December 5, 2006
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Amyx presiding and members Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner present. Vice Mayor Hack was absent.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to approve City Commission meeting minutes from November 21st, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to receive the Human Relations Commission meeting minutes of August 16, 2006; Mental Health Board meeting minutes of October 31st, 2006; and the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority meeting minutes of October 23rd and November 14th, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to approve claims to 328 vendors in the amount of $1,497,679.96. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to approve the Drinking Establishment License to Buffalo Wild Wings, 1012 Massachusetts; to Thai House, 724 Massachusetts; and Club Liberty, 642 Massachusetts; and the Retail Liquor License to Diane’s Liquor, 1806 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to authorize payment in the amount of $21,220 to Jayhawk Village, LTD. for easements required for the Alvamar Area Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to authorize payment for temporary construction access for the Pump Station 48 project to MCV limited in the amount of $15,000 and payment to the Kmart Corporation in the amount of $105,000 for temporary construction easements and permanent utility easements. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to authorize payment to Johnson County Licensing Program, in the amount of $21,158.20 for continuing education classes that Lawrence licensed contractors and City staff attended. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement for engineering services for Delaware Commons public improvements with Gastinger Walker Harder Architects in an amount of $5,500.00. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the City Manager to utilize Guest Tax Reserve Funds in the amount of $26,584.50 to JP Graphics for holiday banners, brackets, and poles for downtown Lawrence. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8051, increasing housing fines and court costs assessed upon conviction of traffic violation in the municipal court. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Ordinance No. 7922, rezoning of approximately 2.673 acres from A (Agricultural) District to RS7 (Single-Dwelling Residential) District, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance No. 8052, Joint City/County Ordinance, amending Horizon 2020, Chapter 6-Commerical Land Use to include the description, goals and policies of a Mixed-Use Commercial center, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to adopt Resolution No. 6691, authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement, granting authority to the Secretary of Transportation to act on the City’s behalf to obtain funding for the 2nd and Locust Street intersection improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve TA-10-10-06, text amendment to Chapter 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve TA-10-12-06, text amendment to Chapter 20, Development Code, to define a new use [private dining facilities] that could be permitted through a Special Use Permit process in residential districts. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Ramona Hernandez, 504 River Bend Court. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said staff was continuing to learn about the 211 and 311 telephone services in Lawrence and Douglas County. A report was drafted on staff’s effort regarding its application, costs, and how those systems were structured in a number of different communities. He said as staff began their 2008 budget deliberations, they would provide some additional information, particularly in the area of costs as to whether or not the City Commission wanted to pursue that type of telephone service in the future. He said there were significant costs, but staff’s report indicated significant benefits with that system.
He said from the 2007 budget process, the City Commission would see on future agendas, franchise ordinances as they follow the policy of moving into franchise fees.
He said regarding the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility Reports, he anticipated that in January, there would be additional discussions at a Commission meeting about the corridor and delivery system, and how they wanted to build the Wakarusa Reclamation Facility. He said Assistant Utilities Director, Dave Wagner, offered tours of the existing Kansas River Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Haskell Ecology Club that hosted a meeting regarding that facility.
Also, he reported that a Flood Information Brochure was available to raise awareness of the potential hazards and resources available for flooding and flood protection, as well as a report on the PLAY Feasibility Study and Needs Assessment Project.
Finally, he said the City of Lawrence received the GFOA Distinguish Budget Presentation Award and a list of all the award winners was recently released.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Corliss had an update on the Community Planning Director and/or the Planning Director.
Corliss said he met with Craig Weinaug, County Administrator, and he would make a recommendation on retaining a search firm to help with that selection. He said he wanted to make sure that firm understood that it would be a new department the City would recommend establishing. He said he and Weinaug discussed the relationship of the funding and thought they would be able to work out an understanding between the two governing bodies about how that would be structured. On other positions, he and Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager, would conduct phone interviews with some candidates for the Utility Director position as well later this month.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Corliss had done any work for the Thursday morning possible City Commission meetings.
Corliss said he had not had any further conversation, other than what was mentioned last week. He said he was not planning on doing anything this month because the City Commission’s December 12th and 19th meetings were already generous.
Mayor Amyx said he was going to suggest starting discussions in January because a number of the items were promised to be on the agenda by the end of the year.
Commissioner Schauner said he received a lot of comments from a number of constituents in taking a position that they thought it was not in the long term best interest in making those meetings not available to people who work during the day and would be unable to attend. He said whether it was a long range issue or short range issue or current expenditure, he said he would like them to have some more Commission discussion about that Thursday meeting before they moved forward and implement a Thursday morning schedule.
Mayor Amyx said that issue could be placed as an item on an upcoming agenda rather quickly.
Commissioner Schauner said that issue would be worth scheduling. (13)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Consider draft State Legislative Statement.
David Corliss, City Manager, presented the draft State Legislative Statement. He said it was likely there would be continued interest in some type of limitations on this City’s ability to raise property taxes, whether it was a property tax lid or changes to assessed evaluation authority.
He said protecting sales tax was of continued importance and another important issue that should be addressed was the legal authority to impose sales tax on electronic commerce.
A new item was the municipal authority to enact excise taxes. The legislature this past session enacted a bill that made the state sales tax law uniform. By making that sales tax uniform, it precluded the City of Lawrence from enacting an excise development tax similar to what communities in Johnson County had successfully implemented. For example, the City of Overland Park had substantial excise taxes and received substantial revenue that allowed that city to put in major thoroughfares concurrent with development, which was a City of Lawrence development goal. Unfortunately, the legislature precluded this City’s ability to enact those revenue sources. This City should be aggressive in trying to point out the unfairness to the legislature of allowing some Kansas cities, essentially this City’s competitors, to have that authority and this City not to have that authority. He said this City was at a competitive disadvantage by not having that revenue stream.
He said another issue was this City’s continued interest in protecting City right-of-way.
A number of City Commissioners were familiar both personally and professionally with the status of KPERS and KP&F. He said KPERS and KP&F had a responsibility, as did the City of Lawrence, in its contributions.
The GASB 45 was a new accounting standard that required cities to account for retiree health benefits. He said this City had the ability to account for those benefits, but this City might not have the ability appropriately fund any type of long term financial liabilities the City might have regarding those types of benefits.
Transportation planning and funding was another City interest at the state level and interest for state highways.
He said there was new language on motor fuel tax revenues which was a major concern to this City. The City received a certain percentage of the gallonage tax the State placed on fuel in this community, but that number had declined or stayed flat in recent years and were very familiar with the fact the cost of maintenance and repair of the over 300 miles of streets and curbs had dramatically increased. He said this City needed a revenue source that in addition to property tax and next year, sales tax money was contributing toward the street maintenance efforts. He said this City needed a revenue source that would grow with this City’s costs. One suggestion was to place it on the cost of fuel at the pump as opposed to a number of gallons. He said he did not know if that was the right solution, but it needed be drawn to the attention of the legislature that this City had looked into the revenue source that was used for street maintenance that was not going to grow with the costs and that was not a good recipe.
He said other items the City Commission might want to include which was provided in the memo was supporting a change in mortgage registration laws to allow for a local option to fund a local housing trust fund which had been discussed by this City’s Housing Needs Task Force. Mortgage registration fees were a very important revenue source for County government. He said he did not think it would be wise or appropriate for the City to try and take a portion of that revenue, but it was, in a sense, having the ability to add onto that local registration fee and collect that fee for Housing Trust Fund Needs.
He said as Commissioner Highberger mentioned the possible amendment to the state law governing municipal fund balances. State law required cities to show, in their adopted budget, a fund balance no greater than 5%, which was enacted in the late 1980’s. He said for budget transparency purposes, it could be a challenge for an individual trying to see this City’s true fund balance. He said staff knew what was done this year, but was making a change next year, which staff thought was a better practice to essentially budget revenues that would occur so they would not aggressively decrease those revenue sources, but budgeted expenditures that were budgeted as transfers that they knew they were not going to make. He said it was a challenge and even more of a challenge to others who were trying to look at this City’s budget picture. He said he did not know whether this would meet with legislative favor or not.
He said he knew the City Commission wanted this City’s organization to be more robust in energy conservation efforts and environmental stewardship. He said he would like Commission direction if they wanted to try and include that idea in this City’s State Legislative Statement.
Mayor Amyx said regarding the City’s authority to regulate drinking establishments, he asked if staff was trying to receive local control through licensing.
Corliss said correct. He said it was likely that if this City attempted to impose additional licensure requirements on the City’s license for drinking establishment, that it would not be sustained if it was legally challenged because under the State drinking establishment statutes, this City essentially had the ability to impose a licensure tax of $250.00 for drinking establishments, but this City did not have a lot of discretion as to whether or not to grant that license because it was a state license. It had been argued, in the past, there was a parallel licensing scheme which was having a City and State license. There had been a number of court decisions on the ability of cities to license drinking establishments and he thought the Kansas appellate courts were of the opinion that cities did not have any home rule authority in the area of licensing drinking establishments. He said they had attempted to somewhat exercise that authority in the past with some of this City’s problem drinking establishments. He said he would like clear explicit authority in state law that this City could shut down a drinking establishment if it was a neighborhood nuisance, for example. He said that thinking was a short cut because obviously, there was due process and substance that needed to be behind that authority. He said this City had a number of those problems in the past and had every reason to think this City would have those challenges in the future.
Commissioner Rundle asked if Corliss was indicating the State statute was grey in the matter of being able to regulate the nuisance aspect of that license.
Corliss said yes.
Mayor Amyx said he did not think that statute was grey at all and what they had was “hands off.”
Commissioner Schauner asked about closing hours for drinking establishments. He asked if it was a State mandate with respect to how long drinking establishments could stay open.
Corliss said this City could establish a uniform closure hour that was more restrictive than State law. He said this City would have a challenge placing a particular establishment on a probationary period where that particular establishment needed to close at midnight while the other establishment could stay open past midnight. He said to establish a condition on licensure, was more problematic. He said this City would be miles ahead if having more explicit authority in State law and approximately 7 to 8 years ago, this City came close in having that type of authority. He said they had one city in the state that was adamant that they wanted to increase the fee to $1,000, but drinking establishments balked at that fee and therefore were not able to get the authority they wanted.
Commissioner Schauner said in his day job, the general rule was local decisions on topics otherwise mentioned in state statute could not be enacted that would prevent fulfilling the purpose of the state statute. He said he would like to see some discussion on what parts of the state law this City wanted to weigh in on, at the local level, through an ordinance that might somehow impact the purpose statement of the state statute.
Corliss said it was really the ability to condition the license. He said he thought it would allow for community interest in being a better neighbor. The courts had indicated in a couple of court decisions, the uniformity of the drinking establishment act was such that cities had to follow that law.
Commissioner Schauner asked if they could enact, at the local level, ordinances that could control, under public health, safety, and welfare concerns, certain restrictions on business operations that were inconsistent with their duty under those three standards.
Corliss said not as a drinking establishment license, the City would need to have a separate licensing scheme.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City would need a business license.
Corliss said a business license or public occupancy/public assembly type licensing scheme.
Commissioner Schauner said if an establishment satisfied the drinking establishment ordinance, such as paying the $250 licensing fee and otherwise held a state license for the same appropriate purpose, but this City had a parallel licensing requirement for operating a business, such as a $10 fee and if an establishment violated the City’s public health and safety standards, without that license that City license, the establishment could not operate.
Corliss said that was one scenario.
Commissioner Schauner said there would not be a large fee for that business license, but simply a way to exercise some additional control over those businesses which were operating in a way that was inconsistent with their public health, safety and welfare.
Mayor Amyx asked if all businesses that operated under a state license were exempt from city ordinance.
Corliss said no. He said the issue was whether or not this City could condition a drinking establishment license. He said the City issued a drinking establishment license, in essence, which allowed them to collect of a fee, but the license did not allow this City to condition the establishment’s conduct other than to say if the establishment met the state requirements and met the local requirements, which were parallel.
Commissioner Schauner said this City could condition the establishment’s ability to do business based on another license.
Corliss said when staff gave the City Commission information about possible responses to some of staff’s concerns about downtown safety regarding drinking establishments, one of the things staff pointed to was some communities adopted large assembly licensing schemes where if they had a certain number of people in their business, they had to have a special license from the City and could be conditioned upon certain public health, safety and welfare conditions and if violated, the City could revoke the license and would not be allowed to that type of occupancy.
Commissioner Schauner asked what it would take to move in that direction and enact something that would intend to address those downtown issues, for example.
Corliss said staff had the research that was put together in the past discussing those occupancy type ordinance schemes. He said it was not unheard of, but was this City’s home rule powers and was independent of the drinking establishment license.
Commissioner Rundle said he was thinking the same thing as Commissioner Schauner. He asked if that research also included and identified other communities that had such licenses in place.
Corliss said he believed that research included other communities. He said at one time, Olathe had that ordinance. He said it was not an uncommon vehicle for responding to those types of concerns. He said sometimes those establishments with safety concerns about large occupancy did not carry liquor licenses and was not impossible to be just a large club setting that had safety concerns about conduct and those establishments ability to be good neighbors as far as responding to external issues. He said staff could send that information to the City Commission and they could decide when to proceed.
Mayor Amyx said he would like that information again.
Commissioner Rundle asked if that was narrowly focused on just this particular type of large assembly, he would be interested in the more general nature of how broad that power could be implemented in terms of licensing businesses.
He said concerning excise tax, he asked if Corliss was suggesting the City should be aggressive in letting the legislators know of this City’s disappointment. He asked if there was any case that could be made for that being challenged in court.
Corliss said the bill as drafted was uniform as the Kansas courts had interpreted the uniformity requirements of the constitutional home rule. He said he did not know if it was susceptible to a legal challenge, but rather a major policy issue. One of the unfortunate things for pursuing it was the legislature was wise in that the cities that had already had it, more likely wanted it, and would get to keep it.
Commissioner Rundle asked if it was sellable on the grounds that some cities were being favored.
Corliss said there was not an Equal Protection Clause argument. He said they had a rational basis.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the rational basis.
Corliss said that basis was cities that had already enacted it could keep it and those that did not have the tool, did not get it in the future.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that was a rational basis.
Corliss said he thought it would muster that this City was not a protected class and was not a fundamental right.
Commissioner Schauner said he recognized fundamental on a rational basis of being a standard, but was questioning if what Corliss stated, would satisfy him, as being a jurist, about being a rational basis.
Commissioner Rundle said in a peripheral way, he had further concerns about letting a sleeping dog lie, in terms of that fund balance projection. He said sometimes it was difficult to go to the state just to get permission to let voters approve sales tax. He said cities had been coping with this limitation and maintaining balances for the means this City was using. He said he hated to see the State do the opposite and limit their account and budgeting methods even further to keep this City to that 5% cap which they knew, according to the GFOA, was not a safe fund balance for any cities economic vitality.
Commissioner Highberger said he would like to discuss the possibility of asking the legislature to initiate a constitutional amendment to allow the City Commission to cap property taxes for low income seniors or people who were strapped by fixed incomes and rising property values. He said the best way was to initiate that idea this year or ask for a study committee to look at that idea. He said he had no idea what the fiscal note on something like that would be. He said it was something that came up when talking to people. He said he would like the City Commission to step up to the plate and find a way to do it.
Mayor Amyx said he thought Commissioner Highberger had a good idea. He asked if the City Commission had the opportunity to set up a program to take and look at a plan for people who have lived in their homes for an extended period of time and on a fixed income and be able to put together a cap on their tax payment. He said it would be similar for what the City did for industry.
Corliss said the laws on property taxation were set at the state level. He said the City did not have the ability to change the method of how the County appraised property and then used the constitutional amendment and a few statutes to determine the assessed value of property. The idea of some type of cap on assessed valuation for needy homeowners in the sense of the elderly or the elderly that qualify at a certain income level had been discussed. The opponents of that idea traditionally included cities and the League of Municipalities had been that such a cap, essentially, was a tax shift. If a certain assessed valuation was capped, then all things being equal as far as the amount of taxes that were needed to run a community from the city, county, and school district standpoint, was then shifted to the rest of the assessed valuation which meant the other taxpayers would then pay that share. He said that would not solve the problem of the number of individuals on fixed incomes seeing their property taxes go up as their assessed valuation went up. He said the City did not have any state law ability to change their assessed evaluation, which was essentially what they did with tax abatement. With tax abatements, the City had the legal authority to tell the county appraiser to remove the assessed valuation from the tax rolls and not send those people a property tax bill because they qualified for economic development purposes. He said the Commission could come up with a system of cash grants or rebating property taxes back to certain individuals at a local level, but it would require local resources in order to fund that idea. He said boundaries and administering that type of program would also be issues. He said what Commissioner Highberger had discussed was likely to see a lot of legislative discussion because of concerns about rising assessed valuation and corresponding property tax bills on individuals of modest means, particularly the elderly.
Commissioner Highberger said one of the gubernatorial candidates raised that issue on a broader basis which would apply to someone over the age of 65. He said he would suggest asking for something that was tailored to people on fixed or low incomes.
Commissioner Schauner said if there was a TABOR like discussion this year, they would likely see this issue as part of that discussion. The shifting reality of lightening one burden, assuming they had the same needs, would shift that burden to someone else. He said one thing that made some difference was the greater level of efficiency they could bring to the operation of the City and could have positive impact on everyone by having a steady or lessened mill levy. He said they had discussed what the mill levy should be the last 3 years. He said ultimately it was less about how they shifted the tax burden from one person to another than how they created a level of efficiency to the city operation as best they could. He said they could not increase the efficiency enough that they were going to make everyone’s taxes go down 20% because that was not rational or achievable because people continued to have a lot of service interests. He said the City Commission needed to think carefully if that was a reasonable public policy. He said he certainly understood the motivation behind it, but had some question if it was a practical matter of whether it was achievable and satisfied the goal that it expressed.
Corliss said staff could work on some language expressing concern about the problem and the City’s desire to be part of the solution, but not prescribing the actual solution. He said he looked at this as requiring a constitutional amendment because of the uniform equal taxation requirements of the Kansas Constitution which would be approved by the voters and there would be ample discussion about the tax shift this would establish.
Commissioner Schauner said this discussion was going to be carried by those who were wielding a much blunter instrument. He said they could place a cap on the amount of money that governmental entities could raise and spend. He said that became the horse that would carry this argument whether it was a good argument or not. He said they had seen it in Colorado and other places where much of that impetus came from people on fixed incomes. He said this City needed to be more careful in what was stated in that regard because the City could end up with a significantly different answer than this City might be thinking of.
Mayor Amyx said Commissioner Schauner was very gracious in his comments about becoming more efficient and maybe the City Commission was taking on too many new programs. He said as the City Commission took on new programs throughout the community, they needed to realize their limits on new things brought to the City Commission each year.
Commissioner Highberger said he would stick up for the fund balance change. He said he thought the Commission was interested in transparency in government operations and had a state law that mandated those laws to be transparent in their budgeting guide. He said he would like to see authority to budget clearly and responsibly.
Commissioner Schauner said right now it caused them to either underestimate revenue or over estimate expenses.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
Hubbard Collingsworth, Lawrence, said he wanted to commend the City Council and staff in all their efforts in the snow removal and other things they were doing for the community.
He said Corliss’ report mentioned an occupancy requirement. He said every city in Johnson County, required occupancy, be it a restaurant, club or drinking establishment.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City Commission would have an opportunity to meet with their own delegation during their session as the Commission did two years ago.
Corliss said the legislative breakfast would be their first full meeting with their legislatures, which was scheduled for January 4th. He said it would also be helpful to plan a couple of trips over to Topeka and also get together with their delegation to look at the status of the session to see what they could do to help them and remind them of this City’s concerns. He said some of their local partners had similar concerns with the county and school district.
Corliss said he would change, unless the City Commission objected to the motor fuel tax revenue portion of the statement to highlight more of the problem as opposed to prescribing the solution and point out the City was concerned about the declining revenue, but not point to the gas tax being based on the cost of fuel.
Commissioner Highberger asked for a defined draft statement.
Corliss said yes.
Mayor Amyx said once Corliss had the language cleaned up, to place this issue back on the consent agenda for adoption. (14)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
|
|
|
|
12/12/06 |
800 Block Pennsylvania and related items; City Auditor Position discussion; Long-Range Planning Resolution; Impact Fee discussion
|
|
12/19/06 |
Library Consultant Report
|
|
12/26/06 |
City Commission meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. This meeting will consist of consent agenda items and bill paying.
|
|
|
|
|
TBD |
Salvation Army Site Plan and Rezoning; |
(15)
COMMISSION ITEMS: None
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to adjourn at 7: 50p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED
_____________________________
Mike Amyx, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Easement-Alvamar Area Sanitary Sewer Project to Jayhawk Village, LTD for $21,220.
2. Easement- Temporary construction and utility for Pump Station 48 project to MCV for $15,000 and Kmart Corporation for $105,000.
3. Continuing Education Classes payment to Johnson County Licensing Program for $21,158.20.
4. Agreement-Engineering services for Delaware Commons public improvements with Gastinger Walker Harden Architects for $5,500.00.
5. Guest Tax Reserve Funds for $26,584.50 to JP Graphics for holiday banners, brackets and poles for downtown Lawrence.
6. Ordinance No. 8051- 1st Read, increasing fines in court costs on conviction of traffic violation in municipal court.
7. Ordinance No. 7922- 2nd and Final Read, Rezone (Z-04-27-05) 2.673 acres from A to RS7, Carson & Eisenhower.
8. Ordinance No. 8052- 2nd and Final Read, joint City/Cnty Ord., amending Horizon 2020 Chptr 6, Mixed Use Commercial Ctr.
9. Resolution No. 6691, Agreement No. 228-06, authority to Secretary of Transportation to obtain funding for 2nd and Locust Street intersection improvements.
10. Text Amendment: TA-10-10-06, amendments to Ch. 20, Development Code to correct inconsistencies since adopted.
11. Text Amendment: TA-10-12-06, amendments to Ch. 20, Development Code to define new use, private dining facilities.
12. Subordination Agreement: Ramona Hernandez, 504 River Bend Court.
13. City Manager’s Report.
14. Draft State Legislative Statement.
15. Future Agenda Items.