CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL ANNEX
TUESDAY
7:00 PM
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
Council Members Present:
Mayor Pro Tem Bob Hoog
Council Member Leo Nicholas
Council Member Buzz Petsos
Mayor Rocky
Randels
Council Member Shannon Roberts
Others Present:
City Manager
Building Official Todd Morley
Public Works Director Walter Bandish
Recreation Director Robert Lefever
PRESENTATION:
Legislative Update - State Representative Tony Sasso.
Mayor
Randels acknowledged that Representative Sasso sent a hand written note to
those elected officials who participated in Legislative Days and visited with
him. Representative Tony Sasso addressed
the City Council and the audience and explained his viewpoint that he addressed
legislative actions during his three months in
Representative
Sasso recounted his Bill review which included Vote Auditing and Hybrids. He stated that he was assigned to the Conservation
Lands, Environmental Natural Resources Council.
This Council is the preceding forum for environmental committees prior
to their being heard by Budget, Policy or any other Council. He explained how he moved an Energy Bill which
would require State fleets and others to begin the process of hybrid vehicle
use. Representative Sasso explained how
this Bill was included in a larger Bill which, at times, dilutes a Bill’s
effectiveness.
Representative
Sasso stated that he voted against the State Budget. Representative Sasso informed
that the Rainy Day and Lawton Chiles funds, which were suggested for use at the
beginning of the Session, were used toward health care and senior and child
care funding. Representative Sasso spoke
briefly on success of the Autism Bill passing.
Representative Sasso stated, however, that the upcoming State Budget would
be no more favorable than this year’s Budget.
Representative
Sasso reported favorably on approximately $16 million in funding for the space
industry. He reported on $14.5 million for space and infrastructure at the
launch pad areas; $1.2 million for retention and training for space industry personnel;
approximately $500,000 for the sub-orbital Commercial Research and training
center at the Florida Institute of Technology; and some extra
infrastructural funding for attracting new commercial businesses. He related how Space Days provided a mass of
information and as a result he spoke with several local Space industry
representatives and related to them to consolidate this information to present
a clearer representation in the future.
Representative
Sasso related on how he met with people who desire to bring jobs into the area;
however, education is a factor in recruiting new jobs. He emphasized the importance of a
collaborative effort among elected officials and the county’s education system. Representative Sasso summarized how the State
conducts a one-year budget planning process.
He considered utilizing the My Region.org, “How Shall We Grow”, growth
management process. Representative Sasso
pointed to how this conceptual plan provides for green space and water, while
centralizing growth, having mixed-used facility growth centers and combining
that with economic development were some of his long-term goals.
Representative
Sasso thanked the Council for their joint efforts with the City of Cocoa Beach
and the Space Coast League of Cities in support of the Clean Ocean Act. Representative Sasso informed that he has
an office in
Mayor
Randels noted that the Florida Forever Bill passed. Representative Sasso informed that State
Legislature bonded, instead of using General Funds, and Florida Forever will
continue in perpetuity. He stated that
this will include ranches and working waterfronts. Representative Sasso stated that $50 million
was secured of funding for
Mr.
Petsos inquired about his office cutting through the Florida Department of
Transportation [FDOT] barriers in order to gain a turn signal at the corner of
Mr.
Petsos congratulated Representative Sasso.
He expressed his concern with a Bill which would exempt Canaveral Port
Authority from conducting Developmental Regional Impact studies. He noted the
impact of traffic from the Port’s development on the State Road A1A
corridor. Representative Sasso explained
how issues came about for Legislative action within other Bills. He explained how slowing down the Bill review
process enabled Legislators to identify preemption issues that would otherwise be
enveloped within a Bill and pass through a vote undetected. Representative Sasso stated how he fought
against preemptions. Mr. Petsos then addressed
unfunded mandates and asked if the State would consider Interlocal Agreements
with municipalities for their equipment which is not in use as a cost-cutting
effort. Representative Sasso affirmed
that he would look into this possibility.
Mr.
Nicholas expressed congratulations and he stated that serving at the local
level should be a pre-requisite for a State level office. Mr. Nicholas inquired about toll-road
privatization and asked why the State should consider maintaining the toll
roads instead of permitting privatization.
Representative Sasso responded saying two issues exist: 1) the same
entities that were able to lease roads were those who own or lease American
ports and were of International origin, and 2) the State Legislature would still
be paid upfront through the private companies and subsequently through the
increased tolls. Therefore, he
considered this action a back door tax.
Representative
Sasso summarized how raising tolls would adversely affect those who live in the
area and travel on toll roads. Mayor Pro
Tem Hoog questioned how an escalating cost would impact any agreement with the
State. Representative Sasso replied that
he would research the road leasing parameters.
Ms. Roberts added how Roger Dobson, a former local legislator, was not
an advocate of toll roads.
Representative Sasso replied to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that the
infrastructure was in place to establish these toll roads. He stated that there were alternative ways to
raise funds with a negligible impact to the residents and he used Wal-Mart as
an example of a company which pays a specific tax to do business in other
states; however, not in Florida.
Mr.
Nicholas addressed increasing the State sales tax on services which would
impact daily living. He stated that he
did not understand the Sales Tax Holiday in light of the State’s funding needs. Representative Sasso replied that he believed
the Sales Tax Holiday was reduced in 2008.
Mr. Nicholas addressed the Governor going to
Ms.
Roberts thanked Representative Sasso for his new position and for his
sensitivity to beach-side issues. Ms.
Roberts mentioned the City’s efforts in working with My Region.org which seemed
to focus on rivers, but not the ocean.
Ms. Roberts also expressed that she found a lack of customer focused
service at the State level. Ms. Roberts then
addressed the Port’s exemption from a Developmental Regional Impact study. She emphasized the City’s desire to maintain
its residential character and quality of life.
Representative Sasso informed how the City of Cocoa Beach established a
representative for Port related issues and encouraged the Council to do the
same.
Mr. Pat Campbell
addressed Representative Sasso regarding water access and asked him to protect public
rights along the water. Mr. Campbell then
asked about the Autism Bill.
Representative Sasso explained how the Bill evolved and became more
generally applied under a Disability Bill.
He stated how the Bill provided insurance coverage that would assist
doctors in early intervention training and detect autism earlier in child
development. Representative Sasso would
provide Mr. Campbell with contact information.
Mr. Ray Osborne
addressed the Energy Bill and asked Representative Sasso if there were any ways
for municipalities to participate in further Energy Bill efforts. Representative Sasso explained how ethanol
was found to be corrosive and harmful to fiberglass and Charlie Bronson,
Commissioner on Agriculture, was seeking other alternative fuels. Representative Sasso replied that he would be
glad to review the Energy Bill with Mr. Osborne. Mayor Randels clarified that the Bill in
discussion was House Bill 7135.
REPORTS:
City
Manager
·
Mr. Boucher distributed
the half-day meeting dates of June 9th
and June 11th for City Council’s Goals and Objectives Meeting with
staff. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he
would forego the Space Coast League of Cities dinner on Monday in order to
attend. Ms. Roberts asked if there were any
pre-meeting questions. Mr. Boucher
clarified that he attached the status report of current Goals and
Objectives. Mr. Boucher affirmed for Ms.
Roberts that a Capital Purchase Meeting would be held at another day and time.
·
Mr. Boucher
reported on the success of Mr. Phil Laurien,
Executive Director, of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
presentation at the previous
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting related to mixed-use development. Mr. Boucher informed that the East Central
Florida Regional Development committee would be available to assist the City
with its anticipated community planning.
·
Mr. Boucher
reported that the City of
·
Mr. Boucher
reported that the Hotel concept plan
representatives for the Porter property addressed the Planning and Zoning
Board at their previous meeting and they would like to come before the City
Council at the June 17th meeting.
Mr. Boucher clarified that they could address the Council as long
as the project was consistent with City code.
Mr. Petsos requested a copy
of the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes.
·
Mr. Boucher
reported that Ocean Woods still sought
for the City to obtain and maintain their infrastructure. Mr. Boucher clarified that the City’s
consultant, Brown and Caldwell, Inc. required $8,500 to complete a cost
evaluation; however, a comprehensive study could cost up to $85,000, but at the
Homeowner’s Association expense. Mr.
Boucher stated that the aging infrastructure would require rehabilitation. The City Manager would provide the Homeowners
Association with the $8,500 cost estimates from Brown and Caldwell clearly stating
that they would assume the study costs.
If improvements were found necessary as a result of the study,
then the Homeowners Association would also assume any further costs.
Ms. Roberts stated that Ocean Woods appeared to be
seeking a return on investment of their past fee contributions as a Condominium
community. She mentioned that this would
set a precedent for other Condominium Associations related to their sewer
arteries and also the City would need to look at the fairness of the return to
those communities relative to residential communities. Mr. Boucher explained how Developments have
an option to deed their infrastructure to the City; however, at the
Development’s expense and infrastructure repairs would be set to City standard. Mr. Campbell stated that Ocean Woods had a
management reserve of fees that would assist them to bring the infrastructure
up to City standards, and he also asked who was paying the study fee cost. Mr. Boucher explained how the City could enter
an Agreement and specify how the Homeowners Association would incur the cost
associated with the study and any subsequent repairs. Walter Bandish, Public Works Director, clarified
that Ocean Woods could not hire their own consultant due to liability issues. Mr. Boucher affirmed for Ms. Dianne Marcum
that Florida Statutes allowed the City to tax for Special Assessments. She then asked if the road would then become a
public road. Mr. Boucher replied that this
was a decision for the Council.
·
Mr. Boucher
informed that the Oral History Bids resulted
in three bids which were under staff evaluation.
Staff
Recreation
Director
·
No report.
Building
Official
·
Mr. Morley
replied that the McDonald’s signage was
26 percent of the area on the west
side of the building. Mr. Nicholas
stated that he requested to know the square footage. The Building Official would provide that
information.
City
Clerk
·
Ms. Stills
reminded the Council that Financial
Disclosure Reports were mailed to them and due back to the Supervisor of
Elections on or before July 1st.
Mayor Randels added that this also applied to the City’s
quasi-judicial Boards.
City
Attorney
·
No report.
CITY
COUNCIL
Council
Member Roberts
·
Ms. Roberts questioned
for purposes of clarity that the City still planned to write a letter relating to the School Resource Officer. Mr. Boucher affirmed that he would write the
letter.
·
Ms. Roberts suggested
placing a launch related good-will message
on the City Hall marquee for two days prior to a launch and two days prior to a
landing. Council members agreed.
·
Ms. Roberts requested
to ask for a resume of new Board members
and for re-appointed Board members to address the Council with what they have
done, what they have learned and what they hoped to contribute as a member
of the Board. Ms. Roberts asked for
this in an effort to enhance the City’s Advisory Board process.
·
Ms. Roberts
noted the July 19th deadline
for Resort dwellings. She requested
an updated Resort dwelling application report from the Building Official at the
June 17th City Council meeting.
·
Ms. Roberts
requested to adopt the
·
Ms. Roberts
addressed the status of the Sign Code
Ordinance. She asked if the City could place a
time delineation on temporary signage for political office. Attorney Garganese
explained how all temporary signs were treated in the same manner. In the City’s existing code, there was a
distinction between election and other types of signs; however, the discussion
is the constitutionality of the signage tied to a time period.
·
Ms. Roberts
inquired about the status of the
Planning and Development Director position.
Mr. Boucher replied that he was concluding interviews.
·
Ms. Roberts
addressed the draft letter to Senator
Mike Haridopolous related to unfunded mandates. Mr. Boucher replied that a letter was in
progress.
·
Ms. Roberts
distributed an overview from the
Economic Development Commission outlook for
·
Ms. Roberts
mentioned the City’s 45th
Anniversary celebration. Mr. Boucher
replied that he brought this out in a staff meeting to obtain concept plans.
Council
Member Nicholas
·
Mr. Nicholas asked
if recycling funds were available and he addressed the possibility of using the
funds to replace the recycle bins.
Council
Member Petsos
·
Mr. Petsos informed
of the School Board’s reconsideration for School
Resource Officers in the elementary schools and he encouraged Council
Members to contact the School Board to retain the School Resource Officer. Ms. Roberts questioned for clarification that
Council would also forward a letter to that regard. The City Manager affirmed that he would send
a letter.
·
Mr. Petsos
reported on the status of hiring a
Principal for
Mayor Pro
Tem Hoog
·
Mayor Pro Tem
Hoog recalled that recycling funds were
allocated for playground equipment. He
agreed with Mr. Nicholas on the bad condition of the existing recycle bins.
·
Mayor Pro Tem
Hoog stated that the police officers
were not adequately patrolling the City’s streets. He noted an incident of graffiti written near
his residence, and the fact that his neighbor’s video equipment unit did not
detect any patrol cars for a two hour period.
·
Mayor Pro Tem
Hoog addressed retrofitting the
reclaimed water system in the City’s north section in order to increase the
water pressure. Mr. Bandish replied that
there might be too many zones connected.
·
Mayor Pro Tem
Hoog addressed carts left at the curb, small
trash piles and brush and other debris left along
Mayor
Randels
·
No report.
AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD:
·
Mr. Pat Campbell addressed reclaimed water pressure.
Mr. Bandish replied that the new, large developments were the source of
the decreased water pressure.
·
Mr.
Campbell also noted a large hole at the
corner of
·
Mr. Art Berger addressed the time frame for resort dwellings related to the parking lot issue and
asked if an extension were provided. Mr.
Morley replied that no extension was provided.
Mr. Boucher clarified that the parking issue was resolved since the
Planning and Zoning Board took no action and the letter confirmed that fact. Mr. Berger also asked if there were a change
to the life/safety issue related to windows.
Mr. Morley replied that he would meet with Mr. Berger to address his
question.
·
Ms. Joyce Hamilton stated that she sent an application to
·
Mr. Ray Osborne asked if the anticipated projects would adhere to any architectural theme concepts. Mr. Boucher replied that this would become a
task for the new Planning and Development Director.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes of
2. Resolution No. 2008-13; Appointing an Alternate Member to
the Business and Cultural Development Board. (J. Craig)
Mayor Randels asked if any
Council Member, Staff, or interested party desired to remove an Item from the
Consent Agenda for discussion.
Ms. Roberts requested to remove Consent Agenda Item No. 1.
A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to
Approve Consent Agenda Item 2. The vote on
the motion carried 5-0 with voting as: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas,
For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts, For.
1.
City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes of
Mayor Randels submitted that
the Council received an Attorney General’s opinion related to Minutes.
Ms. Roberts distributed her corrections
to the May 20th Meeting Minutes to clarify her points as follows.
:
·
Page 3 – Ms. Roberts asked if the City could obtain more information
about the North Atlantic Avenue left-hand turn signal project, including: remaining
steps needed, timeframes involved, costs, and responsible parties.
·
Page 5 – insert the date “May 16, 2008” after, “Late on Friday.”
·
Page 6 – insert the word “full” before Council
·
Page 6 – insert the words, “for code compliance,” after staff
review.
Ms. Roberts asked if the
Council desired to go over each of the corrected points. Mayor Randels stated that the Minutes were a
summary of the meeting. Mr. Petsos emphasized
the importance of staff understanding what the Council desires them to do;
however, he did agree that the Minutes were a summary. Ms. Roberts emphasized
the importance of clarity for the public’s concern. She asked how Council desired to handle her
suggested changes. Ms. Roberts stated
that it was her prerogative to clarify her own statements.
Attorney Garganese explained
that the Minutes were a brief summary of what occurs at a City Council meeting;
however, under the Sunshine Law, Council Members were not permitted to amend
those drafts individually with the City Clerk.
After the City Clerk publishes the Minutes, if individual Council
Members have issues with the Minutes and would like to make changes, then they
should prepare their changes in writing and submit them as part of the Agenda
to the Council. Attorney Garganese
explained how the Council could proceed to Approve of the Minutes in light of
any corrections. The Minutes could be
circulated, corrections noted in writing, and brought to the Council for
approval to include any changes. The
City Clerk would incorporate any changes after approval of the corrections.
Attorney Garganese clarified
that the City Clerk provides the Minutes in a paraphrased format unless the
Council desired to have the Minutes in a verbatim format. In summary, Attorney Garganese emphasized
that the Council makes the final decision regarding approval of any corrections. Ms. Roberts stated that the Council receives
the Minutes along with the Agenda Packet which would make correcting them a
challenge.
Mr. Campbell inquired about the
audio Minutes on the City’s web site and asked if the Minutes were still
recorded. Ms. Stills explained that the
paper Minutes were the Record Copy; however, the audio helped to verify what
was said. She stated that her Minutes
were a paraphrase of what was said in a meeting; however, she could not insert
anything that was not said during a meeting.
A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and seconded by Mr. Nicholas to
Approve Consent Agenda Item 1 as amended. The vote on
the motion carried 4-1 with voting as: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas,
For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, Against, and Ms. Roberts, For.
RESOLUTION:
3. Motion
to Approve: Preliminary Replat for Sea Shell Cay North; J. Johanson, Applicant.
Mayor Randels summarized that this item was recommended by the Planning
and Zoning Board and staff review was complete.
A
motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve a
Preliminary Replat for Sea Shell Cay North; J. Johanson, Applicant. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with
voting as: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor
Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts, For.
CONSIDERATION:
4. Minuteman
Causeway Shuttle Bus Proposal.
Mayor Randels explained how this would enable the
City of
DISCUSSION:
5. Proposed Amendments to Irrigation Rules
by the St. Johns River Water Management District.
Mr. Bandish addressed
6. Request to Increase the
Mayor Randels presented a letter from Mr. Bill Mays with
regard to a request to increase the
Therefore, the Building Official also held two Town
Meetings in the Cape Canaveral Library Meeting Room for public participation
toward an overall commercial district building height increase on the State
Road A1A corridor. Mr. Berger stated
that they have returned to the Council for a decision related to the City’s
vision for the future years and for Mr. Mays to advance with the property. Mr.
Berger summarized, based on Mayor Randels remarks, that this would provide a
revenue opportunity for the City as well as other commercial and business
entrepreneur opportunities. In
conclusion, they were seeking a decision from the Council.
Attorney Garganese stated that if the Council
accepted the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation, then the Council was
free to adopt an Ordinance to increase the height limitations. Mr. Petsos reminded that at the Town Meeting,
specifically the last Town meeting, the citizens requested a Referendum and the
Council was being asked to make that decision.
He stated that the City Attorney was tasked with drafting a Referendum
for the ballot. Ms. Roberts stated that
if the City proceeded to a Referendum, one of the concerns was community
education related to what the building height increase would mean. She referred to the public education process
that was previously used in the 2004 Annexation Referendum.
Mr. Boucher distributed the previous Referendum
newsletter for Council’s review. Ms.
Roberts also stated the other consideration of the Planning and Development
Director who would also be able to plan forward; however, ballot language was
needed quickly. Attorney Garganese
clarified that there was nothing in the City Charter to amend since the City
did not have a Charter limitation on height.
He stated that there could be: 1) a non-binding referendum to gain the
community pulse regarding the height limitation, or 2) did the Council desire
to impose a building height limitation in the Charter with an exception for
what the Planning and Zoning Board has recommended for the State Road A1A
corridor.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog explained that if the Council
initiated to change the Building Height issue without a Referendum, then it
would be a precedent and he would be in favor of a binding referendum to the
building height limitation. Attorney
Garganese reminded that a future Council could change an unbinding referendum. Attorney Garganese explained how he could
legally draft a Referendum using one question and the question would establish
the height limitation within the City, and also establish a concurrent 45-feet
height with an exception. However, the
Council could propose two questions: 1) establishing the 45-feet limitation,
and 2) establishing the exception; however, this could become confusing for the
voter.
Mr. Berger commended the Council for their position
of no hotels on the beach, and a five-acre limit for hotels, and they were now seeking
Council’s decision subsequent to the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed that he was not
in favor of a Referendum for the sake of a Referendum and especially without
educating the public. Mr. Nicholas
requested a copy of the initial building height referendum.
Mr. Lamar Russell, Planning and Zoning Vice
Chairperson, related that he would
like to see the Council adopt the 65-feet building height
increase on the State Road A1A corridor, or to present a vote to the
people. Mr. Russell stated that he was
in favor of a non-binding straw vote. Mr.
Russell recalled the density Referendum related to 15 units per acre and after
much deliberation, and court process, the Council made that final
decision. Mr. Russell recommended that
the Council draft a Referendum for a straw vote to increase the height to
65-feet on the State Road A1A corridor.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog clarified he would not be in
favor of a ballot question; however, if the Council voted toward a ballot, then
he desired citizen education. Mr. Russell
clarified that he was asking the Council, in the course of seeking a
non-binding straw vote, to educate the citizens on the building height issue. Mr. Nicholas concluded that although the
previous Referendum might not have been binding, an impression remained that it
was binding. Mr. Pat Campbell sought
clarification of: 1) the existing Code as it related to the 45-feet building
height limitation, and 2) he questioned why the Council was being asked what to
do by the investor. Mr. Campbell stated
that the current Code provided the parameters through a Special Exception, Variance or amendment to
the existing code. Mr. Tom Hermanson
clarified that a draft Ordinance was in existence for Mr. Campbell’s
edification.
Mr. Nicholas explained for Mr. Campbell that
approximately 34 or 35 years ago, there was an Initiative Petition Referendum
to establish the building heights which passed.
It was challenged in the courts, but dismissed. Subsequently, there was a Supreme Court
decision which reversed the State courts and allowed for zoning by
Referendum. The City Council, at that
time, voted to establish the zoning height limitation as was specified in the
Initiative Petition Referendum. Some of
the Council were of the position that if that decision were changed, then it
should return to the people.
Ms. Joyce Hamilton, resident, stated that she did
not remember the deciding question of a Referendum at the end of the meeting,
but in mid-discussion. She stated that
she has entered a petition in favor of the project and the tables were in favor
of growth. Ms. Hamilton related on the
empty rental units and the need for growth in the City. She concluded that she saw this as an
opportunity to bring economic development into the City.
A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and
seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Extend the Meeting to 10:15 P.M. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with
voting as: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor
Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts, For.
Mr. Berger emphasized that up to this point all
requirements have been met; however, they wanted to know if the Council would agree
to take action on the Ordinance. Ms.
Roberts thanked Mr. Mays for the assistance in initiating serious thought about
increasing the building height by presenting their proposal. Ms. Roberts stated her perception that half of
the audience was in favor and the other half against at the Town meetings saying
that this concerned her. Ms. Roberts interpreted
the Council’s two alternative opinions as: 1) to proceed through the First and
Second Reading of an Ordinance Amendment and gain public input through that
process, or 2) to proceed through a Referendum thereby also gaining public
input through that process.
Mr. Bill Mays, representing Sheldon Cove, addressed
the Council. Mr. Mays stated that he had
heard many facets on this issue over the past nine months. He related how he invested funds in this
project with an expected return on his investment. Mr. Mays expressed how this was an excellent
time to start, but not an excellent time to continue discussion. In summary of the Town Meetings, he stated
that 70 percent of the people were in favor of the project. Mr. Mays emphasized how quickly he could have
the project funded and leased. He stated
his concern with Council’s lack of action in the past nine months and he
challenged the Council to take action and make a decision, but not to draft a
Referendum for a ballot question and political decision in November.
A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and
seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Extend the Meeting to 10:30 P.M. The vote on the motion carried 4-1 with
voting as: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, Against; Mr. Petsos, For;
Mayor Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts, For.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
________________________________
Rocky
Randels, MAYOR
________________________________
Susan Stills, CMC, CITY CLERK