HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-18-2008
St. Lucie County Agricultural Development Steering Committee Minutes
1
2300 Virginia Avenue
2
Administration Building
3
Growth Management Conference Room Number 1
4
April 18, 2008
5
9:00AM
6
7
An audio recording of this meeting, in its entirety, has been placed in the file along with
8
these minutes as part of the record. In the event of a conflict between the written minutes
9
and the audio recording, the audio recording shall control.
10
11
CALL TO ORDER
12
13
Mr. Corrick called the meeting to order around 9:03 AM
14
15
Roll Call:
16
17
Agricultural Development Steering Committee Members
18
19 Dennis G. Corrick.................Chair, At Large Member
20 H. M. Ridgely III..................Vice - Chair, Indian River Citrus League
21 Diane Andrews.....................At Large Member
22 Peter Harrison.......................At Large Member
23 Robert J. Johnson.................Farm Credit of South Florida
24 Joseph G. Miller...................Commissioner Smith Appointee
25 Chuck Olson.........................Commissioner Coward Appointee
26 Jim Russakis.........................Cattlemen’s Association
27 Chris Smith..........................Commissioner Craft Appointee
28 Pete Spyke............................Owner of less than 160 Acres
29 Matthew L. Wynne...............Owner of more than 160 Acres
30
Committee Members Absent:
31
32 Mike Dahan..........................St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance
33 Ed Lounds............................Commissioner Grande Appointee
34 Gary Roberts........................At Large Member
35 Roland Yee...........................Commissioner Lewis Appointee
36
Staff Members Present
37
38 Michelle Hylton ...................Senior Staff Assistant
39
Others Present
40
41 Jonathan Ferguson................Member of the public
42 Craig Linton.........................Member of the public
43
Mr. Corrick
44 mentioned that the members of the commission are at liberty to replace
45 members of the committee if they have three absences.
46
Page 1 of 10
The committee reviewed the video of the Board of County Commissioners’ meeting from
1
April 8, 2008.
2
3
REVIEW OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 28, 2008
4
5
Mr. Corrick
6 asked that Commissioner Grande’s comment calling the committee “rich
Ms. Andrews
7 old men” be added for the record. added he was not listed as being present.
Mr. Russakis Ms. Andrews
8 made a motion to approve with Mr. Corrick’s suggestion.
Mr. Ridgely
9 seconded. requested the minutes be tabled until next week since substantive
10 changes will be made so the committee should have time to read them. The motion was
11 withdrawn.
12
NEW BUSINESS
13
14
Mr. Corrick
15 said he had proposed that today the committee look at the ag PUD
16 provision and try to work up language for it. He said now it feels like the committee have
17 another interim report and no sunset, but no clearer direction.
18
Dr. Olson
19 asked if there was a reason why Mr. Corrick wants to go on to ag PUD’s as
Mr. Corrick
20 opposed to TDR’s. responded the committee’s first charge was to talk about
21 how open space will be interpreted, and he got the impression the Board didn’t think the
22 committee had answered that question. He said he thinks revising something that’s in
23 place, in litigation and that’s the current rule is more pressing than the difficult concept of
24 designing a TDR program, though he thinks that should be part of the recommendation
25 going forward. He said we have all come together on the easy part of taking the credits
26 off; Dr. Nicholas’ presentation says don’t expect you won’t have tremendous resistance
27 to where ever those credits are put in place. The hard part is where they land, and the
28 economics of the whole thing so that you design it the way it’s not doomed to fail. If the
29 committee looks at the ag PUD portion of the ordinances, we may want to go back to the
30 Board and say we need more time, or a consultant, or something.
31
Dr. Olson
32 said he will argue for the opposite. He thinks TDR’s is where the committee
33 should go next. He added he saw commissioners on both sides of the issue look to some
34 attempt at TDR as being a resolution. If we’re looking for a solution, he thinks TDR is
35 the way to go. He said if the committee took the first step at establishing a framework,
36 and take it back to the commission and said they’re going to spend 9 months getting this
37 done, but if the commission doesn’t have the political courage to implement it, we should
38 just stop right now.
39
Mr. Corrick
40 said there is another issue beyond political courage; by definition, if the
41 County Commission is making the decision, they are going to land in the unincorporated
42 areas of St. Lucie County; they don’t have the power to have them land in a municipality.
43 They don’t have the power to have them land in a municipality without a completely
44 different governing body weighing in.
45
Mr. Russakis
46 said he agrees with Dr. Olson; he thinks the committee should go the TDR
Page 2 of 10
1 route because it sounds like both sides [of the commission vote] would like to go in that
2 direction. He asked of Mr. Corrick or Mr. Ferguson: Has DCA mandated clustering at
3 any time?
4
Mr. Corrick Mr. Ferguson
5 yielded the question to Mr. Ferguson. said “mandate” is
6 probably strong. He doesn’t know that DCA ever “mandates” a particular solution to any
7 perceived issue. They will weigh in on what they think is a reasonable solution or a better
8 solution. They will certainly tell you when they don’t think a solution is going to work.
9 As part of the settlement solution, one of the tools to address sprawl has typically been
10 some form of clustering.
11
Mr. Russakis Mr. Ferguson
12 asked if TDR’s would encourage clustering. responded
13 TDR’s are a tool along with clustering. In his opinion TDR’s themselves do not solve any
Mr. Corrick
14 problem. said TDR’s could be used to facilitate clustering. To expand on
Mr. Corrick
15 what Mr. Ferguson was saying, said in the guidance we got from DCA, if
16 the Comp Plan requires clustering, then they will look at the LDR’s and see if they’re
17 consistent with the Comp Plan. He added he believes our Comp Plan requires the
18 development of a TDR program, he does not believe it requires clustering.
19
Mr. Spyke
20 said it says in the Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast report, that 3
21 things have to happen in order for agriculture to remain in the landscape: 1. It has to be
22 profitable, if we’re not profitable, we don’t want to be saved; 2. You have to have a TDR
23 program, because that’s the only way you can strip off the development value of your
24 land that you want to farm without actually selling the land; 3. The combination of values
25 of those two things have to be equal to or greater than what you could get by selling the
26 land out right. He said a PUD is a TDR. It takes ag land that we all envision as 1 house
27 on 5 acres; and putting that house in the corner so that the 5 acres no longer have
28 development rights. It takes all the development rights off of the 5 acre pieces and
29 clusters them on to 1 or 2 so that the pieces don’t have any. The problem is that it doesn’t
30 help with value because a unit on 5 acres is more valuable than a unit on 1 acre. The
31 burden to achieve greater than or equal property value is on ag profits to make up the
32 difference, but we’re struggling in ag so there is no margin to offset the reduction of
33 value. All of the pieces are in place to meet the goals of the Committee for a Sustainable
34 Treasure Coast; they’re just not being applied right. The current PUD code does nothing
35 to discourage sprawl; a segregated land use is still sprawl; if it’s only houses with
36 shopping and schools somewhere else it is still sprawl. If we’re going to achieve
37 something different, we have to change what’s written.
38
Mr. Corrick
39 presented an example: in straight platting, if Mr. Russakis owns 100 acres
40 in the AG 5 area, with a minimum 5 acre lot size and there are 15 acres of wetlands and
41 you have to put in a road and some drainage, you get 13 lots of your 20. So in the ag
42 PUD, you have your density back, so there is some incentive to go from straight platting
43 to go into the PUD. If you have laser level post-canker citrus, the point may be moot; but
44 if you’ve got things you can’t build on, until you get into a PUD and no longer have that
45 5 acre minimum, you may not realize all of your value. He said what he thought the
46 group was saying was there’s that which gives us certainty, maybe not full density, but
Page 3 of 10
1 certainty and ease so that there is a baseline value primarily for lending purposes. The
2 purpose is to make the things that we, the community want more attractive than the things
3 we don’t want while still allowing and preserving the baseline right.
Dr. Olson
4 asked Mr. Spyke if making those transferable rights transferable off properties
Mr. Spyke
5 will change that algorithm. responded he thinks what everyone is imagining
6 in TDR’s is a large landscape scale approach that allows you aggregate enough units to
7 truly build an urban community. In order to do that, since the units are so thinly
8 distributed over the acres out there, it’s going to take a lot of land to be able to mine
9 enough units to get 2500 or whatever you need for a functional non-sprawl development.
10 He just wanted to point out that TDR’s could be a lot of different things.
Dr. Olson
11 said what changes that dilemma with the current status quo is allowing them to
12 be transferred off of your property, to make it work; you would transfer it to piece of
13 property in which its underlying land value is much higher. The appraised value of
14 TDR’s across the country, in direct correlation to what the underlying development land
15 value is, will work. If you just shove it in the corner of your rural piece of property, it
16 doesn’t make a lot of sense, but if you put it on US 1 or by I95, suddenly, it makes a lot
17 of sense.
Mr. Spyke
18 said if there were a unit multiplier where we lose the value of each unit by
19 putting the value on a smaller lot, we make that up by adding more units, or encourage
20 additional capital to be available for ag investment on the rest of the land we’re vacating.
21 The consequence of what you do with the units in the place is going to exist as a built
22 environment question; you want to arrange things so that the consequences of sprawl are
23 diminished. The only way to get away from sprawl is to aggregate large enough pieces of
24 land to mine enough units to reach thresholds for compact mixed use internal trip capture
25 developments.
Mr. Wynne
26 said to have value out of the TDR’s and make them work, Port St. Lucie and
27 Fort Pierce would have to stop annexing and giving away density. The County
28 Commission would have to be willing to no longer give away density, office space, motel
29 rooms, or industrial space, or this will never work.
Mr. Corrick
30 said in failed TDR programs, one thing that sucked the value out of TDR’s
31 was giving out density. The fact that we have 3 growth management plans in a county of
32 275,000 is a big obstacle, and the county only controls a piece of it.
Mr. Miller
33 said one of the first questions that should be asked is if the Commission will
34 accept the fact that they need to get involved in a TDR program. The property owners
35 have to establish the floor price, the county has to agree to have a concept in place to
36 agree on the pricing of the TDR’s. They would also have to agree with Mr. Wynne’s
37 suggestion not to give anything away.
Mr. Corrick Dr.
38 said the problem is that the county is not the only player in the market.
Olson
39 agreed that what the cities of Port St. Lucie or Fort Pierce do will have a direct
40 impact on whatever we do or don’t establish whether or not we have a TDR program, so
Page 4 of 10
1 he wouldn’t view that as a deterrent to trying a TDR program.
Mr. Wynne
2 said as the cities take up land with Tradition type developments and
3 shopping centers, it enhances the value of agricultural land because now there’s less of it.
Dr. Olson
4 said he doesn’t know if we’ll live to see the day because of the recession we’re
Mr. Wynne
5 in with respect to the housing market. said it might take a hundred years, but
6 there are people with generations and looking at the seeds they’ve planted.
Dr. Olson
7 said the attitudes expressed in that meeting characterizes where the
8 commission is, though the composition of the commission will change fairly soon,
9 strategically, we should look at where we might be able to achieve the gains we’re
10 looking for. He said he thinks TDR’s are the way to go, because the commission will be
11 more receptive than they were to the recommendations in the first element [of the
12 committee’s report]. He thinks in the first approach there is a line in the sand and he sees
13 the TDR as an opportunity to get a 4-1 vote to get what you want in the long run whether
14 it is by amending the ag PUD to allow you to do internally in your land what you want to
15 do; or establishing an external TDR so that you can transfer it to the receiving units.
16 Everyone within 3 miles of the receiving units will be opposed to it, but that’s the
17 condition you should present to the County Commission to understand this is what you
18 will face.
Mr. Corrick
19 said right now we have the Rural Land Stewardship program which
20 requires that the sending area and the receiving area be in the rural lands and that is a
21 TDR program that is purely in the rural areas. If they’re going to do something different,
22 they need to talk about the rights landing in the more urban areas.
Mr. Spyke
23 He said he thinks the ag PUD was flawed in the beginning and the memo
24 gummed it up worse. He agrees that rescinding the memo doesn’t make what’s left ok.
Mr. Wynne
25 agreed and said it was almost better with the memo than you are now,
26 because you know where you were.
Mr. Spyke
27 said the fundamental flaws in the ag PUD are retracting the development
28 value of the land and not putting anything back such as opportunities for ag to make
29 money to make up the difference; and the problems with the use of the open space. With
30 the memo out and being able to count yards, the only true open space anyone has any
31 control over is the 35% common open space. He said the ag PUD doesn’t preserve ag
32 land and it takes value away so it is fundamentally flawed, so a place to focus is to make
33 the ag PUD code good in the Comp Plan and the LDR’s. When you get into the TDR
34 stuff, it is going to require money and consultants. As far as the resource of this
35 committee, we should dive into the ag PUD and change the code. TDR’s are the bigger
36 picture, the landscape style stuff. Rural Land Stewardships are an option.
37
Mr. Wynne
38 thinks if the committee saw maps of the last 4 years of development in this
39 area, they would see that almost no development has taken place in St. Lucie County, and
40 all development is either in the city of Fort Pierce or the city of Port Saint Lucie. He
41 thinks it would give an idea of where we will send the TDR’s.
42
Page 5 of 10
Mr. Corrick
1 said if you take the ag PUD plan and make the open space numbers work
2 and they didn’t have to be contiguous, for instance 50 acres inside the urban service line
3 of unincorporated St. Lucie County and 150 acres out west, and the owners strike a
4 private deal where the western land is willing to put an easement on their property and all
Mr.
5 the density moves to the 50 acres as a non-contiguous PUD, is that a step forward?
Russakis Mr. Corrick Ms.
6 says yes. continued, we would put it in the ag PUD plan.
Andrews Mr. Corrick
7 asked if there was another 150 acres would they compete. said
8 yes.
9
Mr. Spyke
10 said in all of the TDR programs that have been proposed, there is always the
11 concept of the “low hanging fruit”. There is always people who feel strongly enough
12 about trying to preserve their land the way it is, that it won’t take much to encourage
13 them to do that. He said to try to save ag, you’ve got to meet the three criteria (from the
14 Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast report). In addressing Mr. Wynne’s
Mr. Spyke
15 statement of the development and annexation of the cities, said if it were just
16 about money that would be the optimum solution for the western lands, but if we want
17 agriculture in the landscape, we have to solve the problem so that doesn’t happen, and the
18 only way to do that is for us to come out as good as if that happens.
19
Mr. Corrick,
20 returning to his example, said if you have 200 acres, and 40 acres of it is
21 wet, you have less than that, but if you transfer them into a non-contiguous PUD, you get
22 them back. A completely featureless grove has less incentive to do that than land with
Dr. Olson
23 resource values. pointed out you can build on wetlands, because over 50% of
Mr. Corrick
24 all wetlands have been impacted. said we put in our memo that wetlands
25 should be valuable enough that you want to argue that you have more than the district or
26 the county thinks you do. They should have a value that if you have 20 acres of wetlands,
27 you get 1 ¼ (for example) of what your underlying development rights are if you can
28 prove it’s a wetland and you have some proactive obligation going forward. One thing
29 the committee said would be advantageous was not only to strip the development value
30 from wetlands, but to make an incentive to keep them and keep them viable.
31
Dr. Olson
32 asked if the changes the committee is talking about to the ag PUD could be
33 passed with this commission given how the first set of recommendations were received.
Mr. Corrick
34 said he thinks the committee could get three votes. The committee will
35 probably have to compromise a little bit if the goal is to get something that will be
36 approved.
37
Mr. Spyke
38 said where we start and where we finish will never be the same, so if we
Mr. Corrick
39 come to a consensus of what has to be done, we have to start there.
40 reminded the group agreeing on the written memo took 3 meetings.
41
Dr. Olson
42 said he thinks his strategy of creating a TDR program that has better reception
43 than tinkering with the ag PUD but make that TDR program supersede the ag and force
44 the changes. He said he thinks a TDR program would achieve exactly what the majority
45 of this committee would want to do.
46
Page 6 of 10
Mr. Corrick
1 said either the TDR is the only way you can develop in the western lands,
2 or we have to fix the ag PUD program.
3
Mr. Russakis
4 said if the county agrees to a TDR program, the receiving areas could be
5 where ever the community would let people put them; and to make it simple, if a
6 landowner wanted to develop AG5 more densely, they could go to another land owner to
7 buy density. He mentioned his charge from the Cattleman’s Association to get the ability
8 for them to extract value out of their land to continue doing what they’re doing. He
9 suggested the county form a development task force for those who want to develop, as
10 this committee wants to preserve, and then let the commission be in the middle and
11 referee how it will come together.
12
Mr. Russakis Mr. Wynne
13 said we have to impose on the county not to give out density.
Ms. Andrews
14 agreed. said we would have to codify that.
15
Mr. Corrick
16 said in Alachua County’s report it said there are certain areas you want
17 density and certain areas you want sparsity. Do we want to make it more expensive to
18 build densely in the areas where we want density, or should the county mark the price of
19 that dense development up in proportion to what you want for your density?
20
Mr. Russakis
21 said if the county agreed to stop giving away density, all of the developers
22 would immediately form a committee like this, we would be the ag committee, they
23 would be the development committee, and we could go down this same road together and
24 meet every so often to discuss our problems, and the county commission would be hit
25 with that.
26
Mr. Miller
27 said he thinks the county should be the administrator in a TDR program, and
28 it would force them not to give density away. They would have a bank, and land owners
29 could sell TDR’s to the county. He said he would commit to sell a portion of his TDR’s
30 to the county to bank at 25% down and no interest for 2 years and let the county peddle
31 them to make a deal with a developer to sell them rather than give them away.
32
Mr. Corrick
33 said the county will be the administrator, regardless since they will have to
34 keep track of where the TDR’s came from and where they went. He said he thinks Mr.
35 Miller was saying they should be the “market maker” and he doesn’t think he would go
Mr. Wynne
36 there. said if they’re the market maker and they don’t want growth, they will
37 set a bad market.
38
Dr. Olson
39 said the discussions of who would be the “market maker” or “ledger keeper”
40 are all the way environmental banking works the regulatory agencies or government units
41 are “ledger keepers”. They establish the legal framework for the market and make sure
42 the laws, rules and regulations are followed, but they stay out of the private market and it
43 works great. He said if we go the TDR route, every point that was raised about making
44 them work is covered on page 35 (of Dr. Nicholas’ presentation). He says he feels you
45 can make a TDR program that automatically changes the ag PUD’s to what you want and
46 the TDR program is a much more acceptable less offensive thing than the political knee-
Page 7 of 10
1 jerk reaction to ag guys who seem to want to get more development on their land,
2 because ag people want to get more value for their land. He continued to numbers 6 & 7
3 on Dr. Nicholas’ report:
4 6. Make TDR Use By Right in Receiving Areas
5 This Counters the Lack of Willingness to Have Increased Density Nearby
6 and Gives Real Use Value to TDR
7 7. Make it All Part of a Comprehensive Plan
8 He said following those guidelines allows the opening for a TDR program to supersede
9 the existing ag PUD requirements that you feel are onerous. If we do the TDR first, we
10 give a friendly ultimatum to the commission saying if they are willing to codify TDR’s
11 they need to be willing to do these things, and if they are unwilling to do it, maybe we
12 default to something else.
13
Mr. Corrick
14 said the concept of taking only the development right was an extremely
Dr. Olson
15 difficult concept to grasp in Rural Land Stewardship. said he would argue to
16 make sure it is titled “Transferable Development Rights”.
17
Mr. Corrick Mr. Russakis
18 asked the group for guidance on the next two agendas. asked
19 that we don’t mess up the 8 units and below 160, because it will be a life saver for small
Mr. Wynne
20 property owners when you cannot develop without sewer and water.
21 clarified we didn’t take that away, we just suggested to treat the big people like the little
22 people.
23
Mr. Spyke
24 stated there are laws on the books that constitute the framework for
25 development outside the incorporated areas of St. Lucie County. Those laws are
26 confusing and ambiguous, and that’s why we exist, so we should deal with that in the
27 short term or we will lose credibility. He said he encourages everyone to be careful with
28 the county not giving away density because we want the county to give it to us. There
29 aren’t enough units in the rural lands to generate the kind of TDR value we were
30 discussing; the only way we get them is through a density multiplier given to the
Mr. Wynne
31 landowner to maintain competitive prices. agreed and said further out west
32 should have more density to sell to people with more valuable land closer to I95 and
33 would make it cheaper for them to buy density and increase the value of their land to
34 developers while preserving the land out west.
35
Mr. Ridgely
36 said he thinks the committee has been shoved in a corner by the county. He
37 said the county is working on the EAR right now and they’re writing new code. They’re
38 changing the Comp Plan and we should be looking at some of the changes. He said he
39 would like to get Growth Management, Peter Jones or someone, come and talk to us
40 about where they are on the EAR process because you cannot get any information out of
41 the county about it, other than a few public meetings which they crammed right next to
42 each other with no time for any rumination. He said he thinks we were formed to talk
43 about open space and the value issue, but it has morphed into exactly what one particular
44 commissioner wants which is for the committee to talk about TDR’s in the corner; even
45 going to go to the TPO and get money to hire consultants. He said the agenda to him is
46 the ag PUD issue because the county will do the TDR’s whether we talk about it or not;
Page 8 of 10
1 the TVC has a TDR committee that hasn’t met in over a year. May be long term we will
2 get to the TDR’s, but ag PUD is the most important thing we have to discuss, at least
Ms. Andrews
3 that’s what the resolution says. agreed the committee should discuss ag
Mr. Ridgely
4 PUD’s, and there was general consensus from the group. added a suggestion
5 that the committee gets Growth Management to talk to the committee about the draft
Mr. Corrick
6 EAR. stated he would entertain a motion to have Mr. Ridgely make the
Dr. Olson
7 request of Growth Management as vice-chair. asked that Mr. Ridgely also
8 request that they send a senior staff the committee’s meetings.
9
Ms. Andrews
10 suggested the committee send something to the County Commission to see
11 if they are willing to commit themselves to not giving away density because it may
12 impact on how we look at the ag PUD.
13
Mr. Corrick
14 stated the ag PUD is the problem before the county and the committee was
Mr.
15 put together because of problems with the ag PUD and that should be our first focus.
Russakis
16 asked if we could talk about the ag PUD and see that we would need to fix it or
17 replace it with something that may be TDR’s.
18
Dr. Olson
19 stated that is his only recommendation because it gives it the right veneer by
20 making it part of the discussion. If you lose one of the 3-2 votes in your favor in the
21 coming election, none of the recommendations we have made will see the light of day.
22 The consensuses on both sides of this issue are in a TDR program.
23
Mr. Corrick
24 said a TDR program is going to be complicated; the ag PUD is something
25 we could knock out in 2 meetings. He said we no longer have a sunset so we could be
Mr. Spyke
26 here until the cows come home on the TDR issue. added there will be money
Mr. Corrick
27 coming from the TPO for the TDR issue. said there may be more money,
28 but that is at least a month down the pike.
29
Dr. Olson
30 asked if we should use that to our advantage since that would help the process
31 when we get to TDR’s. A response to the commission is we are beginning to address
32 TDR’s as the commission expressed their wishes for us to look at this issue, but we
33 would like an official accounting request for that money so that we know what budget we
34 have to work with, to force their hand.
Mr. Ridgely Ms. Andrews
35 stated a motion to address ag PUD’s first. Seconded by the
11-1 Dr. Olson
36 motion carried with dissenting.
37
OTHER BUSINESS
38
39
Mr. Corrick
40 invited comment from those in attendance not in the committee to speak.
41
Mr. Ferguson
42 said he was going to encourage the committee to focus on the ag PUD’s
43 since it is the most pressing and the easiest to deal with. He told Mr. Corrick that he
44 thinks there is a legal mechanism in place now to do the simplified TDR he mentioned
45 earlier. He stated in the last few years he’s not aware of the county giving away density,
46 so he thinks it would be easy to ask the commission not to give away density and easy for
Page 9 of 10
1 them to agree. He said in his experience, a successful TDR program in the country there
2 does not exist that could be slapped on St. Lucie County and work. He said it would be
3 creating something that has never been tried before in the country that may or may not
4 work.
5
Mr. Linton
6 said part of the discussion of transferring density from the western lands to
7 the urban area is that all the land in the urban area already has underlying land use
8 entitlement, so there will not be a big market, so for the most part, the density will be
9 moving around the western lands. He said DCA is looking at revisiting the rural lands to
10 possibly create villages or suburban development, which could be a more fruitful
11 receiving area.
12
Mr. RidgelyMr. Johnson
13 said he will talk to Growth Management about the EAR.
14 motioned that Mr. Ridgely meet with Growth Management on behalf of the committee.
Mr. Miller
15 seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
16
Mr. Spyke
17 mentioned he attended the agritourism conference in Gainesville, for
18 information on making ag profitable. He said he asked LeeAnn Adams to come to one of
19 our meetings to give the committee a synopsis of the conference.
20
21 The committee confirmed the location of the next meeting in Conference Room 3 on
22 April 25, 2008.
23
The meeting was adjourned around 12:00 PM
24
Page 10 of 10