CITY
OF
SHORELINE CITY
COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor
Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, and
Grace
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Gustafson and Ransom
1.
CALL TO
ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2.
FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Hansen led the flag
salute. Upon roll call by the City
Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exceptions of Councilmembers
Gustafson and Ransom.
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor
Jepsen, seconded by Councilmember Chang and unanimously carried, Councilmembers
Gustafson and Ransom were excused.
(a)
Shoreline Star—Dan Mann
Mayor Hansen presented the eighth Shoreline Star to Dan
Mann and outlined his many years of
service to the Shoreline community on the Chamber of Commerce, the Meridian Park
Neighborhood Association, the Shoreline Merchants Association, as a Showmobile stage sponsor, as a youth soccer coach and, most
recently, as a member of the Shoreline School Board. Mr. Mann expressed his appreciation and
said that he is a strong supporter of good neighborhoods and schools. He honored all those who come down to
Council meetings to comment and urged citizens to become involved in the process
of governing their community.
3.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Councilmember Grace reminded everyone of the Shoreline
Arts Festival this weekend, noting that master artisans from Shoreline’s Sister
City of Boryeong will be
participating.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen distributed information he gathered
at the National League of Cities Community and Economic Development Policy
Committee meeting from the cities of
Councilmember Chang expressed concerns about
coordination of activities by Shoreline’s Sister City Association with the
greater Seattle Korean community supporting the Boryeong relationship and other groups with an interest in
Shoreline’s sister city activities.
Mayor
Hansen said the Sister Cities Association met Thursday night and anyone who
wished could have attended the meeting.
4.
PUBLIC COMMENT
(a)
Robert Phelps, Shoreline, speaking for the Shoreline Auxiliary
Communications Service, informed the Council that Amateur Radio Field Day is the
last weekend in June. This event
has been conducted in the past in
(b)
(c) Janet
Way, Shoreline, thanked Shoreline Star Dan Mann for his contributions to the
community. She said she believed
the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance on the north Aegis building is
in error. She emphasized that
Thornton Creek crosses the property and it is a chinook salmon-bearing stream. She hoped Shoreline would change some of
its policies to better protect streams and wetlands.
5.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon motion
by Deputy Mayor Jepsen, seconded by Councilmember Fimia and unanimously carried,
the agenda was approved.
Councilmember
Chang moved to approve items 6(a) and 6(c) as consent calendar items. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously and the following items were
approved:
Motion to authorize the City
Manager to enter into an Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement with
participation as a member of the Community
Development Block
Grant Consortium for the fiscal years 2006 – 2008, which
agreement
is substantially the same as that set forth in
the Council packet
Ordinance No. 393 adopting the National Incident
Management
System and
amending the Shoreline Municipal Code, Emergency Management, Chapter
2.50
6.
ACTION ITEMS: OTHER
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(b)
Ordinance No. 392 creating a new chapter in Title 10 of the Shoreline
Municipal Code relating to motorized foot scooters and similar
devices
Bernard
Seeger, Management Analyst, reviewed the background on this issue, noting
Council had originally decided to postpone action on this item to see whether
the state legislature would act on statewide regulations for scooters. However, when this did not occur,
Council provided direction to bring back an ordinance to regulate them in
Shoreline. He then highlighted the
provisions of the ordinance, noting gas and electric powered scooters are
defined and treated somewhat differently.
He said the electric scooters only go from 9 to 15 miles per hour,
whereas the gas scooters go much faster and need greater regulation.
Mr.
Seeger mentioned a typographical error in the ordinance that will be corrected
and suggested the following editing changes to it: “Certain Uses Prohibited (B)
No gas or electric power motorized foot scooter or similar device shall be
operated from (after)
sunset to (and before) sunrise during the summer Daylight Savings
period and from 8:00 p.m. to before sunrise during the winter
non-Daylight Savings period.”
A
second recommended change is:
“Violation—penalty (B) In
lieu of the penalty described above, a Shoreline Police Officer may use the
following for a person under 16 years of age found operating a gas or electric
motorized foot scooter or similar device in violation of the provisions of
this chapter:”
Mr.
Seeger said the police will only provide verbal warnings for “a couple of
months” as the education process moves forward.
Councilmember
Fimia moved to pass Ordinance No. 392 to regulate foot scooters. Councilmember Chang seconded the
motion.
Responding
to Councilmember Fimia, Flannery Collins, Assistant City Attorney, said there is
no reason why gas scooters could not be prohibited
completely.
Councilmember
Fimia said in the practical sense it will be very difficult to regulate the
noise and speed of gas scooters.
Since license plates are not issued for these devices, it will be very
difficult to track them. She also
suggested that if this ordinance passes tonight, it will be important to get
information to the schools as quickly as possible before summer vacation
begins.
Responding
to Councilmember Fimia, Mr. Seeger said that when the teens discussed the
provisions of the ordinance, they wanted to be sure they could use the scooters
in the winter in the early evening.
This is why the ordinance requires lights and sets the hour of
Councilmember
Fimia noted that bicycles are not restricted in terms of evening use and felt
electric scooters could be treated like bicycles.
Mr.
Burkett said that if Council wishes to delete gas scooters, staff could come
back with the appropriate ordinance language.
Responding
to Councilmember Chang, Mr. Seeger said that according to a recent study, most
of those injured while riding these devices are teenagers.
Councilmember
Chang said that based on his experience of riding on a new gas scooter, many
adults would find it difficult physically to ride these scooters as a means of
transportation.
Councilmember
Grace appreciated how the ordinance was crafted in response to Council
comment. He concurred with
Councilmember Fimia that education will be very important. He did not see a compelling reason to
exclude gas powered scooters completely and noted that no other cities have done
this.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen was disappointed that the state legislature did not take action on
this, since the state regulates many other safety issues. He agreed that education is critical
because enforcement will be a low priority for the police. In addition to educating teenagers, he
said the more important education will be of those who sell these devices. They must know what Shoreline’s rules
are and have them available for purchasers.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen referred to the “Prohibited Areas” section, noting that the listing
of “streets” in #1 is confusing.
Mr. Seeger said it was meant to refer to internal park streets, not
public streets.
Councilmember
Fimia confirmed that her motion included the changes suggested by staff.
Councilmember
Fimia moved to prohibit gas scooters in Shoreline. This motion did not receive a second and
was withdrawn.
Councilmember
Chang noted that the new gas scooter he rode was “pretty
quiet.”
Councilmember
Fimia felt that the language requiring a working muffler is not strong enough to
ensure that the motor is quiet.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen pointed out there are many reasons why a
working muffler should be required and that the noise issue covers more than
just scooters. The City must be
sure it is enforcing the noise ordinance.
Mayor
Hansen commented it is very difficult to regulate certain types of noise. However, the noise ordinance has been
applied successfully in certain situations.
Mr.
Seeger agreed that the definition of a public disturbance noise is very
broad.
Councilmember
Fimia felt the code may need to be ‘fine-tuned,” because she did not want to
refer to another ordinance to regulate noise in scooters.
Councilmember
Fimia moved to amend C2 of the Requirements for operating motorized foot
scooters and similar devices to add the phrase “so that it is the minimal
necessary” at the end.
Councilmember Chang seconded the motion.
Councilmember
Fimia explained that her amendment makes it clear that a rider cannot “get away
with the least amount of noise suppression.” She said that for some young people the
noise itself will be the attraction.
Councilmember
Grace was not sure how “the minimal necessary” could be enforced because it is
so subjective. He said motorcycles
make more noise and yet are not regulated in this way.
Mr.
Burkett said that it is not subjective at all to determine whether a scooter has
a “working muffler.” This is the
minimum that can be enforced.
A
vote was taken on the amendment, which failed 2 – 3, with Councilmembers Chang
and Fimia voting in the affirmative.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen suggested taking a broader look at the noise ordinance itself to
see whether other cities have a different standard involving a decibel reading
that Shoreline could adopt in place of the more discretionary standard in the
current ordinance.
Mayor
Hansen was also disappointed that this was not addressed on a statewide
level. He felt it will be good to
have an ordinance on the books, even if it not easily enforceable. He asked if this ordinance applies only
to public property, and Mr. Seeger said private property is not regulated
here. Mayor Hansen assumed scooters
are prohibited from school property and was told they are. He asked how a “Business District” is
defined.
Ms.
Collins defined a Business District as “a territory continuous to and including
a highway, when within any 600 feet along such highway there are buildings in
use for business or industrial purposes, including but not limited to hotels,
banks, or office buildings, railroad stations and public buildings which occupy
at least 300 feet of frontage on one side, or 300 feet collectively on both
sides of a highway.”
Mr.
Seeger said no type of scooter is allowed on Business District
sidewalks.
A
vote was taken on the motion, and Ordinance No. 392 regulating foot scooters
passed unanimously.
Councilmember
Fimia asked staff to bring information about violations and complaints back to
Council next spring. She thought
the ordinance could be revisited if there are many complaints about the
noise.
Mr.
Burkett confirmed Council direction to review the noise
ordinance.
7.
ACTION
ITEMS: PUBLIC
HEARING
(a)
Public Hearing to consider citizens’ comments on the proposed 2006 – 2011
Capital Improvement Plan and the proposed 2006 – 2011 Transportation Improvement
Plan
Ms.
Tarry said the CIP identifies $161.5 million for capital resources. Almost half of this amount is grants,
primarily for the
Mayor
Hansen opened the public hearing.
(a) Virginia Paulsen,
Shoreline, addressed the 15.96 acres called the South Woods, noting that the
South Woods Preservation Group wants the entire site preserved. She recalled that Council moved the
purchase of South Woods from a Priority #3 to #1A in the Capital Facilities
Element, and that $2 million was allocated to this end. She was surprised to see that the CIP
contains only $1 million for the South Woods property purchase, an amount to be
raised by grants and bonds. This
will purchase only one-fifth of the total site. On the other hand, nine acres of
(b) Vicki
Westberg, Shoreline, was also disappointed that only
$1 million is allocated in the CIP for South Woods rather than $2 million. She said the entire site can serve
functions in environmental education, mental health, and the general well-being
of the community as the woods continue to maintain air and water quality. She believed the citizens will receive
much more value than the investment in the site, whatever it is. She asked Council not to simply appease
citizens but to support their vision.
(c) Janet
Way, Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund, supported the previous speakers
regarding South Woods. She said
Council intended to provide $2 million for this project. She asked that this level be sustained,
since the property is threatened by potential division. She said it could be used for
environmental education, a highly neglected area in school curriculum. She said the value of the site is its
size and complexity and the total value of the coverage of the
trees.
Continuing,
she asked about the
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Grace seconded the
motion.
Councilmember
Fimia moved a substitute motion to keep the public hearing open until July
11. Councilmember Chang seconded
the motion.
Councilmember
Fimia pointed out that the public just received the CIP last week and they will
functionally have other opportunities to speak on it anyway, so the public
hearing should be kept open. She
felt closing the hearing will send the message there are no more opportunities
to speak on the CIP.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen pointed out that public comment is allowed after all agenda items,
and people know they have these opportunities to comment. So closing the public hearing will not
confuse anyone.
Councilmember
Fimia said public hearings are frequently kept open. She thought those who do not come often
to meetings will assume no more comment is allowed if the hearing is
closed. She said leaving the
hearing open will signal that Council still wishes to hear from the
public.
Councilmember
Chang added that other cities set aside a certain night of the week to discuss
important agenda items. This allows
the public to be educated in detail and participate better in the process. He felt Shoreline should do something
like this. Since it is too late to
do this on the CIP, he supported the motion.
Councilmember
Grace did not disagree with the concept of special meetings to discuss complex
issues and suggested it be thought of for the future. He said it is important to make clear
that the public has an opportunity to comment on the CIP up to the time of
adoption. He said Council should
address concerns about the timing of public hearings by looking at the Agenda
Planner and then scheduling extra time, rather than repeatedly having to change
the publicly announced process.
Mayor
Hansen said the public hearing was advertised and individuals will be allowed to
comment for the next two weeks anyway, so no purpose is served to hold the
public hearing open.
A
vote was taken on the substitute motion, which carried 3 – 2, with Mayor Hansen
and Deputy Mayor Jepsen dissenting, and the public hearing was continued to next
week and July 11.
Ms. Tarry then continued
with her background discussion on the CIP.
She noted that this year there has been an additional flow of information
for the CIP during the master plan discussion and 20-Year Capital Facilities
Element adoption. These helped
identify the broad investment needs for capital projects for the long-term and
the foreseen funding thresholds.
The CIP/TIP was developed from the Capital Facilities Element. Costs are continuously refined from
these planning documents through the project scope development for individual
projects.
Ms. Tarry then reviewed the
17 projects in the General Capital Fund (GCF). These are programmed for $28.4
million. She also outlined the
various funding sources for these projects. She said City Hall is the largest
project in GCF, followed by parks and open space acquisitions. There is also non-project-specific
funding, which is an allocation of indirect costs and chargeable time in the
engineering group not directly attributed to any specific project (planning,
training, etc.). Ms. Tarry then
reviewed the projects in the GCF.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia,
Councilmember Fimia said
there is no doubt that citizens wish to have the parks maintained and certain
parks upgraded. However, there was
a great deal of public input on the parks before Shoreline was
incorporated. She used
Mr. Deal said it is critical
to have plans ready when grants become available because sometimes grant funding
becomes available on short notice.
Sometimes it takes more than a year to do the planning and conduct a
community process and without these things in place, opportunities could be
missed to apply for grants. He used
Councilmember Fimia
cautioned that staff should first go to the public and neighborhoods around
these areas to find out what, if any, improvements are desired. She said if this has been done already,
she would like to see the documentation.
Then, with this input as a guide, a consultant could be hired to do a
master plan. She did not want to do
the master plans before the public process. If the plan is not what the public
wants, delays are created. She
asked if there has already been a public process to identify the greatest needs
in the parks.
Mr. Burkett added that the
development of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan involved extensive
public review through the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Board.
Ms. Tarry moved on to the
soccer fields upgrade, which is scheduled for 2007 with funding coming from a
voted bond issue and possibly grants.
Mr. Burkett added that the soccer groups have set aside some money for
this. They would like to do the
fields sooner than 2007. He said
staff will definitely work with these groups and their funding would be part of
any matching funds grants for which the City might apply.
Turning to the
Ms. Tarry said the funding
for the South Woods purchase would be Conservation Futures grant funding and
possibly from a voted bond issue.
Mr. Burkett explained the $1 million recommendation. Information is expected from the County
about how much funding will be available there. The other funding is a bond issue. Council could assign a higher
allocation. It is currently
estimated it would cost $6 – 9 million to acquire the entire site. Balancing this project with all the
other projects, staff has made this recommendation. Three acres is proposed because there is
a need for a neighborhood park, so the $1 million would be for the acquisition
(not construction) of this land.
Mr. Burkett noted that the City already owns 80 acres at
Deputy Mayor Jepsen recalled
that at one time School Superintendent Welsh had written a letter saying that
the
Responding to Councilmember
Grace, Mr. Burkett confirmed that the school district is willing to sell three
acres. He said the site is
owned jointly with the Water District, but these entities are proceeding with a
subdivision of the property. Both
districts feel a responsibility to their constituents to receive maximum value
for the property. The Water
District is amenable to waiting on the sale of the property. The school district has agreed to
possibly sell the property at less than current market value, but it wishes to
proceed within the next two or three months. The district is counting on the sale of
the property for at least a half million dollars for their
projects.
Responding to Councilmember
Grace, Mr. Burkett reported that he had been told there had been an offer to buy
the entire site for $6 million.
Councilmember Grace
suggested that the entire site could be preserved for some period of time if the
City would buy the school district’s half for $3 million and the Water District
would hold on to the other half of the site. Mr. Burkett concurred that if the City
wants to take this approach, the City could probably acquire the school
district’s half for less than $3 million.
Councilmember Chang
supported purchasing the entire South Woods site. He suggested looking for a “creative”
way to get it. He felt it would be
a “huge mistake” for the Briarcrest neighborhood if
the site goes out of public ownership.
He suggested the possibility of delaying the City Hall purchase in order
to buy this site.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Mr. Deal said that the PROS Plan was passed with $2 million assigned for
South Woods. Councilmember Fimia
said this site was discussed at the retreat and given a priority. She felt it is very important to
purchase the entire site. She
suggested that councilmanic bonds might be
used.
Mr. Burkett said the key to
councilmanic bonds is that the funding must be
repaid.
Councilmember Fimia
suggested moving the $600,000 for gateways to parks acquisition. She said gateways were not a priority at
the retreat, nor mentioned in the master plans.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Mr. Burkett said an appraisal of the property two years ago was $5.72
million. She said any process that
moves forward must include the South Woods Preservation Group, which was not
included in this discussion. She
wanted staff and the Council to make the commitment that none of the South Woods
property would be “negotiated away” without the full knowledge and commitment of
the South Woods Preservation Group.
Mr. Burkett said staff has a
plan and has already applied for grant funding and have discussed the site with
the owners. He said if Council
directs purchase of the entire site, staff will try to find a “creative” way to
do that.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen said the
site is already in public ownership.
He suggested asking the school and water districts to explain why the
property is to be removed from public ownership.
Moving on to the
Facilities-Major Maintenance Fund, Ms. Tarry said this is a new fund for major
maintenance for the police station, pool, and
Councilmember Grace
commented that this is confusing because the milestones look more like
facilities upgrades rather than maintenance. He wondered if this was not capitalizing
maintenance costs.
Mr. Burkett said this is
“gray area,” and Ms. Tarry clarified that these projects meet the criteria
defined for being a capital project because each is more than $10,000 and
extends the life of the building.
Councilmember Fimia
commented on the $16,000 feasibility study for public works maintenance and a
$33,500 general facilities management plan. She felt less money could be spent on
these items.
Ms. Tarry said these will be
completed in 2005 and were authorized in the 2005 – 2010
CIP.
Moving on to the Roads
Capital Fund, Ms. Tarry said there are 19 projects for $117.7 million. She reiterated that the reason the
largest component of this fund is grants is because of the
Councilmember Fimia said she
continues to have a real disagreement about using Surface Water Utility fees for
roads projects. She felt that when
roads are expanded, the project should assume the burden of the surface water
needs that must be met because more impervious surface is created. The utility
fees deal with the impacts of existing infrastructure. She said there are so many past
infrastructure surface water needs to be addressed by the fees.
Ms. Tarry said the other
alternative is to show the components of the roads projects that address surface
water issues within the Surface Water Capital Fund. Staff felt it was easier to leave them
in the Roads Capital Funds. She
said the utility fees are paid by both residential and commercial
properties.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen asked
how much could be generated through Section 108 loans. He noted that President Bush has not
allocated this type of loan in this budget cycle, but it appears Congress will
restore it. He asked to see “the
Section 108” numbers. He wondered
how much could be generated to address the sidewalk programs and to fund them
more quickly.
Mr. Burkett suggested at
this point just taking Council questions, since most of the projects have been
in the CIP for several years and have been thoroughly discussed. He suggested staff could highlight the
new projects.
In response to a question of
Councilmember Fimia’s earlier in the meeting, Councilmember Grace noted that “In
2005, the City Council can levy up to $83,008,404 or 1.5% of the City’s
estimated assessed value” in Councilmanic debt.
Ms. Tarry pointed out that
the CIP does not include Alternative 2 funding for the Interurban bridge
crossings because the document was produced before the Council’s decision on
that contract. The final document
will show funding at the Alternative level of $4.7 million.
Ms. Tarry said the annual
roads surface maintenance funding has been increased with anticipated fuel tax
money. She also commented on an
error in the document, noting that on page 125, the $1.82 million that shows as
Roads Capital funds in 2006 is really grant funding.
Ms. Tarry commented on the
estimate for the
She turned to the additional
funding in the CIP for new sidewalks programmed at $5.4 million over the six
years to do priority routes. The
design will happen early next year if approved. She said the funding will come from
Roads Capital monies freed up by financing the surface water components of
certain roads projects from Surface Water Utility fees as previously
discussed. Additionally, $1 million
was moved from Phase 2 of the
Finally, Ms. Tarry said that
the improvements at
Councilmember Grace asked
about the traffic small works projects.
Responding to Councilmember
Grace, Ms. Marilley said these are generally traffic solutions as opposed to
pedestrian safety projects, such as crosswalks.
Mr. Burkett said the
advantage of this approach is that neighborhood problems can be addressed
quickly rather than having to wait for the annual CIP
process.
Responding to Councilmember
Fimia, Ms. Marilley said the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program funding is for
staffing and analysis of how to solve neighborhood safety problems. Once a solution is determined, there are
multiple opportunities to try to find funding.
Councilmember Fimia
reiterated her question about which projects are getting grants and what other
types of projects would be eligible for that funding. She said she was looking for a specific
answer as to the major grants the City applies for and what types of projects
are eligible. For
Councilmember Fimia
reiterated her request for the categories that projects grants can be used
for.
Ms. Marilley said many
grants are time-sensitive, and granting authorities make the rules. She used the Transportation Improvement
Board’s granting criteria as an example.
The City must determine if particular projects meets the criteria, so
there is flexibility in what project is used. Once the grant funding is received, it
must be applied to that particular grant.
Very few grants are broad.
Councilmember Fimia
expressed her familiarity with how grants are awarded. She asked for a consolidated list for
the types of grants the City is going after and the criteria for each. She also reiterated her desire to change
the gateway allocation, probably to the sidewalk program. She asked how many sidewalks can be
installed for the $5 million allocation.
Ms. Marilley said the range
of costs was $70 to $250/lineal foot.
Using $150/lineal foot as the estimate, six or seven miles of sidewalks
could be constructed. This would
take care of the arterials. She
said $5 million spread over six years allows for better
planning.
Responding again to
Councilmember Fimia, Ms. Marilley outlined the three components of the
3rd NW project. She said
that as this project has progressed, less expensive ways of achieving the goals
of the project have been identified.
The third phase of this project was to install a pumping system at Pantera Pond to address drainage problems in
Councilmember Grace
commented that the sidewalk priority routes are to be identified in the first
part of 2006. He said sidewalks
around schools are a priority.
Setting forth these priorities will help determine where the funding is
focused.
Councilmember Fimia asked
that staff list options on how to reduce costs on Phases 2 and 3 of the Aurora
Corridor project. Ms. Tarry said
staff will bring forward a schedule of actions. Mr. Burkett said the City is in the
environmental process now and within the next year the Council will be making
decisions about the elements and alignments of Phase 2. Councilmember Fimia wanted to discuss
these decisions sooner rather than later.
She feared staff is already talking to property owners and making a
number of assumptions about what the elements of Phase 2 will
be.
Ms. Marilley said the Public
Words Director and Kirk McKinley have been talking with businesses about the
remaining phases but have not brought forward a specific design. This allows for earlier input by the
businesses.
Ms. Tarry moved to the
Surface Water component, noting it reflects the Surface Water Master Plan.
Mr. Burkett said that as
part of the master plan, there was some additional funding added. This is reflected in the
CIP.
Councilmember Grace asked
whether the funding for the “Small Projects,” page 175 of the CIP, will be used
for already identified projects or if it is a contingency
fund.
Jesus Sanchez, Operations
Manager, said it is a combination of both.
He said the City has learned from the several major storm events that
have occurred in the past few years and the problem areas have been
prioritized. Two have been
identified: 187th and
Midvale and 152nd and Ashworth, which will be addressed this
year.
Responding to Mayor Hansen,
Mr. Sanchez said the
Councilmember Fimia
commented on the $200,000/year allocated to surface water management and
engineering. She felt this $1.8
million for six years should be put into the actual projects instead. Mr. Burkett responded that the total
allocation for surface water is $22 million, so it makes sense to spend ten
percent of that to do the planning.
Sometimes additional planning has saved millions of dollars, at Ronald
Bog and
Councilmember Fimia
responded that through the master planning process, the projects have been
identified. Each project has a planning component
already.
Ms. Tarry said some of the
costs are not allocated directly to specific projects. She concluded that this discussion will
continue next week.
10.
ADJOURNMENT
At
_________________________