Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-28 Meeting Minutes (EMC) ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIʻI MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:15 a.m. to 11:55 a.m. West Hawaiʻi Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway Community Hale (Building G) Kailua-Kona, Hawaiʻi Commissioners present: Richard Bennett, Ph.D., Chair Jon Olson, Vice Chair James Fritz Dee Fulton Justin Pequeño Staff present: William Kucharski, Director Joseph Kamelamela, Corporation Counsel Mary Fujio, Secretary Also present: Jerome Warren, Sandra Demoruelle, Amy Miwa, and several other members of the public. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bennett called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. He reminded the commissioners there is no meeting in December. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2018 Commissioner Pequeño suggested removing the second “now” in the sentence on page 5, under 5a (Roy Takemoto’s presentation), in the fifth line. Motion, second, and vote: Vice Chair Olson moved to approve the minutes with the above change, Commissioner Pequeño seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Two people signed up to testify: Sandra Demoruelle and Jerome Warren. Sandra Demoruelle: She thanked the commissioners for their service and for meeting today. She said there is a new potential site for the Nāālehu WWTP, buʻt it doesn’t give her much hope, because the engineers don’t know the difference between a radius and diameter, as they incorrectly designated on page 2 of her handout. There will be many problems with the location, including having to pump uphill. The most severe problem is the land has been given away as PONC land, in Resolution 650-18. She filed a lawsuit. The costs of the project are beyond belief. The grant money is what has imposed the NEPA on the project. The first grant in 2005 was for both projects—Nāālehu and Pāhala. Moving ʻ forward, programmatic conditions required the NEPA, and the EPA was responsible for doing the NEPA. The grant money has never again shown up. There is proof that this has gone on. There is evidence that they split up the projects into Nāālehu and Pāhala; and ʻ there is evidence, from the summary of congressional earmarks, that they always intended it to be the Nāālehu project, right up until after she filed suit in May. She filed the lawsuit ʻ on May 10, and on May 30 the county and EPA chose to amend their agreement to only Pāhala. This is clearly for the evasion of NEPA. The county, through Dora Beck and Kate Rao of the EPA, made an agreement to transfer the funds for the purpose of NEPA. On the final page of her handout there is proof that they were doing this long before May 30. Jerome Warren: He pointed out that commissioners were talking about agenda items before the meeting started and before they had a quorum. Regarding Bill 210 on sewer fees, science based on omitted facts is junk science. The chair of the commission gives lectures and ignores the soil science principle of capillary action when he lectures on groundwater pollution. He ignores plants that have very deep roots, and he ignores soil fungi and bacteria which neutralize pathogens and nutrients. Then he says that all wastewater eventually pollutes the ocean, and therefore all wastewater must be captured and reused. This is junk science. The chair has an LLC company that designs systems for reuse of wastewater. His associates in that business will benefit from the higher sewer fees which will convert wastewater to reuse, and he should therefore recuse himself from voting on higher sewer fees, as he has a vested interest in them since it means more money for his cronies. Everyone else knows water climbs up capillary tubes in trees and gaps in soil and rocks. Plants and soil microbes absorb and neutralize wastewater and release water vapor. Therefore, not all wastewater systems pollute the ocean, and neither do all cesspools, gang cesspools, and septic systems. If fees are raised, poor people will suffer the most, especially those in Nāālehu homeowners paid zero in 2009, when Harry ālehu. Nāʻʻ Kim promised to begin new construction. Now they receive bills. Charging for any illegal system is called extortion. Raising that charge is more extortion. The old sewer pipes in Nāālehu get clogged up because they have rusted out and rocks fall in. It is the ʻcounty’s fault, because Harry Kim’s promise was broken. It is absurd for the county to need more money to patch pipes after they fail. The gang cesspool fees should be changed back to zero. The EPA has not charged the county any fines, yet the county charges homeowners for this malfeasance. 2 Regarding Bill 192, Mr. Warren said that feral cats are at the Waiohinu rubbish dump because people feed them. The County Council recently gave money to those people who feed the cats, to buy cat food. Feeding the cats that are causing the problem is absurd. Waiohinu has no greenwaste drop-off station, so all rubbish goes into the rollaway bins. The concrete pad to the chute is blocked off by boulders, so people have to carry their greenwaste from their truck to the chute, where it ends up in the landfill. The county has put the cart before the horse by building a $10 million food waste compost facility. It is the tail wagging the dog. It is a politician’s dream and a $50 nightmare for every person on this island. Money can be found within the department, and fees should not be raised. Regarding the Director’s Report on Nāālehu and Pāhala, the plan for Pāhala is ʻ opposed by the community. He has attended three meetings so far. There was a good plan promised for the Nāālehu ʻsystem in 2009, but it was abandoned, unbeknownst to the homeowners. There is a Fukunaga report that tells why. Director Kucharski has twice given him the hamburger without the meat, and he is waiting for the meat in the hamburger to tell him why the plan was abandoned. He has been asking for the report ever since he’s been coming to these meetings, but it has been a shell game. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Revisit and discuss process to track motions and suggest possible follow-up on previous motions. The commissioners had received a table of the motions that were passed and recommendations made since May of 2016 to the present. Chair Bennett asked if there were any items that caught their attention. Vice Chair Olson said he would like more time to consider it. Chair Bennett pointed out that many of the motions or recommendations they had passed were never responded to, and it was partly because they never articulated an expectation when it was passed. He suggested that when they make a recommendation to the department, they request a response of some sort as to whether it will be considered, or won’t work, or is not in DEM’s purview, etc. DEM’s response could be in the Director’s Report. He suggested that when they pass a motion, there should be verbiage about what they expect as a response from the department. In fairness to the department, if the EMC wants a response to a motion, they need to ask for it in the motion and use a tracking process such as the table they now have. He sees their function, mandated by the Charter, to be effective oversight. If they make recommendations and don’t follow up, they are not doing their job. Director Kucharski said many of the motions are for the EMC to send a letter or communicate some activity to either the County Council, mayor, or him. If there is an official transmission, there is generally a response. He is more than happy to be more demonstrative on the effect of a recommendation or ability of DEM to respond to one. When the EMC is discussing a motion, he ordinarily provides input on whether DEM could 3 comply, and it usually comes down to finances. Many of the department’s processes are not change-friendly. Vice Chair Olson pointed out that procedurally, someone should make a motion, have it seconded, and then they could discuss the issue. Mr. Kamelamela asked to address the EMC to clarify meeting procedures. Whatever the commission plans to talk about needs to be on the agenda. Prior to discussing an agenda item, someone other than the chair needs to make a motion, it needs to be seconded, and then they can discuss the item. There should have been a motion and second to discuss the current agenda item. The commission meets to conduct business, not talk story. Also, he said he objected to language in the table of motions where it said that Corporation Counsel “threatened” the commission (about sending a letter to Dr. Pressler). Vice Chair Olson said that in the past, whenever someone was appointed to a board or commission, they received training in Robert’s Rules and procedure. He is not aware whether that is still being done. Chair Bennett asked if anyone would move to discuss the current agenda item. Motion and second: Commissioner Pequeño moved that future motions requiring a response state a desired deadline for the response. Vice Chair Olson seconded the motion. Vice Chair Olson asked Director Kucharski how cumbersome it would be to administratively follow up on the various motions and recommendations that were made. Director Kucharski said the department is more than willing to respond, but he needs clarification on the method. Some of the EMC’s recommendations require some thought on the response, and there are many things the department would like to do but cannot because it would take away funding from something else. He feels he has responded at meetings to the EMC’s recommendations. If there is a way they want him to respond, let him know so he can satisfy the requirement. Many issues are more complex than they appear, but explaining the complexity and issues faced is something he is happy to delve into. If the EMC wants a response on something, the EMC needs to indicate that a written response is required and be clear on what is expected. Vice Chair Olson said that when the EMC requests a response on something, they need to insert a timeline, to be clear. It would be on the EMC to determine what the timeline is going to be. Director Kucharski said he would be appreciate that, so he can be sure he is doing what they expect. Commissioner Fulton said it is a matter of communication and expectations. The director is in the best position to be able to provide an estimate of the time needed. As far as how the EMC administrates following up, perhaps they could have it under Unfinished Business at each meeting, using a calendar to keep track of when the director is to respond, so they can ask him for an update. 4 Motion to amend motion: Commissioner Fulton moved to amend Commissioner Pequeño’s motion, and moved that they solicit guidance from the director regarding a reasonable time frame to request follow-up, and that they build that date onto their calendar and bring it up under Unfinished Business. Commissioner Pequeño said that would be acceptable to him, but he is not sure how it would all come together in the wording. Chair Bennett said they need a motion that is clear and understandable. Second: Vice Chair Olson said he seconded the motion. Vote: All commissioners voted aye. Motion repeated: Commissioner Fulton was asked to repeat her motion, to be clear. She said: “It is moved that we institute a system of following up on motions with reliance upon Director Kucharski for that information. Further, that this be accomplished by soliciting a date, a reasonable date, for the follow-up inquiry and that it be ordered under Unfinished Business.” Director Kucharski said they should leave his name out of the motion, for when he is no longer the director, and the commissioners agreed. Motion repeated: Commissioner Pequeño was asked to restate his motion, to be clear. He said: “I move that future motions requiring a response state a desired deadline for the response.” Vote: Chair Bennett asked for all those in favor to vote aye, and all commissioners voted aye. b. Update on water sustainability and water quality white paper and plans. Chair Bennett said the draft white paper will be ready to discuss at the January meeting. Director Kucharski added that the Water Reuse Task Force’s final report should also be available for the January meeting, and he will be going over some of its points. The report is related to the white paper being drafted. Chair Bennett said the final report of the Water Reuse Task Force should be placed under New Business on the January agenda. 5 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Begin a review process for alternatives to conventional and costly wastewater treatment plants, to include: (1) Wastewater flow reduction technology and policy (2) Advanced R-1 systems (3) Neighborhood scale systems (4) Form a study committee Chair Bennett asked the commissioners if they wanted to form a study group subcommittee to begin a review process for alternatives to conventional and costly wastewater treatment plants. It will mean doing work outside of EMC meetings. Director Kucharski said the Cesspool Conversion Working Group (CCWG), of which he is a member, will address many of the issues the EMC is concerned with, and the R-1 water issues will be covered by the Water Reuse Task Force. If the EMC forms a subcommittee, he would appreciate feedback from them as he interacts with the CCWG. He will send the commissioners the link to the CCWG documents, as all of the meetings and papers are public record. The commissioners discussed whether they wanted to form a subcommittee or wait for information and reports from the CCWG and Water Reuse Task Force. Chair Bennett suggested that in January they become an active player and provide input to the CCWG on cesspool closures. They should be proactive and make recommendations. He asked Director Kucharski to provide the member roster of the CCWG. As a commission they can provide input to Director Kucharski, and he can bring their input to the CCWG. The commissioners were curious about who the members of the CCWG are, and Commissioner Pequeño was able to access the information on his phone and read it to the others. Commissioner Fulton asked Director Kucharski whether it would be helpful for the EMC to have a subcommittee bring forth recommendations, and Director Kucharski said it would be helpful for him to be able to bring forward their thoughts, since he is representing the county on the CCWG. He is open and can bring whatever is recommended to the floor. Motion, second, and vote: Commissioner Fulton moved to create a committee to explore alternative wastewater technologies. Vice Chair Olson seconded the motion. All commissioners voted aye. The commissioners discussed who wanted to be on the committee and confirmed they could meet via telephone conferences. 6 Motion, second, and vote: Commissioner Fulton moved that the committee be comprised of Commissioner Fritz, Chair Bennett, and herself. Vice Chair Olson seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. Chair Bennett said a preliminary report by the committee will be placed on the January agenda. b. Discussion on Bill 192 (Draft 2), which was referred by the County Council’s Environmental Management Committee to this Commission for comment and recommendation. Bill 192 seeks to establish an Environmental Quality Control Program to mitigate nuisance factors at County facilities managed by the Department of Environmental Management, such as improperly handled refuse and wastewater, feral cats, dogs, and other animals abandoned or released at DEM facilities. Motion and second: Vice Chair Olson moved to approve the bill so it could be discussed. Commissioner Fritz seconded the motion. Director Kucharski said that Bill 192 expands upon the responsibility of DEM and that he is somewhat torn by it. DEM is already doing what the bill seeks, but without a comprehensive environmental quality control program and human impact study. Those programs are already required by their permits or by federal law. Codifying in a separate program the things DEM does in complying with their permits will take personnel, time, and funding, which DEM does not have and which is not provided for in the bill. The bill says the director is to request sufficient resources, but it does not say from whom. The department is already mandated, as a permit condition, to deal with feral animals at their facilities. He is torn as to how they could fit the bill’s requirements into their current operations without changing prioritizations and doing less of something else. He also does not know how they would pay for the bill’s requirements, and the priority it demands is not one of his top priorities as director. Chair Bennett said developing a comprehensive environmental quality control program requires monitoring and feedback loops. It is not something easy to do. Interpreted loosely, it would take a blank check to pay for it. Vice Chair Olson said he had spoken with Councilmember O’Hara, the drafter of the bill. It was thought the bill would make the County Council more aware of what DEM has to do. What the additional costs are don’t pop up in the legislative process. The Council needs to know that DEM is not just about hauling trash and greenwaste. DEM has a commanding control of all its facilities, which have ancillary expenses that can run up. These expenses need to be known. The money to pay for them is coming out of the Solid Waste budgets, but they do not show up as line items. If they did, the director would have an opportunity to ask for additional funds. 7 Chair Bennett noted the monetary aspects were not articulated, and Vice Chair Olson said they were undefined and that the bill gives the director the opportunity to look at what the costs related to these functions are, as they do not show up in the budget. This is the intent of the bill. Director Kucharski explained what DEM already is required to do, and does, regarding feral animals, and how it came out of having to do predator control because of endangered birds at the Kealakehe WWTP. Commission Fulton said that speaking as a citizen as well as a commissioner, there are serious health issues relating to feral cats. The toxoplasmosis they can carry is a serious risk to pregnant woman, and there are other health issues that tie into the control of feral cats. The DOH may need to raise its sensitivity to this. Chair Bennett said that at this point, he could not support Bill 192, Draft 3. He appreciates the concern about the problem, but the bill does not offer any workable solution to it. Vice Chair Olson asked if they have the option of taking no action on the bill, and Director Kucharski said if EMC takes no action, it would be considered non-support of the bill. Vice Chair Olson said that as in all things, the solution is money. However, DEM is already fulfilling many of the things outlined in the bill, without any recognition of the cost. The County Council should be aware of and talk about the unbudgeted dollars DEM is spending on programs. Commissioner Pequeño said the bill should have included a line for a dollar amount to be inserted. Chair Bennett called for the question and told those in favor of recommending adoption of Bill 192, Draft 3, to so indicate by saying aye. Vote: Commissioners Fritz, Fulton, and Pequeño and Chair Bennett voted no. Vice Chair Olson abstained. c. Discussion on Bill 210, which was referred by the County Council’s Finance Committee to this Commission for comment and recommendation. Bill 210 proposes to increase wastewater service charge rates to cover the costs of providing the services. Motion and second: Commissioner Fulton moved to recommend adoption of Bill 210 for discussion purposes, and Commissioner Pequeño seconded the motion. Director Kucharski explained that the commissioners had been provided a copy of a PowerPoint presentation he had given to the County Council’s Finance Committee 8 regarding the bill. DEM’s sewer rates have not been increased since 2002. In 1998 it was a $25 flat fee, which was increased to $26 in 2000 and to $27 in 2002. It is the lowest rate in the state of Hawaiʻi, even if it were doubled. The bill proposes about a 90% increase spread out over three years, and the goal is to reduce the General Fund payment to the WWD from $2.9 million to zero by FY 2021- 2022 and to fund needed repairs and upgrades to the wastewater facilities. The Equipment Replacement Fund is currently at $500,000, and the plan is to increase it to $1.3 million. The increase will also pay for ten new positions needed to maintain and manage the existing and new wastewater facilities, including the R-1 system that is to begin in 2020. Over the three years, the increases will bring in approximately $17 million, which will be used to reduce the General Fund payment, increase the reserve fund, and pay for additional personnel. The fees will basically help DEM “play catch-up” with the expenses that have gone up over the years. Though it is unpleasant to ask for more money, he does not know how DEM can continue to comply with the obligations of the Charter without having sufficient personnel and resources. In addition, the cesspool closures are only 30 years away and need to be brought up sooner rather than later. He encouraged the EMC to support the fee increase. Commissioner Pequeño said he was curious about the services people are receiving who are on gang cesspools. Director Kucharski said there is a sewer rate study which allocates a percentage of cost to all the activities. For the gang cesspools, DEM’s obligation is simply to maintain the system, even though it is going to an illegal disposal method. The share of labor costs allocated were prorated into each individual user. Industrial dischargers are getting a more significant percentage increase. It brings in less money because there are fewer of them. In addition, the gang cesspool members are also in there, and it has been prorated. This is increased as a matter of fairness, because everyone that uses the system has had increases. It is there because it was allocated as a percentage of cost increases. Commissioner Fulton asked about whether infrastructure costs would be covered, and Director Kucharski said no and explained how the EPA requires a program to be sustainable, and they have not indicated that infrastructure is to be included in the definition of sustainability. The rate increases are solely for operational needs and costs, including maintenance and repair. They will help with equipment replacement and repair, but not any new infrastructure. Director Kucharski explained that infrastructure includes sewers, the connections, and treatment plants. State Revolving Funds (SRFs) are usually used to fund those. The proposed Pāhala and Nāālehu WWTPs are new infrastructure. The Equipment ʻ Replacement Fund is not included within infrastructure. It is an emergency repair fund. Once a facility is built, maintaining and operating it becomes a sewer fund issue. The fee increases will not pay for the extension of sewer lines, but they will cover treating the waste and maintaining the lines. 9 Vice Chair Olson said the general thinking is that everybody benefits from infrastructure, so the money to fund it is supposed to come from the general tax base. The actual user of the infrastructure is who pays for its maintenance. Director Kucharski agreed. Chair Bennett said everyone in the county is concerned about the quality of the environment close to the ocean, but he doubts that most people have made the connection that their sewer rates going up is one way of protecting the ocean and providing some insurance to maintain its quality. People need to be taught that sewer operation is part of their responsibility, their kuleana to the ocean. Chair Bennett called for a vote on the motion to approve adoption of Bill 210. Vote: Chair Bennett, Vice Chair Olson, and Commissioner Fritz voted aye. Commissioners Pequeño and Fulton abstained. Mr. Kamelamela said if a commissioner abstains, it counts as a no vote. Five aye votes would be needed to recommend adoption of the bill. As only five commissioners were present today, all five needed to vote aye for the bill to pass. Commissioner Fulton said her concern was about agriculture. Farmers enjoy a lower rate to begin with, but it seems like they will pay inordinately for sewage costs under the plan. Director Kucharski explained the increases are only for people connected to sewer lines. There are no water use charges. With that information, Commissioner Fulton said she would support the bill. Commissioner Pequeño said he needed clarification on the services provided by the department in treatment or decontamination to those on gang cesspools. Director Kucharski said the fee increase is not for treatment or contamination, but simply to maintain the flow. If there is a back-up or blockage, there is a maintenance cost because workers need to go there and clear the blockage so that disposal can continue. It is a matter of fairness. He cannot come up with a reason why those on a gang cesspool would be in a different category from everyone else that receives services from the department. Commissioner Pequeño said he was concerned because those people will have to pay approximately $20,000 per home to convert to the sewer, and Director Kucharski clarified that the county will be paying the conversion costs. Those who are not on a gang cesspool but who will need to connect when the sewer lines are available do not currently pay a sewer fee, because they currently have their own individual waste treatment systems. Mr. Kamelamela said the record needed to be clear that there was already a vote on the original motion and someone needed to move to reconsider the approval of Bill 210. Motion, second, and vote: Vice Chair Olson moved to reconsider and approve Bill 210, Commissioner Fritz seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. 10 d. Discussion of a proposal to examine alternatives to funding sewer service and other alternatives that may help address the cesspool conversion process, and form a study committee Chair Bennett said this item is connected to a previous item that has been moved to January, so it will be stricken from the agenda. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION a. Environmental Assessment for the proposed Pāhala Wastewater Treatment Plant (in executive session due to a civil lawsuit – Demoruelle v. Beck et al., Civil No. 18-1-00206) Mr. Kamelamela said he could do a short presentation on what the lawsuit is about in regular session. However, if the commissioners have legal questions on the merits of the lawsuit, they would need to go into executive session. Chair Bennett said he understood the purpose of this agenda item was to discuss the EMC’s issues and concerns about the environmental assessment for the proposed Pāhala WWTP. The EA is in another comment period which is almost over, and if the EMC wants to submit comments for the record, they need to be provided before the closing date. Mr. Kamelamela said he was not sure what the deputy corporation counsel had said at the prior meeting, but the concern is the commissioners making comments that could be contrary, or detrimental, to the County’s position in the lawsuit. Chair Bennett said the EMC has not been able to comment, as a commission, on the published EA. Did he understand correctly that if they have issues and concerns about the EA, they could only comment as individuals and not as a commission? Mr. Kamelamela said yes, they could comment as individuals but not as representing the commission. There is a process in place. Comments can be sent to the consultant directly. Chair Bennett said he was confused. Was the commission not to make any comments on the EA in any form or manner? Mr. Kamelamela said if they wanted to get into it, they should go into executive session, and this is why previous counsel had said to limit their comments. The problem is that there is a lawsuit, and there are county employees who are parties in the lawsuit. The EMC is part of the county, and what the commissioners say can be used against the county in the lawsuit. If there were no lawsuit, they could talk about the EA. But at this time, because of the lawsuit, he is advising them not to discuss it. Corporation Counsel gives the same advice to any other client of the county if there is a pending lawsuit. Chair Bennett said, in looking at the bigger picture, any issue that comes before the EMC about which there is a lawsuit effectively stifles the EMC’s input to the county. Mr. 11 Kamelamela said this is because Ms. Demoruelle filed a lawsuit. If they want to question his advice, it would be better to discuss it in executive session. Vice Chair Olson said they already had discussions on the WWTP, prior to the lawsuit. What they have said about any shortcomings the project may have is already on the record. Chair Bennett said he read the EA two weeks ago and made notes on the issues, and these can only be discussed in executive session. When he introduced this agenda item today, he asked if they needed a motion to go into executive session. Mr. Kamelamela said clients sometimes ask for a presentation, and as long as they did not get into the lawsuit, he could do one. However, it seemed like they had more things they wanted to talk about. A presentation would only be what is on the public record. Chair Bennett said the EMC did not ask for a presentation. Chair Bennett asked the commissioners if there were any issues in the EA they wanted to discuss, and they each said no. Chair Bennett said that settled the item, and moved to the next agenda item. 7. REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE Director’s Informational Report. Director Kucharski said they had already spoken about items a, b, c, and d of his report. Mr. Kamelamela asked if they could have a brief recess, and the meeting recessed from 11:28 a.m. to 11:36 a.m., at which time it reconvened. Director Kucharski touched on the following items: • Water Reuse Task Force: The state legislature will be providing funding to push forward the reuse concept. The top three reuse projects are from the Big Island. The report is coming out in December, and it will include recommendations for regulatory change within the DOH. • Cesspool Conversion Working Group: It has broken into three working groups and they have been studying multiple cesspool issues, technology, and financial options. Answers will not be simple, and there will be unanticipated situations. He will keep them apprised. • Bill Gates’ proposal on the “reinvented toilet”: A Surfrider representative brought the information forward from a conference he attended in China. The toilet is long overdue to be looked at, as it has been used the same way for 150 12 years, yet the population is so much greater. Chair Bennett said that Gates’ technology has promise for some very problematic areas, such as Puakō. 8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Commissioner Pequeño said he would like an introductory meeting with Councilmembers Tim Richards and Matt Kanealiʻi-Kleinfelder, the new chair and vice chair of the Council’s Environmental Management Committee. Director Kucharski said he would ask them. Chair Bennett told the commissioners to email him any other agenda requests that may come up. 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion, second, and vote: Commissioner Fritz moved to adjourn, Vice Chair Olson seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Fujio, Secretary