost. Then, the percent for administrative costs can be determined. Mrs. Boring inquired how staff would get to that point. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded that Mr. Guion has already provided staff with specifics on what the last commission cost. What appears to being said now is that City staff will look at those and evaluate them specifically. Mr. Gerber stated that he does not believe the City should micromanage it, either. However, he has an expectation of a good faith process, and maybe language could be added to the agreement toward that end. If, later, something is perceived as not consistent with that, the DAC representative or Ms. Ott can point that out to Council, and Council can address it, if necessary. Ms. Ott stated that she trusts Council realizes that is how staff works with any consultant or professional that the City hires. There is a certain level of oversight and understanding of what is included in the invoice. She is not suspicious of having issues, but believes that the documentation needs to be clear so that there is transparency and the services being rendered are what the City is reimbursing. Ms. Grigsby stated that is essential for the City's audit trail. When auditors review the documents, it is necessary to show support for what we are paying and that it is in line with the guidelines. Mr. Guion responded that DAC has an audit trail, as well, and must be even more transparent in submitting their 990s, being a 5013C. Mr. Gerber stated that there are sufficient oversight mechanisms in place, and providing that oversight would not be Council's purpose. Ms. Grigsby clarified that the reimbursement would cover only additional assistance hired. It would not cover a portion of Mr. Guion's time. The DAC funding already covers that. Mr. Guion stated that the information he submitted for Council packet was direct costs, no soft, administrative costs. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 13 of 22 Mayor Lecklider stated that staff was looking at a ten percent reimbursement. Ms. Ott responded that they looked at the budget of other programs and how they designed their commission, and started at ten percent, which would be $15,000. The discussion now is if that meets the goals of the program. Mayor Lecklider stated that what is now being proposed is something without a cap, correct? Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher responded that Council does desire a cap. Ms. Grigsby responded that a cap is still desired, but probably 15 %. Mayor Lecklider inquired if 15% was acceptable. Mr. Guion indicated it was acceptable. Mayor Lecklider stated that he assumes existing Council and future Councils would want to be kept advised, through a report to the Community Development Committee, or other, just what those expenses are, from project to project. 5. Site Selection Ms. Ott stated that with any commission there has to be preliminary conversation about the site. With the past project, that occurred through email and phone conversations. She and Mr. Guion agree that a more comprehensive policy is needed. It is hoped that Council retains the decision - making role in the site selection, and that we can develop a process where we can collaboratively work with the DAC and community's input on the site selection. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she would assume any site selection would have those components, so why has it not worked that way. Ms. Ott responded that, actually, staff has seen many site selection processes over the years of the program Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that it seems that there has been inconsistency in the application of that process. Ms. Ott responded that it will be valuable for staff and future councils and boards to outline that process. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired how quickly that process can be defined. Ms. Ott stated that this was an item referred to PRAC and is on their agenda to review as an Item of Interest, but nothing has been submitted to that body for consideration until we understood Council's intent. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that if PRAC has nothing specific occurring on their next agenda, perhaps this could be moved up to the front. Ms. Ott stated that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommended a committee, task force, or DAC Board group be formed to review these matters. Council directed that PRAC handle that review. She met with PRAC in May and went over the 11 areas of education related to the AIPP program. She is scheduled to talk with them again in September and October. Mayor Lecklider inquired if PRAC is to help define the process then. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded that they will make a recommendation to Council. Ms. Ott stated that was the process Council directed staff to use. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that she would need to give PRAC alternatives to use as the basis of their discussion. It isn't necessary to go to them with a blank slate, as there already is a Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 14 of 22 history which indicates which ones have pitfalls, which worked better, and what combination of all those would be the recommendation for PRAC to discuss. Mr. Gerber inquired how PRAC would have that knowledge. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher stated that Ms. Ott would provide it to them. Mr. Guion stated that the direction is to develop a site process that engages the community and is designed to preserve and enhance quality of value of Dublin's comprehensive public art collection via a thoughtful process for indentifying location and themes for a new commission. Dublin Arts Council would consider a host of principles, questions and concepts, including the following: How does public art support the guiding principles of the City of Dublin Community Plan? What is its place in the development and vision for Dublin in 20 years? What attaches people to their communities? What make a community a desirable place to live? What draws people to stake their future in it? Are communities with more attached residents better off? This current research is being done. These questions are being asked to develop a process that makes sense, is forward thinking and in which things are outlined very specifically. So whatever we present to the next body which will choose or recommend sites, education value should be associated with it. It isn't possible to choose a site without considering all the ramifications of that choice. DAC recommended three sites, which are in exhibit A — the Dublin Justice Center, the west side of Dublin Road at Emerald Parkway, and Kosciuszko Park, and shared the reasons for those recommendations. Choosing a site has to include certain elements, otherwise we don't do the public art collection in Dublin justice. There is a context within which public art is realized. They provided those these recommendations as an example of how they would go through a process of site selection. Mrs. Boring stated that many cities conduct their process differently. For example, the city may select a site on which they want an art piece, then the artists propose art pieces that would work with that site. Mr. Guion clarified their consideration of a site, using Kosciuszko Park as an example. Mrs. Boring stated that she understands, but if the City selected Dublin Village Center as a site, for example, the artists would have to develop an idea appropriate for that site. Mr. Guion responded that there is a step missing — the step that resulted in the selection of Dublin Village Center. Vice Mayor Salay stated that that there are different ways of selecting the site. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher so we had choices, which had to be public land. Mr. Hahn provided the choices and staffs recommendations to Council. This would be the same type of information provided to PRAC, although they would not be making the decision, but recommending a site to Council. Ms. Ott stated that Council's direction was to take the program guidelines to them for a review and recommendation to Council. The City has had successful public art installations that have used both approaches. Field of Corn is a good example of a site selected first. The Bicentennial art piece had more specificity for the site than other art pieces had. They need to design a site selection process that can accommodate both scenarios and others. Fortunately, other cities have gone down this path, and we can elicit their help in defining our process. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 15 of 22 Mayor Lecklider stated that staff's memo recommends that "a site selection method be developed that allows Council to retain final decision on site selection but is inclusive to DAC's input." Ms. Ott responded that the easiest way to address it would be to, on page 33 under #5, Art in Public Places Administration, DAC responsibilities, add #H to that list, "provide input or assist with the site selection process," or other wording that recognizes DAC as an engaged stakeholder in the process. 6. Discrimination clause. DAC is requesting a discrimination clause that is different from the City's. However, the City's legal staff prefers to remain with the City's discrimination clause. Ms. Readler requested that DAC explain what they are proposing. Mr. Pigman noted he would be happy to work with Ms. Readler on a volunteer basis to achieve the final document. One issue of concern is that the discrimination clause the City uses in its contract is different than the more comprehensive language DAC has adopted as a result of its dealings with other funding sources. He and Ms. Readler have discussed this and their recommendation is that the final agreement recognizes with that clause that DAC's obligations are different than the City's. Ms. Readler stated that the clause that has been stricken on page 30 of the draft agreement reflects the City's standard clause, which is in all its professional agreements. Legal does not recommend changing the City's standard contract language for a particular contract, but perhaps address it in a more holistic manner. She and Mr. Pigman looked at a compromise — retain the City's standard discrimination language, but add a section that the City acknowledges that DAC receives funds from other entities that have more expansive discrimination clauses, and perhaps enumerate that clause. It would not change the City's language and obligation but recognizes their broader clause. Mr. Reiner inquired if that would preclude us from being separated from any matching funds -- is that the goal? Mr. Gerber stated that would be the legal effect. Ms. Readler responded that what Legal proposes is an acknowledgment of their restrictions with their other funding sources, but it would not change the obligations of the City. Mr. Reiner inquired if it could make the City vulnerable to any other lawsuits. Ms. Readler responded that it only recognizes that DAC receives funding from different entities that have broader discrimination clauses. Mr. Gerber inquired why that is needed in this agreement. Ms. Readler responded that DAC would like to have it included. Mr. Gerber inquired their reason. Mr. Pigman stated that the reason is in part due to the matching funds, acknowledging that DAC receives money from the City, also from the Ohio Arts Council, and perhaps other sources, and their policies are different. It is just an acknowledgment that this is the case. There is no intention that the clause DAC has to comply with is binding upon the City. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 16 of 22 Mrs. Boring inquired if, when DAC receives money from other sources, it signs agreements as extensive as this. Mr. Guion responded affirmatively. They have agreements with Ohio Arts Council, the National Endowment for the Arts, and Franklin County. They are more extensive than Dublin's. They involve federal dollars. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher stated that a variety of funders that fund non profits adopt much broader and inclusive discrimination clauses than the City of Dublin currently has, which the City ought to look at. It is pretty unusual right now for discrimination clauses to be as limiting as the City of Dublin's is. In her experience with running a nonprofit organization, when they are seeking funding, they are required to change their discrimination clauses in their policies if they want to receive money from those sources. Their Board has also discussed the need for doing this, but, beyond the funders, it also makes a statement about our own employment processes. That is really what the discrimination clauses are about — the employment methodology. It is less about funding, and more a statement about values to the public and funders. She does not understand how that can be incorporated in this, but she defers to the legal advice. Ms. Readler stated that there is the capacity to include an acknowledgement in the agreement, so they can show their other funders that they are not somehow limiting their discrimination agreements with them by signing this language. Mr. Gerber stated that he had no objection to that. What is more limiting with the City's language? Ms. Readler stated that this enumerates all of the federally protected classes. Mayor Lecklider stated that the issue is if this is consistent with existing law. If there is additional language that satisfies the DAC and its other funders, he has no objection. He also has no objection to the City re- examining its contract language, but he would expect the majority of government entities use this language. Mr. Gerber stated that it is what the Courts recognize, as well. But he also understands their funding issue. Mayor Lecklider stated that this is in his view conservative, but it is also consistent with what federal and state law recognizes as protected classes. Mr. Pigman stated that he provided Ms. Readler with suggested language for the immunity clause, but they have no problem with the City's language, and that is reflected in the final version. Ms. Readler noted that language is found on page 29. There is additional language regarding granted exemptions from legal proceedings. The final draft will revert to the typical immunity clause. Mrs. Boring referred to page 36, grants for nonprofit arts organizations, which discusses a five percent endowment. For one thing, if they want more, they can come back and ask for it. It also says that if they don't use the five percent, it can go into their operating fund — "may allocate the funds for other uses." Her suggestion is that, similar to the bed tax fund, is that if they don't use all the five percent, that it should remain in this specific account and carry over to the next year, that it not be re- allocated to other uses, but stays in this fund for grants. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 17 of 22 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher expressed agreement with that suggestion. The intention is that DAC be the grantor for groups in the community, so the City wants this money to be used for this purpose. Mrs. Boring stated that in this way, it is possible to have more for grants the following year. Council members concurred. Mr. Pigman disagreed. He does not believe Council wants to micromanage this process. He also views it as a cash flow issue, to some extent. Some years, they have had requests that were far in excess than the funds available; in other years, they did not have requests that merited grant awards. He does not believe the funds should be locked in, rather than letting DAC manage the funds. They recognize their obligation to re -grant the funds, but to say that because DAC came up one percent short this year, they must put one percent aside for next year, it is micro managing. He believes Council should let DAC do their job. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher responded that the problem she has with that is that Council had this discussion months ago with its bed tax discussion. They had an unprecedented number of applications that were arts or music oriented. It seemed that they should have been going to DAC for the money, rather than coming to Council. Council then inquired the amount of money that had been granted the past few years, and it did fluctuate significantly. That concerns her. That level of inconsistency suggests that there isn't consistent marketing to get those funds out to the people that would naturally make a grant request to that defined fund. People are always looking for money. An even level of distribution of the money should be achieved, because that is the intent for the money. Council does want DAC, the experts, to make the decisions as to which are worthy and pass that information along to Council, telling us why DAC turned the application down. Council can then take that into consideration with its decision - making, if the dual application should occur. Mr. Guion is saying that what they are saying is at least five percent. There are two non - profit arts organizations in Dublin that have applied to them. A third has disbanded. DAC is working with Ms. Puskarcik to create a marketing plan so that people are aware of this grant opportunity and do not apply to the City in November and are told at that time that they should have gone to the Arts Council. They have revamped and simplified their grant process. They are meeting with the two organizations they previously funding regarding how to make a budget and write a grant application. They want to open the process up to more arts organizations. The money DAC is given by the City should be re- granted — that is what 90% of arts councils do — so, that should be at least five percent. DAC would love to spend all of that there. They are always looking for more funding, and are happy to help another arts organization that comes to them. It's not that they don't want to spend the money. They have not had the requests up to that five percent. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if the amount was not a minimum but up to five percent. Ms. Ott responded that the way it is written, based on the Committee's discussion in 2007, was up to five percent of the endowment. If it is more than five percent of the endowment, the DAC has the choice of either coming to the Council for an umbrella grant dollar amount that they would re- distribute, use funds they have raised another way, or lastly come back to Council and say that they want to use more than five percent of the endowment without going Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 18 of 22 through the hotel -motel tax grant process. That can be changed to be a minimum of five percent, if that is the intent of Council. Mr. Reiner stated that he previously served on the Finance Committee for years. During that time, there were many hotel -motel tax applications that Council should not have been funding and it was always hard on the applicants to be refused. It is beneficial to have DAC sort out what grants would be of value to the community. Council appreciates that. Mr. Guion responded that there is a very rigorous process that DAC goes through when it applies to the National Endowment or the Ohio Arts Council, and they expect the same of the applicants to DAC. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if Mrs. Boring's position is that the "up to five percent" is not relevant. Mrs. Boring stated that it is not relevant unless it states "five percent." Ms. Ott stated that five percent is approximately $27,000 of their annual budget for re- granting purposes. Mrs. Boring inquired the reason for stating five percent. Ms. Ott responded that at one point the Committee had questions about what was qualifying for grants in DAC's grant process, and how much of the funding was actually being used to subsidize school activities. The DAC took that message and looked at their granting process to help affirm that it was not a subsidy of the schools but requiring matching dollars and more planning by the applicant. Mrs. Boring inquired if that wouldn't be DAC's policy — to set aside up to five percent for grants, but if they needed more, come to Council. Ms. Ott responded that is what is stated: DAC designates five percent of their budget for grants, but if want to give away more than five percent for worthy programs, they have the three options -- they can use their money that did not come from the City to subsidize the five percent; they can ask Council if they can use more of the endowment for that purpose; or they can apply for a hotel -motel tax grant jointly or as an umbrella organization to re -grant the dollars. This does not limit their ability to give additional dollars within the community. It provides a checks and balance for that use of the base endowment dollars. Mrs. Boring stated that the City is not giving them additional endowment dollars. They are creating their own endowment program. Mayor Lecklider inquired if the costs of services to DAC for the "Sundays at Scioto" concerts are waived. Ms. Ott responded that they are — for up to ten concerts per year. 7. DAC Board minutes Ms. Ott stated that one other item that needs to be clarified concerns minutes of the DAC Board. Should they be submitted to the City, given that the City provides 67 percent of their funding? The DAC is primarily funded by the City. This is consistent with the understanding the City has with other bodies to which it provides substantial funding. It serves as an ongoing communication tool. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 19 of 22 Ms. Readler stated that she and Mr. Pigman had a discussion on this topic. They suggested an amendment that states DAC would provide their minutes to the City upon request, but they did not need to automatically forward them every month. Mrs. Boring stated that Council has a member representative to that Board. Why would the City need to request the minutes? Why wouldn't the Council member give the minutes to the Clerk to provide to Council, consistent with the other minutes Council receives in its packets? Mr. Guion stated that every board member receives a copy of the minutes, and then the minutes are approved by the Board. Ms. Readler stated that there would be no issue with the Council representative providing Council with the DAC Board minutes. Vice Mayor Salay suggested that it could be stated in the agreement that the Council member who is serving as the representative on the Board will provide those minutes to Council. Mr. Reiner stated that he believes it would be preferable to have DAC forward the minutes directly to the Clerk to provide in Council's packet, the same as other organizations do. Then, if there is something in the minutes Council wants more information about, the Council representative can comment accordingly. Ms. Grigsby stated that the Clerk could easily provide copies in Council's packet. Ms. Ott responded that, administratively, it is much more efficient to have this as an automatic process. Mr. Pigman stated that it is not absolutely certain that DAC's minutes are a public record. There is case law both ways. Those minutes are prepared for different purposes. His proposal was that they be provided upon request. He also isn't certain if DAC's distribution of the minutes to the Council liaison to the DAC Board means the Council member must provide copies to Council and the minutes then become a public record. He isn't certain the Council liaison isn't any more than just a liaison to the DAC Board. Their concern is that the Board discusses topics that shouldn't become a public record, such as personnel and finance matters. Public records requests are often responded to by providing redacted minutes. The idea that these minutes automatically become part of the City of Dublin's public records doesn't make sense. If the minutes have to be redacted before they are forwarded, it creates more work for the DAC. Mr. Gerber asked if there is a requirement that DAC provides their Board minutes to the City. Ms. Grigsby responded that she does not believe that there is a requirement. It's been part of the ongoing discussion with the intent of having a better understanding of the business conducted at the DAC Board meeting. In the event the Council liaison isn't able to attend the meeting, those minutes should be provided. Mr. Gerber stated that the City financially subsidizes many organizations within the community. Does the City require minutes from their boards as well? Ms. Grigsby responded that the Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau forwards all the board minutes to the City each month. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 20 of 22 Mr. Gerber asked if the City receives the Dublin Counseling Center's Board minutes. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher pointed out that the City is not providing 67 percent of the Center's funding. Mrs. Boring added that Council does not appoint a Council member to serve on their Board. Ms. Grigsby stated that she is not aware of any actual legal requirement that they do so. Mayor Lecklider inquired the basis for Legal staff's advice to Council. Do the DAC Board meetings meet the public meeting definition such that they should provide the City with minutes? Ms. Readler responded that she and Mr. Pigman have discussed whether or not DAC is a public entity. There is a functional equivalency test for this. However, whether or not they meet that is irrelevant because the City is asking for a contract clause that would commit them to give Council the minutes. It's not really a debate as to whether they are a public entity. It is a request from Council to monitor the funds that the City is giving them to be kept up to date about their proceedings. Mr. Pigman's concern is that some of their discussions may involve donors, and once the minutes are provided to the City, then it becomes a public record. Mayor Lecklider stated that if Council's rationale for receiving these minutes is not necessarily based on public records law but is instead a monitoring tool for the City's investment, then why couldn't language be included in the agreement that provides for redaction? Ms. Ott responded that the issue is maintaining the necessary communication with the DAC Board. These minutes provide one mechanism to be able to monitor the implementation of this agreement as it is executed. Mayor Lecklider stated that he understood Mr. Pigman's concern with providing the minutes was that some of the matters discussed were finance and personnel related. If the agreement permitted that type of information to be redacted before providing to the City, would that meet the purpose? Ms. Ott responded that it would provide the City a mechanism to monitor things related to this agreement and its implementation. The City does not need to have information about personnel issues to be able to manage the agreement. Mr. Guion noted that this would result in having to explain to the DAC Board that anything they say in the meeting could possibly become public record. The agreement would have to change, and perhaps their bylaws. It sets up a precedent that he doesn't believe is beneficial to the Dublin Arts Council. Mrs. Boring stated that Council receives complete minutes from the Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau (DCVB), for which the City also provides substantial funding. In addition, during her service as Council liaison on the DAC Board, she does not recall any personnel issue discussion in the minutes. The Council liaison could certainly provide Council with a copy of the minutes they receive. Mr. Guion stated that, to be fair to their Board, there would need to be adequate time to review the minutes and redact anything necessary. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 21 of 22 Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that if the intent is to understand the issues, then quarterly meetings could be set up between Mr. Guion or his designee and Council's liaison. Anyone that serves on a board is aware that discussions and comments can be made public, whether or not the entity is a public one or not. A board would adjourn to executive session to discuss particularly sensitive matters. It would be the Council liaison's responsibility to come back to the administration and Council with any concerns over a topic discussed at a DAC Board meeting. Ms. Grigsby stated that could be done. However, the Bureau minutes are distributed through the Council packets to various staff members. Everyone is able to review the information from a different viewpoint and everyone benefits from the sharing of information. Mr. Reiner stated that in regard to a potential personnel matter discussion at DAC, it is true that in all the other boards he has served on, they have adjourned to executive session for those topics. Mr. Pigman stated that a Board meeting is an executive session. Mr. Reiner clarified that with executive sessions, the recording device is turned off and the body adjourns into executive session on sensitive issues. It would occur upon motion from the Board president. Mr. Pigman stated that executive sessions would be one way to address some of these concerns. However, there are also discussions in their board meetings about strategies for approaching donors. That is a board function. Sharing with the public domain that DAC is preparing to approach "X corporation" for funds is not a good way to do business. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher stated that a decision is needed for the contract language. Ms. Grigsby stated that staff believes that quarterly meetings as suggested would be sufficient, and staff would report anything of importance to Council. Mr. Reiner stated that all of the pertinent issues of the contract have now been addressed. He asked if there are any remaining concerns. Mr. Guion responded that the contract language has been reviewed by their committee, but not by their full Board, whichwill meet on September 11. The next step is for the DAC committee to recommend the revised language to the full Board. Mr. Reiner stated that Council would prefer to review that revised language, as agreed upon tonight, prior to the DAC September 11 Board meeting. Ms. Ott responded that Council's next meeting is on September 10. Is it Council's expectation to have that language ready for that meeting packet? Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked about the timing of the next DAC Board meeting after September 11. Mr. Guion responded that it would be in November. Community Development Committee of the Whole August 27, 2012 Page 22 of 22 Mrs. Boring stated that the only significant issue remaining to be clarified is the cap for the administration costs. Would it be possible for staff to meet with Mr. Guion regarding that matter? Ms. Ott responded that staff would need to have a proposal from DAC, and it will be necessary to meet and discuss the parameters for developing that number. Ms. Grigsby stated that she believes it is possible to have that information in time to prepare a revised draft of the agreement for the September 10 Council meeting. That can also be provided for the DAC Board meeting on September 11. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the DAC Board could receive a draft at the same time City Council receives it. Mayor Lecklider asked if the hope is that the DAC Board will approve the contract at the September 11 meeting. Mr. Gerber responded that is his hope. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher agreed. Mayor Lecklider summarized that if the DAC Board approves the agreement at their September 11 meeting, the agreement will be on Council's agenda for September 24. Mr. Reiner thanked Mr. Guion, Mr. Pigman, Ms. Readler and City staff for their time and efforts in developing a final draft of this agreement. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Clerk of Council