CITY OF CONVERSE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES OF JULY 31, 2007

7:00 PM

The City Council of the City Of Converse met in regular meeting at the Converse Municipal Complex on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 at 7:00 PM to discuss various items on the agenda. The following were present:

Mayor Al Suarez Mayor Pro Tem Scott Jauregui, Place 4

Councilwoman Nancy Bazany, Place 1 Councilwoman Robin Benbrook, Place 2

Councilman Billy Schindler, Place 3 Councilman Jim Uballe, Place 5

Councilwoman Gloria Weers, Place 6 Mr. Sam Hughes, City Manager

Ms. Laura Arens, Assistant City Manager Mr. Rick Jamison, Police Chief

Mr. Richard Wendt, Fire/EMS Chief Mr. Jerry Wilson, Finance Director

Mr. Mark Luft, COC EDC Executive Director Mr. Ray Ortiz, City Attorney

Ms. Penny Hieronymus, City Secretary

{Tape 1, Side A}

1. Call City Council Meeting to Order

At approximately 7:03 PM, Mayor Suarez called the meeting to order.

2. Invocation by Pastor Jesse Aguilar, Converse Hispanic Baptist Church

Pastor Aguilar congratulated the newly elected CC members.

Pastor Aguilar gave the invocation.

3. Pledge of Allegiance

Mayor Suarez led all those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. Roll Call and Recognition of Visitors

Mayor Suarez asked the record reflect all Council members are present and welcomed all of the visitors.

5. Consent Agenda. All of the following Items May Be Acted Upon By One Motion. No Separate Discussion or Action on Any of the Items Is Necessary Unless Desired By A Council Member

A. Approval of City Council Minutes - City Council Workshop July 10, 2007

B. Receive Zoning Commission Minutes for Meeting Conducted on June 18, 2007

C. Receive Fire and EMS Commission Minutes for Meeting Conducted on June 25, 2007

D. Receive Planning Commission Minutes for Meeting Conducted on June 26, 2007

Councilman Schindler asked to pull agenda item #5 A.

Councilwoman Weers made a motion to approve agenda items #5 B –D. Councilwoman Bazany seconded the motion.

It passed unanimously to approve agenda items #5 B -D.

Councilman Schindler made a motion for a correction on the CC minutes of agenda item #5 A, page 3, 11^th line.

It reads: “He would like to see Toepperwein Road milled & new layer of asphalt because he does not think it has a lasting effect & would rather see the money go towards a lasting fix”.

Should read: “He would not like to see Toepperwein Road milled & new layer of asphalt because he does not think it has a lasting effect & would rather see the money go towards a lasting fix”.

Councilman Uballe seconded the motion.

It passed unanimously to approve the motion as stated by Councilman Schindler.

6. Citizens To Be Heard. This time is provided for citizens to address City Council on any issues and concerns. No City Council discussion or action can be taken if the item is not on the Agenda. Please limit your remarks to three (3) minutes and state your name and address for the record.

-Mr. S. T. Russell of 224 Ralston congratulated & thanked CC on their vote of the drag park which was voted on a couple of weeks ago & would like them to vote “no” tonight at the second reading

-Mr. Dave Vaudrin of 220 Ralston echoed with what Mr. Russell commented

-Mr. George Tully of 10030 Windburn Court will speak on agenda item #9 E

-Mr. Alan Caudell of 6264 FM 1516 N will speak on agenda item #9 B

-Ms. Mary Caudell of 6264 FM 1516 N will speak on agenda item #9 B

-Ms. Loren Weishaar of 212 Ralston echoed with what Mr. Russell & Mr. Vaudrin commented & asked for CC to examine their own conscious if it was being proposed in their own back yards

-Mr. John Mendoza of 8359 Copperglen will speak on agenda item #9 E

-Mr. George Spawn of 104 Gateway a wildlife biologist says we are very lucky to have the wet land/green land corridor back there (speaking on East Park)

-Ms. Ann Garner of 113 Meadow Drive was concerned about the trees in the neighborhood that have overgrown & pose a hazard to the neighbors. She has spoken to the rental manager who works for Schoolcraft Realty & the Code Compliance Officer.

-Ms. Daphne Bible of 311 Castle Court would like for CC to vote “no” to the ATV’s, etc.

-Mr. Alvin Bible of 311 Castle Court concurred with the above comments on ATV’s

-Ms. Nelly Hicks of 305 Castle Court concurred with the above comments on ATV’s

-Mr. Ken Tillman of 314 Castle Court concurred with the above comments on ATV’s

-Mr. Bob Karre of 217 Ralston concurred with the above comments on ATV’s

-Mr. Jeff Beehler of 112 Norris Drive East concurred with the above comments on ATV’s

-Ms. Laura Beehler of 112 Norris Drive East concurred with the above comments on ATV’s

7. Special Consideration Items

A. None

Mayor Suarez stated there was no “Special Consideration Items”.

8. Public Hearings

A. None

Mayor Suarez stated there were no “Public Hearings”.

9. Old Business

A. Discussion and Appropriate Action on a Request to Approve City of Converse Ordinance #873; an Ordinance Annexing into the City Limits of Converse an Irregular Shaped Piece of Land of 59.876 Acres, More or Less, Located Along the East Side of FM 1516 and Adjacent to the South City Limit of City of Converse (Second Reading) (City Manager)

Mr. Hughes stated this would complete the process for this parcel. We have informed all property owners that will be affected by this annexation by letter, have held public hearings & had the first reading at the last CC meeting. It is time to develop the area & we have a developer who is about to plat & begin 400 residential homes & we have an elementary school that is going. Recommend approval.

Councilman Schindler made a motion to approve agenda item #9 A. Councilman Uballe seconded the motion.

It passed unanimously to approve agenda item #9 A.

B. Discussion and Appropriate Action on Request to Approve City of Converse Ordinance #874; an Ordinance Annexing into the City Limits of Converse an Irregular Shaped Piece of Land of 45.5 Acres, More or Less, Located Along the East Side of FM 1516 and Adjacent to the South City Limit of City of Converse (Second Reading) (City Manager)

Mr. Hughes stated this is the 2^nd of 3 pieces of property being considered. It is 45 acres that fronts on FM 1516. We had some confusion today whether it was in our ETJ. He had a discussion with Jesus Garza& they were able to reconstruct the process that actually happened in the 60’s & 70’s. Before 1967, there was no such thing as ETJ; if the property was unincorporated then the City adjacent to it could incorporate the property without second thought. In 1967, the State legislature established the concept of ETJ; it is assigned cities with 5,000-population ½ a mile of ETJ extending from their boundary of newly annexed property. For towns of 10,000 or greater it gave them a mile & for towns the size of SA it gave hem 5 miles. When you immediately establish this process, as you can imagine, ETJ’s over lapped. The legislature said the cities should meet & negotiate & by mutual agreement de-conflict that. There was an Ord. in 1969 that addressed the northeast & east sides of that overlap. In Dec. 1979, the second agreement addressed the last 7 parcels where Converse & the City of SA over lapped & distributed around 900 acres to the COC& about 760 acres to the City of SA. Those agreements were placed on maps & over time the maps get lost, changed, copied, etc. If you look on the SA web site it looks like the current thing is the area that we are annexing is not in our ETJ. Mr. Hughes worked with Mr. Jesus Garza today & gave him copies of the Ord.’s we have on file on file. Then, Mr. Garza looked at maps from the 70’s & 90’s & acknowledged that indeed the property that we are attempting to annex is in our ETJ. Mr. Hughes brought a 1987 map prepared by Ford Engineering that shows the boundaries of the City & ETJ. We are doing what is consistent with those maps. Believes everything is in order. The City has the same reasons & motives for making this annexation as expressed by the previous. Recommend approval.

Mr. Alan Caudell of 6264 FM 1516 N. stated he initiated the awareness of the ETJ’s. Mr. Hughes did fax Ord. #920 to Mr. Garza & said nowhere in the Ord. does it incorporate his property into the City ETJ & are in the ETJ of SA. His second reason why the COC should not/can not incorporate them into the City limits & that is the exact statute Mr. Hughes quoted at the last meeting (statute 45.054-on the 1,000’ requirement). The statute states that they could not incorporate him unless the width of the area at its narrowest point is at least 1,000’ and his property is only 861’ deep which violates this state statute. Based on these 2 reasons, he does not believe that the COC has the authority to incorporate them into the City limits.

Ms. Mary Caudell of 6264 FM 1516 N. stated she was there on behalf of Michael & Theresa Hardin, active duty Army in El Paso. They wanted her to reiterate they believe the facts that her spouse has provided is grounds enough & she believes & agrees with them wholeheartedly. From her own perspective as a homeowner in Converse, she settled here & bought that property for a specific reason that she doesn’t want any neighbors. When they asked for help a few years ago, something somewhere should have told them that at one point they are going to do this. They did bring it up Sat. that ETJ means eventually you are going to be incorporated, but with the confusion he ran into she did not understand how a normal human being could even mottle through this stuff. As a homeowner, she does not want to be incorporated into the COC; all it means to her is more tax dollars out of her pocket & thinks it is wrong.

Mr. Hughes stated Mr. Garza left a message on Mr. Caudell’s voice mail informing him that the map that was posted on the web site is in error & they have located the evidence to clearly show that the property they have before consideration for annexation is indeed Converse ETJ. On the second part, Mr. Hughes read from the statute. We have a requirement & there is guidance for an exception of the requirement if you are backed up against another jurisdiction & you cannot achieve another 1,000’ for that reason & there is nothing unlawful about the action.

Councilman Uballe made a motion to approve agenda item #9 B. MPT Jauregui seconded the motion.

It passed unanimously to approve agenda item #9 B.

C. Discussion and Appropriate Action on a Request to Approve City of Converse Ordinance #875; an Ordinance Annexing into the City Limits of Converse a Rectangular Shaped Piece of Land of 14.876 Acres, More or Less, Located East of FM 1516 and Adjacent to the South City Limit of City of Converse (Second Reading) (City Manager)

Mr. Hughes stated this is the 3^rd of 3 parcels in this category. He did confirm with Mr. Jesus Garza of the SA Planning that this parcel is indeed in the Converse ETJ. Again, with restrictions are less than 1,000’ because in this particular case are surrounded by the SA ETJ. Staff’s recommendation to approve.

Councilman Uballe made a motion to approve agenda item #9 C. MPT Jauregui seconded the motion.

It passed unanimously to approve agenda item #9 C.

D. Discussion and Appropriate Action on a Request to Approve City of Converse Ordinance #632; an Ordinance to Establish a Beautification and Environmental Commission for the City of Converse (Second Reading) (Mayor Suarez)

Mayor Suarez stated this Ord. is going to be able to work with the neighborhoods on the problems of trees, weedy lots, vehicles in the front lots, basically to assist the residents & the sister cities in making Converse a better place to live.

Councilman Uballe stated what he likes about this particular Ord. is the encouragement it gives to the citizens. He would like to see contests & rewards. He supports this Ord.

Councilman Schindler concurred with Councilman Uballe’s remarks.

Councilwoman Benbrook made a motion to approve agenda item #9 D. Councilwoman Bazany seconded the motion.

It passed unanimously to approve agenda item #9 D.

E. Discussion and Appropriate Action on a Request to Approve City of Converse Ordinance #330; an Ordinance Authorizing the Use of Parks and Recreation Areas Owned and Controlled by the City of Converse, Naming the Tracts of Land Designated as City Parks, Stating the Policies and Regulating Possession and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in Such Parks, Stating the Policies and Regulating the Use of the Lake and Area Surrounding the Lake at North Park; Regulating the Use of Other Park Facilities and Equipment; Establishing a Curfew Time for Park Usage and Providing a Penalty for Violations of this Ordinance (Second Reading) (City Manager)

Mr. Hughes stated we have implemented the changes given last time.

-There are 2 “Whereas” deleted

-Section 1: Putting 61.73 acre to be named “East Park”

-Section 11. Hours of Operation – No Change

-Reservation policy amended as indicated

-Swimming Pool: Now request 72 hours in advance

-General Policies, item 3 E has been added

-North Park Policies – We cover the lake & recreational swimming is prohibited

-Fishing is permitted from banks, piers & boats in accordance with Texas law

-Boats are permitted provided they are registered & operated in accordance with Texas Law

-Boat motors are prohibited except battery operated electrical trolling motors not to exceed 12 volts

-All boats must be operate under the supervision of a person 18 years of age or older

-Camping in North Park without a permits is prohibited

-Camping permits may be obtained by registering the vehicles & persons that will be camping & paying a fee per vehicle per night

-Camping fee may be waived by the City Manager for civic organizations & youth groups

-The fee has been moved back into the attachments & is not in the main Ord. itself

-Generators are prohibited in all City Parks without approval of the City Manager

-The 2^nd “#4” East Park Policies has been amended to read #5 East Park Policies

-East Park is designated as park land for future recreational development

-Entry is prohibited except for City officials & employees on official business

-Mr. George Tully of 10030 Windburn Trail stated basically he has no problem with what we are doing with the City Ord. He thinks the camping should be on a hold: they need infrastructure, are we going to put restrooms down there, will there be lighting back there, how are they going to enforce the permit(s), emergency response vehicles, drug use, children doing mischief things, generators & the noise they make & lastly, etc. Lastly, he would like to see a nature trail out at East Park.

-Mr. John Mendoza of 8359 Copperglen congratulated the CC for voting “no” with respect to development & allow vehicles that are going to generate a lot of noise. He has done some considerable research on noise & the effects on human beings.

-Mr. Ken Tillman of 314 Castle Court stated he would be surprised if there was any opposition to the Ord. as amended by Councilwoman Weers motion that was unanimously approved by the rest of CC at the 1^st July CC meeting. They had a petition, which was presented to the Mayor, opposing the ATV’s, etc. at the East Park. Why have a problem on one side of the City & move it to another side? They ask that CC consider the citizens that will be affected & ask that CC consider the potential for a beautiful, quiet, natural park. If it were to become an ATV, dirt bike park, would you want to live beside it?

-Mr. Bob Karre of 217 Ralston stated sooner or later we need to do something with the City asset down there. He likes the tone of the nature part of it. There are many opportunities for people who ride dirt bikes, etc. & are not necessarily all that close by out on I-10 & south, etc. He just drove to South Dakota & back & noticed there are places for dirt bikes, & they are always well removed from the urban setting. He trusts CC.

{Tape 1, Side B}

-Mr. Jeff Beehler of 112 Norris Drive East stated he would like CC to vote “no” on the ATV’s in the COC & would like to see a walking trail back there. He would not like to be arrested because he does go in there quite often (75’) & cuts the grass next to his fence. He would like to be able to continue to cut the grass because of the snakes. He would volunteer for anything that would need to be done as far as the nature trail.

-Mrs. Laura Beehler of 112 Norris Drive East stated she would only hope on future discussion on what to do with East Park that CC would take into consideration the neighborhoods rather than just some place to put something else. She thinks having a quiet area/nature trail would be good, but she also would hope that everything would be considered before they just decide to put something here.

-Mr. Steve Brown of 8515 Copper Mine stated he was absolutely impressed with the actions of the CC & the people in the community should be given a hand for standing up for their community. CC is to be commended.

Mr. Hughes stated the park at School & Willow is the “City Park”, the park at Cimarron South is “North Park” & we are typically naming this new 61 acres “East Park”. They are all Converse Parks & if it is confusing he can line through or add the word “Converse”.

MPT Jauregui asked about the consistency of calling the parks: Converse City Park, Converse North Park & Converse East Park. He would suggest wherever a park name is mentioned that the “City of Converse” be added to it (Converse City Park, Converse North Park & Converse East Park, throughout the document.

Councilwoman Benbrook stated she had some serious concerns regarding the camping in North Park & we should give a little more thought to being able to make overnight camping.

There was a small discussion on camping & the park closing at midnight, the City Manager is authorized to grant exceptions for special occasions.

Councilman Schindler made a motion approve agenda item #9 E. Councilwoman Weers seconded the motion.

It passed unanimously to approve agenda item #9 E.

10. New Business

A. Discussion and Appropriate Action on a Request to Approve City of Converse Ordinance #401; an Ordinance Regulating Vehicular Speed Limits on the Thoroughfares of the City of Converse, Establishing School Zones, Establishing Stops or Yield of Right-of-Way Required by Vehicular Traffic Prior to Entering Certain Intersections in the Interest of Public Safety, Establishing Prohibited Turns, Establishing One-Way Streets, Establishing Prohibited Parking Zones, Providing a Penalty of Not More Than $200.00 for Any Person Who Shall be Convicted of Violating Any Terms of this Ordinance, Assigning Responsibilities and Superseding All Prior Ordinances in Conflict (First Reading) (Chief Jamison)

Chief Jamison stated we have to have an Ord. in place for all of the streets. This Ord. is an update on school zone times for JISD. Additional signage is CC’s call.

MPT Jauregui addressed an additional Stop Sign on Lone Shadow.

At approximately 8:05 PM, Mayor Suarez called for a 5-minute recess.

At approximately 8:12 PM, Mayor Suarez called the meeting back to order.

MPT Jauregui made a motion to add a Stop Sign at Lone Shadow & the intersection of Big Mesa. Councilwoman Benbrook seconded the motion.

Councilman Schindler stated over the years there has been discussion on placing a Stop Sign at that very intersection. The Police Dept. has sat out there & physically watched traffic going through there & the determination has always been that it does not warrant a Stop Sign. Most of the traffic complaints come when construction is underway in the new subdivision to the south. He suggested that we allow our Police Dept. & citizens that live along there to way in on it a little bit.

MPT Jauregui withdrew his motion.

Councilwoman Bazany made a motion approve agenda item #10 A. Councilman Schindler seconded the motion.

It passed unanimously to approve agenda item #10 A.

B. Discussion and Appropriate Action on a Request to Sell an Obsolete MRL PIC 50 Heart Monitor/Defibrillator with Battery Charger and MRL Shock Tester to First Medical Response of Texas, Inc. for $4,500 (City Manager)

Mr. Hughes stated we purchased these defibrillators around 2,000 & have had maintenance headaches with them. In fact, we received a grant from Texas Dept. of Health & used funds from our General Fund budget to match that & replaced this equipment. We have a person who is part owner of a private ambulance company that has made us an offer to purchase this equipment. The normal process of auctioning we don’t stand a chance of coming anywhere close to $4,500 for this item.

Chief Wendt stated right now, the equipment is surplus & 2 of these have been replaced. He concurs with Mr. Hughes.

Councilman Uballe made a motion approve agenda item #10 B. MPT Jauregui seconded the motion.

It passed unanimously to approve agenda item #10 B.

C. Discussion and Appropriate Action on a Request to Approve the Final Plat for Converse Elementary School (City Manager)

Mr. Hughes stated all things are in order. Planning Commission & staff recommend approval.

Councilwoman Weers made a motion approve agenda item #10 C. Councilwoman Benbrook seconded the motion.

It passed unanimously to approve agenda item #10 C.

D. Discussion and Appropriate Action on a Request to Approve the Preliminary Plat for Cimarron Landing Phase II (City Manager)

Mr. Hughes stated this plat is not ready for favorable consideration & there are several deficiencies (14). The second problem with this plat is they show an off-site drainage easement through the New Hope Church property, which does not exist. We recommend that this plat be disapproved & the reason for formal disapproval is if we do nothing the Local Government Code says within 45 days it automatically becomes approved.

Councilman Uballe made a motion to disapprove agenda item #10 D. Councilman Schindler seconded the motion.

It failed unanimously to disapprove agenda item #10 D.

E. Discussion of the Effective Tax Rate for Fiscal Year 2007-2008, and Appropriate Action to Place a Proposal to Adopt an Ad Valorem Tax Rate of $0.545 Per $100 Assessed Evaluation, on the Agenda of September 4, 2007 as an Action Item (City Manager)

Mr. Hughes stated the tax rate, which would yield the same amount of revenue given this years tax base as what was received last year. The legislation gives a form, which is about a 4-5-page computation. We received the numbers from Bexar County Tax Assessor, Sylvia Romo’s office & in our case we show the effective tax rate for the COC at being .5039 & they show it at .5072. Then, comes the roll back rate & we calculate it at .5368 & they calculate it at .54016. Those numbers are still being solidified. We have so far, under the assumption that .545 would be at or under the roll back rate. At this point, we believe .545 (which our draft budget is based on) is going to be roughly a ½ a cent above the roll back rate. With that said, we come to 2 options. One, we could proceed with the budget & consideration to set the tax rate at .545 realizing that it is going to be above the roll back rate. If we do that, Mr. Hughes informed CC of what they may do & what the voters may do. If the governing body of the taxing unit other than school districts adopts a tax rate that exceeds the roll back tax rate calculated as provided by this Chapter. The qualified voters of the taxing unit by petition may require that an election be held to determine whether or not to reduce the tax rate adopted for the current year to the roll back tax rate calculated as provided by this chapter. It states, that a petition is valid only if it states that it is intended to require an election in the taxing unit on the question of reducing the tax rate for the current year & it is signed by a number of registered voters of the taxing unit equal to at least, in our case, 7% of the number of registered voters of the taxing according to the most recent list of registered voters if the tax rate adopted for the current tax year would impose taxes for maintenance and operation in an amount of at least 5 million. Our ad valorem tax rate will not yield 5 million. If it is less than 5 million, 10% of the number of registered voters of the taxing unit according to the most recent & official list must sign the petition. If Council sets this at ½ a cent the voters have 90 days to come in with a petition having 10% (750 names to be on the petition) & right now we are about 7,500 registered voters. Then, we have 20 days to validate the names on the petition & we either roll back the rate or hold an election to roll back the rate. If we hold an election & they vote to do this, it changes the tax rate from .545 to whatever the roll back rate is. Our best estimate is .5407 & we would roll it back less than ½ a cent. The total money at stake between the .545 & .5407 is just under $58,000. We could strip $58,000 from the expenditures of the General Fund, which would allow us to reduce the tax rate from .545 to .54 (roughly even). Or, we could say we will stay with .545 & keep the budget as is & say here is what we are doing with the money. The most remarkable change in this year’s budget compared to all others in the past 5 years is the striking increase in the amount we are going to put into streets. If you look at streets there is $450,000 additional that is going into that category. CC could start the process with public hearings on the basis of .545 & at any point in the process down to the 2^nd reading of the maintenance & operation Ord. reduce that number. But, you cannot go the other way. The numbers he has given are not the final numbers but it is close enough at this stage that we know the roll back is not going to be as high as .545. If CC votes to do this, then the next step is to approve the Milestone Schedule. What is driving us is the uncertainty about how many new homestead exemptions & also the amount that is under protest & how many of those that will be won or lost. We get the numbers from Sylvia Romo’s office & Bexar Appraisal District. CC does not set the tax rate tonight, they are voting to place on a future agenda (Sept. 4). The roll back is going to be finally calculated on Aug. 7.

There were questions & answers.

{Tape 2, Side 1}

Discussion continued on agenda item #10 E.

Mr. Hughes stated given that we don’t know exactly where we want to cut $58,000 if we do, then we go forward tonight with .545 & think about where that could come from & what impact that would have. Then, CC could evaluate the affect of cutting $58,000.

MPT Jauregui stated in the Executive Session & in the budget workshop, CC identified other opportunities that they are increasing dramatically in this year’s budget that maybe they could go back & look at the increases & get a better opinion as to whether those increases are all necessary this year. He stated he is absolutely going to support staying below the roll back rate.

Mr. Hughes stated we might need to go back in Executive Session & play the tape to see exactly what was said & what commitments were made. It will be painful; it is more than the 1% that we are discussing. If they take the $58,000 from pay, he expects morale degradation. Everything that we might look at will have an impact.

Councilman Uballe stated we had an executive session & a workshop. He thinks as a Council, they made a good faith effort to try and meet the budgetary needs of the City & also meet the commitments that were made during election. We are lowering the overall effective rate by .02 cents when we do this. He would like to see us put this on the agenda for the next meeting. But, for tonight let’s go with the .545, because it is what they can do for the City.

Councilman Uballe made a motion to set on the agenda for the next meeting the effective tax rate of .545per $100 assessed evaluation. Councilman Schindler seconded the motion.

It passed unanimously to approve agenda item #10 E as stated by Councilman Uballe.

F. Discussion and Appropriate Action on a Request to Approve the Milestone Schedule for the FY 2007-2008 Budget and Tax Rates to Include Conducting a Special City Council Meeting on August 28, as well as Regular City Council Meetings on August 21, September 4, and September 18, 2007 City Manager)

Mr. Hughes stated the milestone schedule has been completely revised from the 1^st draft given. There are 3 normal meetings (Aug. 21, Sept. 4 & Sept. 18) & 1 special meeting to conduct a public hearing on Aug. 28.

Councilman Uballe made a motion approve agenda item #10 F. Councilwoman Bazany seconded the motion.

It passed unanimously to approve agenda item #10 F.

11. Reports

A. None

Mayor Suarez stated there were no “Reports”.

12. Adjournment

Mayor Suarez thanked the audience for attending the meeting, CC for their input & City staff for their assistance.

At approximately 8:47 PM, Mayor Suarez adjourned the meeting.

PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 21^st DAY OF AUGUST, 2007.

___________________________

Al Suarez, Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________________

Adriana I. Hieronymus, City Secretary