Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/2014 Minutes - Regular MeetingCITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JULY 15, 2014 STUDY SESSION: M/Herrera called the Study Session to order at 5:30 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Present: Council Members Ling -Ling Chang, Nancy Lyons, Jack Tanaka, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Tye, and Mayor Carol Herrera. Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David DeBerry, City Attorney; Dianna Honeywell, Finance Director; Ken Desforges, IS Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator; Kimberly Young, Senior Civil Engineer; Amy Haug, Human Resources Manager; Ryan McLean, Deputy City Manager and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. Also Present: Gerard Van Steyn, President of SCI, Consulting Group. ► LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS NOS. 38, 39 AND 41 — Discussion and Action. DCM/DeStefano stated that the purpose of tonight's study session is to bring the full Council up to speed on some of the work staff and the subcommittee has been doing regarding Lighting and Landscape Assessment Districts 38, 39 and 41 relative to legal issues involved and the subsidies being used from the General Fund about which the Council has been concerned for several years. Tonight staff and the City's consultant will provide the Council with more detailed information and recommendations. CSD/Rose provided a Power Point presentation pointing out that the figure of $2,115,902.78 represents the subsidy total for the three districts from the City's General Fund for actual costs and personnel costs borne by each of the districts from 2006-07 to the projected budget FY 2014-15. MPT/Tye asked if prior to 2006-07 reserves were being used up in each of the districts. CSD/Rose responding stated that prior to 2006-07 each of the districts were paying for themselves and for the personnel costs. JULY 15, 2014 ` PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION MPT/Tye asked how it was possible that citywide District No. 38 and the smallest district could have the same personnel costs. CSD/Rose pointed out that personnel costs were split evenly among the three districts from the point of incorporation. CSD/Rose explained that District 38 is citywide and includes more than 17,000 parcels with an assessment of $15 per year per parcel. The General Fund subsidy is currently $140,013 which includes a pro -rated share of the personnel costs. Improvements are considered a "general" benefit and not a "special" benefit which in theory means that the City cannot change the assessment for this district to a "special" benefit district because under Prop 218 a citywide district, by its nature, provides "general" benefit because all property owners get the same benefit. Therefore, the $15 per year cannot be changed; however, it could be increased by a vote of the people (tax). PWD/Liu explained that the maintenance areas are all within the public right-of-way which is a key factor in considering the type of benefit. CSD/Rose stated that the amount needed per parcel to eliminate the subsidy and provide a small reserve (about 8.5% per year) would be about $25 per year. CSD/Rose stated that District 39 is the area near Summitridge Park (300 acres of open space) and has a current assessment of $130 per year. At one time there was a charge of $236 per year. The assessment was reduced in the early 1990's during a routine Council presentation. PWD/Liu explained that part of the reason was that based on the $236 charge the reserve was building up and there was too much reserve revenue versus expenditures for improvements. M/Herrera asked if all of the reserves were gone in District 39. CSD/Rose .responding affirmatively, further explained that Prop 218 contains a provision that allows the Council to set the assessment back to an historical high assessment number with public hearings and without a vote of the public. There are 129 maintained parcels (fire brushing, slopes and mini -parks) with 117 parcels of those parcels being private property. The district was set up with the LLAD maintaining 117 parcels of the 129 that are JULY 15, 2014 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION maintained. The City owns 11 parcels (five mini -parks, 300 acres of open space and other open space on the east corner of the district). PWD/Liu introduced Gerard Van Steyn, President, SCI Consulting Group. CSD/Rose explained that District 41 contains 56 maintained parcels, 47 of which are private property (residence) and 9 large homeowner association parcels. The City has one area in District 41 which is a strip along Brea Canyon Cutoff (2000 feet long and includes fencing, landscaping and irrigation). CSD/Rose stated that the recommendations from the subcommittee is for District 38, to continue to subsidize the costs from the General Fund; increase the assessment to the historical high of $236 per year from $130 per year for District 39 which could be done incrementally over three years; and, for District 41, defer the maintenance to the HOA's and private party parcels to the homeowner associations in which the parcels reside and keep the district in place and reduce or eliminate the assessment. MPT/Tye asked for an explanation of the mechanism for turning the maintenance over to the homeowners associations. Mr. Van Steyn explained that in situations such as this where there are homeowner associations and developer established assessments managed by the city. The mechanism of assignment of responsibility is ultimately the homeowners associations that are responsible for those improvements. Typically, through the terms of the original development approval, there is a basis to require or ask the homeowners association to maintain some or all of the improvements that are now being maintained by the assessment districts. Some cities actually set up an assessment district which serves only as a backdrop in case the homeowners associations are not properly maintaining their improvements so that should the city need to step in and maintain the improvements they can levy an assessment to take care of the assessment. There will be a process of researching all of the formation documents and the obligations of the homeowners associations. Now there is one umbrella assessment which everyone pays into and if parceled out to the homeowners association it is likely that the responsibility for improvements would be assigned to the association for improvements that are either in that HOA or directly benefit the HOA. JULY 15, 2014 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION MPT/Tye asked how else it could be done. Mr. Van Steyn stated that was how it was typically done. MPT/Tye asked that in the event the HOA has to foreclose on a property and fails to properly maintain the property what control does the City have to go back to the HOA to get them to act responsibly. Mr. Van Steyn said that it would be difficult to answer MPT/Tye's question without having researched the background of the assessment districts. M/Herrera asked what fee is being collected for District No. 41. PWD/Liu responded $220.50 per parcel. M/Herrera said that if the City turns over the maintenance to the HOA how would the City justify reducing the assessment that the City has been collecting when the HOA is doing the maintenance. CSD/Rose said that part of the research that needs to be done is to determine how the City would move forward. It is possible the City's assessment could be completely eliminated because the homeowners are paying the association to maintain the property and if the City has no further responsibility for maintaining the property there would be no need to collect the assessments; however, there may be other circumstances in which the City would want to continue collecting assessments and assuming that some of the HOA's do not begin doing the maintenance the City would need to continue doing so until everything is put in place. M/Herrera asked if it would be a justification for keeping District No. 41 in place so that the City could go back and collect the $220.50 that is currently being collected in case the HOA's fail to step up. CA/DeBerry said that one of the ways the City could handle District 41 would be to hire the HOA as its contractor to do the maintenance for the District and the HOA in assessing their homeowners would have to make up the difference in the cost. Another option would be to stop collecting the assessment and maintaining the district; then the HOA would assess the full amount against the homeowners. However, before selecting this option, it would need to be determined whether the HOA's would have responsibility for maintaining the district. JULY 15, 2014 1 PAGE 5 CC STUDY SESSION M/Herrera asked if there would need to be an agreement between the City and the HOA or merely turn it over to the HOA. PWD/Liu said that this discussion is not about dissolving District No. 41 so that on an annual basis staff has an opportunity to look at how things are going based on the maintenance levels, etc. and decide whether the assessments should continue based on an amount between zero and $220.50. In response to M/Herrera asking about the next step in the process, Mr. Van Steyn responded that if the Council decides to move toward assigning some or all of the improvements and maintenance to the HOA's the likely next step would be for staff, legal counsel and consultants to evaluate the background information regarding formation of the HOA's, the development process, etc. to find whether there is a solid basis for the HOA's to be responsible for the improvements. After that analysis is concluded staff can bring back its recommendation to the City Council about how it should proceed with offloading some or all of the district responsibilities to the HOA's. C/Tanaka said that one option discussed at the subcommittee level was whether the homeowners in the assessment areas were willing to pay for the additional costs of maintenance, so that General Funds would not have to be used they would then be taxing themselves and allowing the City to continue maintaining the districts. MPTTFye said it would entail a vote. M/Herrera asked if it was a vote of property owners within the district only and whether it was a vote that would be held at a polling place or by mail - in ballot. Mr. Van Steyn said there would be two options including a benefit assessment or special tax by mail -in of the property owners in that particular assessment district. The law keeps changing and becomes more restricted for assessments so it is not certain that the City could recoup or set the assessment rate sufficient to cover all costs. The courts are indicating that there must be some contribution for general benefits and some of what is being done within the assessment district may not be perceived by the Courts through Prop 218 as being appropriate. The safest course of action would be a super majority by registered voters in a special tax election. JULY 15, 2014 PAGE 6 CC STUDY SESSION M/Herrera asked if a special benefit assessment applied to Districts 39 and 41 only because 38 is a "general" benefit assessment. Mr. Van Steyn explained that the Courts have continued to push and narrow the use of assessments attempting to render assessments not viable for any new purpose citywide. From his view, it would be difficult to proceed with an assessment review in District 38 without a legal risk and super majority threshold which would be very difficult to achieve. As witnessed through past experience, this community is not one that has embraced voting for new taxes. CM/DeStefano said that in 2008 and 2009 the last tax vote occurred during recessionary times when people were hit hard and he was not sure the numbers would change much if they were asked this year or next year. Mr. Van Steyn said his firm felt the numbers would not change that much. Some communities are liberal and will vote for most local taxes while other communities, people are more conservative whose threshold does not vary to any significant degree during good or bad economic times. MPT/Tye said that people are used to what they see and if they saw something looking ratty they might be willing to pay another $10. The City does such a good job that people do not give it much thought. People are more likely to think about the fact that they are subsidizing it with their tax money. CM/DeStefano said he was having this conversation with a Council Member today. The City cannot turn the water off and let the foliage go brown because that is not what this City does and it makes it more difficult to sell a necessary increase because there is no perception of a problem. M/Herrera asked Mr. Van Steyn if he agreed the City would be able to phase in an increase for District 39. Mr. Van Steyn said his firms understanding about a maximum is that the historical maximum is the maximum cities are allowed to levy and in his opinion, Diamond Bar has a very solid basis, as evidenced by any other agencies throughout the state that have taken a similar approach. All that being said, there is always a caveat that there may be some small degree of risk that someone could decide to challenge this. His firm feels very confident that the Courts would interpret the City's increasing the assessment to a clearly established maximum documented as part of a unanimous development approval of the assessment. JULY 15, 2314 PAGE 7 CC STUDY SESSION CA/DeBerry said that part of the problem is that there is a statute that applies to assessment rate, fees and charges, part of which does not apply to assessments. There have been a number of cases where assessments were raised up to a previously proposed amount which the Court determined to be okay. It is a more convoluted legal analysis as to whether this can be done with assessments which involves constitution provisions which were part of Prop 218. However, he concludes that based upon those provisions the City can increase its assessment back up to a previously imposed rate based on the language in Prop 218. As a practical and policy matter, if it was the other way around, this would be a disincentive for public agencies to ever reduce their assessment. He does not believe there was any intent to provide a disincentive for public agencies to lower rates, fees, charges and assessments. It is not clear because there are not any cases on assessments. A number of agencies throughout the state have done so and it could well be that no one challenges that because all of the cases involving rates, fees and charges which. are defined differently than assessments, in every instance the Court has found that cities can raise those rates back to previously maximum amounts. Mr. Van Steyn said that homeowners may not like to see an increase on their tax bills; however, when they understand these assessments are included in the original development agreement and apply directly to their particular HOA for their specific purposes, there has not been any major outcry. In fact, they receive very few calls even on major assessment increases. C/Lyons asked if the City would reach out to the community or just have it show up on their property tax bill. Mr. Van Steyn said that most agencies his firm works with do not do outreach because there would be a process in place for properly handling phone calls that might come in about the increase. An outreach program might create more issues which is not to say that information could be passed along to the HOA. M/Herrera asked if the City Council could, during this study session, direct staff to take action or does it need to come back to a future City Council Regular Meeting agenda for the Council to take action. JULY 15, 2014 PAGE 8 CC STUDY SESSION CA/DeBerry said that if the action is to increase the rates it would need to come back to the City Council, or if the recommended action requires further review of documentation to determine what ability the City has to enforce maintenance responsibilities on the HOA for District No. 41, it would also need to come back to the City Council to determine whether the increase is to be done in one lump sum or phased -in over time. CM/DeStefano suggested the recommended action could be that the City Council directs staff to study these issues in more detail to provide the framework toward moving to a conclusion, acknowledging that monies will be utilized for staff time and consultant's time because a decision cannot be made at this time. M/Herrera asked if the Council wanted staff to provide additional information on Districts 39 and 41. C/Chang said she would be okay receiving additional information about District 41 but did not want to change District No. 39. CM/DeStefano stated that there could be further consideration for returning 39 and 41 to the HOA's and removing them from the LLD responsibility. CSD/Rose said that if 39 and 41 were the same, part of the wording would include "keep LLD No. 39 in place and reduce or eliminate the assessment accordingly with the parks being maintained by the district for which the City would continue the assessment. CSD/Rose said there is no HOA involved in District 39. PWD/Liu said there are only 1200 property owners involved in District 39. CM/DeStefano explained that when those neighborhoods were developed, there were established HOA's; however, they have been inactive for decades. PWD/Liu said that District 41 has a few active HOA's and in District 39 there are 1251 individual property owners. C/Lyons said that perhaps "looking into this further" is part of what it means to establish basic information about how these districts were created. JULY 15, 2014 PAGE 9 CC STUDY SESSION CSD/Rose said that one of the complications in District 39 is the irrigation lines that cross property boundaries. If District 39 is dissolved, technically, the irrigation would be shut off and individuals would have to figure out how to irrigate their properties because it is all hooked to a central water meter powered by a central electrical meter with lines that cross all individually owned properties. In District 41, each individual HOA has its own irrigation. M/Herrera favors the recommendation. She would hate for staff to have to spend a lot of time researching something that is really not feasible. CSD/Rose explained that if there is a $236 dollar assessment on District No. 39 the City would still have to subsidize this amount by $24,407 instead of the current $157,013. CM/DeStefano said that number would increase as water rates, labor and contractor costs increase. CA/DeBerry reiterated that the private property that is being maintained is only 117 of the 1251 parcels so the burden would fall on those 117 property owners to maintain the district. C/Tanaka said he believes the City needs to close the gap. Some of the property owners do not understand they own the property that the City is maintaining and therefore approves the recommendation. MPT/Tye said his primary concern is to get the City's budget in order and does not understand how the City ever got in the business of taking care of private property which probably predates everyone at the table. On that basis, he would like to see more information and anytime he hears staff and consultants say more research is needed, he thinks more research is needed. He would like to be able to get rid of the "should" except that the City will always be dealing with the Courts which is a concern. However, he believes it will take a hybrid to fix the issue and it will have to be increasing the assessment and reducing the amount of parcels for which the City is responsible. M/Herrera reminded the Council that within District 39 there is the major consideration of pipelines stretching across private properties so it might not be achievable. At this time, there are three (Council Members) who favor the recommendation and two who want more information. M/Herrera said that staff has to come back to the Council with information on District 41 and can provide a little additional information on District 39, JULY 15, 2014 PAGE 10 CC STUDY SESSION if warranted. However, she does not want to have staff spend a ton of time on District 39 where it might not be feasible and there are three Council Members who like what has been recommended. CM/DeStefano asked for confirmation that the Council is asking staff to come back with information adequate for the Council to make an appropriate decision. M/Herrera confirmed staffs direction and said the information would likely be disbursed to Council during a future study session. C/Tanaka asked how people would know they needed to maintain their own properties while raising the assessment to the level of necessary maintenance. Some individuals might agree that the City is doing a good job and agree to pay more for that to continue. PWD/Liu said that during the past couple of months staff has been working closely with Mr. Van Steyn. Knowing that this matter would need to be studied further staff requested a proposal from SCI in terms of engineering assessment services as well as, for the levy administration which is a very specialized service. With the input and feedback received from Council this evening staff is ready to begin working closely with Mr. Van Steyn and his company and with the City Attorney on this matter. Public Comments: None Offered. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City Council, M/Herrera adjourned the Study Session at 6:20 p.m. n rl 241 TOMMYEI CRIBBINS, City Clerk The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 5th day of AUgUSt 2013. Carol Herrera, Mayor MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JULY 15, 2014 STUDY SESSION: 5:30 p.m., Room CC -8 No. Lighting & Landscape Assessment Districts Nos. 38, 39 and 41 - Discussion and Action. Public Comments: None. Adjournment: Study Session adjourned at 6:20 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Carol Herrera called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District /Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. CM/DeStefano reported that during tonight's Study Session the City Council received a report regarding the ongoing operating expenses for each of the three Lighting and Landscape Assessment Districts. Following discussion, staff received direction from Council to study the issues in greater detail and report back to them at a future City Council meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Herrera led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Reverend Dr. Jeanne Favreau-Sorvillo, Diamond Bar United Church of Christ gave the invocation. ROLL GALL: Council Members Chang, Lyons, Tanaka, Mayor Pro Tern Tye and Mayor Herrera. Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David DeBerry, City Attorney; Ken Desforges, IS Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Dianna Honeywell, Finance Director; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator; Kimberly Young, Senior Civil Engineer; Ryan McLean, Deputy City Manager and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 1 SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: None. JULY 15, 2014 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL 2. CITY MANAGER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: CM/DeStefano thanked staff for working together to bring the community an outstanding 4 th of July program last week. This was a very big effort with a challenging location. The team, headed by Andee Tarazon, Community Services Coordinator, consisted of many full and part time staff as well as, significant resources from the Public Works Department, and Public Safety personnel, headed by Deputy Scheller. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dr. Oariona Lowe, Pediatric Dentist, City of Whittier, representing the California Dental Association Foundation (CDC), announced an event that is taking place in the City of Pomona on November 20, 21, and 22. CDC Cares is a program which provides dental services and treatment at no charge to more than 2000 patients in need. Dr. Lowe invited everyone to participate in the CDA Cares event. Each event costs in excess of $300,000 and most of the costs are underwritten by dentists' donations and generous in-kind donations by local businesses, restaurants and dental supply companies. For every $100 donated, $1100 in care is provided. During these events, patients are provided with examinations, X-rays, extractions, fillings, oral health education and a limited number of full and partial dentures as well as, oral cancer screenings at low or no cost. She provided the Council with informational folders and asked the City to consider becoming a community partner with the organization. Peter Pirritano announced that he is the current President of the Diamond Bar Community Foundation and looks forward to working with the City to benefit our youth. He and Congressman Ed Royce are partnering in a celebration of the first Chinese President of Rotary International who will accept the Congressional Award. He invited the City Council to attend the event which will be held at no charge on August 8 from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Diamond Bar Golf Course Banquet Room. Pui-Ching Ho, Diamond Bar Library talked about the Library's Summer Reading program and that anyone interested in more information can visit the Library's website at www.colapublib.orq, stop by the information desk at the Library or call 909-861-4978. On Saturday, July 19 at 1:30 p.m. Marilyn Miller from the San Gabriel Valley MAC User Group will show individuals how to utilize iPads. A library card is required to gain access to the library's network. Laurie JULY 15, 2014 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL Strain will teach individuals how to make chemical -free homemade dog shampoo and paw soap Saturday, July 26 at 2:00 p.m. On Thursday, July 31 at 2:00 p.m. children of all ages will enjoy The Wolf Who Cried Boy! puppet show. 4. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Concerts in the Park — July 16, 2014 — 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Retro Soul (Dance Music) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive. 5.2 Movies Under the Stars — July 16, 2014 — Immediately following Concerts in the Park — Honey / Shrunk the Kids Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive. 5.3 Planning Commission Meeting — July 22, 2014 7:00 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.4 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting — July 24, 2014 — 7:00 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.5 City Council Meeting — August 5, 2014 — 6:30 p.m., SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Chang moved, MPT[Tye seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Lyons, Tanaka, MPT/Tye, M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 6.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 6.1.1 Study Session of July 1, 2014. 6.1.2 Regular Meeting of July1, 2014. 6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of June 10, 2014. 6.3 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER — Dated June 26, 2014 through July 9, 2014 totaling $1,563,054.49. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: None. JULY 15, 2014 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None. 9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTSICOUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Chang said that as usual, residents can follow her on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. She visited Scripps College where she spoke and participated on the panel of the new Leadership Program. The Leadership Program encourages young women who are interested in participating in government. She enjoyed the Concerts in the Park and congratulated staff on a wonderful 4th of July Blast. C/Chang stated that she had spoken to many individuals who live outside of Diamond Bar and learned that many cities charge for their fireworks show and that the people were shocked to learn that Diamond Bar's show is free. She thanked staff and everyone for making the event such a huge success. C/Tanaka thanked CSDIRose and CSC/Tarazon and staff for putting on such a wonderful 4 th of July Blast with the music and fireworks nicely commemorating the City's 25th Anniversary. Last Wednesday he attended the Concerts in the Park and Movies under the Stars which was one of the best attended movies yet with people sidewalk to sidewalk enjoying the Movie Frozen. On Saturday Mike's Tobacco celebrated its 15th Anniversary and the following day (Monday) attended a Neighborhood Watch meeting conducted by Deputy Scheller. He also thanked Volunteer Patrol member Gene Doss for participating. He asked M/Herrera to adjourn tonight's meeting in memory of Hazel Toniutti, a long time Diamond Bar resident. C/Lyons announced that on Saturday, she attending her first Neighborhood Watch meeting in the Country, which was very interesting. Participants had many interesting and appreciative comments about Captain Scroggin who had attended their meeting two weeks earlier. The 4th of July Blast was enjoyed by everyone. She responded to individuals who said the fireworks show was "free" reminding them that it was paid for with their tax money'from which they benefit. Everyone left the event happy and traffic control was very successful. MPTTFye also told staff they did a wonderful job on the 4th of July Blast and the Concerts in the Park, Birthday Celebration, etc. A lot of work went JULY 15, 2014 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL into the 4th of July Blast and the community is grateful. He gave kudos to the Sheriff's Department for keeping Diamond Bar safe and for solving a 20 -year old murder. MlHerrera thanked the Sheriff's Department for many timely arrests acting on tips, closing down Marijuana houses and keeping Diamond Bar safe and safer in general. She is very proud to be living in the City of Diamond Bar. She is also proud of all of the services the City provides which includes CSD/Rose and his staff who provide all of the feel -good fuzzy things. The 4th of July Blast was outstanding with 7000 attendees, many from other cities. People from other cities know that Diamond Bar puts on a good show. The music was great. The band "Bumptown" was great and kept the crowd entertained for four hours from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Many were dancing including M/Herrera who was encouraged to take the stage. Everyone had a great time and the fireworks were spectacular. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Herrera adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:53 p.m. in memory of Hazel Toniutti. A TOMMY1=_ CRIBBINS, CITY CLERK The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 5th day of August 2014. 1 64,0,( ) Hwu� - CAROL HERRERA, MAYOR