HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/08/1997September 8, 1997 Vol. 31, Page 13
1 MINUTES
2 OF A REGULAR MEETING
3 PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
a MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
s ROLL CALL 3:00 mm.
6 Present: Read, Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton
7 Absent: Mayor Hilligoss
8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
9 The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Terrance Garvey.
10 MOMENT OF SILENCE
II
COUNCIL COMMENT
12 MS - the Employees Appreciation Picnic was a success. She thanked all the City staff that
13 helped setting up and cleaning up. McNear Park has no recycling cans. There is a can
la crusher that can be attached to a garbage can. The 3rd Annual Petaluma 24-hour Relay is
IS October 4 and 5 which raises funds for the Youth. She has met with both of the teams of
16 wastewater bidders prior to this meeting.
17 NR - commended MS for putting the barbeque together. The Art in the Park program was
18 last weekend. She has met with both vendors before this meeting.
19 PT - also met with both vendor teams.
20 MM - asked staff to change the report by the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee on
21 evaluation of the proposals to September 22.
22 DK - The editorial Board of the Press Democrat needs to get a life. This is the most public
23 participation in City Manager selection that has ever happened. The editorial is an
24 abomination.
25
CONSENT CALENDAR
26 The following items which are noncontroversial and which have been reviewed by the City
27 Council and staff were enacted by one motion which was introduced by Nancy Read and
28 seconded by Matt Maguire.
29 Ayes: Read, Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton
30 Noes: None
31 Absent: Mayor Hilligoss
Key to abbreviations. JH-mice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read
PH-MayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember MaryStompe
DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt
MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
Page 14, Vol. 31 September 8, 1997
1 RESO. 97-248 NCS
2 ANTIOUE STREET FAIRE
3 Resolution 97-248 NCS authorizing closure of a portions of Kentucky Street, A Street,
4 Water Street and Main Street parking lot between 4:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on September 28,
s 1997.
6 * * * * * End of Consent Calendar
7 DIPLOMAS
8 Assistant City Manager Warren Salmons awarded Doctor of Sewerosoohy Diplomas to:
9 The members of the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee:
10 Ralph Sartori
11 Matt Maguire
12 Dan Libarle
13 Bill White
14 Two citizens:
is Terrance Garvey
16 Vasco Brazil
17 Wastewater Proposers:
18 Pete Talbot, Montgomery United Water
19 Chris McAuliffe, U. S. Filter
20 Petaluma Staff:
21 Michael Ban, Utility Engineer
22 Jennifer Barrett, Senior Planner
23 Thomas Hargis, City Engineer
24 David Spilman, Finance Director
25 Richard Rudnansky, City Attorney
26 PROPOSALS - NEW SEWER PLANT
27 City Engineer Tom Hargis encouraged the public to either attend these meetings or write
28 letters to the City Council about this issue. The proposed schedule is:
29 September 8 (today)
30 Vendor presentations from Montgomery United Water and U S Filter
31 Public and Council comment
32
33 September 22 (two weeks from now)
34 Staff report on evaluation of proposals
35 Citizens' Committee evaluation of proposals
36 Wastewater Consultant Team report on proposals
37 Discussion of making proposer (bid) numbers public
38
Key to abbreviations: JH- Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read
PH -Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe
DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt
MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
September 8, 1997 Vol. 31, Page 15
i September 29 (three weeks from now)
2 Report from Ratepayer Study (Farnkopf)
3 Public and Council comment, and possibly direction to staff
4 In this City Council meeting packet, among other things, were the following items:
5 - Staff Evaluation of Proposals for the Citizens Wastewater Advisory
6 Committee
7 - Brown and Caldwell Technical comparison of Proposals
8 - Letter from U S Filter/EOS stating the would work with a minimum of an
9 "A" bond rating
io - Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee Evaluation of the proposals and
i i Recommendations to the City Council
12 - Financial Approach Analysis of proposals by Public Financial Management
13 - Wastewater Privatization Service Agreement Analysis of Proposals by
14 Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott
15 - Resolution 96-339 NCS detailing proposal evaluation and selection
16 methodology
17 Staff was asked when the Sonoma Countv Water Agenev (SCWA) will submit their
18 evaluation of the publicly operated sewer treatment facility. City Engineer Hargis noted there
19 have been 3 meetings with the SCWA. They are going to contract with technical expertise to
20 assist in doing this evaluation for the City. The study should take several months. The City
21 Council asked that the September 15 agenda be revised to include a discussion and a
22 resolution on the subject.
23 Mr. Hargis requested that if the Council were to chose either proposer, that the staff be
24 allowed to keep the other proposal in hand in case the City cannot come to a settlement with
25 the chosen party. The Service Agreement Analysis is scheduled for either September 22 or
26 29. MS - Four alternatives were suggested, 1 and 2 Negotiate with one or the other
27 proposer, 3 Negotiate with both proposers, 4 Begin alternative procurement process, add 5
28 Release all the numbers. DK agrees with release of the financial information. He also wants a
29 very complete list of what we want to negotiate.
30 MONTGOMERY UNITED WATER (MUW) PRESENTERS
M The following named persons spoke to the City Council about the proposal submitted by
32 Montgomery United Water and about their interpretation of the U. S. Filter/EOS proposal.
33 - Peter Talbot, Project Director MUW - VP Project Development, Montgomery Watson
34 - Don Correll, Board Member, MUW - Chairman & CEO United Water Resources
35 - Steve Howard, Lead Banker, MUW - Sr. V.P. Infrastructure Financing Lehman
36 Brothers
37 - Ann Farrell, Design Manager MUW - Principal Engineer United Water Services
38 - Don Goodrow, Operations Mgr. MUW - Principal Engineer United Water Services
39 - Vicki Scharnhorst, Project Consultant MUW - VP Municipal Operations Montgomery
40 Watson (spoke on ecology)
Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read
PH -Mayo rM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe
DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt
Mid-Councilmember Matt Maguire
Page 16, Vol. 31 September 8, 1997
1 U. S. FILTER / EOS PRESENTERS
2 The following named persons spoke to the City Council -about the proposal submitted by U S
3 Filter/EOS and they referred to some of the MUW interpretations of the U S Filter proposal:
4 - Mike Stark, Vice President and General Manager of U S Filter Operations
s - Tim Traff, Senior Vice President U. S. Filter - Finance
6 - Chibby Alloway, Vice President and Regional Manager U S Filter/EOS - Technical
7 - Chris McAuliffe, Petaluma Treatment Plant Manager - Environment & Community
8 SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROPOSERS
9 For the following paragraph, this is the abbreviation key: Montgomery United Water (MUW)
10 and U. S. Filter (USF)
11 Some of the differences between the two proposals related to sewer pond use - lined (USF)
12 or unlined ponds (MUW), placement of blowers inside of a structure (USF) or outside of a
13 structure (MUW), which pond to use for bio-solid recovery - one is adjacent to Lakeville
14 Highway closest to town (MUW) and the other is catty -corner from there and close to the
13 river (USF), and financing the project through the use of taxable or tax free bonds (MUW) or
16 financing `in-house' (USF). One will use "hazardous" chemicals (MUW), the other says it
17 will not use them (USF). The process to reduce water in the biosolids is different - use of a
18 centrifuge (USF) vs. a belt press (MUW). One would use hypochlorate and/or ferric chloride
19 (MUW) to combine with the sulfur compounds to reduce odor the other will use air blowing
20 through wet compost (USF) to reduce odor. One manufactures related water treatment
21 equipment which would reduce the cost of technology upgrades and replacement costs
22 (USF); the other does not (MM). One says ground water needs to be protected near the
23 sewer ponds (USF), the other says there is no problem with the ground water (MUW).
24 SOME OF THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN PROPOSERS
25 Some of the similarities of the two proposals include treatment will be to "Title 22" quality
26 of treated wasted wastewater. This level of treatment allows the treated wastewater to have
27 unrestricted use. They both will use ultra -violet disinfection. Both talked about doing some
28 sort of project that would be beneficial environmentally. When the new plant is on line, both
29 would use ten employees.
30 When asked what one would do if there is a contaminant in the bio-solids, USF said that the
31 monitoring system would catch most of the heavy metals. The question was not asked of
32 MUW. USF said the capital improvements that would be needed to maintain an up to date
33 facility would not be the responsibility of the city during the 30 years of the contract. They
34 would develop criteria and upgrade programs with the assistance of an oversight committee
35 to be appointed.
Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read
PH -Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe
DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt
MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
September 8, 1997 Vol.31, Page 17
i MUW on Debt vs. E ui - Always have been cautious when someone said just write me a
2 check, because I don't think that is particularly responsive to what the City had asked for.
3 We trace our routes to a utility and have operated a utility for almost 130 years. We operate
4 both the largest water and wastewater contract operations in the United States. You heard a
s mayor say we are saving them $73 Million over a 5 year period. That is not cost plus
6 regulation of a utility. We have cut them a check, not for the entire amount, but we did make
7 a payment to them. That also was not cost plus regulation which is what often utilities do.
R Our business is running water and wastewater businesses. We do operate to lower the cost
9 for all of our customers. Debt is less expensive than equity capital. It would be Montgomery
io Water who would be the partner with the City not the bond holders. We don't think that
ii writing a check for this project would be a responsible approach. The cost of financing is a
12 direct pass through to the City. United Water has over 100 years of demonstrated capacity
13 and access to the cheapest source of financing. In the State of California there is $1.6 Billion
14 of tax exempt bond cap that would be available in 1998. About 10% of that is set aside for
15 high priority environmental projects such as this. We believe that we could further drive
16 down the cost of the debt financing through the issuance of tax exempt debt and get down to
17 that lowest point of 6% which will be a direct pass through to the customers of the City of
is Petaluma.
19 MUW on Title 22 - A couple responses to the technical issue: On Title 22 they have serious
20 concerns about the ability of the USF proposal to even meet Title 22. We talked a lot about
21 what Title 22 requires. One thing the guidelines require is 10 NTU's going onto the filters;
22 and from their own pilot study at Napa they had 50 NTU's going onto the filters. They say
23 they do not believe that DHS?? would allow direct filtration of pond effluent on Page 33 then
24 on Page 43 they say it may not be possible to meet the 2 NTU limit for filtered effluent.
25 What is actually being constructed at Napa they have added another set of clarifier between
26 the on -site storage and the filters in order insure they have 10 NTU going onto the filters. So
27 that's why we did not follow the same approach; and again we have serious concerns that this
28 approach will meet Title 22.
29 MVW on Pond Liners - one thing that didn't come up today is that USF has their sludge
30 lagoons in Pond 10, and those are clay lined, similar to what we are proposing. They'll be
31 storing sludge for 6 to 9 months in the sludge lagoons, and those are much closer to the river
32 and immediately upgradient from the river. We don't understand, if they are lining the
33 biolac, why they aren't lining the sludge lagoons with a polyethylene liner.
34 MUW on Wet weather - I think we have more information there and possibly that's why we
35 feel that more storage is needed, because we did the infiltration inflow study.
36 MUW on We Have More - We did our own comparison of the capital facilities in the
37 ground and in our comparison we believe that we have more dollars in the ground. We have
38 a parallel screen at the headworks. We have more diffusers in the biolac system. We have
39 larger clarifiers by 20%. We have more back-up equipment. We have a back-up blower, a
4o back-up mix liquor pump. We have a back-up belt press for solids dewatering whereas have
41 only one centrifuge. If that centrifuge is out of service they have to stockpile solids. We
42 have larger filter capacity. If we check in their proposal they do not meet the 5 gallons per
43 minute per square foot with one unit out of service. We have a larger administration building
44 so that we can do these things of bringing the public into the facility. We'll have the space to
45 do that and lastly we have a larger temporary tower system. We have 1500 kv compared to
46 400 so that we will not have to bypass close to the ponds in the event of a power outage we
47 can always produce Title 22 effluent.
Key to abbreviations: JH-Dice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read
PH Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe
DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt
MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
Page 18, Vol. 31 September 8, 1997
i MUW on Odor control - our approach to odor control is a proactive approach. Our
2 philosophy is a proactive one to keep the odors from generating in the first place. A couple
3 issues about it is with regard to the headwaters. It's possible odors could be generated. It's
4 also possible that they are not. Many facilities just like this have open headwaters with no
s headwater control facilities and there is not a problem. There is going to be a change in the
6 nature of the flow to the system when we convert from raw sewage going to the existing
7 force main when the new facility comes on line as compared to the combination of untreated
s and treated sewage going through right now. Our approach has been to provide a system
9 that allows you to proactively handle the odors before they are generated, without having to
10 commit capital resources at something that may not be necessary in the long run. Also by
ii treating the odors and preventing them from forming the release of odors from air relief
12 valves along the length of the force main which runs through your industrial commercial areas
13 which could release odors intermittently in populated areas is eliminated completely. Finally,
14 we eliminate processes that would generate odor and we minimize inventory of biosolids on
15 site to minimize odors.
16 MUW on Reuse - There is a balance that you have to strike between the desire to have a
17 beneficial reuse program and the handling of solids that go with managing and implementing
18 that program. Our approach has been to provide for a diversified management program. The
19 belt and suspenders approach.
20 MUW on Emplovee relationships - we are sensitive to employee issues. We have worked
21 with unions at many of our projects. We have worked with AFSCME and joined in a
22 partnership with us and negotiated contracts for the collection system.
23 MUW on Renewal and replacement -we have set aside money for replacement of
24 equipment, approximately 6%. That is accounted for in our pricing.
25 Council to MUW - MM regarding noise impacts of the blowers and the motors. Response
26 - We are building the facilities at elevation 12 to 14 so the majority of the facilities won't be
27 visible over the levees and from Lakeville Highway, this will also help to contain the odors
28 and the noise in that Pond #2. We plan to put enclosures on the blowers and generators.
29 Anything that is not in a building you can purchase acoustical enclosures for it. This was
30 what we did to reduce capital cost. MM - It will include the enclosures? Response - Right.
31 USF on - the Financial comments - the numbers about USF as presented by MUW are
32 1994 and 1995 numbers. They do not represent the present. Our debt is less than half of the
33 competitor's. The cost of debt financing or the cost of equity for a utility is significantly
34 higher than a company like ourselves. Regarding what is prudent, we are a company that is
35 far larger and what we do with our balance sheet is something that the Board gives direction
36 to. My job is to manage the balance sheet and we've always said we would never ever
37 impede the growth or compromise our customers with an overloaded balance sheet. The
38 assets have actually grown another $300 or 400 Million since we released first quarter
39 information. So in terms of the $30+ Million that is being allocated to the City of Petaluma,
40 you are less than 1% of our assets more or less as we enter the project bidding process this
41 Fall. Our debt to total to total cap which is another measurement of financial stability is less
42 than half that of our competitor. If you compare the debt to total equity, there is no
43 comparison at all.
Key to abbreviations: JH-Dice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read
PH-MayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember MaryStompe
DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt
MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
September 8, 1997 Vol. 31, Page 19
1 USF on financials, cont'd. As you look at the financial package here and how we decide to
2 pay for your plant off our balance sheet using how our weighted average cost of capital, the
3 numbers are far different than what they are talking about here. In terms of the question that
4 Matt asked, is this a change in proposal, I think another way for the City Council to look at it
5 is we are, in effect, becoming the bond holder and not going to outside investors, it is
6 investors from U. S. Filter. As you look at the 30 year present value and what falls into the
7 bottom line each year for the next 30 years and the 2 ten year extensions after that, our cost
8 of capital is just one aspect after the labor and after the land and everything else. It's just one
9 component. I think that as the numbers are revealed to the Council you will see that we are
io the lowest cost providers, because we are the largest company here.
ii USF's Response by Bill Knaff, Corolla Engineers - Filtering treated water - We will meet
12 Title 22 requirements. This water will be reused by you in several different ways. We do
13 nutrient reduction so there will be less algae. You will not have the quality of water with the
14 other design as you would with our design. There was some reference by MLJW about the
15 work at the Napa plant, there is no comparison with the facilities that you would have here.
16 We are going to have a much higher degree of treatment prior to discharge to the ponds.
17 Our design also includes nutrient reduction, so the amount of algae will be significantly less.
18 The filters at the end of the pond will also reduce more of these kinds of heavy metals, than
i9 the other approach.
20 USF on the use of electricity, the MUW proposal has four 400 horsepower blowers and
21 ours has four 300 horsepower blowers. It is just multiplication, they show a higher number
22 for us, so there is something wrong with the calculations. We have been through this
23 discussion at the committee level. The UV system is higher installed wattage than MUW, but
24 we have more flexibility in how that wattage is used. We think the overall energy
25 consumption is less. We would be happy to provide any information you may need to have
26 your technical advisors compare the electricity cost. In the long run, the differences may not
27 be a major point.
28 USF on Chemicals - Chemical is not included in our costs, because we are not using ferric
29 chloride in our proposal, no hazardous chemicals at all.
30 USF has never in its history had a contract terminated early. We have won more EPA and
31 safety awards than anybody else in the industry. Your consultants and your staff did not rate
32 certain aspects of our technical proposal and did not rate certain aspects of our financial
33 proposal as being superior, they rated our entire technical proposal and they rated our entire
34 financial proposal as being technically superior.
35 Council questions to USF - In response to the question about their suggestion many years
36 ago of an oxidation ditch, wasn't that what was proposed? USF said it was. It isn't
37 actually that dissimilar to what we are both proposing right now. What the change in process
38 between that early suggestion and now is the way we put air into the system, not so much the
39 sizing of it, or the shape of it, or what it looks like, an oxidation ditch and a biolac work fairly
40 similarly, if you take away how we put air into the diffuser system. We could have used
41 surface aerators like the aerated pond currently is using right now. Right now we are using
42 diffused air which is much more efficient and lower hours power requirement for the facility.
43 USF - DK (question to Tim Traff on Financials) noted there is an internal cost of vour
44 funds to be used for this project, please talk about what that cost is. USF Response - we are
45 a public company, and you can look at our working capital and how we get it from free cash
46 flow from operations and what value you may assign to that equity.
Key to abbreviations: JH-vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read
PH -Ma Al Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe
DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt
MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
Page 20, Vol. 31 September 8, 1997
1 USF - You can look at short-term borrowing from lines of credit from commercial banks.
2 You can look at the financing that we have used in the past, using convertible notes, which is
3 a bond like instrument that converts into equity. We have sold three of those over the past 3
4 or 4 years; we sold one ten months ago with a 4.5% coupon on it. So our weighted average
5 cost of capital is we are not selling stock here to pay for this plant; we are going to be using
6 cash available on the books, and we will be using some lines of credit. But as we do with all
7 of our basic business operations on a daily basis. I believe that the number has been
8 presented to staff has a fixed number with an equity portion that is 100% higher than our
9 competition, and with a fixed rate of 6.5% on the debt portion.
10 USF - DK Basically what I am looking for is the end number here, your weighted average
ii cost of capital that you would be using for this proposal would be about what? USF
12 Response - It would be less than 6.5%. We could discuss the salaries of all the employees,
13 we could discuss the cost of cement and everything else, I would encourage the Council as
14 they look at the numbers and the net present value that as we were educated on the process,
15 that interest expense is one of the highest components of pass through. We are offering
16 something here that is very different. We're not going to outside investors, and the cost of
17 our capital is just simply a cost of our sales in providing the services to the City of Petaluma.
18 So when you look at the bottom line, it's included in that number. DK where I'm going with
19 this is, if the cost of capital is a pass though USF it's not a pass through, it's pass through as
20 an expense. DK correct, yes, and so what I am looking then is, does that mean in changing
21 your approach for financing that your final numbers will change from where they were when
22 the new numbers are resubmitted? USF I don't believe the numbers have changed - no -
23 what we're able to suggest to the City of Petaluma is that, in the final analysis, the bottom
24 line number should be the most cost effective. I believe that's what the staff has referred to,
25 in that we're, because of the size of our company able to stand before you today and say that
26 they are fixed today as represented, not floating subject to market conditions, or rating
27 agencies or legal issues or subordinations to bond holders. So, does that make any sense?
28 DK - We'll unravel more as we go through.
29 Council comments and reauests - The Council asked both proposers about "Appendiz ®"
30 and wants that to be absolutely complete for both proposals. There needs to be something in
31 the final documents about returning to the City (i.e. ratepayers) any savings that would occur
32 as a result of improved technology, operating strategy or any other reason. The oversight
33 committee will work with that issue and USF will submit proposed wording for the contract
34 to cover that issue.
35 NR requested that the City of Petaluma staff at the September 22 meeting give us the bottom
36 line life cycle cost of the treatment facility. MM feels the right moment has not been reached
37 to share the costs. The issue is not final. We are now entering into the phase that will make
38 the numbers real. It is his recommendation the City enters into the negotiation phase before
39 the numbers are released. City Manager Beatty said a discussion of the numbers could be
40 placed on the September 22 agenda and it was asked that this be listed last on that agenda.
41 PT does not want to have disclosure of the proposers' bid numbers until the negotiations are
42 completed. JH asked staff to some management of the proposed agenda items for the next
43 meeting. MM says it is acceptable to put this on the agenda for the next meeting, but he
44 would prefer it be on the September 29 agenda. Proceed with picking a vendor then proceed
45 with discussion of numbers. MS doesn't want to continue to put this discussion off. JH
46 noted there are enough Councilmembers who want it on the next agenda, at the end.
Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read
PH -Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember MaryStompe
DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt
MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
September 8, 1997 Vol. 31, Page 21
i City Engineer Tom Hargis said staff will request the vendors to verify the content of
2 Appendix "O" in writing and we will look for that response. Anything you heard tonight if it
3 is different for the submitted proposal, the two vendor teams need to be submitting it in
4 writing so the City has a written document of their commitment.
s At the 22nd staff and the consultants will be prepared to address the release of the finance
6 information and some suggestions how that might be done and still preserve the negotiating
7 posture the City is so concerned about. We will be restructuring things so that can be
8 discussed on the agenda.
9 LIAISON
io DK noted the Sonoma County Transportation Authority has a new Executive Director Susan
ii Wilford who worked an aide with Valerie Brown in Sacramento. There is currently not the
12 Petaluma section of Highway 101 for HOV lanes does not have a project study report from
13 CALTRANS which means that SCTA is requesting that go forward. Currently it is ineligible
14 for immediate programming and funding. The hope from SCTA is that goes into the STIP
15 funding cycle which would 2004, 2005. This would be lanes from the Petaluma bridge north
16 to tie into From 12 to Steele Lane is the first segment of that. There is nothing the City
17 needs to do at this time.
18 ADJOURN
19 At 11:10 p.m., the Council adjourned in memory of Mother Theresa.
20 /r
21
22
23 M. Patricia Hilligoss, Mayor /
24 ATTEST:
2s
26
27
28 Patricia E. Bernard, City Clerk
Key to abbreviations: JH- Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read
PH -Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe
DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt
MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire