Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/1/2006 Minutes - Regular MeetingCITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 1, 2006 STUDY SESSION: Mayor Herrera called the Special Meeting to order at 11:04 a.m. in Room CC -2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Govemment Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Council Members Tanaka, Tye, Mayor Pro Tem Zirbes and Mayor Herrera. Council Member Chang arrived at 11:10 a.m. Also Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; David Doyle, Assistant City Manager; Greg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; David Liu, Public Works Director; Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; Kim Crews, Human Resources Manager; Ken Desforges, IS Director; Ryan McLean, Senior Management Analyst; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. CM/Lowry explained that today's Special City Council meeting was convened in compliance with Government Code §54956 setting forth what would be the subject matter and appropriate noticing requirements for a special meeting that requires a 24- hour notice. Notices were publicly posted before 11:00 a.m. on May 31; general distribution was notified prior to 11:00 a.m. on May 31; City Council Members were: notified prior to 11:00 a.m. on May 31 and other individual notifications were made via email. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Lydia Plunk, 1522 Deerfoot, registered her objection to today's meeting which she termed an "emergency' meeting disallowed under the Brown Act. She felt it particularly disconcerting that this Council with its fine record would give 24-hour notice of a weekday meeting to act on a matter that involved taxing the citizens. This matter should be discussed in full public view. She spoke about the costs involved in building, stocking and maintaining a new library and said she believed people should not be exempted from the tax by category because a new library would benefit the entire community. She felt that today's meeting was contrary to the fair judicial procedure D.B. had established. Alan Wilson said he was very disappointed that the Council had declared a special meeting and felt that the public was not given sufficient notification. He felt the City Council should be reprimanded for levying a tax on the people without due notification. M/Herrera explained that today's meeting was not an emergency meeting but a fact-finding meeting for staff. During the last City Council meeting the members voted to place an item on the November ballot so that the citizens could vote yes or no whether they wished to pay for building a JUNE 1, 2006 PAGE 2 CC SPECIAL MEETING new library. Because there are a number of items that must be decided by the Council, staff has a limited amount of time to gather information to produce a ballot that specifically tells the residents the amount of parcel tax that would be levied on properties in the City to pay for the new facility and ongoing maintenance. The meeting was scheduled during the day because it is staff's usual work time and they are seeking input from the Council in order to proceed with their responsibilities. MlHerrera stated in response to Mrs. Plunk, that today's meeting is not an emergency meeting. MlHerrera asked that the record reflect C/Chang's arrival at 11:10 a.m. 2. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS RELATING TO ULTIMATE PREPARATION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO PLACE A LIBRARY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. CM/Lowry stated that when staff received direction from Council at its last Council meeting to bring back information and prepare the process for placing the library ballot measure on the November ballot, staff immediately called in the consultants that the City had used earlier in the year to talk about creation of a CFD. Due to the 30 -day window between resolutions, time is of the essence for staff and the consultants to gather information and begin working on the necessary financing tabulations and ballot language. In addition, the City must establish its place on the ballot with the County. If there is no space available on the ballot, the item will not be included, even if the City meets its timing requirements. The criteria for placing the item on the November ballot is that the City must meet the legal requirements of the waiting period between the resolutions and getting the measure to the County Registrar's office in time to secure a spot on the ballot. CM/Lowry said it was important to get the Council's input immediately so that the staff and consultants could begin to resolve the funding criteria and whether it was appropriate to have a Community Facilities District (CFD) rather than a parcel tax. Staff wants to make certain that the City Council fully understands and supports every single word that will ultimately be included in the ballot measure. The consultants are present for today's meeting to gather information from Council on how to proceed to simply prepare discussion items to be considered for the resolution. There is no formal resolution to be considered during today's meeting. AGM/Doyle introduced the consulting team and stated that there were a number of decision points that needed direction from Council today in order to craft Resolution of Intent language for Council's consideration at a future regularly scheduled meeting in the form of a Resolution of Intent. He explained that this project began with the State Bond Act application JUNE 1, 2006 PAGE 3 CC SPECIAL MEETING for a 24,000 sq. ft. facility that was not funded. Subsequently, surveys were conducted in an attempt to understand the community's level of support for a bond issuance. When the Bond Act proposal was submitted in 2002 the project was deemed to cost about $10 million. Last year the cost to construct the facility increased to about $13.5 million. The first consideration is whether the Council wishes to move forward with the originally conceived 24,000 sq. ft. facility. The second direction is that Council publicly indicated a $13.5 million cost estimate last year and the actual cost for a 24,000 sq. ft. facility may have increased another $1 million by the time the facility is constructed. According to estimates based on the State's formula the cost to build was $227 per sq. ft. The recently opened Newport Beach Library had a cost of $366 per sq. ft. So Council needs to decide whether it wants to build a 24,000 sq. ft. facility and issue bonds for that facility at the anticipated cost for a 2009 opening date or, scale the facility back to a size that would support the previously discussed $13.5 million project. ACM/Doyle further stated that another consideration is the ongoing and increased operating costs. The agreement with Los Angeles County called for the County to operate the new D.B. library for about $260,000 with the City paying the remaining amount for a total of about $400,000 in additional annual operating and maintenance costs. The County typically adjusts their costs, upward at about five percent annually. In summary, the County anticipated the baseline cost for running the new facility at about $1.4 million assuming nothing changes. Therefore, assuming the County's original agreement and building in escalators the additional costs over the $1.4 million baseline amount would likely amount to an additional $500,000 versus the original anticipated $400,000 amount. The out-of- pocket expenses would be the difference between the increased revenue from the County's general property tax assessment and the additional operating costs of about $474,000. The Council previously discussed whether it would pay 100 percent of the additional costs, have the community pay 100 percent of the operating costs or whether the City would participate with the community on a 50150 basis. At that time the anticipated additional operating costs would be about $400,000. ACM/Doyle pointed out that the operating costs in 2009 could be $500,000. Staff its seeking direction from the Council as to whether the City will pay 50 percent of the increased operating costs; operating costs will be borne in whole by the community; or whether there is another scenario the Council would like to consider. Chris Fischer of Munifinancial stated that in order to get a measure on the November 7 ballot the information must be submitted to the County by August 10. In order to have that information submitted to the County, the City must have passed a "Resolution of Formation" to form the CFD and JUNE 1, 2006 PAGE 4 CC SPECIAL MEETING the next Council meeting prior to that is August 1 and prior to that Council meeting and between 30 and 60 days prior to that meeting the City must pass the "Resolution of Intention." Therefore, according to the timeline June is the latest possible start time for this process and the reason for the urgency in moving forward with the process. The Resolution of Intention is when staff comes before Council to state its intention to form a Community Facilities District (CFD) and that Resolution of Intention will include a description of the District as well as diagrams indicating the boundaries of the District. The resolution includes a document called "The Rates and Method of Apportionment" which spells out how the special tax is going to be allocated or spread or applied to properties within the boundaries of the Community Facilities District and sets the time and place for a public hearing. The law requires that no fewer than 30 days and no more than 60 days may elapse between adoption of the Resolution of Formation and the public hearing to form the District. At the public hearing meeting Council will adopt the Resolution of Formation, which officially forms the District and establishes the boundaries of the CFD. Council also adopts what is called a Community Facilities District or special tax report, which creates a little bit more narrative describing the need, describing the facilities that are going to be financed, describing the maintenance that will be financed by the tax and finally, the Council will at that time call for an election to be held in November 2006. At that point the Mello -Roos or Community Facilities District requires that the City have the election no fewer than 90 and no longer than 180 days from the time the Resolution of Formation is adopted. Emad Mirgoli from Stone and Youngberg stated that the Resolution of Intention that Council adopts is essentially made up of two or three different resolutions: First there is the Resolution of Intention which informs the public of the City's intent to establish the District. Next there is the Resolution of Necessity which states why the City needs to incur bonded indebtedness and indicates a public hearing will be held no less than 30 days from the adoption of the Resolution of Intent to declare the City needs to issue bonds in order to finance these facilities. The Mello - Roos Act requires that prior to the adoption of initiating the proceedings to form a District, cities must adopt goals and policies for Community Facility Districts. On the night of the public hearing two resolutions will be adopted. One is the Resolution of Formation the second is a Resolution of Necessity. Upon adoption of these two resolutions, the City Council should adopt a resolution calling for the City to have a special election in November 2006 to authorize the levy of the tax, finance not only the facilities but also ongoing operation maintenance costs for the District. Mr. Fischer said that in order to start the process the Resolution of Intention and the rate and methods of apportionment (RMA) for the special tax would be formulated. All of the calculation and work must be done before that first meeting so that when the Resolution of Intention is n 1 JUNE 1, 2006 PAGE 5 CC SPECIAL MEETING brought to the Council, the RMA work must be done. Once the Resolution of Intention is adopted there is little ability to change the RMA and it not recommended. His firm ran some very basic numbers using some very basic assumptions, in terms of interest rates, costs of the facilities and how much the City would want to raise the maintenance project. At this point he needs direction on the Council's comfort level with respect to the tax rate. Once that is determined he would be able to build a more thorough analysis in the tax; rate structure to fit the Council's direction. There are two components: Construction of the facility itself (the capital cost of building a library) and, the ongoing operation and maintenance, which will occur on an annual basis throughout the life of the library. For discussion purposes his firm assumed three different construction proceeds analysis: $10 million, $13 million and $15 million. With a $10 million bond issue or $10 million bond proceeds analysis, the actual bond issue would probably be about $1.5 to $2 million dollars higher factoring in all of the hard costs of doing the bond issuance (cost of issuance) including the cost of the underwriter and bond counsel, engineering work and whatever other work is required to do that bond issuance, setting up a reserve fund, capitalized interest, etc. To net $10 million in proceeds the basic single-family rate would be $61 per year. Adding to that the cost of the operation and maintenance at an estimated amount of about $400,000 a year the tax would be $83.50 per year per single-family residence. $600,000 a year in operation and maintenance would increase the tax to $94.75 per residence. Mr. Fischer responded to M/Herrera that the $400,000 was added in on the assumption that the residents would pay 100 percent of the maintenance. Mr. Fischer responded to MPTIZirbes that the assessment for the $400,000 would be $22.50 per parcel and $33.75 per parcel for $600,000. Mr. Mirgoli said he works with Stone and Younberg a firm that underwrites bonds for the State of California. His firm does a number of CFDs in the State and the reason he came to today's meeting was to answer questions about what the bond investor community looks for and the coverage ratios they look for. Usually, investors want 110% coverage for the debt service so the proposed 116% would be a bit more than the required minimum coverage. The coverage number is predicated on the City's credit rating and depends on the structure of the RMA and who pays the taxes that has an affect on what ratio would be required. Brian Forbath said that essentially, the Council would set the maximum amount that parcels could be taxed. The taxes could be lower but could never be higher than the maximum approved levy. JUNE 1, 2006 PAGE 6 CC SPECIAL MEETING MPT/Zirbes was concerned that costs would continue to increase and that in 10 years for example, the operating costs could reach $1 million per year. Mr. Fischer agreed and emphasized that it was very important that the people who were going to pay the tax understand that possibility at the time of the election. ACM/Doyle pointed out that there would be two assessments — the 30 - year construction cost assessment and the assessment for ongoing operation and maintenance that would continue after the construction bond was satisfied. He encouraged the Council to consider building in some type of CPI adjustment to create an increase mechanism that would keep pace with inflation. Mr. Fischer reported that the anticipated construction assessments would be as follows assuming a net $13 million bond issue: The base single- family rate for the construction portion is $76. Adding on the $22.50 and the $33.75 for the $400,000 and $600,000 scenarios the levy would increase to $98.50 for the $400,000 annual maintenance and $109.75 for the $600,000 annual maintenance amount. For a $15 million net construction proceed the amounts go to $89 base for construction and $111.50 for $400,000 of annual maintenance and $122.75 for $600,000 of annual maintenance. The range of possible assessments is $61 for net $10 million construction funds only up to $122.75 for net $15 million construction and 100% of $600,000 of operation and maintenance. Mr. Fischer responded to MPT/Zirbes that the table was based on the following: Hotel/Motel - $41.01 per structure, mobile home park $44.43 per mobile home, condominium units, per unit and, retail office $55.03 per building. At the request of MPT/Zirbes, Mr. Fischer explained the difference between a parcel tax and a CFD. Mr. Fischer said that generally, the two were very similar. A CFD allowed for more flexibility. A parcel tax is really a flat tax mechanism to tax all parcels in the City. A CFD offers the same tax ability but provides flexibility to assess different types of property at different rates. The CFD law was actually created for this type of project. The name of the law is Community Facilities District and that is precisely what the City intends to finance in this instance, a community facility. And it creates a mechanism that is really better suited for financing this type of facility and then bonds for it. Mr. Forbath explained that the hang no legal authority in the provisions pledge that parcel tax to a bond deal. up with the parcel tax is that there is for parcel taxes that allow cities to C/Tye stated his understanding that cities could raise the tax, impose the tax and spend it on something other than what the public voted on. JUNE 1, 2006 PAGE 7 CC SPECIAL MEETING Mr. Forbath responded no. Cities could spend the tax annually for what it was intended. ACM/Doyle clarified that the tax could be repealed and the City would still have the debt because the indebtedness would not be bonded. Mr. Forbath said that in short, the biggest concern about the parcel tax was the question of legal authority. Mr. Fischer stated the ballot measure required a two-thirds special vote for approval. There are a few more administrative steps, the Resolution of Intention, the Resolution of Formation and the others and these are more of a process than what a parcel tax would be. They are similar in nature in that both are taxes passed for specific purposes. They're both special taxes. The money can only be spent on what it was intended for; there are accountability provisions in the Mello -Roos Code that requires the City to annually disclose what monies were collected and how it was spent and to provide the status of construction. The special purposes tax money cannot be spent on anything else. Mr. Mirgoli added that there is a relationship between how the money is distributed to pay the tax, what types of properties are paying the tax, and how the bond investors perceive that credit. It may not be an issue but could be considered due to the wide diversity of types of parcels. Investors could view that negatively and it could have an impact on the City's borrowing rate. MPTIZirbes asked if the bond could be paid down with the excess funds if the project came in under budget by lowering the term of the loan or lowering the annual cost to the residents. Mr. Fischer responded that it would most likely be applied to lower the annual costs. ACM/Doyle asked the consultants to comment on a special exemption/potential rebate program for lower income status residents. Mr. Forbath stated that essentially, the special tax that the Council would be imposing was a tax on property and blind to whether residents were low income or high income. He said he discussed this issue with the City Attorney and they were comfortable with the City providing some sort of rebate program that the City would be responsible for administering. They felt that if the "rebate" were to come out of the special taxes that were paid, it would still be a backdoor method of taxing folks differently. ACM/Doyle asked Council to focus on direction to the consultants so that they could prepare the resolutions for the June 20 Council meeting. He JUNE 1, 2006 PAGE 8 CC SPECIAL MEETING estimated that if the ballot passed on November 7 a tentative timeline would be as follows: The City would develop an RFP for design services; thereafter the Council would be getting proposals from architects, developing a process to select an architect, interviewing, reviewing projects, reaching a determination regarding the final architect, award of contract sometime in February with the design process taking about nine months to a year beginning about February, getting insurance documents in place, etc. to gear it up. A tight timeline we would be October for the design, out to bid October, November, December, award of contract late January followed by commencement of construction. The construction period takes basically for 12, 14, 16 months with a possible opening date set for around April 2009. MPT/Zirbes said he was concerned about escalating costs and asked if the Council could cap the amount of the City's annual contribution toward additional ongoing operation and maintenance. Mr. Fischer responded affirmatively and stated that the CFD was independent of what the City decided with respect to its contribution. The tax rate is predicated on the amount needed to debt service the bond and support the level of maintenance provided by the CFD. The City's agreement or pledge would supplement that issue. He responded to ACM/Doyle that the City must establish a maximum tax, that it cannot be an open-ended tax. The City could set the maximum tax rate high and in reality never reach that amount. Mr, Forbath explained that the annual tax levy would be based on the difference between the City's contribution and the amount needed to satisfy the debt. Mr. Fischer stated that each year the City Council sets a special tax requirement to finance debt service and finance services, etc. That amount can never exceed the maximum tax rate but can always be lower. MPTIZirbes said that if the City set its maximum contribution at $400,000 it would not be sufficient to pay for '09. In years 2015 and 2020 the amount could increase to $1.5 million. Mr. Fischer suggested the document could include a 2 or 4 percent CPI for succeeding years. The original amount could be set at $400,000 or $500,000 with automatic escalators built in. Mr. Forbath confirmed to M/Herrera that the tax was levied on properties and not on individuals so no group of individuals could be exempted. JUNE 1, 2006 PAGE 9 CC SPECIAL MEETING CMILowry asked for discussion regarding the amount the Council would like to invest for a new library. ACM/Doyle stated in response to MPT/Zirbes that in accordance with the projected timeline for construction the estimated cost to construct the 24,000 sq. ft. library would be about $14.5 million. C/Tanaka suggested the Council consider reducing the square footage from 24,000 to 22,000. CM/Lowry asked if the collection cost could be included in the construction cost or whether that would be part of the operations and maintenance. C/Tye thought the collection costs were included in the $15 million cost estimate. ACM/Doyle responded that the collection cost was not included and he recalled that in discussions with the County it would cost another $1 million to increase the size of the collection to accommodate the new structure. The collection costs could probably be included in the operations and maintenance assessment but not in the construction assessment. Mr. Forbath explained that if the library did not open until 2009 the proceeds from 2007 and 2008 could be levied and used for collections even though no operations costs had yet occurred. Mr. Fischer responded to ACM/Doyle that assuming the vote passes in November and the ordinance is enacted to levy the tax it would be levied the following August and the money would be available to the County late December with the proceeds to the City in January. CM/Lowry asked if by using the first two and one-half year's operations and maintenance levies for the collection, would that kind of information would be something that we would include in our ballot language? Mr. Forbath responded to CM/Lowry that the maintenance tax report would define the use of the maintenance tax. In response to CIN/Lowry's concern that the ballot would define the use Mr. Forbath responded that the ballot is limited to 75 words and everything of substance should be included in the language. CM/Lowry advised Council and staff that it should be cognizant of the 75 - word limitation and the need to incorporate substantive language. JUNE 1, 2006 PAGE 10 CC SPECIAL MEETING Mr. Forbath said that the story box on the ballot would contain arguments for and against, that it would include a impartial analysis prepared by the City Attorney and there would be a summary of the ballot provisions to the extent that the county allowed C/Tanaka asked if the County would automatically increase the book collection. ACM/Doyle responded that during sessions with the County the City indicated it was looking for about $1 million to increase the collection. Each year the County (Diamond Bar Library) has $11,000 and $12,000 that they get toward collection. ACM/Doyle responded to MPT/Zirbes that a cost analysis revealed little cost difference to the City between the County and LSI operating the library. In terms of staffing we have a staffing level that the County has a commitment to provide to us and we are actually buying additional services and personnel from the County, we are not necessarily at their mercy. CM/Lowry said that staff had been unable to establish a value of the existing library building as an offset to the new investment and staff was never been able to get a commitment from the County or anything about what that kind of offset might be for the existing site. Basically, the City would be replacing the current facility and it could be argued that the County owes the City for a facility that is no longer contributing value to the City. ACM/Doyle stated that during initial discussions with the County the City wanted to wait to see what happened with the Bond Act. One option was that the facility would be made available for some other public use or it could be sold with the proceeds being used for operations and maintenance costs, collections, and so forth for the new facility. C/Tye felt such discussions were irrelevant because it was the County's building and they could knock the wall down and make it part of the firehouse. ACM/Doyle explained that could not happen because the Fire Department would actually have to pay the County Library. The citizens of D.B. paid for the property theoretically it belonged to the people. Even if the Fire Department wanted the building, although they have indicated they have no desire to have the building, the Fire Department would actually have to pay the value of that building to the LA County Department of Library Services. C/Chang said he believed that if that property were being held for any other purpose the City of D.B. would get the larger portion of the property proceeds. But before giving direction to the staff Council would probably JUNE 1, 2006 PAGE 11 CC SPECIAL MEETING need to know what kind of impact the exemptions would have on the new project. ACM/Doyle said that without input from the County he would not be able to provide that information. MPT/Zirbes continued the discussion about a how a potential rebate program might work and be administered. ACM/Doyle said that staff would need a couple of weeks to gather the information for Council to make its decision. MPTIZirbes suggested the City might make a contribution toward the operating costs of $100,000 or $150,000 a year and absorb the rebates. ACM/Doyle responded to M/Herrera that the approximate $1 million to purchase tables and chairs was included under Furniture, f=ixtures and Equipment in the construction budget. ACM/Doyle asked Council if it wanted to proceed with the 24,000 sq. ft. facility scenario. Council concurred that they did. ACM/Doyle asked if the City was contributing $3 million toward the project as previously discussed. C/Chang recommended increasing the City's contribution to $4 million. MPT/Zirbes said he responded C/Chang's recommendation but felt that the City could contribute more down the road once the actual costs were known. He said he was especially concerned about the City having to find more and more dollars to pay for ongoing operation and maintenance of the facility and that other essential services might have to be cut back. If the City wished to contribute additional money perhaps it could be toward the collection. C/Tanaka said he preferred to stay within the $10 million budget and scale back on the size and aesthetics of the facility. MPT/Zirbes felt the City should move forward with the original 24,000 sq. ft. facility and let the people decide. He thought it would be best to show the community that the City was making its best effort to save its money. If the people feel that a levy of $67 for the construction and $22 for additional operations and maintenance is too much of a burden they will make that decision. C/Chang reiterated his recommendation that the City bond for $10 or $11 million for construction. JUNE 1, 2006 PAGE 12 CC SPECIAL MEETING Mr. Forbath explained to M/Herrera that in order to obtain $10 million in proceeds the City would have to bond for about $12.5 million. MlHerrera asked if that would increase the payback. ACM/Doyle explained that the $61 figure included the bond payback for construction. C/Tye said he was more inclined to agree with Mr. Chang about increasing the City's commitment on the flat amount from $3 million to $4 million or $4.4 million. However, he was not at all interested in sharing the cost of the increased operation because it was not a fixed amount. He reminded Council that other cities had declined toward bankruptcy and he wanted D.B. to continue on its fiscally responsible path. M/Herrera asked if the Council wanted to go with a $10 million $13 million or a $15 million bond. C/Tye said he would recommend going with the highest amount and build a building that would compare with the community center. He believed by doing so there were ways to increase use of both buildings. MPT/Zirbes moved to have the City contribute $4 million up front toward the construction, go out for a $11 million net construction bond with any leftover funds used to reduce the loan; that the City go out with the 100 percent of the estimated $500,000 operating costs with CPI built in (approximately $28 per month per parcel) to be borne by the voters; the City will administer and pay rebates to seniors and low to moderate income (as the program is defined) and that the Council consider, on an annual basis, some type of a contribution toward the operating costs if the City can afford to do so. C/Chang seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPT/Zirbes, MlHerrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ACM/Doyle asked Council to comment on the assessment worksheet. Discussion ensued. CM/Lowry summarized that at this point the City is looking at building a $15 million library. MPT/Zirbes and C/Chang said they would like a $15 million dollar library to be built for $14 million. JUNE 1, 2006 PAGE 13 CC SPECIAL MEETING Mr. Forbath explained that once the construction bids were in, the bond could be issued for the correct amount rather than paying it down after the fact. However, if it happens that the estimates were way over and there was an extra million left over after construction the City could use it to pay down the debt. ACA/Kovacevich clarified the motion was to direct staff to bring back resolutions for future consideration. C/Chang said he believed that no one had pre -planned this meeting and wanted to assure! everyone that the comments that were made this afternoon and the discussion that Council conducted was very civilized and there was no heated debate. All Council Members were working for the best interest of the people as responsibly as possible and there was nothing said that was out of line. All of the Council Members are concerned about providing the best information to the people and letting them make the decision. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City Council, M/Herrera adjourned the Study Session at 1:00 p.m. J Tommye Cnbbins, City Clerk The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 20th day of June , 2006. 5A0�4VIel'— CAROL HER ERA, Mayor 1