MINUTES
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
February 16, 2011
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
 
REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER - at 5:00 PM

ROLL CALL

PRESENT:
Satish Hiremath, Mayor
Mary Snider, Vice Mayor
Bill Garner, Councilmember
Barry Gillaspie, Councilmember
Joe Hornat, Councilmember
Steve Solomon, Councilmember
Lou Waters, Councilmember

EXECUTIVE SESSION

MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Snider and seconded by Councilmember Waters to go into Executive Session at 5:01 p.m. for the purpose of receiving legal advice pursuant to ARS 38-431.03 (A)(3) regarding Reflections at the Buttes Litigation.

MOTION carried, 7-0.

Mayor Hiremath stated that the following individuals will join Council in Executive Session:  Town Attorney Tobin Sidles, Jeff Murray outside defense council, Assistant Town Manager Greg Caton, Finance Director Stacey Lemos, and Town Clerk Julie Bower. 

RESUME REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER - at 6:00 PM

ROLL CALL

PRESENT:
Satish Hiremath, Mayor
Mary Snider, Vice Mayor
Bill Garner, Councilmember
Barry Gillaspie, Councilmember
Joe Hornat, Councilmember
Steve Solomon, Councilmember
Lou Waters, Councilmember

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mayor Hiremath led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS

Assistant Town Manager Greg Caton announced the upcoming Town meetings.

COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmember Hornat stated that the first Council on Your Corner 2.0 took place last night and it went well.  Councilmember Hornat thanked everyone for attending in person and via the internet. 

DEPARTMENT REPORTS

Transit Division Manager Aimee Ramsey gave an update on the Sun Shuttle transit service.  Ms. Ramsey clarified that the Sun Shuttle service is a curb to curb service which means that individuals can be picked up anywhere in the "blue zone" and dropped off anywhere in the "blue zone".  The service will cost $2.50 one way or $5.00 round trip.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mayor Hiremath noted that the order will stand as presented.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

There were no informational items.

CALL TO AUDIENCE

Oro Valley resident Mr. Richard Tracy briefly discussed a newspaper article regarding human capital and clarified that there will be a budget study session on February 23rd.

PRESENTATIONS

There were no presentations.

CONSENT AGENDA

Councilmember Solomon requested that item (D) be removed from the Consent Agenda so that it could be discussed and voted on separately.

A.

       Minutes - January 19, 2011


Click here for 1/19/11 draft minutes

B.

       Approval of Town Manager’s Annual Performance Goals


Click here for item B

C.

       Re-appointment of Jeremy Christopher to the Oro Valley Board of Adjustment (BOA) with a term effective through December 31, 2013


Click here for item C

E.

       Amending the 2010 Town Council Liaison Assignments by changing the liaison to the Stormwater Utility Commission to Councilmember Bill Garner


Click here for item E

F.

       Fiscal Year 2010/11 Financial Update Through December 2010


Click here for item F

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Garner and seconded by Vice Mayor Snider to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of item (D).

MOTION carried, 7-0.

D.

Police Department - December 2010 Statistics


Click here for item D

Councilmember Solomon asked why response times for priority one calls only met the response time criteria of five minutes 71% of the time.

Chief Sharp stated that December was a busy month with many complicated calls.  Staffing levels have also steadily decreased due to vacancies not being filled. From 2008 - 2010, injury collisions have increased 22%, thefts have increased 16%, and frauds have increased 5%. 

Councilmember Hornat asked if the increase in thefts was seasonal or if this is something that the town will see again in January.

Chief Sharp stated that retail thefts are trending higher.

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Hornat and seconded by Councilmember Solomon to approve item (D) as presented.

MOTION carried, 7-0

REGULAR AGENDA

1.

RESOLUTION NO. (R) 11-12 DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT KNOWN AS ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED CHAPTER 26, SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS, SECTION 26.5, PROVISION OF RECREATIONAL AREA, AND CHAPTER 31, DEFINITIONS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK


Click here for item 1

MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Hornat and seconded by Councilmember Waters to approve Resolution No. (R) 11-12 declaring as a public record that certain document known as Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Chapter 26, Subdivision and Development Plans, Section 26.5, Provision of Recreational Area, and Chapter 31, Definitions attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and filed with the Town Clerk.

MOTION carried, 7-0.

2.

PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (O) 11-05 ADOPTING A NEW ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED (OVZCR) CHAPTER 26, SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS, SECTION 26.5, PROVISION OF RECREATIONAL AREA AND REPEALING THE CURRENT CHAPTER 26, SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS, SECTION 26.5, PROVISION OF RECREATIONAL AREA, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A"; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 31, DEFINITIONS; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES AND RULES OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PRESERVING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES THAT HAVE ALREADY MATURED AND PROCEEDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THEREUNDER


Click here for item 2

Click here for REVISED Ordinance 11-05 and Attachment A

Planning Manager David Williams gave an overview of Ordinance No. (O) 11-05.  Mr. Williams stated that the main purpose of the proposed ordinance is to:

-Address deficiencies in the current Code including:
     -In-Lieu Fee Options
     -Location Requirements
     -Active/Passive Area Definitions
     -Recreational Area Design
     -Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

Planning Manager David Williams gave an overview of the Oro Valley park system which includes regional parks, community parks, neighborhood parks, and tot lot/pocket parks.  The proposed Code amendment addresses the neighborhood parks and the tot lot/pocket parks.

Mr. Williams explained that the in-lieu fee option was added to promote recreational areas in subdivisions and it creates more of an "Apples to Apples" approach.  The fee now includes land and improvement costs and the availability of a full in-lieu option is limited to 43 lots or fewer.  The "hybrid" in-lieu option is available for 44 or more lots.

Mr. Williams explained the proposed in-lieu fee option changes and discussed the exemption option for large lot subdivisions. Location standards have been modified to offer more flexibility to the builder and recreational amenities must be age appropriate.  Playground equipment specifications such as location, shade, safety and ground surface materials have also been changed in this Code amendment.

Mr. Williams stated that Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards have been added to this Code change and that site design, lighting, signs and landscape will be reviewed by the Police Department to enhance safety and security.

The proposed Code changes have been reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, Library & Cultural Resources Department, the Police Department, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA), Metropolitan Pima Alliance (MPA), and other interested residents.

Mr. Williams reviewed SAHBA and MPA comments.  The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the amendments and both boards recommended approval. 

Mr. Williams stated that staff believes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan and they address policies for recreational needs within the community. The proposed amendments refine the in-lieu fee option and are qualitative in nature and do not increase the area and number of required amenities.  It also addresses environmentally sensitive open space (ESOS), indoor amenities credits, and linear park options.

Councilmember Hornat inquired as to when the town actually receives the check for the in-lieu fees.  Mr. Williams responded that the town receives the in-lieu fees once the final subdivision plat is approved.

Mr. Williams clarified that the hybrid design for in-lieu fees allows developers to write a check for a portion of the recreational facilities and then build the other portion.  The development community likes this option and staff believes that it is reasonable.

Councilmember Garner asked where the money is deposited and how it is administered. 

Mr. Williams said that the money is deposited into a separate account and then staff would have discussions with developers to earmark the money for a specific project.

Councilmember Solomon voiced his concerns regarding the possibility that the proposed Code may violate the Federal Fair Housing laws with regards to demographics.

Councilmember Garner asked if there were any provisions in place that would not allow the in-lieu fees to be used for general O&M costs. 

Parks, Recreation, Cultural Resources & Library Director Ainsley Legner stated that she believes that specific language is in place so that monies from the in-lieu fee fund can’t be used for general operation and maintenance costs.  

Discussion ensued between the Council regarding the proposed in-lieu fee options and park impact fees.

Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing. 

Oro Valley resident Mr. Bill Adler said that he thought that the Code was overly prescriptive.  The manner and the specifics of the recreational area should be subject to design negotiations with staff.  Mr. Adler said that he has always been opposed to in-lieu fees and is in favor of leaving whatever space is required in the subdivision, regardless of its size.  This space helps to separate homes from glare and noise from the roadway and improves the quality of life for Oro Valley residents.

Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.

MOTION:  A motion was made by Councilmember Solomon and seconded by Vice Mayor Snider to continue Ordinance No. 11-05 to a future study session.

MOTION carried, 6-1 with Councilmember Gillaspie opposed.

3.

PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (O) 11-01 ADOPTING THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, CHAPTER 21, REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING BODIES, CHAPTER 23, ZONING DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 31, DEFINITIONS, AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 27.10, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A", AND AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS PLANNING MAP, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "B"; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, AND RULES OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PRESERVING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES THAT HAVE BEEN ALREADY MATURED AND PROCEEDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THEREUNDER


Click here for item 3

Construction and Sustainability Administrator Bayer Vella gave an overview of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance.  In 2005, community expectations were established to look at conservation resources that were most cherished by the residents.  These included open space, cultural resources, and hillside resources.

The Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance (ESLO) only applies to land within town limits and the open space element will only apply to rezonings.  The ESLO is separated into two paths, one for rezoning and another for development review.

Mr. Vella stated that the open space standards that the town has today are significantly lower than standards in Pinal County and even much lower than standards in Pima County.  The proposed ESLO will significantly raise these standards.

Mr. Vella said that ESLO merges the science with the General Plan growth expectations to develop a balanced map to resource preservation.  It also incorporates flexible design standards regarding:

     -Setbacks
     -Building Heights
     -Development Process
     -Native Plant Salvage
     -Mixed Use
     -Grading
     -Lot Size and Density

Mr. Vella stated that another major benefit of the proposed ESLO is that it will improve the town’s rezoning process relative to open space.  It will allow for a clear, direct path for developers to follow in order to rezone open space.

Mayor Hiremath opened the public hearing.

Ms. Carolyn Campbell, representing the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, thanked staff and Council for all of their work on the ESLO.  Ms. Campbell urged the Council to adopt the ESLO tonight even though she voiced concerns over golf courses and soccer fields allowed as permitted uses.  Ms. Campbell said that these uses would negate the conservation of viable habitat and wildlife areas.  She also didn’t agree with the language that reduced the need to have the open space configured as community open space and allowing those on lots because it is a disadvantage to the biological integrity of the land.

Mr. Dan Zwiener, Chair of the Historic Preservation Committee, spoke in favor of the cultural resources section of the ESLO.  Mr. Zwiener said that staff has spent a great deal of time crafting the ESLO and a lot of input was received from many professional resources.  The proposed ESLO has achieved clarity regarding code applications, streamlined review process, incorporated many provisions for time restraints, provisions for applicant appeals, open space requirements and an overall healthy balance.  He felt that the whole process incorporated a holistic approach and this code section very carefully spells out its purpose and application in regards to established conservation practices.  The town needs to protect what is unique to Oro Valley in terms of its cultural resources.

Oro Valley resident Mr. Bill Adler said that the ESLO was intended to implement the General Plan.  He was concerned with the proposed changes to the Code which included compromising scenic corridors, platting in open space, and minimizing the application of native plants because these changes are not supported by the General Plan.  The ESLO should be passed without the proposed changes and should be given a chance to be applied as originally drafted so that its effectiveness can be measured by the results.

Oro Valley resident Mr. Don Chatfield said that he was proud of the Council for moving forward with the ESLO.  The crafting of the ESLO was a very collaborative process and it involved a lot of compromise.  He agreed that the idea of placing golf courses and soccer fields in open space was absurd.  Mr. Chatfield supported the ordinance with the proposed amendments.

Mayor Hiremath closed the public hearing.

Councilmember Solomon clarified the environmentally sensitive land requirements for different lot sizes and stated that staff came up with the great concept of melding the scientific map along with the zoning map so that a good land use policy could be created.

MOTION: A motion was made by Councilmember Gillaspie and seconded by Councilmember Solomon to adopt Ordinance No. (O) 11-01, the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance, amending the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 21, review and decision-making bodies, Chapter 23, Zoning Districts, Chapter 31, Definitions, and adding a new Section 27.10, Environmentally Sensitive Lands, Attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and an Environmentally Sensitive Lands planning map, attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; repealing all resolutions, ordinances, and rules of the Town of Oro Valley in conflict therewith; preserving the rights and duties that have been already matured and proceedings that have already begun thereunder with the inclusion of Exhibit "C" as presented.

                                                       EXHIBIT "C"
                              ESL ORDINANCE CONDITIONS
     1.      Once a property is rezoned and open space is conserved as provided in the ESL ordinance, environmental sensitive open space (ESOS) percentages may not be cumulatively reapplied a second time to the same property or subsequent parcel splits as part of any custom home, subdivision plat, development plan, conditional use permit, and/or off site improvement permits.  
Rezoning on property previously subject to ESL will be evaluated by Town Council on a case by case basis.  

 

2.      On page 64, Section E.4., insert the following as item b.:

 

“THE REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF ESOS IS APPLIED TO TOTAL ACREAGE OF THE IDENTIFIED RESOURCE AREA(S) AND NOT A CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF INDIVIDUAL RESOURCES SUCH AS ROCK OUTCROPS, BOULDERS, AND DISTINCTIVE PLANT STANDS.”

 

3.      Within the Scenic Resources Category of Section D.3.f, delete all references, requirements, and guidelines associated with Tier II and Tier III Scenic Corridors.

 

4.      Within the cultural resources Section D.3.e.vi.g), (1), on page 18, amend the ESOS credit ratio as follows:

 

(1)   Land designated as ESOS AND a protected cultural resources site in accordance with an approved treatment plan shall qualify as required ESOS on a 1:1 1:3 basis (each square foot of cultural resource site shall equal one (1) three (3) square foot feet of required ESOS) as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator.

 

5.      Within the cultural resources Section D.3.e.vi, a), (3) on page 16, amend the following provisions associated with assigning a cultural resource professional:

 

(3) The cultural resource professional utilized must be selected BY THE APPLICANT from a prequalification list maintained by the Planning and Zoning Administrator.

 

and amend Section D.3.e.v,d), (1) and (2) on Page 14 to the following:

 

d)     If a new or updated survey is required, the Planning and Zoning Administrator shall assign an appropriate cultural resource professional to must complete the survey and Treatment Plan, as necessary.

(1)   If resources are present, the survey shall include a recommendation, based on the criteria contained in this Section, regarding National Register and local cultural resource significance and integrity.

(2)   If significant resources are present, the Planning and Zoning Administrator shall assign a cultural resource professional with appropriate specialization to MUST develop a Treatment Plan for the specific resource.

  

6.      Within the Section F.2.f.vi on page 79, amend the following provisions associated with utility and road provisions in Major Wildlife Linkages:

 

vi. Essential Services

a) Essential services include vehicular access, utilities, and sewer improvements, AND ROADS.  WITHIN THE MAJOR WILDLIFE LINKAGES, ROADS ARE LIMITED TO UTILITY ACCESS AND TRAILHEADS.

b) Disturbances to ESOS, excluding Major Wildlife Linkages, for essential services may be approved by the Town Council when:

(1) The proposed location improves public safety; or IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT NEGATE THE INTENT TO CONSERVE VIABLE HABITAT AND CONNECTIONS FOR WILDLIFE MOVEMENT; or AND

(2) PROPOSED MITIGATION WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACHIEVE EQUIVALENT OR SUPERIOR HABITAT CONDITIONS,

(2) No economically viable alternative location exists, and

(3) It has been demonstrated that the least amount of disturbance has been

planned.

 

and amend Section E.4.a on page 64 as follows:

 

a.       All Resource Areas identified on the ESL Planning Map, except the Major Wildlife Linkage Category, enable limited encroachments as specified in Table 27.10-5.

 

and amend Section F.1.v. on page 69 as follows:

 

v.       Essential services as provided for in Section F.2.f.vi E.3, Open Space Standards, except for Major Wildlife Linkages.

 

7.      Within the Section F.2.c.iii, j) on page 72, amend the following provisions associated allowances to reduce Native Plant Salvage and Mitigation requirements:

 

j)        Native Vegetation Preservation.  When 66 50 percent or more of a site is preserved as ESOS, requirements for Native Plant Salvage, and Mitigation (Section 27.6B) shall be waived within a development envelope.  This modification cannot be applied to areas of distinct vegetation which are designated as a Core Resource area OR NATIVE PLANTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OR HIGHLY SAFEGUARDED BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

 

8.      Within the Section F.2.d.ii,e) on page 74, amend the following provisions associated with conservation subdivision design requirements:

 

e) The length of residential streets, driveways and utility lines shall be reduced in

comparison to a design that complies with zoning requirements identified in Section 23.4. The length of collector streets shall not be considered in assessing overall roadway reductions.

9.      Within Table 27.10 – 6 on page 76, amend the following provision associated with allowable minimum lot size reductions:

District

Minimum Base Zoning Lot Area

Minimum Conservation Subdivision Lot Size

R1-144

144,000

86,400 43,560

R1-43

43,000

24,000

R1-36

36,000

21,600

R1-20

20,000

12,000

R1-10

10,000

6,000

R1-7

7,000

5,500

SDH-6

6,000

5,500

 

 

10. Within Section G.5.i on page 88, amend the following provisions associated with types of seeding to be used in restoration:

 

i.          Seed TYPES Purchase and Collection

i.         If the proposed impact area is 5 acres or less in size, commercially purchased seed that is appropriate for the site may be used.

v.       If the proposed impact area is greater than 5 acres in size, seed will be collected from the impact site and vicinity. Seed collection shall occur in at least two seasons, spring and late summer, prior to project implementation.  It is critical that the project schedule include ample time for the collection and production of local plant materials. Seeds must originate from as close to the project area as possible, and within the same watershed if possible. Alternative means to achieve collection of native seeds may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator.

 

11. Within Section D.3.g.,vi,c),(2) on page 61, amend the following provision associated with separation of structures on along ridge:

 

 (2) Minimum 90 40 foot separation is maintained between residences.

 

12. Within Section E.3.i. on page 64, amend the following provision associated with subdivision of open space:

 

i.    Required ESOS must be platted separate from any developable lot. THE FOLLOWING SUBDIVSION PLAT REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO REQUIRED ESOS AREAS:

                                i.            ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS ½ ACRE OR LESS, ESOS MUST BE PLATTED SEPERATELY FROM DESIGNATED BUILDING AREAS.

                              ii.            ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS GREATER THAN ½ ACRE, ESOS MAY BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE BUILDING LOT AREA OR PLATTED SEPERATELY FROM DESIGNATED BUILDING AREAS.

               iii.     ESOS MUST BE PLATTED SEPARATELY FROM ANY
                        DEVELOPABLE COMMERCIAL LOT.


Councilmember Gillaspie thanked the Technical Advisory Committee, the Public Advisory Committee, town staff and the citizens for all of their help with creating the ESLO.

Mayor Hiremath asked what the drawback would be if the ESLO would only apply to newly annexed land and not any current properties within the town.

Mr. Vella responded that it would essentially render the ESLO entirely ineffective because planning only works when it is applied consistently.  As for property outside of the town limits, no property owner would want to annex land and have rules applied to them that the town is not willing to apply to themselves.

Mr. Vella clarified that if a developer stays with their current zoning, the property can be re-platted as many times as the individual would like to and the ESLO open standards would not apply to them.
 
MOTION carried, 7-0

4.

REVIEW OF PLANNING DIVISION WORK PLAN FOR FY 2010-12 WITH POSSIBLE ACTION TO AMEND OR RE-PRIORITIZE STAFF WORK EFFORTS


Click here for item 4

Planning Manager David Williams gave an overview of the Planning Division work plan and said that a two year work plan was adopted last March.

Mr. Williams described the role of planning which includes:

     -Vision achievement to create a "Community of Excellence"
     -Carry message and integrate across many areas and disciplines
     -Public participation interface

Mr. Williams stated that the purpose of a work plan is to:

     -Receive Council direction on planning related projects and initiatives
     -Prioritization of planning related projects
     -Coordinate with non-work plan services
     -Balance and organize the work effort of the Division

Mr. Williams gave an overview of the approved work plan and discussed the projects that are complete or near completion.

Discussion ensued amongst the Council regarding the 2010-12 Planning Division work plan.

Councilmember Garner would like to see projects that would increase efficiency and save money for the town in either the immediate or distant future.

Councilmember Hornat would like to see projects that are resource intensive to be placed in a "hold" category until the final budget numbers are confirmed.  These projects include: LEED designation for town hall, zoning code comprehensive review, General Plan update phase I, C-1, C-2 and mixed use zoning districts, and General Plan energy and conservation elements.

Mr. Williams clarified that the town is not required to update the General Plan until 2015. 

Councilmember Solomon recommended that resource intensive projects, specifically items dealing with the General Plan, should be placed in a "hold" category until the final budget numbers are released.

Councilmember Gillaspie requested that the project regarding C-1, C-2 and mixed use zoning districts be broken out further and defined before it is integrated with other sections of the Code.

MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Snider and seconded by Councilmember Solomon to direct staff to submit a revised work plan concurrent with the proposed budget for FY 11-12.

Discussion ensued amongst the Council regarding the work plan priorities.

MOTION carried, 5-2 with Councilmember Hornat and Councilmember Solomon opposed.

5.

CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 2011 STRATEGIC PLAN


Click here for item 5

Councilmember Hornat voiced his concerns regarding the "Peak Behind the Curtain" and the pool accreditation programs and said that he would like these items struck out of the Strategic Plan since these items take a lot of staff resources to coordinate.

Councilmember Garner agreed that the pool accreditation is not a good way of using limited resources but feels that the "Peak Behind the Curtain" program does have value in that it creates a transparent means of bringing government to the people.

Councilmember Gillaspie said that staff should be out in the community to offer details and answer questions regarding certain town projects.  The pool accreditation should be viewed in terms of a morale booster for employees and another way for the town to continue to strive for excellence.

Councilmember Solomon said that the Strategic Plan was rushed and has some serious flaws.  There is nothing in the document regarding police enforcement.

Mayor Hiremath said that all aspects need to be looked at regarding the pool accreditation program and that the "Peak Behind the Curtain" program is a valuable tool to the citizens.

MOTION: A motion was made by Mayor Hiremath and seconded by Councilmember Garner to accept the Strategic Plan as presented with the deletion of the pool accreditation component.

MOTION carried, 5-2 with Councilmember’s Hornat and Solomon opposed.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 

There were no requests for future agenda items.

CALL TO AUDIENCE

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Mayor Snider and seconded by Councilmember Waters to adjourn the meeting at 8:13 p.m.

MOTION carried, 7-0.