Loading...
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 2018/02/21 MinutesPUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2018 – 6:30 P.M. MUNICIPAL SERVICES – TRAINING ROOM MINUTES I. ROLL CALL/CALL TO ORDER Alderman Moreno called the meeting to order at 6:29 P.M. Aldermen Michelle Moreno and Melanie Rummel were in attendance. Chairman Randy Tack was not in attendance. Staff in attendance included Michael Thomas, Director of Public Works; Bob Ells, Superintendent of Engineering; Dan Martin, Superintendent of Engineering; Brian Pogachnik, Sanitation Supervisor; Michael Strong, Assistant to the City Manager and Jim Lockefeer, Management Analyst. Also in attendance was Jim Dudek, ComEd External Affairs Manager; Rommel Noguera, Director of External Affairs; Paul Hamann, Resident of 511 Beverly Place; Patricia Riess, Resident of 625 Beverly Place and Dorothy Thumler, Resident of 551 Beverly Place. II.APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 24, 2018 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Alderman Moreno moved to approve the January 24, 2018 Public Works Committee meeting minutes. Alderman Rummel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. III.COMED / BEVERLY UPDATE – JIM DUDEK, COM-ED Jim Dudek, ComEd External Affairs Manager, thanked the Committee for inviting him to the meeting. He explained that he last spoke to the Committee in December, 2017 in regards to the privately owned electrical facilities that relate to the Beverly Place issue. He explained that he has been working with Assistant to the City Manager, Mike Strong on the issue. Mr. Dudek then introduced his manager, Rommel Noguera, Director of External Affairs. He explained that Mr. Noguera has been very involved and engaged with senior ComEd leadership on this issue. Mr. Noguera explained that in September of 2017, ComEd worked with the City to develop alternatives that residents could pursue, at a cost, to have their privately owned facilities converted underground. He explained those alternatives related to and were within ComEd’s current and existing policies. He explained that as the conversation evolved internally at ComEd, senior leadership knew that something had to be done to the existing regulation and policies. He explained it is an older standing tariff that has not been revisited in a long time. He explained that ComEd needed to look at this issue beyond Lake Forest and include all other private residences that may be affected by the current policies and regulations. He explained that this approach has made the issue much more complex. He explained that he is the lead on this initiative. He explained that there have been numerous challenges in working on the issue. One challenge was determining and locating privately owned electrical facilities. He explained that through the ComEd pole inspection program, data has been collected on many private electric utility poles. He explained that ComEd does have approximately 25,000 customer owned utility poles throughout their territory. He explained that ComEd is still trying to determine what percentage of customer owned utilities these poles reflect. Ultimately, ComEd is trying to determine costs. He explained that his team is analyzing the issue and needs to develop costs for their proposals and alternative proposals that they will be presenting to the ICC. He explained one of the proposals being developed is having ComEd take over all of the customer owned facilities. He explained that this would come at a cost to ComEd and those costs still need to be analyzed in order to be included in the ICC proposal. He explained that if this proposal was to be accepted by the ICC, all of ComEd’s customers would absorb and pay for the costs of taking over the customer owned utilities. He explained that ComEd is only concerned with residential properties, not the non- residential properties. He explained that another proposal ComEd is developing is with new non-standard tariffs. He explained these tariffs would allow ComEd to maintain and repair customer owned facilities at a cost to the customer who owns the facilities. He explained that under current ComEd policies and regulations, they do not have a mechanism that allows them to maintain and repair customer owned facilities. He explained that in order to work on resolving this issue, ComEd needs to bring numerous proposals and options to the ICC. He explained that in total, five alternatives have been developed. The alternatives still need to be vetted and approved by ComEd senior leadership prior to being proposed to the ICC. Alderman Rummel inquired about the costs in resolving the issue and how they are spread out amongst ComEd customers. Mr. Noguera explained that every ComEd customer would pay and absorb the costs if ComEd were to take over every privately owned customer facilities. He explained that because of this ComEd has developed the additional alternatives and proposals in case the ICC is not in favor of that specific proposal. He explained the majority of customers do not have customer owned facilities and therefore the ICC may see that having those unaffected customers absorb the costs of ComEd taking over the customer owned facilities as being unfair. Alderman Rummel inquired about the second proposal and if under that option only the affected customers who own facilities would be required to pay a rate or additional fees. Mr. Noguera explained that essentially that would be the case under the second proposal, however the specifics are still being developed. Mr. Noguera explained that the remaining three proposals are all variations of the second proposal. He explained that cost analyze still needs to be developed for all of the proposals. Mr. Noguera thanked the City for working with ComEd on the issue. He explained that ComEd really would like to resolve the issue in the right way. He explained that ComEd has been working on this issue for a number of months but because of its complexity, ComEd still needs more time to develop their proposals prior to bringing them to the ICC. He explained that they are looking for approximately 90 days to develop their proposals. He explained that he would look to keep the City updated on a regular basis on progress made. Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong asked Mr. Noguera if he could speak to the process of establishing a new tariff and if the 90 days included the proposals being brought to and reviewed by the ICC. Mr. Noguera explained that the 90 days is just for ComEd to complete their analysis. He explained that he could not speak to the regulatory process as he has no prior work experience in ComEd’s regulatory division. He explained that once ComEd gets closer to presenting the proposals to the ICC he can provide details on what the process and timeline is from their regulatory division. Alderman Rummel explained that at the last Public Works Committee meeting the Committee and residents were told that a solution was going to be found in 60 days. She explained that it needs to be communicated to those same residents that ComEd has requested another 90 days to complete their analysis and also the number of days it may take to go through the ICC regulatory process. She explained that a concern is if another big storm affects one of the customer owned facilities in Lake Forest prior to this issue being resolved. She explained that another letter will needed to be sent to the affected residents. Alderman Moreno inquired about the best path in communicating with the residents. Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong explained that prior communication has been shared via mailings and emails. He explained that the prior letter Alderman Rummel was speaking to was very effective. Alderman Rummel asked if resident testimony would help ComEd in regards to their issues with customer owned facilities, when ComEd presents their proposals to the ICC. Mr. Noguera explained that at this point, ComEd was comfortable with the proposed options that they were currently developing. However, as ComEd progresses in their proposals and feels as though resident testimony would be beneficial, he will reach out to City staff. Alderman Rummel explained that she believes the affected residents would provide some persuasive testimony about their safety concerns. Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong explained that he would work with Mr. Dudek on developing correspondence to the affected residents that would explain and outline the request for an additional 90 days for ComEd to complete their analysis. He explained that the list of contractors who work on residential customer owned facilities will also be shared through this mailing again. Mr. Dudek explained that the correspondence could also discuss the importance of proactive maintenance to trees and branches near customer owned facilities. Alderman Moreno inquired if the ICC meetings are open to the public. Mr. Noguera explained that he was unsure but would check with their regulatory department and would contact the City to share that information. Alderman Moreno inquired if there were any members of the public who would like to comment on the topic. Resident Patricia Riess of 625 Beverly Place commented on the issue of customer owned facilities and how she believes it is a public safety issue. Resident Paul Hamann, commented on the timing of when the ComEd standard of customer owned facilities was developed and ComEd line maintenance practices. The Committee thanked ComEd and the members of the public for their comments. IV. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF WATER PLANT INTAKE CLEANING PROPOSAL – DAN MARTIN Superintendent Martin explained that at the January 24, 2018 Public Works Committee meeting, the Committee voted to approve the waiving of the bid process for the two intake pipes at the Water Plant. He explained that this was because there is one sole vendor that uses a patented process to effectively and efficiently clean both intakes. The Committee directed staff to bring the official proposal to the Public Works Committee in February and ask for their recommendation to City Council to approve of the proposal. He explained that the proposal has been obtained and is included in tonight’s meeting packet. Staff has received a proposal from Northern Divers for $185,000. As part of their proposal, Northern Divers has also agreed to hold their $185,000 cost if the City was to contract with them again within the next five years. He explained that the amount can also potentially be reduced if the City pursues Northern Divers jointly with additional North Shore area water plants. He explained that $185,000 has been budgeted in the FY18 CIP. Alderman Rummel inquired if the City Attorney would review the proposal and contract. Superintendent Martin explained that the proposal would be further developed into a contract and reviewed by the City Attorney for the March 19, 2018 City Council Meeting. The contract would include all of the City’s required general conditions. Superintendent Martin explained that if the Committee moves forward in proceeding with Northern Divers to the City Council, a City Council write-up would be developed for the March 19, 2018 meeting. If approved by City Council, Northern Divers would begin the cleaning process in mid-April prior to the heavy summer pumping season. Alderman Rummel motioned to recommend to City Council to proceed with Northern Divers for the cleaning of the two water plant intake pipes for $185,000. Alderman Moreno seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. V. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CURRENT EXPENSE TO DISPOSE OF CURBSIDE RECYCLING MATERIAL – MICHAEL THOMAS Director of Public Works Michael Thomas provided an overview and a history of City recycling efforts. He explained that curbside recycling in Lake Forest began in 1991 and up until 2008 all collected materials were separated by the Sanitation Section at the curb. He explained that the City constructed a recycle transfer ramp at the Compost Center during the summer of 2008 utilizing funds from a DCEO state grant. He explained that the ramp allows for a hauler to come into the City’s Compost Center and haul the mixed materials to their plant where they will be separated. He explained that in the fall of 2008, the City Sanitation Section began utilizing the transfer ramp. The City also began collecting single stream recycling, expanded recycling curbside collection to include cardboard, and entered into an agreement with Resource Management to transfer and process the City’s single stream recycling. He explained that either a 65 or 35 gallon cart was provided to residents in the fall of 2011 and 2012. At this time recycling curbside collection expanded to include paperback books, wrapping paper, magazines, and junk mail. Director Thomas explained that the Sanitation Section records and monitors numerous data that has been compiled all the way back to 2000. He explained that the data allows staff to track the cost per ton of disposing of refuse and the cost per ton to process recycling materials. Director Thomas explained that the City is currently facing a challenge as the cost to transfer and process single stream recycling is now exceeding the cost to dispose of the materials as refuse. He explained that China receives a majority of the single stream recycling for processing. In July of 2017 the Chinese government announced that it would ban the imports of mixed plastic, paper, and many other scrap materials. He explained that the ban took effect in January of 2018 and is aimed at cracking down to what China refers to as “large amounts of dirty wastes or even hazardous wastes” mixed with recycling. He explained that this is an issue that recycling collectors and processors are now dealing with nationwide. Director Thomas reviewed a line graph that showed a yearly history from the year 2000 – 2017. The graph showed yearly averages of the City cost per ton to dispose of refuse and the cost per ton for recycle transferring and processing. He explained that in the past the City was generating revenue through its single stream recycling program. He explained that in more recent years, single stream recycling has become a City expense. Director Thomas then reviewed a similar line graph that reviewed the past 12 months. He explained that the cost to transfer and process recycling has been trending upwards and is now exceeding the cost to dispose of it as refuse. He explained that the City currently pays $39.50/ton to dispose of refuse and is expected to pay an estimated $47/ton during the month of February to transfer and process recycling. Director Thomas then reviewed a table of single stream recycling processors. He explained that the City’s current provider, Resource Management, has been very effective in meeting the City’s needs. He explained while it may seem like there may be many recycling processors, many do not meet the City’s need as a single stream processor. He also explained that some of the firms on the table only process their own materials that they collect. He explained that staff is researching the processing costs for Waste Management if the City was to use them as a processor for single stream recycling. Director Thomas explained that he spoken to the past City of Lake Forest Mayor Jim Cowhey who is still active in the refuse and recycling industry. He explained that China’s decision has effected the entire nation as the cost to process recycling is rising. He explained that these prices change on a monthly basis and therefore he does not know what the City will be charged in the future. Alderman Rummel inquired about the market and how China was utilizing the materials. Director Thomas explained that China has had a very strict tolerance on processed recycling loads being uncontaminated by non-recyclables (.5%). He explained that China is strict because they will sell their processed materials as raw materials to manufactures. Director Thomas explained that City staff has a very good working relationship with Resource Management. They are very responsive and will come to the City on short notice if additional hauling is needed. He explained that their cost to process recyclables also contains the cost to haul the City’s materials. Alderman Rummel inquired about hauling costs and if the City could utilize a cheaper trucking firm to bring down the cost. Director Thomas explained that the price to haul materials is put out to bid by Resource Management. He explained that he believed that they select the lowest reputable bidder. Alderman Rummel inquired if the City is sorting the recyclable materials. Director Thomas explained that the City is not. Director Thomas explained that staff’s recommendation is to continue to transfer and process material with Resource Management. He explained that staff will continue to monitor and research alternative processors. He explained that another idea staff has discussed is raising the $8 a month resident sanitation fee an additional $2 a month to help offset the cost to process recycling. He explained that the current funds generated by the fee is utilized by the City’s capital fund and not by the Sanitation Section’s operating budget. Alderman Rummel inquired about what is going to be done budgetary wise. Director Thomas explained that costs are calculated in January for the next fiscal year’s budget. Superintendent Martin explained that some adjustments have been made in the Public Works budget to try to account for this additional expense. Director Thomas explained that a discretionary request for additional dollars for recycle processing was also in part approved by City Manager Kiely and the City’s Finance Department. Alderman Moreno explained that the trend line for recycling is going up and that increasing the City sanitation fee to $8 to $10 may not be enough. She explained that she believes that the City will need to use the Sanitation data to be somewhat predictive for budgetary purposes. Director Thomas explained that staff will look to have a discussion with the City Manager and Finance Department about potentially increasing the sanitation fee. Director Thomas explained that it was very difficult to explain to residents, back when the fee was implemented, that the sanitation fee was going to the capital fund and not strictly to Sanitation. Alderman Rummel inquired about the fee being directed to an enterprise fund. Director Thomas explained that could be a possibility. Resident Paul Hamann commented on recycling and reducing the City’s recycling program to one or two materials. The Committee thanked Mr. Hamann for his comment. Alderman Moreno asked if this topic should be shared with City Council. Director Thomas explained that the presentation can be shared with City Council. Alderman Moreno explained that the topic could also be a non-action item on a future City Council agenda. VI. PROJECT & OPERATIONAL UPDATES GAS LIGHT CONVERSION PROJECT Superintendent Martin explained that the Committee last discussed the gas light conversion project at the January 24, 2018 Public Works Committee meeting. He explained that City staff is moving forward with requesting bids for a used directional bore machine. The used machine would be utilized for the entire conversion project. He explained that the bid opening will take place on March 1, 2018. He explained that the Street Supervisor has been researching machine specifications to ensure that the City purchases that right machine for the conversion project. He explained that the bid was sent to 70 Vermeer dealers. Superintendent Martin explained that staff is also working on revising the project timing map and will bring that to the next Public Works Committee meeting. He explained that some of the annually proposed areas had different amounts of gas lights to be converted in a given fiscal year. He explained that this was because some of the gas lights in certain areas are far less condensed and more spread out. The lights that are more spread out are going to cost more to convert due to the costs of more material. Alderman Moreno inquired about using remaining funds in a given fiscal year to begin the next fiscal year’s proposed conversion area. Superintendent Martin explained that staff would look to utilize any remaining funds in a given year and dedicate those to beginning the next year’s proposed area. HIGHWOOD WATER PLANT ASSISTANCE Director Thomas explained that the entire City Council received an email from City Manager Kiely in regards to Highwood’s water plant. Director Thomas explained that he and City Manager Kiely, have had ongoing conversations with the City Manager of Highwood in regards to their water plant and the City potentially selling water to Highwood. Highwood has explained that they have an older water plant and that they are not looking to invest in any capital projects at their water plant. He explained that Highwood may be looking to get out of owning and operating their own water plant. He explained that when Lake Forest staff last met with Highwood staff, Highwood discussed a recent personnel issue and requested Lake Forest’s support. It was explained that Highwood’s water plant had two fulltime operators. One of the operators has just been released. Because of this, Highwood asked if a Lake Forest licensed water plant operator could assist their operations at their plant. The City of Lake Forest has developed an agreement with Highwood whereby the City of Lake Forest would agree to operate the Highwood water plant two days a week. Highwood’s remaining fulltime operator would then operate the plant five days a week. Per the agreement, Highwood would pay the City of Lake Forest’s plant operator overtime rate in addition to a 7% fee. Director Thomas explained that over the past week, City of Lake Forest water plant operators have been going to the Highwood plant to train at their plant. He explained that the Highwood plant has older technology but operating is very straightforward. He explained that each day the Highwood water plant is operated to fill its own water tower. After their water tower is filled, the plant operations stop until the next day. He explained that the City of Lake Forest is strictly operating the plant and will not be investing any money into their plant infrastructure. He explained that he and City Manager Kiely will continue to have discussions with the City Manager of Highwood about potentially constructing a transmission main to Highwood to supply them with treated water from Lake Forest. If Highwood does not move forward with the transmission main proposal, the City will stop providing Highwood water plant operation support in May of 2018 and they will need to hire their own fulltime operator. Director Thomas explained that he believes Highwood is very interested in investing in a transmission main and purchasing City water. Alderman Moreno explained that the overtime rate with an additional 7% sounds like a fair rate. She explained that she wants to make sure that the rate we are charging Highwood is enough. She also explained that any agreement with Highwood has to be very clear that the agreement is only for labor. The City of Lake Forest will not be liable for any of Highwood’s plant infrastructure. Alderman Rummel explained that she reviewed the agreement and it seemed to consist of all the necessary statements that Alderman Moreno explained. Director Thomas explained that the drafted agreement was created and reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office. FALL, 2017 WESTERN AVE. WORK (LAUREL TO FRANKLIN) T.I.F. REIMBURSEMENT Director Thomas explained that in October of 2017, Western Ave from Laurel to Franklin was closed for storm sewer work and street resurfacing. He explained at this time and prior to the road resurfacing occurring, the City’s Superintendent of Parks and Forestry and the Forestry Supervisor inspected both sides of the road and identified an issue. The issue was with the material that was used to backfill the parkways on both sides of the street. The material consisted of clay, stone, and old pipe. In addition, there were also no street lights planned for the east side of Western Avenue. He explained that City staff put together a team effort to purchase and install street light infrastructure and street lights. He explained that the team also worked to remove the junk backfill material in both the islands and parkways so that the material could be replaced with material that could sustain parkway plants and trees. It was very important to complete all of this prior to the resurfacing being completed. If this work was to be completed after the resurfacing of the road, the road would likely need to be resurfaced again due to the heavy machinery needed to remove and replace the junk backfill material. He explained that included in tonight’s meeting packet are the expenses that were incurred for the work. He explained Public Works and Parks & Forestry did an excellent job in completing the necessary work in the very short timeframe. He explained the engineered soil was very important to have in order to properly plant the parkways. He explained that the list of expenses totals approximately $51,000 with an additional $10,000 of plant material to be purchased this spring. He explained that the Finance Department explained that these expenditures would need to be brought to City Council for Council approval in order to utilize T.I.F. funds or that the Public Works Department would need to utilize dollars in their current FY18 operating budget. Director Thomas explained that with the end of FY18 approaching it would be difficult to find remaining dollars in the Public Works operating budget to use to cover these expenses. He explained that he may bring a proposal to City Council to request T .I.F. funds to cover the expenses incurred. He explained that he has spoken to City Manager Kiely in regards to this City Council proposal and City Manager Kiely was in agreement that it should be brought to City Council. He explained that after some additional review by City staff, he may ultimately seek City Council’s approval to move T.I.F funds to Public Works to cover the expenses incurred. Alderman Rummel inquired about the agreement with Focus Development and if they would incur any of the expenses related to the work in October. Director Thomas explained that all of the expenses were incurred by the City’s Public Works Department. Focus Development was responsible for the storm sewer infrastructure, curbs, sidewalks, and pavement. He explained that a very large issue was that if Focus Development was to finish paving the street and then the City was to go back and complete the work that was completed in October, the street would be significantly damaged and need to be paved again. Alderman Rummel inquired about how and why the junk material was utilized in the first place. Director Thomas explained that he believed that there were multiple plans and agreements being reviewed and revised by Focus Development and the City. He explained that when the City’s Engineering section reviews plans they review storm sewer infrastructure and street pavement design. Street lights are not automatically required and were not on the plan set. He explained that he wasn’t entirely sure why the use of junk material was approved. Superintendent of Engineering Bob Ells explained that for standard construction the backfill typically utilized is clay. He explained in addition to that clay, six to eight inches of top soil is then used. The City of Lake Forest chooses to use a more engineered soil that is more mixed. He explained that this soil helps trees to grow better. He explained that Focus did bring in the standard clay however the clay they brought in was of a very low quality mixed with parts of clay pipes, a good amount of stone, and a few railroad ties. Superintendent Ells explained that if that parkway was going to be just grass then the material that was brought in might be ok. He explained though that trees would not grow in that material. Alderman Moreno and Alderman Rummel inquired about having Focus Development pay for the expenses incurred by the City. Superintendent Ells explained that he did not believe the related expenses were a part of the City requirements and agreement with Focus. Director Thomas agreed with Superintendent Ells. Alderman Moreno explained that a mandate needs to be developed that any standard construction is required to meet the City standards for backfill material and street lights so that this does not happen again. Director Thomas explained that this was a lesson learned by City staff and that a closer review for these items will be taken moving forward. Alderman Rummel explained that if a substandard clay backfill was used by Focus, they should still have to pay part of the City expenses that were incurred. Director Thomas explained that he believed Focus would push back and say that they utilized materials that were in approved City plans. Director Thomas explained that with all of the negations, revisions, and back and forth between Focus and the City, the street lights and backfill requirements were over looked. Alderman Rummel explained that she agreed with Alderman Moreno in that a standard needs to be developed going forward so that these items are a construction requirement. Alderman Moreno explained that the standard needs to be a part of the City’s Community Development Department. Alderman Rummel inquired about the Hospital drainage issues and if the use of clay in their construction is related. Director Thomas explained that the hospital drainage issue is related to the IDOT and UP culverts on the east and west side of route 41. He explained that City staff has been working with IDOT on clearing debris and is now looking to work with the UP. He explained that addressing those issues should help to alleviate flooding in that area. SNOW O.T. & SALT USAGE UPDATE Director Thomas reviewed a current to-date chart of the 2017-2018 snow season that showed the number of snow events, total inches of snow, total overtime dollars spent on snow operations, and the amount of tons of salt used. The chart compared these totals to the past five City snow seasons. He explained that City staff just received an additional 500 tons of salt. He explained that the City will again look to work with Lake County to bid out and resupply salt in the upcoming months for next year’s snow season. Alderman Rummel explained that the City of Chicago utilizes beet juice in their snow operations and inquired if the City could look to also utilize beet juice. Director Thomas explained that a concern in utilizing beet juice is that the City’s snow fleet apparatuses and equipment would need to change to accommodate the use of beet juice. He explained that salt water is being utilized right now to activate the salt that is being used on City streets. He explained that when it is very cold out, the use of calcium chloride is needed to activate the salt. He explained that the City experimented with beet juice approximately 15 years ago. He explained that the City can look into utilizing beet juice again and develop what the costs would be. He explained that staff could research how other similar towns have successfully utilized beet juice. Superintendent Martin explained that the Supervisor of the Streets Section and other snow commanders have been monitoring the use of beet juice through the many trainings that they attend. He explained that when the City tried utilizing beet juice, it was icing up and making the roadways more slippery in the areas it was tested in. He explained that a pilot program for the next snow season could be implemented, however beet juice is costly to implement. Ald erman Rummel recommended that Public Works continue to monitor and explore the use of beet juice in City snow operations. Alderman Moreno inquired if the snow update was also shared with the rest of the City Council. Public Works Management Analyst Jim Lockefeer explained that the update was sent to the rest of the City Council. VII. OTHER Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong explained and provided an update in regards to securing easements in the Winwood area. He explained that this stemmed from the SSA proposal to provide the neighborhood with sanitary sewer. He explained that two easements had been executed by the homeowners however they had not yet been accepted by the City. He explained that those two easements will appear on a City Council agenda for acceptance so that they are secured if a future project develops. Alderman Moreno inquired if there were any conditional arrangements in the easement agreements. Assistant to the City Manager Mike Strong explained that the agreements were standard. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no additional public comment. IX. NEXT MEETING Director Thomas suggested the next meeting be scheduled for March 8, 2018 at 6:30 P.M. X. ADJOURNMENT Alderman Rummel moved to adjourn the meeting of the Public Works Committee at 8:23 P.M. Alderman Moreno seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Jim Lockefeer Jr. Management Analyst