Budget Review Committee

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 A meeting of the Budget Review Committee was held Monday, September 21, 2015, at 7:56 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane, Chair, presided. Members of Committee present: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire, Vice Chair Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman David Schoneman Alderman Michael Soucy Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Also in Attendance: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy (Arrived at 7:04 p.m.) Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja (Arrived at 7:04 p.m.) Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Mr. John L. Griffin, Chief Financial Officer Mr. David G. Fredette, Treasurer/Tax Collector Ms. Lisa Fauteux, Director of Public Works PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Robert Sullivan, 12 Stoneybrook Road I thought this evening there was an attempt to restrict citizens to ask questions as we have always done at public hearings. I noticed one citizen had questions answered yet I couldn’t get mine answered. I really do believe, Alderman Deane that was a restriction and I hope moving forward that the questions I posed during the public hearing will be specifically answered. NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO GO OUT OF ORDER AND TAKE UP R-15-173 MOTION CARRIED R-15-173 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF FOUR MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($4,200,000) FOR THE PURCHASE OF 141-143 BURKE STREET MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE ON THE QUESTION Budget Review – 9/21/15 Page 2 Chairman Deane Would you like to answer the questions, Mayor? Mayor Lozeau Certainly, I would be happy to try to answer them but I suspect that my answers will not be satisfactory in the end but I will do my best. Chairman Deane We will do as we always do which is the best we can. Alderman Siegel I hope that I transcribed these properly from Mr. Sullivan. Question #1 was what are the financial and non- financial benefits of this purchase and he did ask why his questions couldn’t be answered and hopefully we will take care of that. Mayor Lozeau As I had hoped that I had described in my opening presentation, first of all I think that this piece of property to the City of Nashua and its citizens is priceless. If you look at the wastewater treatment plant and as Alderman Deane alluded to our conversations with EPA which are already going to require us to add phosphorous treatment here and the future for wastewater is going to look at more and more treatment of what we are doing with our wastewater, we have nowhere to go and so the very first purpose of looking at this site is its proximity to property that we already own. The site itself, we talked way back when we purchased the property abutting the landfill. We had troubles with that property and we wanted to be able to put a buffer between the neighborhood and ourselves, we wanted to ensure that a gas station/convenient store wasn’t going in front of the landfill which actually would not have been a hard thing for somebody to put there. Chairman Deane So you are getting into another question which was asked about the landfill property so that’s being answered at the same time. Mayor Lozeau Yes, because at that time we discussed consolidating public works at the landfill site. There was lengthy discussion about the benefit of putting everything together and the cost of repairing our scattered sites. I can tell you that having toured the Lexington facility, which is a consolidation of their public works; you might not be able to quantify per item the benefit of being together but those communities spent $20 million on their facility to build it. It’s 60% about of the size of our Department of Public Works and then you look at the City of Manchester who has consolidated their public works and police department for $24 million. All in here we should be able to take care of wastewater, consolidate public works and renovate the building and add services that we don’t have now which should extend the life of our very expensive assets for a worst case scenario of $15 million. I think that really made sense. The financial sense of it is as I have described. How we will lay out that building I can tell you that for the last several months at least staff has been looking at that building and identifying needs within the city. Outside of the DPW consolidation and the financial benefits that I just described there are other city benefits to this. Just off the top of my head the capital improvement plan has a request that always gets a high grade for the police department to have a location for their command center. That has a price tag of over $1 million and that would be something that we wouldn’t have to do. We have city records in multiple locations in the city that we are required to maintain for a very long period of time, many of which should be in controlled temperature space and we will be able to do that here. When we look Budget Review – 9/21/15 Page 3 at the needs around emergency management, trailers, generators and other things and as we find ourselves with more and more difficult winters and springs we have equipment that we need readily available and we would have space to house it indoor here. The truck wash that I talked about I think is important. Other non- financial benefits include the sheet of ice at Conway, being able to continue to develop the site on Stadium Drive as a recreation area for the city. I do believe that Conway will pay an amount for being able to build on that land and I’m hopeful to be able to bring something to the Board for a number that makes sense to the Board. In addition the police training facility that we currently pay an annual fee of $25,000 for; because they would take over the Riverside site and it is adjacent to their property that would be another item that we would not have to pay for. Those are just kind of quick off the top of my head benefits and again a benefit to this neighborhood right here that although I agree there is a neighborhood on Burke Street, any of us that know the city certainly understand that the way it was developed was very different from Lynn Street and Saw Mill Road and all of the small streets in there where there is no traffic lights and other things that would be beneficial. Alderman Siegel The next question is why are we doing a financial analysis of the dam purchase but not of Burke Street? Mayor Lozeau It’s one thing to buy city property that we are going to move into for city purposes with floor plans and some straight forward things. The analysis of Mine Falls Dam is done because we believe that we should know what its future revenue is and what impact that will have on the city. If we can do it without bonding it in the sense of being able to do it as its own fund that will be its own revenue source to pay that cost it’s a very different analysis. In addition I think there are many people on this Board, and although I am not on the Board I will include myself that have experience with buildings and development of this nature. I have no experience with hydro-electric dams and I’m going to go out a limb and say there’s probably nobody in this room that has that. It is an equation that is really important and a decision that we have to make by December of this year based on a 40-year old contract that allowed certain things to happen at certain times in that contract. That’s why we are looking at that in a different manner. To be able to try to, other than the cost of saving multiple buildings that we would have to repair and maintain, to try to be able to put a dollar amount to the efficiencies of having the director’s staff start in the morning all together in the same facility, heading out to do work for the citizens is hard to put a dollar amount on. It’s an efficiency that I think any of us would agree to. Think about your own home, if your kitchen was across the street and your restroom was somewhere else and your T.V. room was somewhere else and you have three hours to do everything you need to do at home it’s not going to be as easy to do it. Most communities that can consolidate public works do so and to pay somebody up to $50,000 to do an analysis for us didn’t seem to be necessary in this instance, particularly again back to the point of wastewater. Unless we are going to pick up the plant that, since I’ve been here we’ve put $70 million in, $70 million in an eight year period, never mind what you put in before that and what may have to go in the future. It makes sense I believe to look at this property that way. Alderman Siegel The next question is what is the overall plan of the administration visa vie this purchase? It sounds like you have been answering that but I hope Mr. Sullivan agrees that that’s a reasonable transcription of what he was saying. Mayor Lozeau I can tell you that it’s not necessarily the plan of this administration, I am hopeful that it’s the plan of all of those that are elected to be thinking about the future of our city in the sense of when a property becomes available next to something that we have had a significant investment in, does it make sense for the city to purchase that site for future expansion and for other needs. I believe that this site meets all of those requirements on why we would do something like this. This plan is going to develop from this point so first, Budget Review – 9/21/15 Page 4 purchasing it at the $4.2 million and then the development of that site is going to be done in this room, it’s the Infrastructure Committee and the Board of Aldermen that are responsible for how this building and property will develop. I would hope that we will benefit from plans that have been provided to us from the other cities I mentioned about how they have consolidated, what’s worked in what they have built, what they would do differently and I am hopeful that we will look at very soon funding an architect and engineer to do that work with us to lay out those floor plans and have this Board make some decisions about how we will utilize this space in a thoughtful manner that is very effective and efficient. Alderman Siegel The next question is I think that Mr. Sullivan was concerned about how the $5.74 million overall bonded purchase is going to fit into our budgets going forward. I assume he means what is the effect on both the tax rate and our ability to pay for other city services as a consequence of bonding this new project going forward. Mayor Lozeau I would respond to that by saying that it’s the same with every budget year. Every year that you make a decision that you are going to bond the renovations of an elementary school or build a new project or fix a roof or invest in City Hall or put $1 million in the Hunt Building that you are going to make other decisions in the budget that can cover those costs while you are moving forward. Chairman Deane Is there any debt being retired during that timeframe? Mayor Lozeau You can see from the chart that I gave you earlier that yes our debt is going down. Chairman Deane But I mean is there debt being retired that equate to or equal to or less than this amount that is going to be required to cover the principal and interest payments, would Treasurer Fredette know that? Mayor Lozeau Yes. Chairman Deane Okay so that’s a neutral… Mr. Fredette If you look at the sheet the Mayor gave out, if you look at column A where it says line 17, that’s our current years’ debt payment. If you look at the one just below it we are going down another $1.3 million next year. Chairman Deane To $16.7 million? Budget Review – 9/21/15 Page 5 Mr. Fredette Right, that column shows how the debt goes down automatically for everything that we’ve sold to this day. Chairman Deane But when that’s added, when you look at the debt service, where is the $15 million added? Mr. Fredette You have to look at the sales plan but the $4.2 million would start to be paid off next year and the additional $10 million would be sold a couple of years later so it would be in FY 19’. Chairman Deane So what is that going to add to principal and interest to the bottom line? Are we going to retire that same amount of debt over this timeframe as we are going to incur by bonding? Mr. Fredette Yes. Chairman Deane So it will not have any negative impact. Alderman McCarthy If you just look at the debt schedule on a yearly basis our debt is typically based on a 20-year payoff so 5% of our outstanding debt is retired every year and then when you look at the interest rates we are typically under 5% so if you look at what our debt service is, more than half of that is retiring principal and the rest of it is the interest payment. We retire a healthy amount of debt on a yearly basis. Chairman Deane Thank you. Alderman Schoneman Going from lines 17 and 18 and from column A to column B; column A in line 17 is our FY 16’ principal and interest payment, is that correct? Mr. Fredette Yes. Alderman Schoneman If there were no changes then line 18 would be next years’ but if we make the changes that we are contemplating then the line 18 would be in column B? Mr. Fredette That’s true. Budget Review – 9/21/15 Page 6 Alderman Schoneman If we make these changes we are going to go from $18,049 million in FY 16’ to $18,232 in FY 17’, is that correct? Mr. Fredette Yes, those are very conservative estimates and I’m sure I can beat that very easily but those are conservative estimates. Mayor Lozeau That’s also based on a 3.5% rate and we have been very fortunate with the work that the Treasurer has done not only in refinancing bonds where he has saved us at least $3 million in the last eight to ten years but we’ve also been able to be well below 3%. That number also talks about those other items that I gave you it isn’t just Burke Street and that’s important to note. Chairman Deane So that $18,232,000 includes what, does that include all that is not authorized or just authorized? Mr. Fredette It’s the $17 million, line 23 so we’d be selling some authorized and some not authorized. Mayor Lozeau That would include the school roof, Sunset Heights, Amherst Street/Charron Avenue, the fire truck and the Burke Street property. Chairman Deane But the net effect on the bond, with everything being equal that’s already been spent so it’s there. Mayor Lozeau It’s in that eighteen. Mr. Fredette $12 million is authorized. Chairman Deane Well we’ve authorized $12.3 million, right? Mr. Fredette Yes but it will be sold. Chairman Deane So that has to be sold so that’s going to be added regardless of whether this is approved or not. My question is out of that $12.3 million you have to add in the $4.2 million for Burke Street, what effect does that have? Budget Review – 9/21/15 Page 7 Mr. Fredette The average payment for that is about $285,000 per year. As you know our payments start off a little bit high and then they go down. Chairman Deane So we are looking at a $300,000 increase if this is approved per year for twenty years? Mr. Fredette Yes, on that bond. Chairman Deane That doesn’t include the $10 million? Mayor Lozeau Right and that’s worst case. We are not looking at the $10 million likely to be sold before FY 18’. I would like to think that you would do work before then, I don’t know as I won’t be here but the necessity to sell it any sooner than that is probably not likely. Alderman Schoneman Just for the purposes of understanding the effect on the tax cap, is principal and interest part of the tax cap or just interest? Mr. Fredette The interest is part of the expenditure requirements. It can be exempted by the Board but it is part of the expenditure requirements, both the principal and interest. Alderman Schoneman So, there’s an increase here of roughly $200,000 as part of that. Mr. Fredette Yes, as a conservative estimate. Alderman Siegel The next question is where does the extra $10 million come fit in? I assume that Mr. Sullivan was asking for the type of work that would be done for the $10 million retrofit. Mayor Lozeau So, all the things that I mentioned earlier in the slide which includes roof work, HVAC work, outfitting the garage properly, the office space; right now it’s pretty much open, the truck wash and all of those things. It would be to make it a very functioning, consolidated and long-term DPW home and other city businesses that I’ve outline earlier. Budget Review – 9/21/15 Page 8 Chairman Deane Okay, next question. Alderman Siegel Those are all the questions that I have for Mr. Sullivan. Alderman Soucy He had one more, why he couldn’t have his questions answered. Alderman Siegel I believe that was question #2 and I think that we were answering his questions. Chairman Deane I’ll take responsibility for not allowing his questions to be answered, I apologize. I’d like to move on. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Sullivan This is not usually our standard operating procedure. Chairman Deane We understand that, you have brought that up three times and I’ve apologized for it, Mr. Sullivan. I’m sorry, I made a mistake, I apology. Mr. Sullivan Thank you for your apology. Alderman Siegel, I think you started out where is the financial and non-financial benefits of analysis, blah, blah, blah, blah. Alderman Siegel Except for the “blah, blah, blah, that was correct. Mr. Sullivan There was one other question and I really would appreciate it if we got specific and relevant answers. How will this purchase improve the quality and quantity of services that are currently being delivered to the citizens and taxpayers? That is the DPW and wastewater, how will this purchase improve the quality and quantity? Mayor Lozeau I believe that question has been answered to the best of my ability at this time. Alderman Soucy I would just say that the primary focus for my pro vote is going to be the wastewater treatment plant; it’s going to have to expand at some point. If another company buys that property then there are two options, either we take it by eminent domain which is going to be far more expensive or we move the wastewater treatment plant at an incredible amount of money and that’s how we are going to save by not spending all of this money. By Budget Review – 9/21/15 Page 9 saving this money we will have more money for police, schools and public service. Chairman Deane The questions have been answered and the motion on the floor is to recommend final passage of R-15-173, is there any more discussion? Alderman Dowd The cost avoidance of having to repair the buildings that were discussed in the Mayor’s presentation, that’s about $2 million that we would have to do if we didn’t do this. The other thing is that we talked at some point that we would get more length of service out of our current DPW vehicles which are extremely expensive by getting them inside and being able to wash the salt off in the winter. The question of Joyce Park, I thought Joyce Park was not located between the two properties. Mayor Lozeau Joyce Park actually runs from right about here right through the center of the water and over to here is the way that Superintendent Caggiano showed us at the Board of Public Works this last meeting. Chairman Deane Are there any restrictions with it? Mayor Lozeau There are no issues with it, no. Alderman Dowd But just for clarification it’s not between the two properties? Mayor Lozeau No. Alderwoman Brown There was a question that Mr. Keeler pointed to regarding repairing catch basins underneath the property; can you speak to that please, Mayor? Mayor Lozeau I’m looking forward to having a conversation with him; I think it would be hard for us not to imagine that residents that live on Burke Street wouldn’t be concerned about this, particularly since the buses are leasing space there now. The good news on Burke Street is that we have pretty much completed all of our work for the sewer project on Burke Street. The whole street has been repaired and replaced. It wasn’t with this in mind but we do know that is a street that has for many years withstood a lot of truck traffic. That 188,000 square foot garage that has cranes that pick up 250 tons certainly had heavy things going in and out of it since 1965. That work needed to be done on a sewer system that is more than 100 years old and that work has been done. Budget Review – 9/21/15 Page 10 Alderwoman Brown I really felt that your presentation answered a lot of the questions that came up during the public hearing and I was just curious, I am assuming that will be available as part of our minutes? Mayor Lozeau Yes, everything I presented tonight will be attached to the minutes and it’s probably worth noting that we have had three non-public sessions relative to the acquisition of the property. I can’t speak to the specifics what was discussed in those minutes. There are requirements of this purchase that we have to appreciate that the seller has in order to make this happen. When we have closed on the property and everything is done there will be no need for any redactions. We had to follow a process to not jeopardize the purchase of this property. I have done my level best to try to make sure that everybody was aware of this information but I think at the very least aside from the wastewater treatment plant problems, which anybody that has been listening to any of our conversations around wastewater and EPA and the permit which is all public information, knows that we have an issue with the footprint. Anybody that has been listening for the last several years knows about the Board of Public Works and others’ desire to consolidate our operations. I don’t think those come as any real surprise. From time to time when a property becomes available for sale we do not have the luxury that we have with a 40-year lease with Mine Falls Dam to know that at some point we are going to have to look at it. They become available and you have a small window of opportunity and we have to make what we believe is the best decision for our citizens in the time allowed. Chairman Deane I think the city did that years ago when they bought Mine Falls Park, didn’t they? People were in an uproar about it and look at it today. Alderman Siegel I am supporting this for a number of reasons which hopefully Mr. Sullivan will appreciate some of this. First of all, the wastewater treatment proximity is absolutely critical because if we allow this property to go to a third party and they build on this property then we have an eminent domain problem. Hopefully if we only had to do it once it would be painful enough but what happens if we want to expand again, that’s a big problem. This building itself has a structural integrity, it’s useful and it is not a scrape. There’s probably in excess of $1 million worth of steel alone in that. In looking at some of the requests for purchases that come across the Finance Committee agenda, you’ll notice quite a number of trucks that have very low mileage but we are replacing because of rust and I believe if we looked across all of the savings we would have by not having to replace them quite as frequently I wonder how close we would come to just that alone paying for the bond interest debt. Some of these purchases are quite substantial and I think that’s a big benefit. The building itself lends itself very well towards the type of consolidation that we are talking about. We didn’t have the perfect scenario for viewing this publicly but I think we as a collective Board of Aldermen did a very good job of vetting this purchase. Unfortunately for the general public it was done in private. Alderman Schoneman I agree with the comments that have been made before and I appreciate and respect all of the questions that were asked during public comments. We would like to do a complete qualitative and quantitative analysis on everything that comes across our desk but sometimes we can’t. I share the view that wastewater treatment plant is vital to the city and in terms of the benefit to taxpayers, I can’t imagine how difficult it would be if we had a real problem with the wastewater treatment plant that we weren’t able to expand into an adjacent property. As much as this does cost money I think there is a benefit to the citizens. I share the view that there will be an extended life of the vehicles. I hope to see it in an actual extension of the retirement plan. There will be a number someday, it will be known in retrospect but I think it should be known what we save on vehicles. I think the Greeley Park clean-up is vital to the citizens of Nashua. I will support it. It is a qualitative Budget Review – 9/21/15 Page 11 analysis more than quantitative. If we do this, as far as I am concerned, we don’t do other things and I’m glad to see that some of the other projects are pushed out further. This to me is a priority over other things. Chairman Deane We have three different resolutions that we will be discussing this evening that have the possibility of appearing on tomorrow evening’s Board of Aldermen’s meeting agenda, R-15-162; R-15-167 and R-15-173. R-15-162 is relative to the re-appropriation of FY 16’ escrows and R-15-167 has to do with establishing the use of fund balances for our tax rate. MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO RETURN TO THE REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS MOTION CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL THAT THE RULES BE SO FAR SUSPENDED AS TO ALLOW FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF A COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS PREPARED MOTION CARRIED From: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Re: Proposed Amendment to Resolution R-15-162 MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE MOTION CARRIED UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-15-162 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau RELATIVE TO THE RE-APPROPRIATION OF FISCAL YEAR FY2016 ESCROWS MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO AMEND R-15-162 BY REPLACING THE ATTACHED SPREADSHEET WITH THE SPREADSHEET ATTACHED TO MAYOR LOZEAU’ S MEMO ACCEPTED EARLIER THIS EVENING; AND, BY CHANGING IN THE BODY OF THE LEGISLATION THE SUM OF $628,309 TO $738,795 MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Chairman Deane In the past we have always had all the escrows, even though there are some that are limited to what the administration could approve; the like for like and there are others that require Board of Aldermen approval have always been included and made part of this piece of legislation. This year they are not. What is the reason for that? Budget Review – 9/21/15 Page 12 Mayor Lozeau In speaking with staff and with legal it seemed like it was often confusing over which pieces were part of the past legislation versus which pieces were for your information. When the legislation came in I also provided a letter with the like escrows. You have all of the same information you just have one as attached to a memo and one as part of the resolution. Chairman Deane Why was it separated? Mayor Lozeau Because each time that we come here there is always a conversation around which ones can be changed as part of the resolution and which ones are like for like so I thought it would be helpful to provide you with a memo with the like and the prior years and here’s the unlike. We are happy to answer questions on both tonight, that’s why I sent out all of the information. Chairman Deane Is there further discussion? MOTION CARRIED R-15-167 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau ESTABLISHING THE USE OF FUND BALANCE FOR TAX RATE MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE ON THE QUESTION Chairman Deane Mr. Griffin, do you have anything to add to this? Mr. Griffin The $5.1 million suggested is the same amount as was used this past year. In addition, as part of the Mayor’s notification of surplus and overlay, the estimated appropriations not spent was $1.8 million and the revenues exceeding budget with $3.2 million for a total of $5 million. We are hoping we can do a little bit better than that as we close the books but we were comfortable with the use of $5.1 million against the tax rate. Chairman Deane We used $5.1 million last year? Mr. Griffin Correct. Chairman Deane Is there any further discussion? This too will appear tomorrow evening on our full Board agenda. Budget Review – 9/21/15 Page 13 MOTION CARRIED NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-14-017 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MERIT EMPLOYEE RULES AND REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014  Personnel Referred to Budget Review Cmte & Tabled Pending a Recommendation – 6/29/15 MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE Chairman Deane Are you ready to discuss this Mayor? I’d like to table it. This has been out since the 29th of June. Mayor Lozeau My impression was that the Personnel Committee was hopeful to have a joint meeting with the Budget Review Committee to discuss it. Either way I am happy to help. Chairman Deane It says that the Personnel referred to Budget Review Committee and tabled pending a recommendation on June 29, 2015. I’ll talk to Alderman Chasse. Mayor Lozeau Thank you. Alderman Siegel Since I am a member of both committees I know what the discussion was about. It was felt in Personnel that the merit matrix was more of a budgetary issue. I think there were some changes that we maybe wanted to have at the Budget Committee meeting. I know I personally have a problem with it. I don’t have a problem tabling it because it’s probably going to be a lengthy discussion but it’s the will of the committee. MOTION WITHDRAWN MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO TABLE MOTION CARRIED TABLED IN COMMITTEE R-14-046 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy AMENDING THE PURPOSE OF A FISCAL YEAR 2014 ESCROW FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT  Tabled – 6/30/14 Chairman Deane Didn’t we kill that? It was indefinitely postponed. Budget Review – 9/21/15 Page 14 GENERAL DISCUSSION - None PUBLIC COMMENT - None REMARKS BY THE ALDERMEN - None POSSIBLE NON-PUBLIC SESSION ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD TO ADJOURN MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared closed at 8:40 p.m. Alderman Ken Siegel Committee Clerk