Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 1/20/2004 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP January 20, 2004 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Jon Paladini, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. PROPOSED SALARY INCREASES FOR EMPLOYEES CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Alma Carmicle, Human Resources Assistant Director and Ms Sherry Schurhammer, Budget Director. This is a request for City Council to review the city's executive management recommendation to provide employees with a 3% one-time increase that is not limited to an employee's pay range. The one time cost will be $2,079,000 for the General Fund, with the total cost for all funds, including the General Fund, being $2,744,000. Proposed FY03-04 salary increases for employees were discussed with City Council during FY03-04 budget discussions on May 6 and May 20, 2003. At that time, City Council asked staff to return in January 2004 to revisit this issue. City Council reiterated this request when the 1st quarter General Fund report was presented on November 18, 2003. At the July 15, 2003, workshop. Council agreed that specific economic indicators should be reviewed at the same time the FY03-04 salary issue would be considered. The economic indicators, and their current status, are discussed in the following bullets: • New retail centers: All new retail centers included in the FY03-04 city sales tax revenue budget opened early or on time, except for the Village at Arrowhead (AJs), which opened about two months late in May 2003, and Northern Crossing, which is expected to open in March 2004, about six months later than planned. • City sales tax revenue: For the first five months of FY02-03 (July through 1 November), city sales tax actuals totaled $16.7 million. For the same period in FY03-04, city sales tax receipts totaled $20.6 million, or 23% more than the same period last fiscal year. The FY03-04 budget for city sales tax revenues for July through November is $18.4 million, so actual receipts of $20.6 million are $2.2 million more than expected. • State-shared revenues: For the first five months of FY02-03 (July through November), state-shared revenues totaled $20.8 million ($20,798,000). For the same period in FY03-04, city sales tax receipts totaled $19.1 million (19,098,000), or 8.2% less than the same period in FY02-03. The primary reason for the decline from FY02-03 is lower state-income tax receipts. This decline was expected and is reflected in the FY03-04 revenue budget for state- shared revenues. In fact, state-shared revenues for July through November 2003 are $312,000 more than expected: the revenue budget for July through November is $18.8 million ($18,786,000), and actual receipts are $19.1 million ($19,098,000). • Expenditures: At the end of FY02-03, $12.6 million in General Fund savings was achieved through reduced spending on salaries and benefits, non-personnel items like contractual services, pay-as-you-go capital projects, replacement fund contributions, and carryover. Some specific FY02-03 savings to note are $3.3 million in salaries and benefits and $4.3 million in non-personnel costs. At the end of the first quarter of FY03-04, $1.1 million in General Fund savings was achieved through reduced spending on salaries and benefits as a result of vacant positions. Also, the Blue Cross Blue Shield contract for FY03-04 is costing $1.6 million less than expected as a result of contract negotiations last spring. Therefore, this fiscal year's budget for health care costs is $12.6 million rather than $14.2 million. • New housing starts: The number of permits for the construction of new, single- family homes is down from last fiscal year for July through November, from 367 in FY02-03 to 276 in FY03-04. However, overall permit activity is up from last fiscal year, as indicated in the total number of permits issued for July through November. In FY02-03, there were 2,623 permits issued for the 5-month period. In FY03-04, there were 2,691 permits issued for the same time period. In addition, the revenue from development permits and fees is $2.2 million ($2,250,000) in FY03-04 for July through November, or about $100,000 more than the $2.1 million ($2,147,500) expected for this time period. The one time cost will be $2,079,000 for the General Fund, with the total cost for all funds, including the General Fund, being $2,744,000. 2 The funds for this one-time expense will be drawn from the fund balance from the General Fund and Enterprise Funds. The FY03-04 budget for city sales tax revenues for July through November is $18.4 million, so actual receipts of $20.6 million are $2.2 million more than expected. At the end of the first quarter of FY03-04, $1.1 million in General Fund savings was achieved through reduced spending on salaries and benefits as a result of vacant positions. Also, the Blue Cross Blue Shield contract for FY03-04 is costing $1.6 million less than expected as a result of contract negotiations last spring. Therefore, this fiscal year's budget for health care costs is $12.6 million rather than $14.2 million. A transfer of General Fund contingency appropriation authority is required, as is a transfer of funds from the General Fund's fund balance for the portion of the increase to be covered by the General Fund. A transfer of contingency appropriation authority from the respective enterprise funds is required, as is a transfer of funds from the respective enterprise funds for the portion of the increase to be covered by the respective enterprise fund. The recommendation was to provide staff direction on the proposed 3% one-time increase for city employees. Ms. Schurhammer began the presentation with a discussion of the criteria that staff suggested for an evaluation of the city's economic health per the July 15, 2003, workshop. One criterion is the status of new retail centers. Ms. Schurhammer reported that all new retail centers included in the FY03-04 General Fund revenue budget had opened early or on-time, thus generating the expected revenue. There were two exceptions. While the Village at Arrowhead (AJs) opened 2 months late in May 2003, it has generated sales tax revenues since the start of FY03-04. The other exception is the Northern Crossing development, which is expected to open in March 2004, about 6 months later than planned. City Council Councilmember Lieberman pointed out the city lost one of its largest auto dealers in November. Ms. Schurhammer stated the revenue budget for this fiscal year took into consideration this fact. Councilmember Lieberman asked what the city expects to lose in terms of sales tax revenue as a result of losing Earnhardt. Mr. Lynch explained that information is not for public disclosure. Councilmember Lieberman said, while he will not argue the point, he believes the information should be disclosed to the public. Ms. Schurhammer clarified the revenue attributable to the dealership was backed out of the numbers being presented. A second criterion is the city sales tax receipts and whether they were coming in as expected per the GF revenue budget. Ms. Schurhammer reported that new retail actuals are 35.5% ($385,000) higher than expected and telecom actuals are 8% 3 ($100,000) higher than expected. She stated three month actuals generated by the elimination of the exemption residential rental housing totaled $91,000 as opposed to the $100,500 expected. In response to Councilmember Goulet's question, Ms. Schurhammer said the Northern Crossing development's phasing schedule was taken into consideration when they projected revenue for Northern Crossings for this fiscal year. A third criterion is state-shared revenue receipts and whether they were coming in as expected per the GF revenue budget. Ms. Schurhammer confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the state shared revenue numbers reflect the current distribution rate of 14.8% . She said the rate is expected to return to 15% with the new fiscal year. Councilmember Clark asked if the arena developer is responsible for paying all development fees associated with construction of the arena. Mr. Beasley responded yes. Councilmember Martinez asked how staff arrived at the budgeted amount for residential rental housing revenue and why that budget was not met. Mr. Lynch explained some individuals and corporations reported late due to a misunderstanding about the implementation date. In addition, it has taken a few months to notify all owners of the affected residential rental housing units. A fourth criterion is the new housing permit activity. While the number of permits for the construction of new, single-family homes is down from last fiscal year for July through November, from 367 in FY02-03 to 276 in FY03-04. However, overall permit activity is up from last fiscal year, as indicated in the total number of permits issued for July through November. In FY02-03, there were 2,623 permits issued for the 5-month period. In FY03-04, there were 2,691 permits issued for the same time period. In addition, the revenue from development permits and fees is $2.2 million ($2,250,000) in FY03-04 for July through November, or about $100,000 more than the $2.1 million ($2,147,500) expected for this time period. The fifth criterion is the amount of expenditure savings generated last fiscal year and this fiscal year. Ms. Schurhammer stated that at the end of FY02-03, $12.6 million in General Fund savings was achieved through reduced spending on salaries and benefits, non-personnel items like contractual services, pay-as-you-go capital projects, replacement fund contributions, and carryover. Some specific FY02-03 savings to note are $3.3 million in salaries and benefits and $4.3 million in non-personnel costs. At the end of the first quarter of FY03-04, $1 .1 million in General Fund savings was achieved through reduced spending on salaries and benefits as a result of vacant positions. Also, the Blue Cross Blue Shield contract for FY03-04 is costing $1.6 million less than expected as a result of contract negotiations last spring. Therefore, this fiscal year's budget for health care costs is $12.6 million rather than $14.2 million. 4 Councilmember Clark asked about the $12.6 million in General Fund expenditure savings in FY02-03, and whether it that amount was intended to offset revenues not received last year. Ms. Schurhammer explained that $9 million in expenditure savings was the goal, whereas $12.6 million in expenditure savings was generated, or $3.6 million more than was needed. Ms. Carmicle discussed the recommendation for a 3%, one-time lump sum payment for employees that would not be limited by pay range. As a one-time payment, it would not be a permanent adjustment to employee pay. To be eligible for the one-time lump sum payment an employee must have met performance standards (as measured by the employee's most recent performance evaluation). If the employee is new to his/her current position, then the employee must first successfully pass probation. Temporary and contract employees are not eligible for the one-time lump sum payment. The total cost for the 3%, one-time lump sum payment is estimated to be $2,079,000 for the General Fund, and $2,744,000 for all funds, including the General Fund. Councilmember Clark asked what other funds will be utilized to fund the proposed increase. Ms. Schurhammer stated funds will be drawn from the General Fund fund balance, as well as the Water and Sewer Fund fund balance, the Sanitation Fund fund balance, the Landfill Fund fund balance, Fund 25's fund balance, etc. Councilmember Goulet asked if the salary increase is based on the number of months an employee has worked. Ms. Carmicle explained employees are required to complete their probationary period before being eligible for the increase. She said the increase is based on an employee's annual salary and prorated for those employees who have not worked for the city for a full 12 months. Ms. Carmicle confirmed for Councilmember Martinez that the increase will be given to all employees who meet the eligibility criteria and performance standards. She said payment will be made to all employees, except Public Safety employees, on February 13, 2004. She explained the increase will have to be paid out in increments for Public Safety employees. [After the January 20, 2004, workshop, it was determined that Public Safety employees would be paid on February 13, 2004, along with all other City employees.] Ms. Schurhammer clarified the increase is a one-time payment and will not be built into an employee's base pay. Councilmember Goulet asked if other methods were considered that would give long- time employees a larger percentage increase. He also asked why February 13 was selected as the date for payment. Mr. Beasley said Council originally asked staff to return to Council on this issue at the beginning of the calendar year. He stated February 13 was the first pay period they could feasibly get it done should Council 5 decide to move forward. Mayor Scruggs asked if any consideration was given to doing two payouts, one on February 13 and a second in June for those who continue to be employed by the city. Mr. Beasley said that option was not considered, but could be looked at if the Council so desires. He said the intent of the 3% increase was to help make up for the money employees lost as a result of the increase in state retirement. Councilmember Frate expressed his opinion that the total amount available for the increase should be divided by the number of employees, with part-time employees receiving half the amount given to a full-time employee, to ensure the bonus is the same amount for each employee. Ms. Carmicle explained the increase was not intended to be a bonus, but a lump sum merit increase. She pointed out a part-time employee will receive half the amount afforded to a full-time employee because their salaries are half that of full-time employees. She said Councilmember Frate's suggestion would be considered a stability pay increase. Ms. Carmicle continued by stating that best practices within the industry recommend the method proposed by staff as the best means of administering the increase. Councilmember Frate disagreed. Ms. Carmicle explained that paying everyone the same amount would change the relationship between those hired to manage and those hired to perform at other levels. She noted a recently completed market survey indicated that salaries of clerical employees were above the market, while the salaries of department directors and executives were below the market. She said paying everyone the same amount would not necessarily eliminate inequities. Councilmember Clark stated the proposed one-time compensation offsets the 3.2% increase in state retirement costs. She said, while new employees will benefit from the increase as much as long term employees, they are also the first to be let go during hard times. She stated she has faith that staff drafted the proposed increase in the most equitable manner possible. She expressed her opinion that the increase should be paid in one lump sum, rather than in two or more increments. Mayor Scruggs voiced Council's consensus to proceed with the 3% one-time lump sum increase for city employees as recommended by staff. She expressed her opinion that staff's recommendation is appropriate since it was intended to be a merit increase rather than a bonus. Councilmember Goulet said he also supports the increase because of the tremendous efforts employees made to help the city save money during difficult times. Councilmember Clark agreed, stating the increase is a small way for the city to thank employees for their efforts to achieve cost savings. She said departments throughout the city were asked to do more last year with even fewer resources. 6 Mayor Scruggs said it was very difficult not to give employees a pay increase last year and she has been very impressed with the employees' willingness to understand the situation. 2. CITY OF GLENDALE'S PROPOSED 2004 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Miryam Gutier, Intergovernmental Relations Director. This is a request for the City Council to provide direction on the 2004 City of Glendale's state legislative agenda. This is the first legislative update for 2004. The proposed Glendale 2004 state legislative agenda specifies the city's state legislative priorities for the year and guides the city's lobbying activities at the Arizona State Legislature. Upon City Council approval of a legislative agenda, staff will work with members of the legislature to acquaint them with the city's priorities. The proposed 2004 state legislative agenda includes measures to provide municipal financial stability by communicating with the Legislature and the Governor on the importance of state shared revenue to Glendale. The Council goal of promoting economic development is addressed by working to preserve the mission viability of Luke Air Force Base. The estimated economic impact from Luke each year to the state is $1.4 billion. The proposed 2004 state legislative agenda promotes the Council goal of creating transportation options by working to maintain existing revenue streams for transportation. This includes efforts to extend the current half-cent sales tax for transportation. The proposed 2004 state legislative agenda includes provisions to advocate for and against legislative issues that impact Glendale's efforts to enhance the quality of life for Glendale residents. The proposed City of Glendale 2004 state legislative agenda reflects an updated version of the city's 2003 state legislative agenda and is consistent with the Arizona League of Cities and Towns' 2004 legislative agenda. On January 12, 2004 the 46th Arizona State Legislature convened its second regular session. The legislature will face a budget deficit of approximately 500 million dollars for fiscal year 2005. Given the difficult financial circumstances the state is now facing, the Intergovernmental Programs Department proposes to focus the 2004 legislative agenda on a few key issues. This enables the city to provide a stronger, more consistent message on the issues of greatest priority. Those priorities include the protection of 7 state shared revenues, sustainability of Luke AFB's mission, and legislative authority to place the extension of the half-cent sales tax for a regional multi-modal transportation plan for Maricopa County on the ballot. Each January the Intergovernmental Programs Department seeks Council approval of the city's state legislative agenda. Departmental legislative liaisons and department heads are being notified of proposed legislation that may affect their respective areas of city administration and are being asked to provide comments, on potential impacts to the Intergovernmental Programs Department. The key principles of Glendale's legislative agenda are to preserve and enhance the city's ability to deliver quality and cost-effective services to Glendale citizens and visitors, to address quality of life issues for Glendale citizens, and to enhance the City Council's ability to serve Glendale citizens by retaining local decision making authority and maintaining fiscally balanced revenue sources. The recommendation was to provide staff direction on 2004 state legislative issues. Ms. Gutier stated the Governor's Office estimates a shortfall in the state budget of approximately $310 million and the Joint Legislative Committee approximates the shortfall to be $500 million. She said, to date, they do not see any impact to state shared revenues in any of the proposals to handle the deficit, however, efforts could be made to impact state shared revenues during this legislative session. She explained state shared revenues provide at least one-third of the city's General Fund money. She said the city made a deal with leaders of the Senate, House and Governor's Office in 2002, wherein the city temporarily reduced its share of state shared revenue to 14.8 percent for FY 2002/03 and 2003/04. She said, therefore, the city's share should revert back to 15 percent this year. She stated, while there have been commitments from the Governor and the Senate President that the city's share will, in fact, return to 15 percent, a proposal may be submitted asking the city to continue at the 14.8 percent level. She pointed out the impact of the reduction over the two year period was approximately $590,000. She recommended the Council oppose any cuts in state shared revenue unless an equalizing revenue source is made available to cities and towns. Councilmember Lieberman expressed concern that the legislature will, in fact, attempt to cut the city's state shared revenue. Ms. Gutier agreed, stating the city needs to do what it can to hold the Legislature to their agreement that the reduction would be temporary. Mayor Scruggs noted she will meet with the Speaker of the House, Jake Flake, as president of the League of Cities and Towns to deliver the message from all cities and towns in Arizona that the Legislature needs to keep its promise. Ms. Gutier noted Glendale's state shared revenue was 15.8 percent in 1997. Ms. Gutier recommended Council oppose any attempt to limit local taxing authority, explaining two committees, the Arizona Citizens for Tax Reform Committee (ACTRC) and the Arizona Citizen Finance Review Commission (ACFRC), are looking at taxing structures for cities and towns. She said the ACTRC has concluded its meetings, 8 however, its draft recommendations have not yet been approved. Mayor Scruggs noted she was a municipal member on the ACTRC. With regard to Councilmember Clark's question, Ms. Gutier said legislators typically take the recommendations forward and introduce bills. She noted some of the proposals include property tax issues and sales tax factors. Mayor Scruggs explained Representative Steve May originally created the ACTRC, however, it was reestablished this year with Senator Dean Martin and Representative Steve Huffman as co-chairs. She stated meetings were held once a month and included presentations from various industries. Ms. Gutier said, while no recommendations have been approved, Representative Huffman and Senator Martin will be introducing legislation based on the recommendations. Mayor Scruggs said one of the more interesting draft recommendations would cap the city's sales tax unless approved by the voters. Ms. Gutier explained the County's recommendation was to lower the voting thresholds from a super-majority to a simple majority for the County Board of Supervisors to increase property taxes. Councilmember Lieberman asked Ms. Gutier if she anticipates an attempt to do away with some of the 2000 sales tax privilege exemptions. Ms. Gutier was unable to say, stating they anticipate another 500 to 600 bills to be introduced before the first week of February. She assured Councilmember Lieberman that any bills with significant impacts to the city will be brought to Council. Ms. Gutier said the Governor established the ACFRC in 2003 with the goal of focusing on the long term economic and revenue stimulus package. She stated the committee came up with draft recommendations, however, the Governor has decided not to do anything with the recommendations this year. Councilmember Clark voiced her support of staff's recommendation to oppose any attempts to limit local taxing authority. Ms. Gutier discussed proposed legislature that could impact the viability of Luke Air Force Base. She said the economic impact of Luke Air Force Base to the state is approximately $1.4 billion, not including the national security interest and retirement benefits. She explained a number of efforts have been made over the past several years to secure Luke Air Force Base's future, including the creation of a Military Facilities Task Force. She said the Chief Elected Officials Advisory Group, lead by Mayor Scruggs, was charged with developing recommendations from the counties', cities' and towns' perspectives. She said 25 recommendations came forward as part of the final report, all of which were approved by the Governor. She said some of the recommendations require legislative action, some require federal action and some are simply resolutions asking cities and towns to address issues related to military airports. She identified key areas of the recommendations as being: 1) to expand the ability of counties to better manage growth and development of the areas impacted and affected by military installations; 2) to expand the definition of military airport; 3) to add notification requirements to public documents that make purchasers and lessees aware that their property is in the vicinity of a military installation; and 4) to create a Military Assistance Fund. 9 In response to Councilmember Clark's question, Ms. Gutier explained the recommendation to expand the ability of counties to better manage growth and development would allow them to better manage lot splits. She said there is also a recommendation that cities and counties recognize all of the military installations in their general and comprehensive plan processes in hopes that they will abide by existing policies. Councilmember Clark asked Ms. Gutier about Auxiliary Field 1 (Aux. 1). Ms. Gutier explained approximately 12,000 flights go over Aux. 1 every year as pilots train on instrument approaches. She stated a task force was established and a regional compatibility study is underway to look at the issue of encroachment on Aux. 1. She stated another important auxiliary field is located in Gila Bend, noting neither field is covered under the definition of a military airport. She agreed that protection of the auxiliary fields in terms of encroachment issues is almost as important as protecting against encroachment along the southern departure route. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the planes will not be able to take off with bombs if encroachment of the southern departure route continues. She said the loss of Aux. 1 would result in planes flying as low as 500 feet over Peoria and Glendale. She stated, while Luke has not talked much about Aux. 1 in the past, development has started to encroach on the field. She pointed out there are situations wherein planes need to be ditched, pointing out there are an average of three crashes per year. She said auxiliary fields provide pilots with an empty space in which to ditch their plane if necessary. Ms. Gutier agreed. Councilmember Clark pointed out that many active members of the military do not pay Arizona Income Tax. Ms. Gutier explained the proposal would divert five percent of money already going to the State General Fund to the Military Assistance Fund. Mayor Scruggs clarified members of the military do not contribute to the fund personally. Ms. Gutier noted the state will put $1 million into the Military Assistance Fund this year, with the diversion starting in FY 2005. Vice Mayor Eggleston voiced his support of the Military Assistance Fund, stating the revenue stream will allow counties, cities and towns to preserve surrounding lands. Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's support of all 25 recommendations. Ms. Gutier explained the Copper Eagle Project is a natural gas storage facility proposed to be constructed in the salt caverns near Dysart and Glendale Avenue. She stated the project has become an issue because HB 2134 would prohibit natural gas storage facilities or natural gas pipelines to be located near a military airport, airport, school or the border of a municipality. She stated the salt caverns offer no economic benefit to the state of Arizona, however, the natural gas stored in the facility would benefit other states. She said the salt caverns are directly across from the Luke Air Force Base and Luke Elementary School and near densely populated areas. She stated, because of the potential for a disastrous explosion, as has occurred at other storage facilities and along pipelines, staff recommends Council support HB 2134. Councilmember Clark said there are several reasons not to support the Copper Eagle Project, including health and safety issues and pipeline regulations. She said FERC will be studying the issue in April, therefore, communities who support HB 2134 need to make their position known to FERC as soon as possible. Ms. Gutier explained the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has already passed a resolution, as have the cities of Phoenix and Wickenburg. She said all of the cities have agreed to a model 10 resolution, which, once signed by each City Council, will be forwarded to the Legislature, the Arizona Corporation Commission, and FERC. She noted FERC postponed their study of the issue until August or September. Mr. Beasley expressed his opinion the number of similar proposals will increase, noting an agent of Long Properties contacted the city with a proposal to locate a similar use near our airport. Ms. Gutier reported the bill was supposed to be heard in the House Environment Committee yesterday, however El Paso Natural Gas hired a lobbyist who persuaded the Speaker of the House to ask the Chairman of the Environment Committee to pull the bill for one week. She said the bill will now be heard next Monday. She noted Representative Joe Hart has indicated his full support of Luke Air Force Base and HB 2134. Councilmember Clark said it is possible El Paso will pull their proposal if strong and timely opposition is voiced by the surrounding municipalities. Mayor Scruggs agreed, stating the cities have to be extremely vigilant on the issue. Ms. Gutier discussed transportation issues before the Legislature, including extension of the half-cent sales tax and maintaining existing revenue streams. With regard to the half-cent sales tax extension, she reported the House and Senate are currently considering bills. She pointed out the legislation has to be signed and sent to the Governor by February 3 to allow for a May election. She recommended Council oppose any effort to modify prior agreements devised through the Transportation Policy Committee process. She said a second bill introduced calls for bifurcation of the plan, explaining the bill would separate freeways from light rail. She reported three bills were heard yesterday by the House Transportation Committee, noting HB 2456 passed out and the other two bills failed. Mayor Scruggs voiced Council's support for staff's recommendations. Mayor Scruggs asked about a bill sponsored by one of the west valley communities, wherein liquor license applications approved by the Liquor Board, despite a recommendation for denial from the city, would be approved on a one-year trial basis. She expressed concern that, should the bill pass, the Liquor Board will be more likely to approve licenses since it will be done on a trial basis only. She questioned whether the Liquor Board would actually revoke a license from an existing business. She also questioned whether neighborhoods will be able to prove negative effects occurred to a level that justifies revocation of a license. She asked staff to look closely at the bill and its intended and unintended impacts. Councilmember Clark agreed with Mayor Scruggs. She suggested they look at offering direction to the State Liquor Board to further refine and define the required findings, stating they are very broad. Ms. Gutier noted the League of Cities and Towns goes through a resolutions process every year, wherein the unintended consequences of proposed legislation are identified. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. 11