ATTENDANCE: Michael Coffey, Chairman, Kelly Straniti, Douglas Sutton,
Carvin Hillard (7:55 p.m.)

STAFF: Attorney Katherine Lasberg.

OTHERS: Frank DiMilio, Norwalk Preservation Trust Treasurer; Tony
Dilala, Leigh Grant, Planning Commission & SWRPA;
Nancy Esposito, Norwalk business owner, Diane Witkowski,
Diane Lauricella, Marija Bryant, Norwalk Historical Commission;
Marilyn Robinson, Norwalk Historical Commission; Gail Wall,
Norwalk Historical Commission; Joe Robideux, Friends of the
Norwalk Museum; Danny Grumman, Keil Evans, Norwalk
business owner.

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Coffey called the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m. He then announced that the order of the public signed up to speak would be altered slightly. The Norwalk Historical Commission had been invited to attend and their presentation would be held until the regular session.

Let it be noted that the following comments and remarks by all speakers have been summarized and are not necessarily verbatim.

Mr. DiMilio introduced himself as the Treasurer of the Norwalk Preservation Trust and stated that the Trust supports the moratorium on demolition of historic structures until the town has a Master Plan to guide development and one that should benefit all Norwalk citizens.

Mr. Dilala, a Norwalk resident spoke next. He distributed a copy of an email that he had received from the Redevelopment Agency to the Commission. He stated that he has lived in Norwalk for over twenty years. He stated that the Redevelopment Agency had provided the Committee with misleading information regarding crime and other items on the West Avenue project in regards to eminent domain. He stated that he had copies of his comments from last month for the Committee if they needed them. Following that meeting, Mr. Dilala stated nothing happened and then explained that his handout was an email he received from the Agency admitting multiple examples of misleading information. He directed the Committee’s attention to who was listed as receiving the email, which was limited only to Mr. dilala. He stated he did not believe that Council Member received corrected slides and commented that the incorrect slides were still posted on the City’s website. He did not feel these were the actions of an Agency that was trying to correct an honest mistake. The West Avenue project is an investment of thirty to forty million dollars of tax payer money. In Mr. Dilala’s opinion, if a company had tried to sell an investment with misleading information and given that the narrowest possible distribution to the admission that it was misleading and continued to use the misleading information, the Securities and Exchange Commission would be investigating it for possible securities fraud. Mr. Dilala felt that Redevelopment had done all three of those things and stated that they are not regulated by the SEC, but asked if the citizens had a right to demand full disclosure when a mistake is made.

Ms. Grant was the next speaker. She introduced herself to the Committee and identified herself as a Norwalk resident, a member of the Planning Commission, the President of a Neighborhood Association and a member of SWRPA. In regard to the issue of eminent domain, Ms. Grant explained that she had attended a meeting of the New York Women’s Foundation breakfast and heard Ms. Madeline Albright speak. At the end of Ms. Albright’s speech, Ms. Grant stated that Ms. Albright presented a very important thought, which was “Every individual counts.” When the Committee makes their decision on eminent domain, Ms. Grant hopes they will base it on Ms. Albright’s three words.

Ms. Esposito introduced herself to the Committee and stated that she was a Norwalk property owner at 4 Merwin Street in Norwalk, located in the area that is slated for the West Avenue redevelopment. She stated that she wished to make a comment on the eminent domain issue. She stated that there is a lack of clarity about how this project unfolded. Originally, the Redevelopment Agency wished to go forward this project by using economic development eminent domain. That is one way that the State statutes allows Redevelopment Agencies to target properties via eminent domain. Following the Kelo case in New London, which questioned the use of eminent domain for economic development, the Redevelopment Agency in Norwalk changed gears and began to apply a finding of blight. In doing that, they have used data in an attempt to establish blight that has been shown to lack credibility. That includes the crime statistics and the vacancy rates, which are the two key issues that seem support the finding of blight in an area where Ms. Esposito feels that there is no blight. She stated that the Committee might find that there could be a major battle to face to find blight in an area that is not blighted.

Ms. Witkowski was the next speaker listed. She introduced herself to the Committee and stated that she lives at 79 Truman Street in Norwalk. Ms. Witkowski stated that she intended to address two issues. Regarding eminent domain, she stated that she strongly opposes the use of eminent domain on West Avenue project. She stated that she feels that the area does not qualify under the State definition of “blight”. She commented that her neighborhood association is also highly opposed to this project.

Ms. Witkowski stated that she was in favor of the demolition moratorium. Norwalk is in desperate need of an update Master Plan. Until an understand of where the City is going, the costs involved, re-evaluate the City’s infrastructure and catalog the significant historical buildings along with cataloging the various neighborhood characteristics, the development needs to be halted. Otherwise development will destroy the neighborhood. Ms. Witkowski asked how many single family homes will be demolished in exchange for condos. The current plan is twenty years old and no longer applies to the situation. An updated Master Plan will provide some solid direction. She stated that she strongly supports the moratorium until a Master Plan is approved.

Ms. Lauricella approached the podium, stated her name and informed the Committee that she resides at 39 Seaview Avenue. She stated that she was speaking as a citizen. She commented that she would address three issues from the agenda.

Her first comment was on the living wage. She commended the Council on taking up this issue. She informed the Committee that she is a small business owner and that is important that the Committee have realistic expectations about what a small company’s business income is able to handle. In light of that, she felt it was a very good goal for the City.

Mr. Coffey replied that in regard to the living wage that the Council was only considering that for City employees and contractors that were employed by the City with contracts in excess of $25,000 or $50,000.

Ms. Lauricella stated that she wished to address the issue of eminent domain. After observing the various issues around eminent domain, Ms. Lauricella noticed that the vocabulary, semantics and wording may need additional controls. She stated that she was aware that the Council and Corporation Counsel were looking into examples from other cities and towns on when this type of control could be applied. One criteria that Ms. Lauricella felt was missing she would like to see included, would be if and only if the potential plan first evaluates where they can fit in existing business in the area being considered. If that is not met in an realistic way, then Ms. Lauricella felt that the use of eminent domain should not be applied. Ms. Lauricella felt that the semantics change almost weekly on the definition of “blight”, “diminishing or deteriorating use” and other phraseology used.. This reduces the discussion about the West Avenue project. She hoped that the staff would look at how this project devolved to the level it is currently at.

Ms. Lauricella observed that there was very little recognition from the City tin regard to those companies that have persisted in the area. Those businesses are economically positive. She also wondered why the Department of Planning and Zoning was not more involved in these matters. Just because an Agency is called a Redevelopment Agency, it cuts clear across other Departments such as Public Works, and Planning and Zoning. Ms. Lauricella asked where the white papers from the Planning and Zoning Department were on this issue.

Finally, regarding the moratorium on the demolition, Ms. Lauricella asked what it would take to expedite the Planning Commission to finish the Master Plan, and have the Zoning Commission and the Planning Commission moving forward quickly to implement zoning changes that the public has been requesting for over four years. If it takes a moratorium to do this, Ms. Lauricella suggested that this should be discussed and implemented. The Ordinance Committee might wish to request a detailed report from the Planning Commission on why the Master Plan is not ready. Secondly, from the Zoning Commission and the staff, an update on the status of new zones that would contemplated.

Mr. Hillard arrived at the meeting at 7:55 p.m.

Mr. Coffey reviewed the process with Ms. Lauricella and informed her that the Planning Committee would be unable to follow up until their July meeting. He reviewed the issues surrounding the $50,000 left from the Mid-Harbor Plan and that Chan Krieger had offered to complete the study for that price. He also pointed out that Corporation Counsel was reviewing this and that if RFPs or RFQs were deemed necessary, that would consume a significant portion of time. If the RFPs/RFQs were not deemed necessary, the plan would then go to SWRPA for a sixty day review period. Once Corporation Counsel presents their opinion, then the project can move forward.

Ms. Lauricella commented that the Historical Commission has developed an interesting proposal. She stated that if that is what it takes to move the staff, Boards and Commission than that is what needs to be done.

1. ROLL CALL

Chairman Coffey then called the roll and announced that there was a quorum present.

2. PUBLIC HEARING

Alcoholic Beverage, Article III, Public Consumption

Chairman Coffey called the public hearing on Alcoholic Beverage, Article III, Public Consumption to order at 7:58 p.m. He then asked if there was any member of the public present who wished to speak for or against the issue of Alcoholic Beverage, Article III, Public Consumption. As there was no one present to speak to the issue, Chairman Coffey closed the public hearing on Alcoholic Beverage, Article III, Public Consumption at 7:58 p.m.

Chairman Coffey then requested that the members of the Historical Commission come forward with their presentation.

Ms. Bryant was the first member of the Commission to speak. She distributed copies of an information packet to the members of the Committee. After introducing herself to the Committee, Ms. Bryant proceeded to review the information in the packet with the Committee. Included in the packet was a document titled “City of Norwalk - Temporary Demolition Moratorium - Structures listed in or eligible for Norwalk Historic Resource Inventory, State or National Register of Historic Places”. This document is the draft of what the Historical Commission suggests as a possible ordinance. Mr. Coffey thanked Ms. Bryant for her presentation and stated that he would send the “City of Norwalk - Temporary Demolition Moratorium - Structures listed in or eligible for Norwalk Historic Resource Inventory, State or National Register of Historic Places” on to Corporation Counsel for their review.

Ms. Robinson introduced herself to the Committee and stated that she was the Chairwoman of the Historical Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that there have been a large number of demolitions in the last year and that every time the Historical Commission has held a public hearing, the public has turned out in such numbers as the Commission has had to move from the Chambers into a larger room. Ms. Robinson referred to a column that was in the Norwalk Hour on June 15th, which mentioned that the Hour had spoken in favor of some type of limitation on the spread of condominiums. Development without sufficient controls can impact the City by placing pressure on the infrastructure and on the schools. These must be considered in developing the Master Plan. The number of demolitions that have been applied for by June 2nd of this year, only six months into the year, has already equaled the number of demolitions from the year before. Ms. Robinson stated that there was a possibility that the neighborhoods could disappear as happened in Stamford. Ms. Robinson stated it was clear from the attendance at the open hearings which the Historical Commission has conducted that the people of Norwalk and all the Neighborhood Associations are clamoring to stop the demolitions until a Master Plan is in place which guarantees that the neighborhoods, architecture, and historical buildings will remain.

Ms. Wall, a member of the Commission, spoke next. She stated her name and that she resides at 119 Partrick Road and read a short excerpt from a column that was published in the Norwalk Hour entitled “Another View” regarding the Steward Avenue townhouse project.

“The developers of the Steward Avenue townhouses have taken advantage of Norwalk greatest vulnerability, our outdated Building, Planning and Zoning codes. In September of 2005, the Spring Hill/Hospital Area Neighborhood Association involved a ninety day demolition delay ordinance for the six houses all over one hundred years old on the Steward Avenue development site. The demolition delay ordinance created the opportunity for the Norwalk Historic Commission to hold a public hearing to bring all concerned parties together to openly discuss twenty first century alternatives to demolition of historic buildings. Over the last three years, Elmcrest Terrace, Haviland Gates and Main Street development projects have demonstrated that incorporating the existing buildings into a new development plan rather than destroying them can be successful and profitable as well. Unfortunately, Norwalk’s outdated Building, Planning and Zoning codes recommend demolition instead of revitalization of historic buildings. These codes must be revised or we risk losing more of Norwalk’s heritage.” Ms. Wall continued, “A temporary moratorium of demolition that would halt the present tear down trend, address condominiums, and density issues and allow time to study and revise our Building, Planning and Zoning ordinances to protect Norwalk’s stock of historic buildings and our neighborhoods. Almost daily, our newspaper front page headlines report outraged over current development of Norwalk, threatened with quality of life issues and destruction of our character and charm of our neighborhood, citizens have formed twenty two Norwalk Neighborhood Associations and established a Coalition of Norwalk Neighborhood Associations - CNNA. This type of grass roots activity unheard of a decade ago, is now mandatory to safe guard our neighborhoods and our City. Overdevelopment threatens us all. Norwalk’s Conservation, Planning and Zoning Commissions continue to approve development projects without a revised Master Plan. Our last Master Plan was dated in 1991, it is now half way through 2006. The city has no clear picture of what is happening now, what the pace and scale of development will mean in the future or what we want our City to look like in ten or twenty years. Norwalk is running out of land and frankly, God isn’t make any more. We must use what we have left wisely. Neighborhoods like Spring Hill are under siege and threatened with more demolition and more condominiums.” Ms. Wall stated that she was aware that the developer that is doing Steward Avenue has purchased property around the corner on Woodbury Avenue. She felt it was likely that Phase Two would be happening on Woodbury Avenue as well.

Ms. Wall then related some comments about a recent teardown at the corner of Cranbury and Newtown Avenue, where a small bungalow was torn down and replaced with a McMansion, which nearly absorbs the entire lot. She also commented on Cottonwood Chase off of Newtown Avenue as well, where the same thing happened. Also there was primarily wetland area off of Cottonwood Chase which now has five large houses on it. Ms. Wall also mentioned the White Barn Theater property, which contains 16 pristine open space, wetland acres. A developer has purchased the property. Norwalk, Ms. Wall stated, is the last affordable town in Fairfield County that is functioning without a Master Plan and that the City is truly vulnerable to out of town developers who come and build. She concluded by asking the Committee to study the information packets presented tonight with due consideration.
3. MINUTES

The following corrections were noted:

Page 1, ATTENDANCE and throughout document: Please change “Stranini” to “Straniti”.

** MR. SUTTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2006 AS CORRECTED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Coffey then asked if there was anyone else from the public that wished to speak.

Mr. Robideux came to the podium, introduced himself and stated that he was taxpayer in Norwalk and also the Chairman of the Friends of the Norwalk Museums. He informed the Committee that he was born and raised in Norwalk and is 76 years old. He stated that he has been seeing deterioration for many years. Mr. Robideux remembers when West Avenue was a beautiful street with nice homes and elm trees and also remembers Mathews Park before the State took probably a third of the property for the Thruway. He also commented that East Avenue had many nice homes, including doctor’s offices. He also referred to Meadow Street and the amusement park that was there prior to the 1944 hurricane that destroyed it. Mr. Robideux commented that today, developers are building houses on lots that are so narrow the houses are sideways to the street. This shows a lack of proper planning. Other houses are built in front of or in back of pre-existing houses because the zoning has changed to allow it. Because there is no Master Plan, he is concerned about the direction of development. He stated that he favors eminent domain because those who own those properties have a right to their property. He stated that he resents developers coming in and taking the property owner’s right to live where they are or where their businesses are located so that Norwalk can come in to put in 400 units of commercial property. After the developer destroys the neighborhood, he moves on to somewhere else. Redevelopment is all over the place. He supports a Master Plan and that before the City moves forward, the Master Plan is finished. Mr. Robideux commented that he remembers SONO as a neighborhood but now it is all restaurants. Once, Norwalk center took precedence over South Norwalk. Something needs to be done, but according to a plan.

Mr. Grumman introduced himself, stated that he is a Norwalk resident and supported everything Mr. Robideux said in his comments. Regarding the eminent domain issue, he supports the idea that was mentioned in the Common Council that individual properties should be taken up on a individual basis. To keep the City costs down would be important.

Mr. Grumman stated that the developer had said to the Planning Committee of the Common Council that he would try to obtain the parcels without the use of eminent domain and would treat the property owners fairly. He believe that the developer should be held to his word on that issue. In view of what the developer said, the claim by the Redevelopment Agency or it’s objections to the amendment to remove the power of eminent domain from the Redevelopment Agency in the West Avenue project, is not necessary if the developer follows through on what he said. The Redevelopment Agency is out of step with the developer. Finally, he stated that he hoped that the City made sure that the developer has the financing available to finish the projects that they start.

Mr. Evans, owner of the property at 539 West Avenue, stated that the Redevelopment Agency and the developers have not come forward with the true information. After speaking with his neighbors, Mr. Evans discovered that the developer has not done anything. The developer is going to use eminent domain rather than treat the owners fairly. If they remove the current occupants, Mr. Evans stated that he would have to move his business to another portion of the City of Norwalk, which would cost him money to move his business and allow the developer to make money off of Mr. Evan’s move. That is not fair. Mr. Evans pointed out that the developer does not live in the City of Norwalk, he lives over in Southport. Mr. Evans stated that he is not 100% against eminent domain, if the property owners are treated fairly, he has no problem with eminent domain. But to require a business owner to move his business to another location, pay the cost of the difference of property values and then make money off of the seized property is not right. There will be no need for eminent domain if the developer deals with the area parcel by parcel and helps the owners relocate their businesses. Mr. Evans said it is not financial gain, but keeping the existing businesses intact that is the issue here.

Mr. Hillard suggested the Committee have a public hearing on the ninety day demolition policy, which the Historical Commission mentioned in their public presentation. There was some discussion about this, and member of the Historic Commission clarified that they were not speaking about the ninety day demolition delay but about the overall moratorium on demolitions.

** MR. HILLARD MOVED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON DEMOLITIONS AT THE NEXT ORDINANCE MEETING .
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Coffey commented that there may be a special meeting date needed as he would be out of town for a period of time. Ms. Straniti commended the Historical Commission for all their hard work in putting the presentation together.

4. OLD BUSINESS:
a) Eminent Domain

Chairman Coffey distributed copies of an eminent domain ordinance to the member of the Committee.

Mr. Coffey stated that the first part of the ordinance simply states that any property that is slated to be acquired by eminent domain for the City of Norwalk must be approved by the full Common Council. He noted that the word “individual” should be inserted before the word “property” on the document. Mr. Coffey stated that he hoped this would make the Council think carefully about the use of such a serious measure.

There was some discussion on the proposed change of having the Council vote on individual parcels rather than an entire list, which is how it has been done in the past.

Mr. Sheehan was asked by Mr. Hempstead who determines what properties are slated for possible eminent domain. He replied that the Council traditionally makes the final decision by their vote on the renewal of the Redevelopment Plan. Ms. Straniti stated that she wished to be assured that the Council could remove properties from the list. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Redevelopment Agency supports that.

Mr. Hillard stated that he is not in favor of eminent domain, but was curious about how much time the review of individual properties would add on to the process. Mr. Sheehan replied that the preliminary site plan goes to the Council for approval. When the site plan was presented for Council approval , a list of the properties would accompany it. If there were properties included in the plan that the developer felt warranted eminent domain consideration, those would be presented at that time. Later those properties would come up to the Council for individual approval. Mr. Sheehan stated that he did not see the reform measure having any impact on the timing issue associated with the project. Mr. Hillard had another question about one detail of Mr. Sheehan’s statement, which Mr. Sheehan clarified for him. Ultimately, it would be up to the Council as to whether it wished to empower the Redevelopment Agency to actually apply eminent domain to any proposed parcel. Mr. Hillard asked if the rights of the business owner or the property owner had any influence on whether eminent domain was used. Mr. Sheehan explained that the issue of reasonable evaluation would be a consideration. If the discussion was outside of the standard evaluation approaches, it would be uncertain. He then gave an example of a parcel worth $350,000 by appraisal standards but the request came in at a number over a million dollars, that would be a problem. Mr. Hillard asked who does the appraisals. Mr. Sheehan replied that the Agency usually commissions the appraisals. There was also a question about whether the developer has any input in that process. Mr. Sheehan reviewed the process for the Committee. The Agency usually negotiates with the developer on a list of five to ten appraisers to work on the project. He stated that the business owners have their own appraiser, who counter the appraiser hired by the Agency.

Chairman Coffey remarked that last year the Redevelopment Agency had a consultant from Massachusetts come in. He asked if there was a written report on what the consultant said and if it would be possible to have copies of that report distributed to the Council. Mr. Sheehan said that he would forward copies of that presentation to the Council. Mr. Sheehan cautioned the Committee that when looking at the percentages, real estate negotiations are in progress, it would not be wise to have a set percentage such as 150%. This would encourage more people to turn to eminent domain takings to go for the predetermined percentage. The more cautious approach is to look at replacement value within the area.

Chairman Coffey asked for clarification on replacement values. Mr. Sheehan stated that replacement value is a difficult issue from a community development perspective. Eminent domain does dislocate people from their communities. The Agency makes a big effort to move business into areas of Norwalk that would be acceptable for them to be in and tries to retain as much of the displaced residential population as possible. There are a host of issues that comes into play in resident’s every day life which government will not be able to control. Mr. Sheehan stated that if a business expected to be relocated across the street from its original site, it was not likely to happen. The question is the evaluation of the business and the replacement value of that business in that area. When asked if the replacement value was factored into the formula, Mr. Sheehan replied that currently it is not in the calculations. The issue of what the business is actually worth is not factored into the relocation. Chairman Coffey asked if that could be changed. Mr. Sheehan stated that he did not know the answer to that question. Mr. Sheehan stated that replacement value is a similar business within the community. Chairman Coffey asked if that was being used anywhere. Mr. Sheehan stated that it is a progressive compensation. He stated that he believes New Jersey was considering amending their eminent domain laws to include this. Mr. Sheehan offered to provide the members of the Committee with definitions from other states that are considering this.

Chairman Coffey asked Mr. Sheehan about the second part of the provision. Mr. Sheehan replied that he did not know what that stated. Chairman Coffey gave Mr. Sheehan a copy of the proposed ordinance. After examining it, Mr. Sheehan stated that if it was the determination of the Committee that ten votes were required to convey the power of eminent domain to the Agency, that is strictly within the purvey of the Committee. Regarding the comments that the Agency is not sensitive to the issues that are associated with this. He stated that the Agency does recognize the scope of this governmental power, it is not taken lightly and is used only sparingly. There is no intent on the part of the Agency to go into wholesale eminent domain.

In terms of the reform measure, Mr. Sheehan pointed out there had been a comment made that the Agency had changed direction in the method of advancing the plan as a result of Kelo. Mr. Sheehan stated that was not the situation. The full issue of eminent domain requires more than just economic purpose, there needs to be public purpose. Based on the findings regarding Wall Street deteriorating, he stated that the Agency will meet the standard, but Mr. Sheehan admitted that the understanding of blight and deteriorating are subjective. The State does not have clear guidelines on this issue. It is changing standard and Mr. Sheehan believes the State was right not to issue a firm rule because it allows municipalities to determine their own definitions of blight.

Chairman Coffey asked for an update on the Wall Street area. Mr. Sheehan stated that it is his hope that there would not be more than two requests on Parcel 3, and possibly on Parcel 2A. He mentioned that there was an effort to try and reorganize the parking situation between the bank, the library and the Courthouse. The only other area potentially considered for Redevelopment would be on Main Avenue, across from the Avalon Development site. However, the only two active plans are the Head of the Harbor and the Isaac Street lot. Mr. Sheehan stated that he hoped the DiScala project would come before the Committee in the fall, followed by the other active project. He then gave a quick run down on the additional upcoming projects and answered all the update questions Chairman Coffey had about the status of the projects.

Mr. Sheehan stated that the Redevelopment Agency does not want to be involved in project that are not supported by the community or the Common Council. He stated that he believes that there needs to be a public purpose associated with any project that would require language associated from the Urban Renewal Plan or from the Redevelopment Plan. He stated that he believe that the public hearing and consensus building should be much earlier in the process so that it is clear whether the public is in agreement with the plan. This will give the Agency a clear indication as to whether a project is a viable project or not.

There followed a discussion regarding why Stamford was receiving Class A proposals from anchor tenants and businesses and Norwalk was not. Mr. Sheehan did point out that businesses were no longer doing the office park scenario. Corporate offices no longer house the entire work force. Now the tend is towards a demand is for smaller, more flexible space. That results in finding more tenancy. Merritt Park is coming close to full build out and Norwalk needs to have a reservoir of Class A spaces for Class A tenants. Currently, there is alot of space available between Norwalk and Stamford. The current rate is in the high 20’s, a ten percent reduction from where Norwalk was three years ago. Prices county wide are going down. Based on that, it is important not to flood the market with more space and to manage the existing space carefully.

Chairman Coffey asked for a sense of the Committee on the second part of the ordinance. Ms. Straniti stated that she recommended the two third majority. Chairman Coffey said that he would like to ask Corporation Council’s opinion on the second part of the ordinance. He stated that he would like to schedule a public hearing on the first portion of the ordinance.

Alcoholic Beverage, Article III, Public Consumption

Chairman Coffey asked Mr. Alvord to present the issue on Alcoholic Beverage, Article III, Public Consumption. Mr. Alvord respectfully replied that he was not in attendance for that issue. Chairman Coffey then asked Mr. Alvord to quickly review the issues that would be on next month’s agenda, which Mr. Alvord did. He stated that there were three revisions on Sections 44 (Fleet Services) , 90 (DPW) and 130 (WPCA). Mr. Alvord was asked if the presentations were prepared. He stated that he was, but that the Committee may want to review the material as it has been a number of months since they last saw it. He suggested that this might be wise before scheduling a public hearing. This was agreeable to all.

Attorney Lasberg quickly reviewed the codes involved and explained that the reason for the code change was to make both codes consistent with one another. She also mentioned this code covers sidewalk dining. Attorney Lasberg stated that on page 2, Section C 12-11, she had added some language for clarification.

** CHAIRMAN COFFEY MOVED THE QUESTION REGARDING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE, ARTICLE III, PUBLIC CONSUMPTION AS PRESENTED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

c) Living Wage Ordinance.

This will be discussed at a future meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

** MR. HILLARD MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Sharon L. Soltes
Teleseco Secretarial Services