Meeting Minutes @ AuroraGov.org

Mayor Tauer invited Peter Cukale, Human Relations Chair, Veronica White, Human Relations 1^st Vice Chair, Dominic Lacy, Human Relations Commissioner, David Wilson, Human Relations Commissioner, and Dr. Levester Lyons, NAACP Aurora Chapter President, to come forward to accept the proclamation. Mayor Tauer read the proclamation declaring January 12 – 19, 2009 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Week. Each guest expressed appreciation for the proclamation and related various events planned throughout the City to celebrate this occasion.

7. PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD (non-agenda related issues only)

Francis Peter Maks, Jr., Aurora, Colorado, expressed concerns regarding the progress of the North Campus Construction, which appeared to have stopped.

8. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

The agenda was adopted as presented with Item 10a removed from the agenda and Item 13a deferred to the February 2, 2009 City Council meeting.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR - 9a-9g

General Business

a. Consideration of a SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED conveying 2.294 acres to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for use as Veterans Hospital. (Fitzsimons Pool)

b. Consideration to AWARD AN OPENLY SOLICITED CONTRACT to Legacy Communications, Denver, Colorado in the total amount of $89,680.13 to purchase a Zetron Fire Station Alerting system for the Aurora Fire Department. (R1381).

c. Consideration to AMEND AN OPENLY SOLICITED CONTRACT to EMC Engineers, Incorporated, Lakewood Colorado in the amount not to exceed $149,000.00 to provide facilities energy and LEED consulting services in accordance with Request for Proposal R-1348

d. Consideration of an AGREEMENT between the City of Aurora and the Arapahoe Little League Board of Directors regarding the Little League Complex. STAFF SOURCE: Tom Barrett, Director of Parks & Open Space

Motion by FitzGerald, second by Markert, to approve items 9a – d, with a waiver on Item 9a.

Voting Aye: Mayor Tauer, Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

Final Ordinances

♦ e. Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR FINAL of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, amending the Comprehensive Plan by appending the “Gateway Park East Station Area Plan” to the Comprehensive Plan

♦ f. Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR FINAL of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, amending Sections 102-181 of the City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado regarding the "Old Hire" firefighters' pension plan

♦ g. Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR FINAL of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, enacting Division 6, of Article 7, of Chapter 146, of the Aurora City Code, which Division 6 shall pertain to Transit-Oriented Development

Motion by Hogan, second by Broom, to approve Items 9e – g.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

10. RESOLUTIONS

♦ a. Consideration to APPROVE A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado authorizing an exception to the City Investment Policy. (Partial Waiver)

ITEM REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA

♦ b. Consideration to APPROVE A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, authorizing an exception to the City Investment Policy. (Full Waiver)

Motion by Sandstrom, second by Wallace, to approve item 10b.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

♦ c. Consideration to APPROVE A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Aurora and the Colorado Department of Transportation for the design of the I225/Colfax Avenue and 17^th Place Interchange.

Motion by Wallace, second by Pierce, to approve Item 10c, with a waiver of reconsideration.

Council Member Broom asked staff for a brief explanation of the item.

Ronald Degenhart, City Engineer, Public Works, explained this was an IGA between the City of Aurora and CDOT for the design of the Colfax/I-225 and 17^th Place interchange. It replaced a previous IGA where CDOT was responsible for the design and this made the City of Aurora responsible for the design.

Council Member Wallace asked staff to explain an IGA. Mr. Degenhart did so, stating it was an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Aurora and CDOT.

Council Member Beer asked if the resolution was presented as part of a plan to improve the possibility of construction funding for the interchange under a Federal Stimulation Package.

Dave Chambers, Director, Public Works Department, answered affirmatively, noting the goal was to prepare the project to be stimulus-ready.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

11. PUBLIC HEARING WITH RELATED ORDINANCE

♦ a. PUBLIC HEARING and consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, approving a Development Agreement between the City of Aurora, Colorado and the Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority creating a Vested Right pursuant Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S for certain property located in Section 36, Township 3 South, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Aurora, County of Adams, Colorado (184 acres).

Scott VanGenderen, Development Assistance, gave a brief overview of the item. Due to the scale and investment of the project, the Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority requested vesting for the Colorado Science & Technology Park for up to 50 years. In doing so, the City commits to allow the zoning and use of the project to remain and the street network configuration as shown on the FTP be included within the vesting. The full vesting would not be granted immediately but would be phased in based on development progress.

Motion by Sandstrom, second by Wallace, to introduce Item 11a.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

12. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION

♦ a. Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, declaring the organization of General Improvement District 1-2008 (Peoria Park).

Motion by FitzGerald, second by Hogan, to introduce Item 12a.

Council Member Sandstrom asked that the vote shown on the backup and the ordinance reflect the same vote. Staff agreed to do so.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

♦ b. Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, declaring the organization of General Improvement District 3-2008 (Meadow Hills Country Club).

Motion by Sandstrom, second by Broom, to introduce Item 12b.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

♦ c. Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, amending Chapter 102 of the City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado relating to 2008 Tax Compliance for the Elected Officials and Executive Personnel Defined Benefit Plan.

Motion by Hogan, second by FitzGerald, to introduce Item 12c.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

♦ d. Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado amending Sections 142 and 149 of Chapter 102 of the City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado relating to the General Employees’ Retirement Plan

Motion by Pierce, second by Hogan, to introduce Item 12d.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

♦ e. Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado amending Chapter 102 of the City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado relating to 2008 Tax Compliance for the “Old Hire” Firefighters’ and “Old Hire” Police retirement systems.

Motion by Pierce, second by Sandstrom, to introduce Item 12e.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

♦ f. Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, amending Section 146-1002 of the City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado, and adopting new Section 146-1266 for addition to the City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado relating to Electrical Substations within the Northeast Plains Zoning District

Motion by Broom, second by Beer, to introduce Item 12f.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

13. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL

♦ a. Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR FINAL of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, adopting the 2009 Ward Map.

Council Member Hogan noted information from this item should be included in the Workshop backup. Staff agreed to do so.

DEFERRED TO FEBRUARY 2, 2009 CITY COUNCIL MEETING

14. PLANNING MATTERS

♦ a. PUBLIC HEARING to consider a SITE PLAN AMENDMENT for a 50-foot CMRS freestanding pole and 450-square-foot pre-fabricated equipment shelter for communication equipment generally located on the NE Corner of Dallas Street and E 25th Avenue. (AT&T CMRS at Dayton Industrial Center)

Peter Kernkamp, Planning, gave a brief summary of the item. City Council continued this item in November to allow the applicant and neighbors to work together to reach a mutually agreeable solution. A solution to lower the tower height from 50 to 45 feet and to disguise it as a flagpole has been reached.

Rick Sullivan, Aurora, Colorado, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation on the item.

Nadine Caldwell, Aurora, Colorado, representing Northeast Aurora Neighborhood Organization (NANO), expressed her appreciation to all those involved in the resolution of this concern.

Council Member Wallace concurred.

Motion by Wallace, second by Beer, to approve item 14a.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

Voting Nay: Peterson

♦ b. PUBLIC HEARING to consider AN APPEAL of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Contextual Site Plan for a 17,850 square foot retail building for furniture sales; generally located at the SE corner of Smoky Hill Road and South Aurora Parkway. (La-Z-Boy at Eagles Nest Village CSP No. 7)

Michael Smyth, Planning, gave a presentation of the item. The site plan includes a 17,850-square-foot building on a 2.37-acre site located in the Eagles Nest development. Eagles Nest is located at the southeast corner of Smoky Hill Road and South Aurora Parkway. The Eagles Nest Village Contextual Site Plan No 7 was approved administratively and was subsequently appealed to the Planning Commission and then City Council. Staff recommends approval of the item because it meets the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, is consistent with the Eagles Nest Village Framework Development Plan, the architecture is consistent with the rest of the development, and it meets the CSP approval criteria found in Section 146-409(d).

Council Member Broom asked staff to discuss rotating the building 90 degrees thereby placing the entrance to the north rather than the east. Mr. Smyth noted the triangular shape of the lot made it difficult to maintain a normal building configuration. Council Member Broom stated the entrance lined up with most of the parking. Mr. Smyth concurred.

Mayor Tauer noted the Talon’s Reach Master Association removed their opposition to the development based on commitments made by the applicant at the neighborhood meeting. He asked if those commitments were a part of the record. Mr. Smyth answered affirmatively.

Jim Stilwell, Greenwood, Colorado, representing ServiceStar Development, gave a presentation of the item.

Kris Belter, Littleton, Colorado, Architect, representing the applicant, discussed the landscape plan. He explained liability was another reason not to reorient the building to the north. The reason the applicant appealed the item related to the vagueness of the Planning Commission’s denial. The Planning Director acknowledged the applicant met all of the planning approval criteria and yet the Planning Commission did not agree and were vague as to why.

Kevin Mauldin, Sheridan, Colorado, La-Z-Boy owner, representing the applicant, discussed the La-Z-Boy business. He pointed out the HOA approved the project, noting the applicant agreed to the conditions proposed by the HOA. He requested the words “and the owner shall meet with the neighbors if there are problems associated with the tower lighting being too bright” be removed from the conditions of approval as the language was vague and confusing and eliminating them would create consistency in the conditions.

Mayor Tauer pointed out the Planning staff has recommended approval and that while the applicant was permitted to ask that those conditions be removed, if staff has not reviewed those changes, then that would have to occur prior to Council’s decision. He noted Mr. Mauldin’s testimony included issues that Council could not directly take into account. He explained Council could approve or deny the site plan as presented, or approve the plan with changed conditions if a Council Member made the motion to do so.

Council Member Frazier asked if the condition the applicant wanted to modify was agreed to with the neighborhood. Mr. Mauldin answered affirmatively. Council Member Frazier pointed out changing it after the fact appeared disingenuous and asked if any discussion with the neighborhood has occurred in this regard. Mr. Mauldin noted he agreed to turn off the lights when asked but was simply attempting to clean up the language.

Charles Richardson, City Attorney, explained this discussion related to colloquy from the Planning Commission hearing where a Commissioner questioned whether a practical enforcement mechanism was in place if a dispute arose between the applicant and the neighbors. In the colloquy, Dave Lathers, Assistant City Attorney, noted it was a practical matter and not enforceable and went on to say inherent in the condition was a good faith effort on the applicant’s part to work with the neighbors. He suggested the applicant misinterpreted Mr. Lather’s comments in this case.

Council Member Pierce suggested definitive language such as “Owner shall meet with the neighbors within a specific timeframe if the light was too bright” could be added.

City Attorney Richardson suggested adding language stating, “The applicant agrees to participate in the City’s mediation program if a neighbor or neighbors request mediation.”

Council Member Pierce asked Mr. Mauldin if he was amenable to the language suggested by City Attorney Richardson. Mr. Mauldin stated it should remain as is as his main purpose this evening was to request approval of the item as submitted.

Trina Hagerty, Aurora, Colorado, spoke in opposition to the item. She expressed concerns regarding light generated from the site affecting her home and the low wall height affecting her privacy.

Council Member Markert asked if the lighting concerns related to Lot 6. Ms. Hagerty stated the existing light tower element was the same as that proposed for Lot 6. Council Member Markert asked for clarification as to how the light would disturb Ms. Hagerty’s property. Ms. Hagerty stated it was suggested the lighting would be screened by the retaining wall but that was not the case.

Council Member Peterson asked Ms. Hagerty how the issue could be remedied. Ms. Hagerty stated by turning the building, which would prevent the immediate entrance lights from shining directly into the houses.

Larry Beckett, Aurora, Colorado, spoke in opposition to the item. He expressed concerns regarding the building orientation affecting the neighborhood with regard to lighting, and the applicant’s lack of good faith in honoring commitments made at the neighborhood meeting.

Council Member Broom asked how turning the building to the north would solve the lighting program when all of the existing buildings currently faced north. Mr. Beckett stated if left as is, the lighting tower would face directly into the neighbors’ homes.

Pat Snider, Aurora, Colorado, spoke in opposition to the item. He expressed concerns regarding parking, lack of follow-through by the applicant, lighting, inappropriate construction hours, building orientation, and how the screening trees and wall affect privacy.

Mayor Tauer pointed out Mr. Snider has raised long-term concerns that were not germane to the site plan. He suggested Mr. Snider work with Council Member Broom to address his concerns.

Council Member Markert suggested Mr. Snider avail himself of recourses available through the City such as Code Enforcement and his Ward Councilman.

Mr. Smyth clarified elements were translucent panels that were backlit internally so the light shines out horizontally. The parking lot lights and fixtures were downcast compliant fixtures. He pointed out there has been significant discussion regarding the brightness and what ServiceStar could do to mitigate that concern.

Council Member Hogan asked if the light column was located at the corner. Mr. Smyth answered affirmatively.

Council Member Peterson asked the necessity of the light. Mr. Smyth stated it was installed for visual appearance and was an iconic element.

Council Member Pierce stated the interior backlit light was located on one corner of the La-Z-Boy building.

Mr. Mauldin discussed efforts he made to mitigate neighborhood concerns. He noted he was not responsible for construction concerns as he was currently not permitted, he did remove on site weeds, and why the plan was appropriate as presented.

Council Member Broom asked staff to point out the location of the three homeowners’ lots. Mr. Smyth did so. Council Member Broom asked which light shone into Ms. Hagerty’s lot. Mr. Smyth pointed out that location.

Council Member Pierce asked the glare protection realized from the light poles in the parking lot. Mr. Belter stated the light fixtures have been downsized along the property lines adjacent to the neighbors.

Council Member FitzGerald asked why it was necessary to put the architectural feature at the proposed location, and suggested moving it and leaving the doors where they were would mitigate concerns. Mr. Belter stated the feature tied into the Eagle Nest development and was required by ServiceStar. He pointed out the applicant agreed to turn the lights off at 9:00 p.m.

Council Member Beer asked if the store represented an expansion, replacement or relocation of another store. Mr. Mauldin stated it was an expansion. Council Member Beer asked, other than agreeing to turn the lights off at 9:00 p.m. and meeting with the neighbors, what concessions the applicant has made with regard to this project. Mr. Mauldin stated none.

Council Member Broom asked the distance from the existing architectural element to Ms. Hagerty’s home. Mr. Smyth stated between 850 and 900 feet. Council Member Broom did not understand how a light from a backlit sign at that distance could be a concern. Mr. Smyth stated ServiceStar fit a plastic tube on the light in an attempt to reduce the internal illumination behind the panels. The light was reduced but the neighbors still perceive the lighting to be too bright.

Council Member Sandstrom pointed out the City has lighting standards in place and asked how that related to this project. Mr. Smyth stated standards were in place but essentially glare becomes a matter of definition. Council Member Sandstrom suggested those standards be reviewed.

Council Member Broom noted, even considering the neighborhood concerns, he could not see denying this item when something far more detrimental than a furniture store could go in at this location.

Council Member Peterson asked if the lights could be reconfigured in a manner that made more sense to the neighborhood. Mr. Smyth stated they could be removed or reduced. Council Member Sandstrom asked if the applicant was amenable to doing so.

Mr. Belter pointed out that was the purpose behind the conditions for approval which state, “The lighting in the translucent portion of the building tower element shall be turned off at or before 9:00 p.m. and the owner shall meet with the neighbors if there are problems associated with the tower lighting being too bright; and the sign lighting on the east face of the La-Z-Boy building shall be turned off by 9:00 p.m.

Mr. Stillwell discussed the developer’s efforts in mitigating lighting concerns for the site.

City Attorney Richardson recommended the applicant agree to participate in the City’s Mitigation Program as needed. Mr. Mauldin agreed to do so.

Motion by Pierce, second by Hogan, to approve item 14b, with conditions committed to by the applicant, including those specifically called out in the site plan, and to participate in the City’s Mitigation Program with regard to all lighting if requested by the neighborhood.

Council Member Pierce supported the motion because the orientation of the building related directly to the parking lot and issues of privacy and lighting have been addressed.

Council Member Beer noted this item was another example of why changes in the Planning Approval Process in the E-470 Zone Districts specifically related to Administrative Approvals, were necessary. Administrative Approvals worked well before there were neighbors but changes reflecting community input in projects of this nature should be made. He would support the motion.

Council Member Sandstrom supported the motion. She addressed negative comments made by the applicant, noting this was a low impact project and considering how seriously Council takes neighborhood comments, the addition of the mediation, which required the applicant to work with the neighbors should any concerns arise, was a good solution.

Council Member Broom supported the motion. He agreed this was one of the least objectionable businesses adjacent to a neighborhood.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

15. RECONSIDERATIONS AND CALL-UPS

None.

16. GENERAL BUSINESS

a. Consideration to reappoint one incumbent member to a three-year term on the General Employees' Retirement Board.

Motion by Sandstrom, second by Hogan, to reappoint David McConico to the General Employees' Retirement Board.

Voting Aye: Mayor Tauer, Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

b. Consideration to appoint one member to a three-year term on the Board of Adjustment and Appeals

Motion by Broom, second by Peterson, to appoint Hassel Hill to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals

Voting Aye: Mayor Tauer, Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

c. Consideration to appoint two members to a three-year term on the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board. One appointment will be fulfilled immediately and the other will take effect on February 6, 2009

Motion by Beer, second by Markert, to appoint Terry Todd (February 6, 2009) to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board.

Motion by Hogan, second by Markert, to appoint Elizabeth Heard (January 12, 2009) to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board.

One vote taken on both motions.

Voting Aye: Mayor Tauer, Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

d. Consideration to appoint three members to a three-year term on the Golf Course Advisory Committee

Motion by Hogan, second by Frazier, to appoint David Patterson, Keith McAslan, and Kathleen Booker to the Golf Course Advisory Committee.

Voting Aye: Mayor Tauer, Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

e. Consideration to appoint one member to a three-year term on the Civil Service Commission.

Motion by Markert, second by Peterson, to appoint Jan Raskin to the Civil Service Commission.

Voting Aye: Mayor Tauer, Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

f. Consideration to AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT to Felsburg, Holt, & Ullevig in the amount of $2,984,163.00 to provide engineering design services for the design of the I225/Colfax Avenue Interchange

Motion by Wallace, second by Peterson, to approve Item 16f, with a waiver of reconsideration.

Council Member Hogan asked if this contract related to 100 percent design of the interchange. Mr. Degenhart answered affirmatively. Council Member Hogan asked if penalties were installed in the contract in case the contractor did not meet the time requirements. Mr. Degenhart pointed out this was a Professional Services Contract and penalties related to design were not included. He noted the City had the ability to manage the design, terminate the contract or other means in which to assure performance. Council Member Hogan pointed out the purpose of the contract was to meet an “artificial” Federal Government deadline in order to ensure the project was ready for the stimulus. If the contractor did not meet the deadline, the City had no recourse to mitigate that concern. He asked why a penalty provision was not included.

Mr. Chambers noted a penalty clause was considered but rejected, as there were too many unknowns with regard to the Stimulus Bill. He agreed it would be to the City’s detriment if the contractor did not perform on time but based on the contractor interviews and proposal, it was determined they had the capability and staff to perform the task.

Council Member Hogan noted there were times when a contractor ran afoul for any number of reasons and it was not to the City’s benefit to spend $3M without appropriate safeguards in place. Mr. Chambers discussed the positive elements of the project, noting a penalty clause would be prudent if the City had more at risk. Council Member Hogan noted the City carried all of the risk and it did not make sense that whoever was doing the work could fail and still be paid the $3M. Mr. Chambers pointed out the City would be aware of any issues ahead of time and more could be addressed once the stimulus details were known.

Council Member Broom supported the item because it was Aurora’s number one priority project to deal with traffic situation around Fitzsimons and having the design completed would benefit Aurora with regard to other projects in the state.

Mayor Tauer related the risk to Aurora was if the contractor failed, the interchange would not be realized for at least ten years.

Mr. Chambers concurred, noting the firm’s design team and staff realized this project was one of the City’s most important and not completing it was not considered.

Voting Aye: Mayor Tauer, Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

17. REPORTS

a. Report by the Mayor

Mayor Tauer wished everyone a happy new year.

b. Reports by the Council

Council Member Beer announced the Ward 3 meeting scheduled for January 14, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Aurora Room where Mayor Tauer and the four At-large Council Members would hold a wide-reaching discussion on City budget issues. He invited all those interested in attending to the National Day of Service Community Clean-Up of Delaney Farms located at 1^st and Chambers scheduled for Monday, January 19, 2009 at 10:00 a.m., and to the City of Aurora Comprehensive Plan Update Workshop held on January 29, 2009 in Council Chambers at 5:00 p.m.

Council Member Wallace announced the Hoffman Heights Neighborhood meeting would be held Tuesday, January 13, 2009 at the Hoffman Heights Library where City budget issues would be discussed. She reminded everyone of the volunteer opportunity of the Snow Busters program and suggested anyone interested should call Access Aurora. She cautioned everyone to be mindful of giving City snowplows the right-of-way, and offered congratulations to the City of Aurora Police Officers who received promotions today.

Council Member Broom announced the Ward 6 meeting scheduled for January 27, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at the Mission Viejo Library where the City Budget and Snow Removal Plan would be discussed. He expressed appreciation to the City of Aurora Police Department for their successful efforts in the recent rash of burglaries in his neighborhood.

Council Member Pierce announced City Budget meetings would be held Wednesday, January 21 at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers and Thursday, January 22, 2009 at the Ethiopian Evangelical Church located at 15150 East Evans Avenue at 6:30 p.m. He congratulated all of the Civil Service Commission applicants.

Council Member Markert acknowledged the recent passing of Janola McCarty, CDBG volunteer, and Tony Sarlls, husband of Paula Sarlls, Veterans Affairs Commission Chair, and expressed sympathies to their families. She announced City Budget meetings scheduled for Tuesday, January 13 at the Eastridge Neighborhood Station 11 at 7:30 p.m. and Village East Neighborhood school, on Thursday, January 15 at 7:00 p.m.

Council Member Peterson asked everyone to attend these Special Budget Sessions as community input was greatly appreciated.

18. PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD

None.

19. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Tauer adjourned the regular meeting of City Council at 10:21 p.m.

_______________________________________

EDWARD J. TAUER, Mayor

ATTEST:

________________________________________

DEBRA JOHNSON, City Clerk