Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-14 Budget Committee Approved Minutes Ashland Citizens Budget Committee Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 14, 3:00 PM -5:30 PM Council Chambers, 1175 E Main Street I. Call to Order Chair Shane Hunter called the meeting to order at 3:00pm II. Roll Call Present: Mayor Tonya Graham, Councilor Eric Hansen, Councilor Gina DuQuenne, Councilor Dylan Bloom, Councilor Je? Dahle, Councilor Bob Kaplan. Citizen Budget Committee (CBC) members Shane Hunter (Chair), Linda Adams, Kristen Roy, James Fredericks, Michael Murray, Ariana Spiegler, Meg Wade III. Approval of May 25, 2023, and April 30, 2025, Minutes Approval of the May 25, 2023 Minutes Motion: Linda Peterson Adams Second: Gina DuQuenne Unanimous YES. Motion passes. Approval of the April 30, 2025 Minutes CBC member Linda Peterson Adams suggested a few corrections to the minutes of April 30, 2025. Shane Hunter is not a Councilor and Councilor Bob Kaplan was absent from the meeting. Councilor Bloom asked questions about public meeting law which were answered by the legal department prior to the next meeting, questions and explanations concerning the WIFIA loan from Councilor DuQuenne, and clarification from Chief O’Meara regarding catching up on fees should have been recorded in the minutes. Motion: Linda Peterson Adams Second: Gina DuQuenne Unanimous YES. Motion passes. IV. Public Forum Paul Mozina: Provided comment on the Public Safety Fee and shared concerns about the single role program’s revenue. V. Budget Items 1. Increase Parks budget with possible motion. Finance Director Mariane Berry noted an inconsistency in the agenda and clarified that, upon Council request, the Parks Fee would be e?ective July 1, 2025, for 24 months and for a total of $1.5 million. She discussed that the Citizens Budget Committee would provide their recommendation on the 24-month parks fee timeline and Council would provide their recommendation at a later meeting. Council Je? Dahle asked for clarification on the types of meters and number of meters used to calculate the Parks fee. Berry responded clarified the number of meters was 12,500 and electric meters would be used. CBC member Ariana Spiegler asked for clarification on the timeline of the Parks fee. Berry responded that the CBC has the ability to make approve recommendations for the budget before it gets pushed to Council and that the recommendation could include a dollar amount to increase a program, service, function or department. The CBC would determine the amount, and then it would go to Council as part of the recommended budget. Then Council would decide whether to adopt it or make changes. If changes were over 10% of that particular fund, then a public hearing would be needed. Spiegler asked whether she should consider whether the amount was appropriate or the length of time. Cotta replied that as a CBC member, she was deciding on a 24-month budget, so that period was appropriate. Bloom asked questions regarding the motion and reconvening the CBC for an additional meeting if the amount was lowered. Berry responded that once the CBC made its recommendations to Council it would not need to reconvene, but a public hearing would be needed if Council changes to the recommendations made by the CBC exceeded 10% for any particular fund. Councilor Bob Kaplan asked whether the CBC had already recommended an increase to the Parks budget of $1.4 million, pending Council’s decision on the Parks fee. Mayor Tonya Graham responded that direction was given to sta? to investigate options on how to bring $1.4 million in, but there was not a motion. Kaplan responded that he thought there had been a motion. Berry said that sta? had completed the minutes from the prior meeting, but they had not been completed in time to be added to the agenda. Deputy Finance Director Bryn Morrison read her notes on the motion from the meeting, which was to direct sta?, depending on the Joint meeting, to bring back options for closing the gap of $1.4 million in the Parks budget. Councilor Dylan Bloom recalled that there was an initial discussion about the recommendation mentioned by Kaplan, but then it was amended. Berry read the amended motion from the draft minutes. Cotta clarified that the direction from the joint meeting was to bring Council back a resolution for a $5 fee, and no decision had been made for the length of time of the fee, but for the purpose of the CBC, the budget was for 24 months. CBC member Linda Adams asked whether Berry had given the amount of $1.5 million when she had clarified the amount earlier. Berry a?irmed. CBC Chair Shane Hunter said a motion was needed if the CBC wanted to take action. Motion: I move to add $1,500,000 to the Park Department Operational budget in the General Fund on passage of a pending resolution by Council to establish a $5.00 parks fee charged on all electric meters to fund parks operations in the general fund with a 24-month term starting July 1, 2025. Motion: Adams Second: Hansen Adams read that, as a former Councilor once said, the budget had been sliced and diced through Parks and the Parks Commission. The Parks Department has worked diligently with the Council and the City Administration through multiple meetings and public engagement to present a compelling case for the addition of these fees to keep operations funded at a service level that is su?icient to accommodate one of the most vital threads in the fabric that holds Ashland together, our collective commitment to our parks. Bloom said he felt the best process was for Council to make the decision, then convene CBC, and then include the fee in the budget. He said it was not reflective of how he felt able the fee, or the budget item, but he would be voting no simply because he thought that the Council decision should be first. Councilor Eric Hansen said that he was impressed with the collaborative meeting after the last CBC meeting with the Parks Commissioners, Parks Department and Council. There was support among both Commissioners and the Council for the increase to the Parks budget. He stated that it was a General Fund issue that the CBC was putting into Parks to help relieve the budget. He thanked everyone for their hard work and said that he looked forward to keeping parks open for tourists and Ashlanders and was confident Council would give it a thumbs up. Motion: Proposed amendment to the motion, to only increase the Parks budget to $1,400,000 rather than $1,500,000. Motion: Kaplan Second: Bloom Kaplan said the reason for the amendment was that the Parks funding request was $1.4 million, not $1.5 million, and that the discussed fee was not the only source of funding, so if it generated over $1.4 million, the excess could be used elsewhere. Councilors Bloom and Dahle concurred Graham expressed her support for the motion. CBC member Michael Murray asked for clarification about what happened to increase the amount from $1.4 million to $1.5 million. Berry answered that the lower amount was what the Parks Director had put forth for his specific budget, but when Finance calculated the amount generated from the fee based on the 12,500 electric meters for 24 months, it came to $1.5 million. Murray asked whether the CBC should approve the $5 fee or the amount. Berry replied that it was the amount. Roll Call Vote Amendment Graham, Hansen, DuQuenne, Bloom, Dahle, Kaplan, Hunter, Adams, Roy, Fredericks, Murray, Spiegler, Wade: YES Motion Passes. DuQuenne expressed her appreciation for Kaplan and said that she felt the Parks budget was more of a money management issue than a funding issue and that she did not support the motion. Spiegler said she would support the motion, but from what she understood from conversations about the Parks Department, there were structural issues that needed to be solved, and she would vote on it because there was a time period. Wade expressed their support and that they appreciated everything that was brought forward at the joint session and that Parks was trying to manage and tighten its budget. Graham said that this was not a situation of not living withing ones means, but where the community built a world class park system and the City had not kept up with the expenses needed to manage that world class system. She expressed her appreciation for the conversation with Parks, and that the bigger community conversation is needed to determine the ways the City is going to sustainably pay for the maintenance of that system. She said she would be supporting the motion. Morrison said that the amended motion on the floor was to increase the budget by $1.4 million instead of $1.5 million. Cotta clarified that the CBC had already voted on the amendment, and now the original motion needed to be addressed. Roll Call Vote Amendment Motion: I move to add $1.4 million to the Parks amendment’s operational budget in the General fund on passage of a pending resolution by Council to establish a $5 Parks fee charged on all electric meters to fund Parks operations in the General Fund with the 24-month term starting st July 1, 2025. Motion: Adams Discussion ensued and Adams withdrew her motion. Motion: I move to increase the Parks operation budget by $1.4 million in the General Fund. Motion: Bloom Second: Murray Roll Call Vote Amendment: Bloom, Graham, Hunter, Dahle, Adams, Fredericks, Hansen, Murray, Spiegler, Kaplan, Wade, Roy: YES. DuQuenne: NO. Motion passed In response to the Chair’s inquiry about a question he had, Murray asked how much the City had spent on health care in the last three or four years and how it compared to receiving predictable insurance from a carrier. He also asked if the City was bounded to the benefits by union contracts. He said the reason he was inquiring was that about 62% of the General Fund went to salaries and benefits, and that salaries were 60% of the cost. Berry demonstrated how the Committee could look up actual amounts for salaries and benefits using the tables in the budget book and discussed the di?erent union splits between City paid and employee paid healthcare. Cotta reiterated that the splits were negotiated, and the City had potentially seven unions. Graham asked how the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) influenced the cost of benefits. Berry responded that UAL amount was 6%, but she needed to confirm the number, and it was a slice of the cost that was refreshed annually by PERS. Murray asked whether the City considered the UAL for long-term planning. Kaplan asked if Ashland had considered PERS side accounts, and Berry replied that it was on the City’s radar for consideration and that side accounts were a method of setting aside funds for reducing the City’s UAL contribution. Spiegler asked if the City was self-insured. Berry responded that the City was self-insured but was no longer as it was more cost e?icient to go out for insurance. Hansen asked whether CIS covered the City’s general liability insurance. Berry responded yes. Hansen asked who provided the City’s healthcare insurance. Berry responded that it was CIS. Hansen asked whether the City could go on the open market for insurance, or if it was tied to CIS. Cotta responded that the City was not tied to CIS, but there was a benefit to having the City’s insurance rolled together and the City had brokers that periodically looked for the best options for the City. Hansen asked whether CIS was a nonprofit, since it covered member cities of the League of Oregon Cities. Cotta replied that she thought it was. Hansen asked whether all unions were covered by CIS. Cotta replied yes. 2. Increased budget for Childhood Grants with sample motions and discussion. Dahle asked for clarification on the amount put forth as an option for funding from the Homeless Shelter. Cotta responded that there was $100,000 budgeted each year and that if that option was selected it could be reduced by $50k each year. Mayor Tonya Graham asked how the reduction in homeless funding would a?ect the Severe Weather Shelter. City Manager Sabrina Cotta responded the funding was for sta?ing of the Severe Weather Shelter but the Dusk to Dawn program would also be a?ected. Wade asked if there was a process for the social service grants and whether groups were already applying for them. Cotta described the grant process and said although the call had not gone out for applications, the process had been around for a while. CBC member Kristen Roy asked for a recap of the amount being asked to fund childcare grants and how much would be saved from the option of eliminating positions. Cotta said the amount requested for childcare grants was $240k. Dahle asked if the breakdown in spending between the homeless shelter and the Dusk to Dawn program was available. Cotta responded that it was $120K with additional funding from grants that will not be in place this biennium. Cotta said that another complicating factor was that the City didn’t have a building that could function as a severe weather shelter. Berry followed up on Roy’s previous question and said that two years of salary and benefits for the Deputy City Manager was $552,000, for the Emergency Management Manager was $443,000 and for the Communications O?icer was $369,000. Kaplan clarified the amount budgeted for salaries in the General Fund and asked what the vacancy rate in the General Fund was. Cotta replied that it was currently about 6%. Kaplan said that one percent would equate to about $164k a year and said the City was projecting $2.1 million in reserve, which he was not comfortable using. He asked if it would be reasonable to assume 99% sta?ing to free up the $164k for one year, and then the $5 Parks fee would raise $1.5 million for $1.4 million allocated to Parks. If the City was 100% sta?ed, there would be recourse to use contingency. Berry said that it was a fair assumption, but the City was required to maintain a certain percentage of contingency and ending fund balance and it was not advisable. Kaplan said that he agreed that contingency was non-negotiable and the City had a minimum fund balance policy equivalent to three months, or 16.67%, which was approximately $8 million. If the City funded the personnel line at 99%, and was incorrect, there would be bu?er to cover the rest from the ending fund balance. Berry said that the City had methodologies in place which shouldn’t be changed, such as allocating the costs of internal controls, and one of those methodologies was fully funding authorized FTEs. If the City decided it wanted to change its methodologies, it would need to be consistent moving forward. Kaplan said that was a fair point, and he supported it, but he would also support flexibility given the City had very generous bu?ers. Berry responded that it was the role of Finance to ensure those bu?ers stay in place. Kaplan said he respected that, which is why the City has a favorable credit rating. In reference to changing methodologies, CBC member James Fredericks said that in Corporate America, that type of decision making came up all the time but reverted back because the numbers were subject to manipulation. He acknowledged the di?iculty of the CBC determining which of the options presented for childcare was important and asked whether the CBC could agree to draw from reserves and ask Council to make the determination of whether the positions were needed. Graham noted that Council had been discussing childcare needs for years and that the program was gaining momentum and was at a transformational point in community response. She asked whether there was a way to research the amount of savings from position vacancies to see if there was a way to fund the grants, with a last option of pulling from reserves. Cotta responded that relying on vacancies for funding would be precedent setting, that the City budgets for personnel to ensure it has funding for needed positions, and that budget process has controls for consistency. Hunter asked if the City could draw from reserves and then put money back in reserves if the City was not fully sta?ed. DuQuenne discussed the value of the childcare grants to the community, and asked whether amount budgeted for FTEs was authorized FTEs or the current number of FTEs. Berry responded that it was authorized FTEs. DuQuenne said she would support using the di?erence between actual and budgeted, if it could be done. Bloom said that he could not deliberate or vote on the childcare grants, as someone who serves on the Ad Hoc Committee (for Childcare grants), but could answer questions. Wade asked for clarification on the amount targeted for childcare grants, and whether the childcare grants could be opened up to providers other than the YMCA. Bloom responded that Children’s World Montessori and YMCA were the only two programs that applied that were qualified, but others can apply as long as they qualify according to the standards set by the Ad Hoc Committee. He said that Children’s World no longer qualifies and that the YMCA expanded 40 extra seats, anticipating the grant would be available. Wade asked whether there were enough qualified applicants to use the $235k. Bloom responded that there’s was di?iculty getting teachers in general, but capacity could be expanded and funding could be used for sta?ing and operations as well as for parents and children. Hunter asked whether the Committee was in favor of the $240k to childcare grants and the funding source. Discussion ensued. Spiegler asked if the grant would add 40 seats. Bloom responded that when the program started, the YMCA recognized that it would increase demand and expanded the amount of seats. Spiegler asked how many children the grant covered. Bloom replied that it was 40. Spiegler asked if there was data on the impact on the City’s economy. Cotta responded that there was not. Bloom said that the Ad Hoc Committee was working on collecting that data. Spiegler said that “transformational point and moving into long term sustainability” was mentioned, and what that meant. Graham responded that the Ad Hoc Committee wasn’t designed to go on forever but was put together to tackle the lack of childcare in the City, and that there was talk of endowing money from the community, so the City was not the only source of funding. Bloom added that the Ad Hoc Committee was working on a business engagement program to encourage businesses to take part. He discussed ideas for the endowment and asked how to expand the program long term to deal with the lack of childcare. Roy expressed her support for funding the childcare grants and that the City has to be consistent in its methodology with regards to budgeting for FTEs. She said her preference was for the options provided and asked if the City had to maintain a minimum reserve and asked for the amount. Berry responded that when the Reserve Fund was established, requirements for use were vague, without a specific minimum and that it should be used to stabilize the budget. Berry added that it would be di?icult to use an FTE vacancy percentage to fund the childcare program, as the adjustments would be manual to keep the budget in compliance. She said another option would be a mid-cycle budget reconciliation to determine if there were cost savings, draw from contingency, or refresh the homeless program budget. Kaplan thanked everybody for asking questions, expressed his support, and that if Council approved the $5 Parks Fee, it would raise $1.5 million for the needed $1.4 million in the Parks Department, freeing up $100k. He discussed the projected ending fund balance of the General Fund and whether, based on current ending fund balance which was almost 200% of the minimum required amount, a portion could be used to fund the grants. Deputy Finance Director Bryn Morrison responded that the budget is built on projections, and the projected ending fund balance of fiscal year 2025 is part of the scenario. With that projection, the ending fund balance was just at policy. Kaplan responded that the City had $40,000 in the Reserve Fund before the current biennium started and now had $2.1 million because the City over projected expense and under projected revenues, and that the City was projecting using the entire amount over the minimum fund balance, which had grown to almost twice the amount needed over the course of the biennium. Berry replied that when the budget is developed, the 16.67% needed in the General Fund was a stop line and was inclusive of the carry forwards of whatever cost savings that the City realized during the biennium. Kaplan expressed that he was not in favor of taking money from homeless service programs to fund something else. Berry reiterated that the City does not use the minimum required fund balance and that anything above that 16.67% (for the General Fund) was already appropriated. Graham asked for clarification on how the amounts would be budgeted. Berry responded that it could be allocated however it best made sense, and that there could be a mid-cycle reconciliation, much like was done with the interest income, and if there was additional revenues or cost savings, the City could reappropriate it. Councilor Je? Dahle asked if the CBC allocated money out of the Homeless program and the Community Development Social Service Grants, and community partnerships came forth with grants, if the funds (homeless program/social services grants) could be replenished. Berry replied that it could if 100% of the appropriation was spent. Dahle asked if someone wrote a check for $15k, could Council approve a budget supplemental to put in a specific Fund. Berry responded that Council could, as long as the money was not restricted in use. CBC member Michael Murray asked if a recommendation was needed on the total amount and Council would work through the options. Cotta responded that the CBC could recommend the amount and where it’s coming from to Council. Once the recommendation went to Council, they could adjust as they saw fit. But the expense could not be added without the revenue. Motion: I moved to increase the administration budget for Childcare Grants $235,000 and remove that amount an equal amount to draw from reserves. Motion: Fredericks Second: Murray Discussion ensued. Fredericks said he didn’t like taking anything connected to homeless monies or Community Development and suggested that if the CBC was invested in the program, it should make sure it has the funding for it. He added that the City Council should determine if the funds could be better taken from elsewhere. Murray added that the CBC did not have the budget experience to make the calls that Council does. Hunter expressed his support for the program to draw from reserves to get the program on its feet. Dahle expressed his support for the program and that program was critical to families and the local economy but could not support pulling from the Reserve Fund. Motion: Proposed amendment to the motion, to change that title to Childcare Program Support. Motion: Graham Second: Dahle Roll Call Vote Amendment: Graham, Hunter, Dahle, Adams, Fredericks, Hansen, DuQuenne, Murray, Spiegler, Kaplan, Wade, Roy: YES. Bloom: Recused Motion passed Discussion ensued. Spiegler said that she agreed with Dahle regarding drawing from reserves, but understood the program was at a transformational point, and would be voting for it. Kaplan said that he was not in favor of taking money out of reserves but thought there were ample bu?ers that would allow him to support \[the motion\] in hopes of Council finding a better funding source. Amended Motion: I move to increase the admin budget for Childcare Program Support Grants by $235K and move that amount from reserves. Motion: Bloom Second: Murray Roll Call Vote Amended motion: Graham, Hunter, Adams, Fredericks, Hansen, Murray, DuQuenne, Spiegler, Kaplan, Wade, Roy: YES. Dahle: NO. Bloom, Recuse. Motion passed. Bloom said he appreciated Mayor Graham’s amendment, that the City may see some program closures, but other programs will step up and expand, and this gives the flexibility to do so. Wade asked, that given the discussion on the lack of a clear policy, whether it was within the ability of the committee to recommend to Council that a reserve policy is established. Motion: I move that the Committee recommend the Council to establish a reserve policy this year. Motion: Wade Second: Spiegler Wade said that Finance had expressed a desire for a policy and the City needed to have a better understanding of the role of the reserve and a healthy level for it to be at. Spiegler concurred. Adams added that the City was going to be entering into a strategic planning process, and that this source was all about finding financial policies for the reserve fund. Dahle expressed his support, and that it was the start of discussions around strategic forecasting by sta? leadership and Council. DuQuenne expressed her appreciation for Murray’s earlier questions and comments about insurance. Kaplan expressed support, and that it would good idea for the Council to spend time with sta? developing a reserve policy. Roll Call Vote on Motion: Graham, Hunter, Dahle, Adams, Fredericks, Hansen, Murray, DuQuenne, Spiegler, Kaplan, Wade, Roy, Bloom: YES. Motion passed. Wade said the Committee had discussed reconvening in a year to check in, as opposed to meeting in two years. Motion: I move that we recommend that council call the budget committee to meet in one year's time Motion: Wade Second: Fredericks Discussion ensued. Fredricks said that two years was a long time between meetings and that the Committee would have a better sense of the success of programs that have allocated funds. DuQuenne expressed support as well. Hansen asked the City Manager how it might a?ect sta? time. Cotta deferred to Berry, who replied that it could potentially be a study session. She said that Committee member terms would have to be evaluated, there may not be a full committee in a year, it would take sta? time to put together the agenda and seat the meeting. Hansen said it would be a great opportunity and could be a study session. Bloom said that it would be good formalize in motion so the meeting would be scheduled, and it would be good to see what happens over the course of a year. He also expressed his appreciation to the citizens members of the CBC. Graham said that she thought an annual check-in was important to determine if there was something out on the horizon past the next fiscal year that would create a significant disruption, which would give the Council a year to plan and have community conversations. She thanked Wade for bringing forward and expressed her support. Roll Call Vote on Motion: Bloom, Graham, Hunter, Dahle, Adams, Fredericks, Hansen, Murray, DuQuenne, Spiegler, Kaplan, Wade, Roy: YES. Motion passed Motion: I moved to approve the property tax levy in the amount of $4.2865 per $1,000 of assessed value for fiscal year 2025 to 2026 and fiscal year 2026 to 2027 respectively and approved property taxes for the payment of general obligation principal and interest bonded debt in the total amounts of $213,552 for fiscal year 2025 to 2026 and $202,774 for fiscal year 2026 to 2027. Motion: Adams Second: Graham Discussion ensued. Adams said that setting the tax limit at the most that the City could request from the state was the only choice the Committee had and that the City needs to continue e?orts to persuade both Ashland citizens, and state and federal legislators that equitable and progressive tax reform is needed. Graham expressed her support. DuQuenne said she wanted to let residents know that this was not a tax hike. Roll Call Vote on Motion: Bloom, Graham, Hunter, Dahle, Adams, Fredericks, Hansen, DuQuenne, Murray, Spiegler, Kaplan, Wade, Roy: YES. Motion passed. Motion: I moved to approve the City of Ashland 2025-27 Biennial Budget as revised and recommended the budget to the City Council for adoption. Motion: Spiegler Second: Bloom Discussion ensued: Spiegler said the Committee had put in a lot of work and that it was a wonderful experience. She thanked everyone for their service and said she thought the budget had come to a good conclusion. Bloom agreed. Graham expressed her appreciation for the Budget Committee process, and everyone who devoted time to it, especially sta?. She spoke to the fact there were people behind the numbers that the Committee dealt with, and in order to bring the budget to the Committee, cuts to existing programs had to be made. She acknowledged the good work of the group and the consequences of bringing programs in which the City invests in line with available resources. Frederick acknowledged the work done by the Finance Director, her team and the City, and expressed his appreciation for her being available for questions and the time and e?ort that was put into the budget. Roy expressed her appreciation as well and said it had been a great learning process. Murray acknowledged the amount of work that went into the budget, and said it was one of the better budget processes he’d seen, and the City had well-structured financial support, which he didn’t know until he got involved. He thanked sta? and Council. Hansen said that the Committee came into the budget process after sta? had done hard work and made cuts, knowing there were going to be hard decisions as well as opportunities for collaboration and citizens to pitch in more. He acknowledged that proposed fee increases were going to have an impact and that the Council and Commissioners had been trying their best to represent the citizenry. He said he was proud of the work, collaboration and open-mindedness, and thanked sta?. Kaplan thanked the members of the Budget Committee and said they had asked good, di?icult questions and made good recommendations, and that it was helpful for Council to get their perspectives and have a broader conversation about what was going on and the issues. He also thanked sta? for putting together the budget, being in good humor despite di?icult questions and always being super professional and doing a great job. DuQuenne expressed appreciation for everyone’s work and laughter. She said she would not be able to support the budget because she did not see how sustainable it was and could not support something that would impact so many people on unknown. Roll Call Vote on Motion: Bloom, Graham, Hunter, Dahle, Adams, Fredericks, Hansen, Murray, Spiegler, Kaplan, Wade, Roy: YES. DuQuenne: NO Motion passed. VI. Q&A Deliberation Hunter thanked everyone for their hard work and noted it was good to get the community involved every two years. He referenced the mid-year meeting to keep engagement and learning moving forward and asked about the next meeting. Berry replied that it hadn’t been noticed and if the Committee did not want to meet, it could be taken o? the schedule. Graham asked whether it would be a good idea to have a quick convening meeting to approve the two meeting minutes from the series, so the next budget committee didn’t have to approve minutes that they weren’t present at. Bloom thanked her for bringing it up and asked if the meeting could be around 5:00 pm. Fredricks asked whether it was necessary for a physical meeting or if the minutes could be emailed. Cotta responded that a way would be figured out and now that the CBC was meeting mid-year, the minutes could be brought back then. Adams thanked Hunter for running a great meeting, and he thanked everyone for voting him Chair. Meeting Adjourned Meeting Adjourned at 5:11 PM.