Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-19 Cost of Government Commission MinutesCOST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION County of Hawaii MTN11TFC December 19, 2006 — 10:00 a.m. Department of Liquor Control - Conference Room 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Commissioners Myles Y. Miyasato, Chair present: Wayne T. Joseph, Vice Chair Marilyn L. Nicholson, Commissioner Patricia Provalenko, Commissioner Barbara R. Stremski, Commissioner Also present: Diane A. Noda, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary E. Crosson, Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2006 MEETING Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to approve the December 7, 2006, minutes. Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No members of the public were present. 4. APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM AND /OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA There was no addendum or supplementary agenda. 5. DISCUSSION ON AND DRAFTING OF FINAL REPORT REGARDING THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: a. Finance Department: Recommend discontinuing having all departmental bills come with return envelopes enclosed for automatic payment customers. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to include this recommendation in the final report, and Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, all commissioners present voted aye. b. Department of Environmental Management (Wastewater Division) and Department of Water Supply: Recommend further investigation into combining the water and sewer bills into one bill. Mr. Joseph said he did not like the term "further investigation," as it was not strong enough, and Ms. Nicholson agreed. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to amend the recommendation to read: "Recommend combining the water and sewer bills into one bill," and delete "further investigation." Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, all commissioners present voted aye. Department of Environmental Management (Wastewater Division) and Department of Water Supply: Recommend pursuing water turn -off approval for overdue sewer bills. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to accept the recommendation as worded, and Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, all commissioners present voted aye. d. Department of Environmental Management (Wastewater Division): Recommend expanding programs to assist homeowners to connect to the sewer system where it is available. Motion and Vote: Ms. Stremski moved to accept the recommendation, and Mr. Joseph seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, all commissioners present voted aye. Department of Environmental Management (Wastewater Division): Recommend developing proposals for stricter enforcement of sewer connections for all homeowners where such connections are available. Motion and Vote: Ms. Provalenko moved to accept the recommendation as worded, and Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, all commissioners present voted aye. f Department of Environmental Management (Wastewater Division): Recommend defining the job duties to justify hiring an additional engineer. Mr. Joseph said the wording of this recommendation is not good, and Ms. Nicholson agreed. The Chair recollected that the recommendation came about because of the DEM engineer having to spend so much of her time doing grant writing. 2 Mr. Joseph said the DEM would need to justify hiring an additional engineer, which is what it would need to do in trying to get a new position approved. He said he would probably be in favor of deleting the recommendation. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to delete the recommendation, and Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, all commissioners present voted aye. g. All departments: Recommend that all new managers receive training on legal, contractual, and procurement issues specific to their departments. Mr. Joseph asked counsel Diane Noda whether this type of training happens now. Ms. Noda said it does not happen on a regular or consistent basis, although it is one of the goals of the Office of the Corporation Counsel. She said her office does periodic seminars on specific issues, the most recent one being on special employee contracts. Mr. Joseph asked whether it is a requirement that Corporation Counsel train new managers on legal issues. Ms. Noda said there is no mechanism in place for that right now. She said that department heads, when they have new hires, will ask the Corporation Counsel to provide training or a workshop in the next six months, and the Corporation Counsel will do so. Every new hire does not receive training on legal issues, but it will be provided upon a director's request. Motion: Ms. Nicholson moved to adopt the recommendation, and Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Joseph said he would be in favor of amending the recommendation to specify that the Corporation Counsel is to provide training to all new managers on legal, contractual, and procurement issues within three months of that person coming on board. The Chair asked what defines managers, and whether they are supervisors or above supervisors. Ms. Stremski asked whether managers come under department heads. Mr. Joseph said he believes managers are those people in charge of specific departments. Ms. Noda explained that the different departments have different job titles. For example, Milton Pavao's title is "manager" of the Department of Water Supply. Other titles include director and deputy director. There are also division heads. They are all at the supervisory level. The Chair asked at what tier procurement and contractual issues would come into play, and whether supervisors work in these areas. Ms. Noda said that it depends on the department and the divisions. Ms. Nicholson suggested a rewording of the recommendation, so that they would "recommend that all new managers who deal with legal, contractual, and /or procurement issues receive training specific to their department within three months of hire." Mr. Joseph asked whether Corporation Counsel should be specified to provide the training, and Ms. Nicholson said that not all the training needs to come from Corporation Counsel. Ms. Noda suggested amending "managers" to "supervisors /managers," because that would make it clearer for many departments, and Ms. Nicholson agreed. Ms. Nicholson asked whether Corporation Counsel would be responsible for training on procurement issues, or whether another department would do that. Ms. Noda said it would probably be the deputy corporation counsel who is assigned to the Finance Department, this currently being Craig Masuda. He would do the training in conjunction with the Finance Department, because the Purchasing Division of the Finance Department does the orders and purchasing and has rules and procedures to follow. Ms. Nicholson said that it would be better not to specify that Corporation Counsel provide the training. Mr. Joseph said Corporation Counsel could be made responsible for it, so that if the recommendation is ever looked at, people will know where the responsibility falls. Ms. Nicholson said that the recommendation, then, is that "Corporation Counsel is to provide /coordinate the legal, contractual, and procurement training to all new managers/ supervisors, specific to their departments, within three months of hire date." The Chair asked whether every division is bound by procurement laws, and Ms. Noda said yes. The Chair stated that there was an amendment to the motion and a second, and asked if there was any further discussion. There being none, he called for a vote on all who were in favor of the recommendation as amended. Vote: All commissioners present voted aye on accepting the recommendation as amended. h. All departments: Recommend that all departments budget for and expend monies for professional development opportunities. Mr. Joseph said he believed all departments already budget for this and that he felt it would be okay to support their budgeting for this and reinforce the professional development opportunities. Ms. Provalenko agreed. Motion and vote: Mr. Joseph moved to accept the recommendation as worded in the draft, and Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, all commissioners present voted aye. All departments: Recommend that all departments implement a computerized maintenance management system. Motion and vote: Ms. Provalenko moved to keep this recommendation as worded, and Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, all commissioners present voted aye. rd All departments: Recommend that each department should have an easy -to -read budget which includes operating funds, personnel costs (including the number of positions in the department), cars and facility maintenance costs. Additionally, there should be a clear statement of the primary functions of the department. This information should be available to all members of the department and to the general public. Motion: Mr. Joseph moved to delete this recommendation. There was no second to the motion. Motion: Ms. Nicholson moved to accept this recommendation, with the deletion of the word "cars." Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Joseph said his problem with this recommendation is how to determine what an easy -to -read budget is. What might be easy for some to read would be hard for others. In addition, the purpose behind the recommendation is not known. He said he believed the County is already implementing the information as easily as it can be, and it is all made available to the public. None of the budgets are hidden. Ms. Nicholson stated that she felt the recommendation was good because it would encourage departments to think about the way the budgets are presented and how to clarify the information. She did not see anything negative about it. She did not know how available the budgets are, but she felt overall that it would be a good reminder that budgets should be open and understandable. The Chair said that much of the information is on the County's website. The primary functions of each department are there, as well as the names of the directors and deputy directors. He did not see the budgets on the website, but was sure they were readily available. Ms. Provalenko said she would think budgets would be hard to read, no matter what form they are in. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Vote: Ms. Nicholson and Ms. Stremski voted aye. The Chair, Mr. Joseph, and Ms. Provalenko voted against the recommendation. The motion was defeated. k. All departments: Every three years contract with the State of Hawaii Legislative Auditor's Office to conduct a management and program audit of all or selected County departments to identify new practices or procedures which should be in place for efficiency and cost savings. (1) Communication No. 2006 -93: Letter from Diane A. Noda, Deputy Corporation Counsel, regarding independent audit of Hawaii County. Mr. Joseph said he supports the concept of the recommendation, but after reading Ms. Noda's letter, it should not be done via the Legislative Auditor's Office. He pointed out the second paragraph of the letter, which stated that once every four years the Council must critically review every program. He would rather see an independent auditor do the audit, not the County Council, although the four -year cycle is all right. Ms. Nicholson said they should tighten up the recommendation to clarify what type of audit they feel is needed. It says "management and program audit," which is not clear. Motion: Ms. Nicholson proposed rewording the recommendation to say: "Every four years, contract with an independent source to conduct a management and program audit which would include evaluating the management structure, the program needs, and impacts of all County departments to identify new practices or procedures which should be in place for efficiency and cost savings." Discussion: Mr. Joseph asked Ms. Noda if they could add, or whether it was necessary, that the audit will be made available to the Council and to the public for review. Ms. Noda said that if that was their intention, it would not hurt to specify that. Ms. Nicholson said that would be a good addition to the motion. Ms. Noda suggested the wording "and the report forwarded to the County Council and made available for public review." The Chair called for a vote on the recommendation as amended. Vote: All commissioners present voted aye on the motion as amended. All boards and commissions: Recommend scheduling meetings in both West Hawaii and East Hawaii based on representation. Mr. Joseph said he is in favor of this recommendation but wanted a short discussion. He said that after he had thought about it, he realized that it could be costly to have meetings in West Hawaii due to the need to send the assigned secretary, attorney, and possibly speakers, to those meetings as well. However, in the interest of fairness, they should look at having more meetings in West Hawaii. Ms. Nicholson said that it may be more appropriate for certain boards and commissions to travel to the west, if they will be discussing issues related to West Hawaii. However, for some issues it would not make much difference where the meeting is held. So where a meeting is held should also depend on the content or topics on the agenda. Ms. Provalenko said having more meetings in West Hawaii would provide more options for members, as they would not always have to travel two and a half hours to get to Hilo. Ms. Nicholson suggested adding "based on representation and need" to the recommendation. However, if there is a need to have a hearing in West Hawaii, it would be there anyway. Ms. Provalenko agreed and said that "need" is not the right word. Motion: Ms. Nicholson said "topic" is the needed word and moved to adopt the recommendation with the addition of the words "and topic" at the end of the sentence. Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion. 31 Discussion: Mr. Joseph wanted clarification on whether they were recommending scheduling meetings in both West and East Hawaii based on the composition or representation of the board /commission members and agenda topics. Ms. Noda said that generally, boards and commissions do rotate their meeting sites. She explained that she is the attorney for the Fire Commission, which meets in Kona every third month, and for the Status of Women Committee, which rotates having meetings in Hilo, Waimea, and Kona. She said the Board of Appeals also regularly goes to Kona, but she does not know if it is for every other meeting. She pointed out that in addition to boards and commissions, there are also committees, such as the Arborist Committee and the Bicycle and Safety Committee. Mr. Joseph said the intention is to get all boards, commissions, and committees to have a cycle and not just leave the location of meetings up to that board, commission, or committee. Ms. Nicholson said the motion was being amended to include boards, commissions, and committees. Mr. Joseph asked Ms. Noda whether committee members are also entitled to mileage reimbursement, and Ms. Noda said yes. Motion amended and vote: Ms. Nicholson said the recommendation was being reworded to say: "Recommend scheduling meetings in both West Hawaii and East Hawaii based on composition of the members of boards, commissions, or committees and /or agenda topics. All commissioners present voted aye on the amended motion. 6. DISCUSSION /ACTION REGARDING FORMAT OF FINAL REPORT In reviewing both versions of Draft 1 of the final report, Mr. Joseph said he preferred having all the boards and commissions grouped at the end, rather than integrated within the report with the related departments. Ms. Nicholson, Ms. Stremski, and Ms. Provalenko agreed. Ms. Nicholson said a table of contents would be helpful. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to accept the formatting of Rough Draft 1 which places the boards and commissions all at the end, provided there is an index at the beginning. Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, all commissioners voted aye. 7. DISCUSSION /ACTION BASED UPON DRAFT 1 OF FINAL REPORT AND REVISIONS THEREOF The commissioners started with the introduction on page 1 of the draft. 7 Ms. Nicholson asked whether their names could be included in the report. Mr. Joseph said they should be included, along with their districts. Ms. Nicholson stated she also wanted the deputy corporation counsel's name and secretary's name listed. Mr. Joseph said this listing could occur on the first page, after the cover sheet. In the second paragraph of the introduction, Mr. Joseph said he does not like the wording saying that "it was very difficult for the COGC to go into great depth in preparing this report." He said he felt they did go into great depth with certain departments, as Mayor Kim had expressed he wanted them to. He did not feel they did a superficial job. Ms. Nicholson suggested the following wording instead: "Despite the Charter provision that only allows eleven months to create a report, the COGC, at the recommendation of the Mayor, chose to focus their efforts only on certain departments." Mr. Joseph said to take out the word "only" and say "focus their efforts on certain departments." The commissioners agreed on the following wording: "Despite the Charter provision that only allows eleven months to create a report, the COGC, at the recommendation of the Mayor, chose to focus their efforts on certain departments." In the second paragraph of the introduction, Ms. Nicholson said she did not like the term "generic suggestions." She said those suggestions are department -wide suggestions. Mr. Joseph agreed. The commissioners agreed upon the following wording: "For these issues, the COGC has combined them into department -wide suggestions." The commissioners discussed and decided to amend the wording in the last paragraph of the introduction, to say: "In this report, the commission and board recommendations follow the departmental recommendations." Ms. Noda suggested they include the COGC's telephone number in the letterhead, and the commissioners agreed. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to accept page 1 of the draft with the amendments as discussed, and subject to final review. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, all commissioners present voted aye. The commissioners continued on to page 2 of the draft. The secretary was instructed to change the wording in IA to follow the amendments made earlier during this meeting, as follows: "Corporation Counsel is to provide /coordinate the legal, contractual, and procurement training to all new managers /supervisors, specific to their departments, within three months of hire date." The commissioners continued to IB of the draft. Ms. Nicholson said she was concerned that they were specifying training opportunities on the mainland. She said employees could travel to another island, or even to another country, to research innovations. The others agreed. IA was amended to read as follows: "Though many departments budget for professional training opportunities, the COGC was informed by a department that off - island trips are discouraged because of the costs and because of the public perception of travel being a waste of money. However, the COGC feels that departmental staff should regularly travel off - island to explore the E? new approaches and strategies other municipalities use to solve problems. In the long run, this would improve government efficiency and operations." Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson approved to accept page 2 of the draft, with the amended wording on recommendation IA, the amended background /explanation on IB, and with II and III remaining as written. Mr. Joseph seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. The commissioners continued on to page 3 of the draft. The Chair asked whether "g" on the agenda (recommend that all new managers receive training on legal, contractual, and procurement issues specific to their departments) should go in the report under the Office of the Corporation Counsel, with the changes discussed at today's meeting regarding the training being overseen by the Office of the Corporation Counsel. Ms. Noda said she would recommend that it stay listed with all departments, and it could also be added under Corporation Counsel, to cross - reference it. Ms. Nicholson said that departments might look up only their own department in the final report and that perhaps department -wide recommendations should be listed under each department so they are picked up. Mr. Joseph said he would rather see recommendations for all departments, Roman Numeral I, listed in the index. He would not like the redundancy of listing them after each department. Ms. Nicholson asked whether all departments would receive the report and have to respond. Ms. Noda said the report would go to the Mayor and it would be his prerogative from there. The Chair said the intent of the COGC is more for the Mayor. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to accept page 3 of the draft with no changes. Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. (A recess was called. The meeting took a break from 11: 06 a. m. to 11:15 a. m., at which time the Chair called the meeting back to order.) The commissioners continued on to page 4 of Draft 1. Mr. Joseph said he did not like Hawaiian Telcom being mentioned, and would rather say "private service." Ms. Nicholson agreed and said the sentence should end right there. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to adopt item "B" on page 4 as just amended, and to adopt items "C" through "G" as presented in the draft. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. The commissioners continued on to page 5, number VII. 0J Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to approve recommendations "1" through "5" for the Department of Environmental Management, Wastewater Division, with one wording change in "4," changing "children" to "heirs." Mr. Joseph seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. The commissioners continued on to the recommendations for the Solid Waste Division on pages 6 through 8 of Draft 1. Ms. Provalenko said that recommendation "1" on page 6 should not use the term "additional clerical assistance" if there was not any assistance. The commissioners agreed that the word "additional" should be deleted. Ms. Nicholson said she would like to delete the last sentence under "B 1," which said the lack of clerical help added to an already difficult job. Ms. Noda suggested two changes on page 7, number 2. Instead of saying "practiced at" in the background /explanation, it should say "experienced in." The second change is to remove the apostrophes for plural CDLs. Mr. Joseph said it could be changed to say "do not need to possess a CDU' Mr. Joseph said that for recommendation number 5 on page 7, he did not feel it necessary to include the note that it would involve union negotiations, or that the unions were not receptive. Ms. Nicholson agreed. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to adopt the recommendations for the Solid Waste Division that began on page 6 of Draft 1 and continued on to page 8, with the changes as noted: eliminating the last sentence in "1," making the changes discussed in "2," and eliminating the last sentence in "5." Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. On page 8, recommendation "6," the Chair said that in the explanation, instead of saying "the vehicle should be gotten off the road sooner," they should say "the vehicle should be removed sooner." The others agreed. The commissioners continued on to the Finance Department on page 8. Mr. Joseph said the explanation for "A" did not seem to justify or go with the recommendation. Ms. Nicholson agreed. They discussed amending the wording. Mr. Joseph said they could not amend the wording of the recommendation itself, as they had agreed upon it at the previous meeting, but they could amend the explanation. Ms. Nicholson suggested the following wording: "It has come to the COGC's attention that many phone lines are being paid for which are not being used. Eliminating unused lines will save a lot of money." Ms. Nicholson questioned whether recommendations "A," "D," and possibly "C" under the Finance Department should actually be addressed to all departments. The Chair said he 10 believed the bills with envelopes issue should stay with the Finance Department because it ultimately processes the bills and sends them out. The commissioners discussed whether the recommendations under Finance should apply to all departments or stay under the Finance Department. It was decided that they should come under the umbrella of the Finance Department. Ms. Noda said that for consistency, if there is no recommendation for a department, the wording should be kept in the singular, as in "no recommendation was made by the COGC." Ms. Nicholson said it would be better to make them all plural, as in "no recommendations were made." The secretary was instructed to change the wording to plural, "no recommendations were made," for each department which did not receive a recommendation. Ms. Nicholson also pointed out that a closing parenthesis was needed under X on page 9. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to accept the wording of VIII through XV of Draft 1, with the noted changes to "A" under VIII, as discussed, the pluralizing when no recommendations were made, and the closing parenthesis. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. The commissioners continued on to page 10, XVI, the Planning Department. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to adopt recommendations "A" and "B" as written in Draft 1. Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. The commissioners continued on to XVII on page 11, the Police Department. Mr. Joseph pointed out that for XVII, "C," the wording needed to be changed to match the wording for the Environmental Management Department, changing "gotten off the road" to "removed." Mr. Joseph said that on page 12, at the top, he would like to take out the last sentence: "The COGC was informed that the Fire Department and Mayor agree with this idea, but the logistics would need to be worked on." On page 12, at "D," Mr. Joseph said he would change the term "further illness" to take out "further," and delete the last line, as it was not relevant to the recommendation. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to adopt the recommendations under the Police Department as follows: "A" stays the same, eliminate the last sentence in "B," change "gotten off the road" to "removed" in "C," eliminate the word "further' ' before illness and eliminate the last sentence in "D," and keep "E" the same. Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. 11 Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to accept the wording for the Prosecuting Attorney's Office on page 13, with changing only the last sentence to plurals, that "no recommendations were made." Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. The commissioners continued on to XIX, Public Works, on page 13 of the draft. Regarding "A," pursuing negotiations with the union to go to a 10 -hour, 4 -day work schedule for employees, the secretary explained that she did not see where the reason for the recommendation was clearly stated, and thus left it blank for them to fill it. Ms. Nicholson recalled that transportation to and from a job site, as well as building morale, had to do with the reason. Traveling to and from distant job sites ate up much of the employees' work day, so it would be a morale - builder for them if their work days were changed to be 10 hours long, 4 days per week. Ms. Nicholson suggested the following wording for the explanation: "Because of the distances traveled to many work sites, Highway Maintenance Division personnel often spend a significant portion of their work time getting to and from work sites and mobilizing job site equipment. A 10 -hour work schedule would mean more efficient time on the job as well as an increase to the morale of the Highway Maintenance employees." She said they could look at the next draft of the report at the next meeting and fine -tune this explanation. The Chair said he liked Ms. Nicholson's wording, as he wanted the word "efficient" in the explanation. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to accept the recommendations as presented in Draft 1 for Public Works, with the addition of the explanation regarding pursuing a 10 -hour, 4- day work schedule for Highway Maintenance employees. Mr. Joseph seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. The commissioners continued on to page 14 of Draft 1, XX, Research and Development. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to include the wording that "Jane Testa was present for the meeting on Research and Development, and after reviewing and discussing the responses from Ms. Testa, no recommendations were made." Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to accept the wording for the Transit Agency, XXI in Draft 1, with the amendment of changing the last sentence to be plural. Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. The commissioners continued on to XXII, Water Supply, in Draft 1 of the report. Mr. Joseph noted that the Water Supply Department never responded to the COGC's questionnaire. 12 Ms. Nicholson said that on page 15, recommendation "B," the word "again" should be removed. Mr. Joseph agreed. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to adopt the wording as presented in Draft 1 of the report, with the exception of deleting the word "again" under `B." Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. The commissioners continued on to page 16 of Draft 1, regarding recommendations for boards and commissions. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to accept the wording as presented in Draft for numerals I through XI, with any singular "no recommendation was made" changed to "no recommendations were made." Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. The commissioners continued on to page 17, XII, the Pension Board. Ms. Nicholson said to call them a "small board" is redundant, and Mr. Joseph wondered why they had said "or pass on to the Mayor." Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to correct the wording of the recommendation by taking out "pass on to the Mayor" and on the explanation, by changing it to "asking why seven de facto members are required on this Board." Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to accept numerals XIII through XX as worded in Draft 1, with the amendment of changing the grammar to plurals. Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to adopt the recommendations under XXI, the Water Board, as presented in Draft 1, with any changes adopted today for the Water Supply Department reflected. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to accept numerals XXII and XXIII in Draft 1 as written, except for pluralizing that "no recommendations were made." Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. 8. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENDA The commissioners said the only item to be discussed at the next meeting is the final draft of the report. 9. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No members of the public were present. 13