Police Station Committee

Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:00 pm, Norwich City Hall, Room 319 Agenda Items/Notes/Discussion Action Items 1. Call to order-Chair Chairman David Eggleston called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. 2. Members Present/Absent-Verification of Quorum Committee Members Present: Chairman David Eggleston, Vice-Chair Karen Neeley, Scott Camassar, Susan Fiegel, Andrew Harvey, Dennis Jenkins, Larry Kendall, Robin Lawson, Keith Ripley (arrived 5:06 pm), Martin Shapiro, Derrell Wilson. Quorum: Yes, 11 members. Committee Members Absent: William Kenney, Dave Winkler Support Staff Present: Christine Averna (Recording Secretary, City Manager Alan Bergren, 3. Adoption of Minutes: August 8, 2013 Copies of the July 25, 2013 meeting minutes were distributed. Motion to adopt K. Neeley, second S. Fiegel. A. Harvey asked about the handout Motion carried unanimously with M. Shapiro abstaining. 4. Open Action Items: a) Verify with Corporation Council what information can and cannot be copied for K. Neeley will reach out distribution to the committee. (7/11/13 Meeting) D. Eggleston indicated he has not to corporation council. been able to talk to him about that. K. Neeley offered to reach out to Corporation Counsel on this. D. Eggleston accepted the offer. (Action item transferred.) b) Review Space Needs Update & Firing Range Info and formulate follow-up questions. (7/11/13 Meeting). Carried over to a future meeting. (Assigned:Committee Members) c) Research existence of additional ideas to modify the current police station site. (7/11/13 Meeting). Carried over to a future meeting. (Assigned: Deputy Chief Mocek) d) Confirm with City Council what type of report they expect in September and if a presentation is required, how much time is allotted. (7/11/13 Meeting) Done. e) Review Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) on the city website (7/25/13 Meeting). Done. f) Review the proposed Committee Project Plan for edits/additions. (7/25/13 Meeting). Initial review done; review and update as necessary. g) D. Eggleston to distribute via email another copy of the updated Space Needs Assessment comparison he distributed at the 7/25/13 meeting. (8/8/13 Meeting). Done. h) D. Eggleston drafting report for the Council presentation for committee review. (8/8/13 Meeting). Done. i) K. Neeley to email a copy of the Boat Launch Site Project document created by NCDC to the committee members. Done. j) K Neeley will send a thank you email to Robert Daniels for the potential site suggestion he submitted to the city. (8/8/13 Meeting). Done. k) Committee members should review West Haven Space Needs Assessment. (8/8/13 Meeting) Carried over to a future meeting Page 1 of 9  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes 5. Municipal Project Financing Options Panel – Joe Ruffo (Comptroller, City of Norwich), and Richard Thivierge (Managing Director, William Blair & Co). The committee engaged in a Q&A session with the financing panel guests. (Note: Q=Question, A=Answer, followed in parentheses by the name of the committee member asking the question and the name of the person answering it.) Joe Ruffo distributes a document, “Differences between Municipal Lease and Bond.” [Document available upon request.] The pros and cons are decided case by case. With leasing a board of approval is not needed so seven council members can decide to go ahead with the project and it’s not debt so there is no $800,000 limit. The funding comes from an annual operating budget in what is called a non-appropriation lease cost. D. Eggleston indicates that leasing is of interest because there is at least one developer that is interested in presenting this option to the City. J. Ruffo indicated that if there is a non- appropriation clause in the lease then that provides a cancellation provision, future funds that are not put in the budget. To him it seems like it might be a disadvantage of the fact that if there is a possibility that somebody will cancel the lease I would think there would be some kind of cost with that or some risk associated with that. That might drive up the cost a little bit so that might be a con. Q (M. Shapiro) Would there be a penalty of some sort that the City would have to pay if the City cancelled the lease? A (R. Thivierge) The outset is that when you do an essential project usually there would be a non-substitution clause. The likelihood of saying you are getting out of the police station business lessens the impact. Q (M. Shapiro) Can insurance be purchased to guarantee the payments? A (R. Thivierge) I don’t think it would be needed because you want to keep the non-appropriation aspect in there so that makes it a lease. There would be enough things in there to protect everyone. A pro of leasing is if seven Council members say yes, you start building tomorrow. Bonding is difficult due to risk of loss of a referendum and there’s a question of support and cost of promoting. A pro is that voters get to decide they want a police station but a con is the project may or may not happen. At some point the City would become the owner of the property at the end of the lease which can vary lease to lease. Q (M. Shapiro) Would taxes be paid by a private developer? A (J. Ruffo) The developer, as the owner, would be paying taxes. Q (M. Shapiro) Would the lease payment from the City factor in the taxes? A (J. Ruffo) With leasing it’s not considered debt so the City can add other debt for other capital improvements. A pro is maintenance would be defined by the lease. A lease con is that the City is not in full control, there would/could be restrictions in the lease as to what the City can and cannot do. Q (M. Shapiro) Can we define the lease maintenance we want or don’t want (roof, HVAC)? A (J. Ruffo) Yes, it’s all about negotiation. If the City owns the project we decide how much money is spent on the project, a con is that the use is restricted and change needs approval by the lessor. A lease project can be financed over 30 or 40 years whereas you can only bond over 20 years. Q (M. Shapiro) Are there police station lease models to look at?. A (J. Ruffo) New Britain. Page 2 of 9  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes Q (K. Neeley) If this were something the committee felt the City should pursue the committee can only make a recommendation, right? If the City selects it then the City would put out an RFP? A (R. Thivierge) A lease/option works better when you open it up to a broader group. Financing can be very aggressive. There is a market for this. Q (M. Shapiro) Am I hearing that a lease would be more advantageous? A (J. Ruffo) there are pros and cons of each one. A lease could have something that makes it more advantageous but there could also be disadvantages to leasing. A (R. Thivierge) a lease could be financially advantageous to the City. Private/public partnerships are becoming more popular. R. Thivierge reviewed handout he distributed to the committee: “City of Norwich, CT-Police Station Financing and Refunding Bond Opportunities, August 22, 2013” [Document available upon request.] Even though interest rates are up they’re still down overall. It is still a great time for capital expenditures. Norwich is in great standing for borrowing. The City debt capacity is in a good position. It helps if Federal Funds Rates (the borrowing rates of banks to the federal government) stay low. Fed Funds are low, Treasuries are even lower, 10 year Treasuries are even lower than tax exempts. Investing excess proceeds won’t help. Q (M. Shapiro) Does that mean that the taxes paid to the city in July won’t earn any money? A (R. Thivierge) That money will earn something but not much. It’s a good time to borrow money; not a good time to invest. The handout is in the AAA range; Norwich is in the AA category so we’re close to the AAA rates. We still do great on rates. On the last page of his handout he says to look at the BBI20 index at the bottom which sums up what he’s saying about rates. That index was 13.44 and now it’s 4.8. Q (K. Neeley) Could the low rates last year be why the City moved so quickly to put the bond on the referendum? It would have cost the taxpayers less last year than it will now. A (R. Thivierge) They didn’t know where the rates were but they were feeling that the rates were most likely going to go up. Rates are higher than they were last year but they’re sill very good. The rates had bottomed out and now they seem to be going up and the cycle will most likely continue to go up. Q (K. Ripley) How soon after the referendum is passed are the bonds placed? A (R. Thivierge) It depends on the methodology used traditional bond financing or the COLT concept. We try to get to the market ASAP based on the low rates. A lot has to do with are we doing another project we might try to combine with. We do have some legal restrictions with traditional bond financing with arbitrage and arbitrage rebate. You want to be in the situation where we are sure to expend 85% of the proceeds in 3 years. Otherwise we would have to look at some kind of arbitrage or yield restriction. Q (M. Shapiro) Isn’t this information more than the committee needs? A (D. Eggleston) No, as a committee we’re trying to understand how much borrowing money is going to cost the average tax payer; trying to understand the value of knocking the price down, to see if that really makes a difference. R. Thivierge directs attendees pages 10, 11, and 12 of his handout showing financing options of $30M at current rates; showing a level principal (paying off same amount of principal every year) in the first one. This is the least expensive long term but it’s going to have the biggest impact on an annual basis. This is cheaper over the length of the term but the short term impact is greater. This is more traditional. Page 3 of 9  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes D. Eggleston indicates the city’s budget is $100M a year and this option shows $1.5M in principal (total $2.8M) so it’s almost 3% higher initially. R. Thivierge indicates you can’t just look at this because you have debt coming off at the same time. In terms of the principal and interest in this example, these are current rates as of today. R. Thievierge further indicates another way of looking at the debt is you’re paying more of the budget up front so can we lessen the budget over time. A way to do that within CT statute is level debt service. Level principal and interest, which is like a home mortgage (2nd option shown). The advantage to this is you lower your cost on an annual basis but the disadvantage is the bottom line increased your bottom line. M. Shapiro indicates that actually it isn’t true because you’ll be paying with cheaper dollars with inflation. R. Thivierge agrees that, yes, you can make that argument. The last option shown is COLT or long term lease project and two advantages are you can have lower principal and interest payments and even though shown on a straight line basis we can tailor the payments so we have less payments up in front (back- end load the loan) so you’re not under the same restrictions as a bond. If you want less impact in the first few years you have more flexibility because you’re not under the state statutes. The example shows 40 years and that is usually limited by the useful life of the project so if it’s built correctly the useful life of a police station will be very long. Q (D. Eggleston) Since we’re the lessee would these be the costs on the developer? A (R. Thivierge) The answer to this would be in the next section of the handout; “COLT comes to Norwich”. COLT stands for “comprehensive long term lease.” COLT is when the whole project is done under one umbrella – design/build/finance/and operate – all in the private sector and you make lease payments. Some of the problems of the traditional bond approach have been when you go and do them separately, the architect or whoever designs it, they do it independently. They do their work, they give you the plans, and it’s built. Whether or not it’s functional doesn’t matter because they’ve got their money and they’re gone. The contractor comes in and he builds the project to the architects design but he’s going to try to get through and do as much as he can to keep his costs down, hence change orders. He gets his money and builds it and he’s not looking into the future. Then you have to maintain the project, and with municipal projects usually the first budget thing that gets cut is maintenance. What we’re trying to do with this COLT is to combine so you bring all the people to have some skin in the game. If it’s design built then they can’t walk away then they have to make sure they do it right. If it’s construction he has to make sure he does it right because he’s not going away. With the maintenance aspect they have to maintain the facility. It’s what we call availability payment. If any of those elements don’t meet your specs (yes, this gets into contract law) you don’t’ make the payment. So you do the lease payments only if the facility is available to you under your specs and maintained to your specs. So that’s the advantage to doing it. It’s subject to appropriation so obviously you’re not going to appropriate the money if it isn’t available to you. The company I work for currently has a couple of COLT proposals out. The New Britain police station was mentioned previously as an example. That was done design/build but the maintenance aspect was not part of it and the funding was not part of it because they got federal funding under the BABS program (build America bonds). It was part of the recovery act then there was a federal subsidy to the bonds. Since that time the subsidy has been cut. This would include the financing in this package. We used a pretty low interest rate in the COLT example here because we think that the private developer working with the City could probably get tax exempt rates. We’re doing a project with the State of CT these days for the Bass Pro Fishing outfit in Bridgeport as part of their economic development and we’ll probably get tax exemption on that. There are ways even a private developer can take advantage of the tax exempt rates. Page 4 of 9  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes Q (S. Camassar) What are the disadvantages with COLT? A (R. Thivierge): One disadvantage is higher costs. The long term bottom line it’s going to cost you more money. The other disadvantage could be if things don’t work out you could be facing legal litigation but you could run into legal litigation under the traditional methods as well. Q (K. Neeley) How do both financing methods hit the tax payer wallet? A (R. Thivierge) Look at section 5 of his handout (Norwich Debt Profile, last page) which outlines all the debt for the City of Norwich to see the impact on the taxpayer. When we look at aggressive debt retirement (retiring 50% of your debt in 10 years) ten years is 2024 and 78% of the city’s is retired so this tells me as a financial analyst that you have extremely fast debt retirement so you’re either wealthy (rapidly paying debt off or you’re paying cash), or you’re not doing necessary capital improvements. With that rapid debt retirement and capacity to take on more debt and rates so low the City needs to take on additional debt. Q (K. Neeley) What do you mean by “we’re not making enough capital improvements”? How does this affect the way the City is perceived if we’re not investing in ourselves? A (R. Thivierge) Sooner or later you’re going to have to do it. You’re not a business. You can’t close the doors. You have capital needs. You have to maintain the City. Q (K. Neeley) How does a bond or a lease affects the mill rate? Would you be concerned how bonding or a lease would affect what we have to pay out of our (taxpayers’) pocket? You’ve proposed two different pathways – a bond or a lease. A lease doesn’t have to be approved by the taxpayers. However, it’s going to give the City debt of some kind. Somewhere along the way the budget is going to have to increase. The income for the City is going to have to increase to pay that lease. Is that going to increase taxes? A (R. Thivierge) This is where it would be an advantage having a lease. If we do a COLT we have the ability to back-end load those payments. If you’re concerned with budget impact in the first five years we can structure it so there’s no impact or lesser impact (provided the landlord accepts that). Q (K. Neeley) So eventually someone is going to pay? Q( D. Eggleston) If you look at it the way it’s laid out in the handout and all things being equal and if the City’s expenses stay the same every year when you look at the three ways it is presented, the net increase to the budget would have to be that debt service column? A (R. Thivierge) Iit would actually be slightly less because you have debt service coming off. J. Ruffo distributed another handout-“Police Station Bond Ordinance-Monday August 6, 2012” [Document available upon request.]. indicating that it was handed out at the first go- around with the police station budget referendum last year. In his opinion what got the voters is the front page where the tax on $100,000 home was increasing to a high of $124 for the 4th year and on the back of the handout is where the debt layers go on and then go down. Either way there is a cost. R. Thivierge adds that these debt figures don’t include the $5M that’s going to come forward in November if the bond referendum for the Public Works Department passes. Q (D. Eggleston) It appears that the lease option on an annual basis year-by-year costs you less out of pocket (but you’re paying it longer) so the debt service is paid longer and we pay a little more taxes in the long run for a longer period of time. But, on an annual basis is the impact is less by leasing? M. Shapiro indicates it is almost certain that in a 40 year lease period that we’re going to be paying with cheaper dollars in the last third or last half if you take inflation into account. Page 5 of 9  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes Q (K. Ripley) Isn’t the burden to taxpayers the same when paying off bonds? M. Shapiro indicates, maybe, but since bonds=20 year, lease=40 year the impact is less in 20 years; it seems like we want to transfer the risk to the developer. We want a fixed deal for a long period of time and we have to find a developer who is willing to accept the risk, especially if we want to include maintenance in it. A (R. Thivierge) Lease/options is new to the US but is used in Canada and Europe a lot. He’s making more of these presentations because of the things he has outlined. M. Shapiro indicates that the postal service has been using it for a long time. He knows developers in FL who have bid on postal stations in new communities that will be leased to the Federal government so there is a model there that has been around for quite a while. It’s less complicated and the building is more reusable. A police station gets more complicated because there aren’t many alternative uses for something that big and that specially constructed. R. Thivierge indicates that you have special needs that you put in there but that’s the attraction to someone because they know you’re going to make those payments because you’re not going to walk away from it. M. Shapiro indicates he is surprised that the City only has $30M in debt. We’re not, unlike the federal government and the state government, burdened. We don’t have a tremendous burden of debt service and yet our mill rate, the cost of operating the government, is not being dramatically influenced for things that we’ve already borrowed so it must be being influenced by something else. J. Ruffo indicated that there is a book in the Finance office that explains what influences the mill rate. Q (D. Eggleston) These are hypothetical numbers here but when you look at the numbers in the lease option column it could be as much as a third less? K. Neeley indicated these are historical numbers. What would have happened then? M. Shapiro indicated he believes the committees obligation is still to rationalize the size of the facility that we need, decide whether it can be provided in a series of buildings, being able to put it on already owned City property or already tax exempt property so the City doesn’t lose tax payments from an existing owner and at a number that we think will be attractive to either the public as a bond or as a build and lease proposition. This is interesting information about what will happen after we finish but it doesn’t’ seem to change our mission and doesn’t particularly influence our mission. Q (K. Neeley) Couldn’t part of our mission be to recommend that the Council pursue a lease over a bond? M. Shapiro believes it is over the committees’ pay-grade. K. Ripley doesn’t believe it is within the committees’ scope. A. Harvey agrees he doesn’t think it’s within the committees’ scope to make a recommendation on how the City finances the project. D. Eggleston agrees that we may or may not have a recommendation on that and we may never reach a consensus as a committee so it will not be a recommendation but the discussion was useful because it tells him that if we take this from $33M to $20M, not that he thinks $20M will be achievable, he knows what that means to a homeowner. It informs him the impact we will have and the value of squeezing square footage out of our needs assessment. K. Neeley indicated she calculated the impact on the mill rate for her taxes for last year’s police station project; in the 4th year of the bond it would have cost her an additional $165/year in taxes or roughly $15 a month. It was the cost of a really large pizza. That’s why she couldn’t understand from what she was learning why it was problematic because she could have foregone a pizza every month for a police station. S. Camassar indicated that goes back to how the City communicated how the bond would affect taxes. It was just presented as take it or leave it and a lot of people looked at the bottom line number and it looked extravagant. The decision makers were low information voters; they didn’t have any idea about the Page 6 of 9  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes information we just learned. He further indicated that he learned a tremendous amount of information over the last few meetings that he had no idea about. A lot of the people making the decision had no idea really where all this was going to go. R. Thivierge added the following perspective: We’ve had the lowest interest rates and a lot of communities were in the same position where debt has come down because they haven’t been addressing capital projects. There was this constant theme of we can’t afford anything. It was a negative vibe throughout the state. He has used Norwich as it is a very good case because his understanding is that this station is looking to be replaced because it was built too small and inadequate in the first place in the 60’s and 70’s. That can be understood because at the time you had the pressures of inflation and high interest rates. We now are in the unique situation where we have the perception of not being able to do something but we have low inflation and low interest rates. Q (K. Ripley) In R. Thivierge’s handout, what do figures mean where it says it included water debt? It says there is a large anticipated figure for clean water. Is that reflected on here? A (J. Ruffo) We get reimbursed for the NPU expenditures. We include it in our debt but we get revenue back from them. It’s a wash. Q (M. Shapiro) What about a recent bond issue for local grid upgrades? Is that included in the city’s bond debt figures? A (J. Ruffo) We passed an $8M referendum for grid upgrades and it will be bonded when we need it. It will be paid by the utility. It is not included in this. A (A. Bergren) By using general obligation bonds we were able to help get a lower rate. Q (M. Shapiro) Why we can’t keep all that separate? We want to see what affects the mill rate. A (R. Thivierge) All self sustaining debt is in the last section of his handout. Q (K. Neeley) How does our not having debt affect our rating as a municipality in terms of what we want to accomplish financially? A (A. Bergren) Too much debt can affect you negatively having too little means you’re not investing in your assets and your city will eventually fall apart. If your City is falling apart no one will invest in your City. Moody’s will assess on wealth, population, and many other factors; how you’re managed, continuity of projects. They’ll also do a personal review or interview and rate you on how well you manage your City. If you’re not investing and not cash rich they will lower your rating. They want to see that we are protecting our City for future generations. A (R. Thivierge) The best example of a city that did not re-invest in itself is Detroit which is now filing for bankruptcy. They can’t get police protection, fire protection, or running water. Q (M. Shapiro) What is the City’s bond capacity, $150 million? $180 million? A (R. Thivierge) You can’t put an absolute number on it, it’s better to give percentages. When debt service gets to be above 10% of the budget it is now eating into the rest of your budget. When it gets below 5% we now ask what you aren’t addressing. Q (M. Shapiro) What is our debt service at now? A (J. Ruffo) We are at 4%. A (R. Thivierge) The City is in a position where it really needs to address capital needs. A (A. Bergren) There is a staff capital planning committee to look at all the City’s assets and what needs to be replaced. For example sewers are needed to operate a business. But you don’t want to pave roads over pipes that will need to be worked on J. Ruffo, R. Thivierge, and A. Bergren left at 6:36 pm. Page 7 of 9  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes 6. Review of Report to City Council for September 3rd D. Eggleston turned the committee’s attention to the draft report for the Council. S. Camassar is unclear about the discussion that was in the minutes of the 8/8/13 meeting as to what we would be hiring NCDC to do for us, why we would pay them and how it might fit into the report to the council; we are volunteers. D. Eggleston indicated the City pays a finite amount to NCDC. The Council has recently asked them for a scope of work but it appears that help with a site assessment report we might consider using them for would not be in their current scope of work. K. Neeley believes it would be of value to take every site identified and have NCDC help us do an analysis of each site (similar to the report they created for the Harbor Commission; Boat Launch Site Evaluation). Jason Vincent could work with us to help us with our scoring and rating. He has done it before. She believes they can fast track us since they’ve done this type of analysis before and we haven’t. She further indicated that we don’t want to incur a cost for the City. But, it might be within our purview to determine if it would be of value to have a consultant help us create a report that shows the number of sites that we have compiled on our list and how each site was evaluated; whether it was ranked a good site or not. D. Wilson clarified for S. Camassar that the discussion at the last meeting was not only the possibility of utilizing the professionals at NCDC for that task but also using NCDC to help us create effective communication to the public. After they give us the outline of how to do the rating they could help us compile that report so it was in language that could be easily understood. R. Lawson indicated she is not in favor of spending more of the taxpayers’ money. D. Jenkins indicated that if the City wanted NCDC to do this they would have given it to them. They gave us the task to do it so why are we going to pay them to do it? K. Neeley indicated that just because asking for help is not in our mission doesn’t mean it isn’t part of our scope to request additional help. K. Ripley indicated that any discussion or consideration of getting professional assistance from NCDC should not be included in the report to the council because we’re not there yet. D. Eggleston agrees that he will not include it in the report at this time. M. Shapiro held up the copy of the Boat Launch Site Evaluation that NCDC created for Harbor Commission and indicated that at some point something like this report will likely have to be generated to show how we evaluated/rated potential sites. It may be in our scope when we’re ready to do the report. K. Ripley indicated the draft report to the council by D. Eggleston was very well done. It shows the work we are doing. K. Neeley indicates that the wording for the clarification of our mission in the draft report should be stricken; incorrect mission on agenda template was a typo. Q (M. Shapiro) When is the report before the Council? A (D. Eggleston) September 3rd. K. Ripley believes that as many committee members as possible should attend. K. Neeley indicates that due to work commitments she will not be able to attend. Q (M. Shapiro) Is the committee in danger of being dismissed by the new Council and Mayor? A (D. Eggleston) No. Page 8 of 9  Police Station Project Review Committee Meeting Minutes D. Eggleston asks if he is correct in stating that the committee will be ready to report more to D. Eggleston will the Council in January/February. D. Wilson likes the report. This is our chance to clarify after forward a revised copy that article in The Day where the reporter did not include many of our question and answer of the report to points which address the public questions. A. Harvey asks if D. Eggleston will send out a everyone. revised copy of the report. D. Eggleston indicated that he will. M. Shapiro motions to accept the report with the anticipated changes. A. Harvey seconds. The motion passed unanimously. (Action Item Generated.) 7. New Business K. Ripley shared some information he discovered after a recent visit to the current police station lobby; he saw that it has a name. It was named for Chief Krzywicki. There’s a plaque by the front door. At the time, Walter Way was on the Council and he did a report having to do with rehabilitation and development of the west side. Apparently, the police station is in the location it’s at because this report said the fire department and police department should be there. The locating of the Police Department was phase one. Chief Fusaro’s Dad was a council member at that time. Mr. Way at the time put forth a recommendation based on a petition with 300 names that the police station be put in the Sears Building, downtown. There was no second on that motion. R. Lawson indicated she remembers growing up in Norwich that the Norwich Redevelopment Commission, at the time, bought up property and they put in low to moderate income housing and the police station went in. K. Ripley indicated they planned this at the time and this was thought to be where the expansion would be. R. Lawson indicated that still doesn’t explain why the police station is where it is and that the problem with the redevelopment concept is they bought the properties (at fair market value) and many were renters who then were displaced and moved away. D. Jenkins indicated that was the promise of redeveloping the west side. D. Eggleston indicated he likes the objective way we are going about our mission. 8. Confirmation of Next Meeting Date Thursday, September 12, 2013, 5-7 pm, Room 335, Norwich City Hall 9. Adjournment Motion to adjourn, D. Jenkins, 2nd Scott Camassar, meeting adjourned at 7:05 PM. Page 9 of 9