Government Center

719 S. Batavia Ave., Bldg. A

Geneva, IL 60134

Kane County

KC Finance and Budget Committee

Meeting Minutes

BERMAN, Lenert, Juby, Lewis, Sanchez, Surges, Tepe & ex-officios Pierog (County Chair)

Monday, August 12, 2024

9:00 AM

County Board Room

***SPECIAL MEETING***

Call To Order

Chairman Berman called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM.

Roll Call

Board Member Dale Berman

Board Member Bill Lenert

Board Member Leslie Juby

Board Member Anita Lewis

Board Member Vern Tepe

PRESENT

Ex-Officio County Board Chair Corinne M. Pierog

Board Member Jarett Sanchez

REMOTE

ABSENT

Board Member Clifford Surges

Also present: Co. Bd. Members Allan*, Bates, Davoust*, Gumz, Kenyon, Kious*,

Strathmann, Roth, Tarver*; Fin. Exec. Dir. Hopkinson; Treasurer Lauzen; ITD/BLD

Exec. Dir. Fahnestock* & staff Lasky*, Braski, Kash; State's Attorney Mosser & staff

Frank, Brady, Ford, Shepro, Hunt*; Court Admin. O'Brien & staff Mathis; Sheriff Hain &

staff Johnson*, Catich; Court Srvs. Exec. Dir. Aust & staff Starkovich, Davis, Hill,

Gates, Goodwick; Public Defender Conant; Circuit Clerk Barreiro & staff Johnson;

KCHD Exec. Dir. Isaacson* & staff Snowden*; KCAC Admin. Youngsteadt; Auditor

Wegman; and members of the press and public.

Remote Attendance Requests

Chairman Berman announced the remote attendance requests for today's meeting. He

asked the Committee if there were any objections to Committee Member Sanchez

attending today's meeting remotely. There were no objections.

Approval of Minutes: None

Public Comment (Agenda Items)

Court Srvs. Exec. Dir. Aust explained that the Court Services Department is comprised

of probation, pretrial services, juvenile detention, and psychological diagnostic services.

Court Services currently has 185 employees. Aust noted that everything Court Services

does is required by state statute, except the Kane County Diagnostic Center. The

KCDC costs $1.1M to run, but the services provided saves the County $2.5M. Aust

explained that the KCDC conducts complex psychological evaluations, such as an

offender's fitness to stand trial, likelihood of domestic violence, or sex offender's

patterns and habits. She stated that the court is unlikely to stop ordering these types of

evaluations. She explained that she has presented on numerous occasions that the

pretrial, probation, and juvenile detention staff is largely funded by the State of Illinois.

The County only needs to provide a benefits package to these employees. Aust stated

that this savings to the County will be forfeited when the County reduces State

subsidized headcount. Nonetheless, the proposed budget cuts are going to hurt. In

2017, the County Board paid for a Mandated Services Study, to ensure that the County

was as lean as possible. Aust urged the Committee to review this study. After

conducting the study, the County departments were found to be lean and were only

doing what the State was requiring of them. (Madam Chairman Pierog arrived remotely

at 9:04 a.m.) Aust noted that many of the study's recommendations on revenue and

expenses have not been implemented. She stated that the study found that Court

Services should take the following into account when considering budget cuts: judges

are under no requirement to stop ordering people to probation or pretrial services, and

just because the County reduces funding, these programs are subsidized by the State

and provide the County's only alternative to incarceration. Aust stated that Court

Services has continued to be a good steward of the money entrusted. Court Services

has returned excess funds to the General Fund, every year. Aust explained that the

elasticity of the budget has allowed her department to switch resources to crime and

offending patterns. In 2021, the Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School

evaluated Kane County's Court Services' Pretrial Risk Assessment. The Justice Lab

found that when offenders are ordered to pretrial services, their non-compliance for

both new offenses and failure to come to court, rates drop significantly. Aust explained

the outreach Court Services does in order to help these offenders, which saves the

County money. She stated that in 2022, the Probation Division had approximately 3K

offenders on probation and conditional discharge that Court Services were actively

supervising. That year, there were only 322 new offenses committed by that

population, which is a recidivism rate of less than 10%. Aust stated that her team is

constantly seeking the latest research to learn techniques that can be done to help

offenders. She explained that she does not know how they will absorb the proposed

budget cuts. Court Services must remain adequately staffed for the needs of the court.

Aust explained that she cannot cut her budget until she meets with the other Judiciary

Departments to make sure all of the statutory obligations are met. She stated that the

County and Judiciary, need to find a way to work together in order to minimize the

harm.

Public Defender Conant explained that the Committee will hear a lot about mandated

services and what Judiciary partners are required to provide. She stated that the Public

Defender position is the only position in the County that is mandated by the United

States Constitution. When the State of Illinois mandates legislation, such as the Safe-T

Act, it is the Public Defender attorneys who ensure that for every client the court

assigns them that their rights afforded by those mandates are carried out and have the

right to council. However, it is more than the right to council. The Kane County's Public

Defender's Office (PDO) strive to give is more than effective assistance of council.

Conant explained that state mandates, such as the Pre-Trial Fairness Act, have not

decreased caseloads, but have increased the workload. The requirements of this Act

have imposed duties similar to an appellate attorney. Conant summarized the impacts

of the Safe-T Act on the judicial system and public defenders. She stated that she has

strived to be fiscally responsible with the budget she receives each year. She has

continued to work hard to ensure her attorneys are compensated for the work that they

do. She commended the County Board for granting equitable salary increases. As of

September 2024, the PDO will be fully staffed. Last year, the PDO had seven vacant

attorney positions. During this time, the PDO office did not take fewer cases or turn

down appointments. Instead, staff worked hard to provide the same level of

representation as they always do. Conant spoke on the lengths staff went to make sure

that the work of the PDO was not sacrificed. She stated that the PDO is grateful that

the comparable salaries have enabled them to be fully staffed. Conant explained that

the cuts being proposed for her office are approximately $12K more than what was

given to her office for comparable salaries. There are 53 employees in the PDO, 41 of

which are considered line attorneys. These attorneys are the ones that provide the

service that the Constitution mandates. The PDO does not have finance staff, media

staff, or Information Technologies (IT) staff. The PDO has 41 attorneys that perform

the duties mandated by the Constitution and the State of Illinois. These attorneys

deserve to know that they are following the mandates set out for them and that their job

in this County is secure in doing so.

State's Attorney Mosser explained that she recently learned at the last Finance

Committee meeting that one of the budget proposals being considered included

significant cuts to office holders within Judicial and Public Safety. Included in the

proposal was the notion that the State's Attorney's Office (SAO) should be cut by $3M,

which would equate to letting go approximately 20 Assistant State's Attorneys (ASAs).

Mosser noted that 85% of the SAO's annual budget is personnel. The SAO and other

Judicial partners are statutory. It is not optional whether or not the SAO is here to

prosecute cases. The SAO is an essential part of public safety. Mosser explained that

over the past three years, the SAO has come under budget and was fiscally

responsible with the funding received. While the SAO needed to add much needed

staff, along with pay raises, they have significantly increased public safety while

stopping the constant exodus of valuable employees leaving for higher paying jobs in

surrounding areas. Mosser stated that she has constantly applied for grants or other

special revenue funds to make sure the SAO was not solely reliant on the County's

General Fund. This is not something she has to do because under State law the SAO

needs to be fully funded by the County. Mosser did this in order to be a good steward

of the peoples' money and to keep the SAO running properly. She explained that when

she took office in 2020, she presented the County Board several revenue options due

to the Judiciary and Public Safety offices were woefully under funded. Despite these

recommendations, the County did not address these. With this lack of action, Mosser

has made substantial efforts to find supplemental sources of funding. Mosser explained

her recent effort in expanding funding to prosecute domestic violence offenders. The

Kane County SAO was granted $1M from Senator Linda Holmes. Despite the fact that

the SAO is by statute a necessary part of this County, the SAO is being told to cut $1M.

Mosser stated that these budget cut amounts are arbitrary and not based on anything

that takes into account public safety. These cuts do not take into account the

necessary needs that were presented in the Judiciary and Public Safety budget

proposals, which were confirmed to be necessary to run these offices appropriately.

Mosser explained that there has been no effort to look at revenue increases or cuts in

areas that are not required by law. Mosser stated that she is unable to cut 20 Assistant

State's Attorneys (ASA) from the SAO budget, as they are necessary to prosecute the

cases in this growing County. She noted that this is not an unwillingness to be a good

fiscal partner with the County. It is because the SAO is still understaffed and underpaid

for the work they must do. Mosser explained that if the County Board attempts to

deplete Judiciary and Public Safety budgets in this reckless and unreasonable way,

there will be no choice but to sue the Kane County Board to reasonably fund public

safety. She spoke on the immense financial impacts this potential case would cause

the County. Mosser implored the County Board to take a different approach to balance

this budget. One that does not cause unnecessary litigation or threaten the safety of

every resident in Kane County.

Sheriff Hain stated that over the past six years the Judiciary and Public Safety partners

have had a wonderful working relationship with the Kane County Board, while they

have continued to be supportive. He would like to propose solutions to this fiscal issue

the County is facing. Hain reflected on a handful of letters received by him from people

who have left Kane County's re-entry jail services over the last five years, thanking him

and his staff for the help provided to them. He stated that these letters are the most

important thing to him over his 30 years in Public Safety. He stated that cuts to Public

Safety in this day in age is not in a timely fashion. The Kane County Sheriff's Office

(KCSO) is already working with limited staff. At one time, the KCSO will have

approximately six officers on patrol. Many other counties have double this amount.

Most officers do this line of work due to their love of the job and service. Hain

commended other elected officials who urge constituents to voice their concerns, and

he hopes the County Board would do the same. More importantly, besides the

constituents that are served, the KCSO have legal mandates to do a specific job. If the

KCSO's budget is cut by $4M to $5M, the office will not be able to adequately perform

their job. Hain explained that over the past six years, he has been fiscally responsible

by returning millions to the County's General Fund and sharing money with other

offices/departments. He does not want to see Kane County residents punished by a

lack of planning. Hain spoke on the Public Safety Sales Tax. Other surrounding

counties use approximately 70% of this tax to fund public safety. He would like to see

more of this tax funding Public Safety partners. Secondly, Hain would like to see the

majority of the proposed money that could potentially come from the Retailers'

Occupational Sales Tax go to Public Safety. Either way, Hain stated he is unwilling to

make any budgetary cuts for a system that is nationally recognized.

Treasurer Lauzen explained that the Treasurer's Officer collects over $2M in property

taxes for 250 to 300 taxing agencies and generate $18M in interest income on the

County's cash balances. He stated that this year, his office took a simple approach to

their budget within the County's General Fund budget. First, he limited the General

Fund salary increases to 2.5% or less, and the General Funds' commodities and

contractual services to less than 3%. Finally, the Treasurer's Office would spend less in

expenses. The office generated over $1M in FY2024. Between this revenue and the

interest income accrued, the Treasurer's Office pays for itself. Lauzen explained the

reciprocation this additional revenue brought to the Treasurer's Office, by cutting their

budget by 10%. Lauzen spoke on inaccurate and misleading statements addressing

the budget. He provided four examples of inaccuracies, such as salary misinformation,

the use of a positive and negative number when balancing the budget, and the gross

understatement of County revenues. Lauzen asked the Committee to stop scaring

people by proposing drastic budget cuts.

Ellen Nottke, Batavia, spoke on the proposed reduction for the FY2025 budget. She

stated that last time the County told elected officials how to spend their budgeted

allocations, they brought forth a lawsuit that cost the taxpayers $2M. Additionally, the

County Board would like to amend the County Financial Policies regarding the RTA

Sales Tax allocation. The Finance Department Executive Director, who served as the

Kane County Division of Transportation's Financial Director for 13 years, asked the

Committee how they would justify taking RTA funds that are used to leverage state and

federal grants. The ramifications from this re-allocation would be detrimental for years

to come. Nottke spoke on the resolution authorizing the submission to the electors of

Kane County by referendum to oppose a 1% Special County Retailers' Occupation

Sales Tax. She stated that pricing of everything is out of control. Proposing this sales

tax will force taxpayers to shop in other counties. She asked the Committee why they

would have chosen to use the County's General Fund reserves to solve a problem that

has been in the making for the last 13 years. She asked what the County would do if

there was a major catastrophe, such as a plumbing break or major mold issues, and

those funds are no longer available. If Kane County would have increased property

taxes by the 5% each year for the last 13 years, the increase in the tax bill would be

minimal. She requested that the Committee asked themselves, in order to balance a

budget, why are they willing to sell out Kane County residents' future.

Circuit Clerk Barreiro stated that a Powerpoint presentation was provided to those

Committee Members in-person depicting the real budgetary numbers of the Circuit

Clerk's Office (CIC). She explained that the CIC is mandated to follow 284 statutes,

which does not include those that were passed in Springfield, this year. The Kane

County Board has proposed additional cuts to the CIC's FY2025 budget. Barreiro

spoke on her confusion on these cuts. During her budget proposal, it showed that her

office was down 6% from last year, which included the vacant position salaries.

Barreiro stated that her office finally has all deputy clerk position filled and are working

on filling all exempt staff vacancies. She explained that she has been a consistent

steward of the taxpayers money over the past four years. The CIC has not gone over

budget or asked for additional funds. Barreiro stated that the CIC has seen these types

of budget cuts before under former Circuit Clerk Seyller. She spoke on the lawsuit and

ramifications that were brought forth because of this. Since 2020, the CIC has been

redeemed and is a pillar example to the State. If the CIC's budget is cut, Barreiro will

have to lay off clerks, which will hinder the everyday operations. She listed all the

delayed affects these budgetary cuts would have on Kane County residents. It is

impossible to operate the CIC any leaner than already doing so.

Public Comment (Non-Agenda Items)

None.

New Business

FY2025 Budget Presentation

Committee Member Juby explained that at the last Finance Committee meeting,

herself and Committee Member Tepe were asked to meet with Fin. Exec. Dir.

Hopkinson to propose an equitable starting point to guide discussions to

determine a template for departments and elected offices to have discussions

with their corresponding committees about their budgets. Tepe and herself were

given direction to hash out some minor details, leaving enough undefined to

have a robust conversation with the entire Finance Committee at today's

meeting. Juby explained that they were able to provide a simple, open resolution

on today's agenda that the Finance Committee could forward with their

suggestions so that department heads and elected officials could have

meaningful discussions with their corresponding committees to help identify

possible reductions and/or revenue sources. Instead, there are four detailed

resolutions on today's agenda. One of which has nothing to do with what the

task. This resolution authorizes a charge back to the Finance and Human

Resources Departments for doing their respective jobs. She asked if all

departments will now be charged for utilizing County services. Additionally, on

Friday, August 9, 2024, Juby and Tepe were CC'd on an e-mail from Hopkinson

to Committee Chairman Berman that stated, "in a meeting with Madam

Chairman Pierog and HRM Exec. Dir. Lobrillo, the thinking was to replace the

metric that herself and Tepe worked and agreed upon and apply budget cuts to

only those departments/offices that utilize over 5% of the County's budget." Juby

explained that Chairman Berman stated that the original recommendation be

used and all aforementioned e-mails have been recalled. Recently, several

County Board Members commented on our governance through Committee

structure and the importance of Committee Chairs having autonomy over their

respective agendas and the importance of honoring the work of each

Committee. Juby stated that what happened for today's meeting should stand as

an example of why the County Board needs to make sure Committee Chairs

have control of their own agendas and why other Committees should respect the

work of fellow Board Members. Had she not reached out to Berman, the

changes that Hopkinson forwarded would have replaced the spreadsheet that

she and Tepe agreed to bring forward to the entire Committee for conversation.

Committee Member Lenert motioned to table agenda items 7B, 7C, and 7E,

Juby seconded. Motion passed by a 4-2 vote.

Lenert stated that the Finance Committee needs to look at different options to

discuss. One thing that bothered Lenert the most about the current financial

situation the County is in, is that three years ago he asked Madam Chairman

Pierog to develop a Committee to begin discussions on imposing a retail sales

tax. In those last three years, this has not been done. This has caused the

residents to be misinformed on what this sales tax would be utilized for and how

it would affect them. Lenert spoke on the $750K spent on a study that laid out

future County office development, but the lack of education provided to the

public on the retail sales tax. The education for the public and those in the

County needs to begin now because the proposed budget cuts just four months

shy of the budget adoption deadline is irresponsible. Lenert thinks that the

County Board needs to explain to everyone that the County needs to come up

with fiscal solutions and enact them, such as the Retailers' Sales Tax. If this tax

does not pass, then the County will need to find budget cuts. Much discussion

ensued on possible fiscal solutions.

Adopting Requests for County Offices and Departments for Proposed

Reductions in the Preparation of the FY2025 County Budget

Committee Member Juby motioned to reconsider the motion to table Resolution

7B, Tepe seconded. Motion passed by a 5-1 vote.

Juby motioned to discuss and potentially approve this resolution, Tepe

seconded.

Juby motioned to amend to remove all dollar amounts that are included in this

resolution as presented and remove Exhibit A, Lenert seconded. Motion carried

unanimously by roll call vote. Much discussion ensued.

Juby stated that the numbers that are being presented today are not numbers

that they are confident to put forward to the various committees. These numbers

were starting points. Additionally, there are several departments that are listed

that herself and Tepe agreed upon to include in order to spark conversation. The

Committee is just trying to sit down with Committees to determine what

departments/offices can and cannot cut. Madam Chairman Pierog explained that

the County's reserves are a resource. She spoke on Committee Member

Lenert's prediction of the sales tax referendum failing. She stated that it was with

hope that the reserve fund of $35M for 90-day reserves could be held back as

long as possible to keep funding the County Board. This explains the rational of

the $10M budget cut proposal, the reallocation of the RTA Sales Tax, and

reallocation for the Capital Fund. Discussion ensued.

Committee Member Tepe presented a table depicting his and Committee

Member Juby's conversation on possible budget reductions for the entirety of

$28,895,103, versus the proposed $15M. He stated that those

departments/offices that affected the General Fund and their amount of funding

out of it were the ones discussed at length. There were several departments that

were small enough that this would not impact the selected budget cuts. Those

that are listed at the bottom of the table are those departments/offices they were

not apart of these proposed reductions. Tepe reviewed those

departments/offices left who will be directly impacted by the County's General

Fund. Additionally, the table depicted the percentage of the General Fund each

department/office were allotted, along with the proposed amount for cuts. Tepe

and Juby were in agreement to develop a discussion point when presenting

these numbers. Another discussion they had was the removal of $4M that was

allocated to the building fund and the reallocation of the RTA Sales Tax. Tepe

stated that this Committee should discuss the approach on how to ask certain

departments/offices to cut their budgets. All the County Board could do is

allocate the necessary funds, and allow the department heads and elected

officials to voice their opinions. Further discussion ensued.

Committee Member Lenert motioned to reduce the proposed 9.4% budget cuts

to 4.7%, or $5M from the budget from of the Sheriff's Office, Building

Management Department, State's Attorney's Office, Court Services Department,

Information Technologies Department, Public Defender's Office, County Clerk's

Office, Judiciary and Courts, Circuit Clerk's Office, Coroner's Office, Finance

Department, County Board Office, and Supervisor of Assessment Office. Then,

reallocate the RTA Sales Tax and Capital Fund transfers, and take $15M from

reserves in order to balance the budget, Tepe seconded. Much discussion

ensued.

Chairman Berman called for a short recess to collect the appropriate numbers

for the amendment to this resolution at 10:56 a.m.

The Committee returned at 11:30 a.m.

Berman requested that ASA Brady re-read the motion to amend. Brady stated

that this resolution title should read, Adopting Recommendations for County

Offices and Departments for Proposed Reductions in the Preparation of the

FY2025 County Budget. Additionally, the fourth WHEREAS clause should read,

"WHEREAS, the Finance Committee recommends that $15,000,000 in General

Fund balance reserves will be used in balancing the FY2025 General Fund

budget; and". The sixth WHEREAS clause should read, "WHEREAS, the

Finance Committee recommends that an additional $4,031,617 in RTA

Transportation Sales tax revenue be transferred from the Transportation

Department's RTA Sales Tax Fund to the General Fund and further

recommends the County Board and Finance and Budget Committee make any

necessary financial policy amendments to incorporate such changes via future

resolution to be presented prior to the adoption of a FY25 budget; and" The

seventh WHEREAS clause should read,"WHEREAS, the Finance Committee

has recommended, for discussion in order to fulfill its obligations in presenting a

balanced budget, that certain Offices and Departments in the General Fund

should present reduced FY2025 budget in the total amount of $5,000,000 in

order for the General Fund budget be balanced as represented in Exhibit A;

and". Additionally, the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED clause read,

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Kane County Board Finance

and Budget Committee that it hereby requests, for discussion that the Offices

and Departments reducing their proposed budgets by the amounts as

represented in Exhibit A by August 16, 2024. Lastly, the NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED clause should read, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED by the Kane County Board Finance and Budget

Committee that the Executive Director of the Finance Department is directed to

present a revised proposed budget incorporating such changes at its next

meeting." Along with these amendments an Exhibit A will be included for display

with the removal of the Recorder's Office and the Treasurer's Office.

Juby voiced her concerns on the amounts being asked to cut from each

department/office. Juby motioned to amend the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT

RESOLVED clause to read, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the

Kane County Board Finance and Budget Committee that it hereby be requested,

for discussion that the Offices and Departments reduce their proposed budgets

by the amounts as represented in Exhibit A by August 16, 2024, or provide

detailed information about why such reductions cannot be sustained, Lenert

seconded. Motion carried by voice vote.

Discussion ensued on the proposed amendment. Fin. Exec. Dir. Hopkinson

recommended that the Finance and Budget Committee schedule another

special meeting on August 19, 2024 in order to discuss the findings of the

offices/departments. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.

RESULT:

MOVED FORWARD BY ROLL CALL VOTE

Leslie Juby

Vern Tepe

MOVER:

SECONDER:

Amending Kane County Financial Policies Regarding RTA Sales Tax Allocation

RESULT:

MOVER:

TABLED

Bill Lenert

Leslie Juby

SECONDER:

Bill Lenert, Leslie Juby, Anita Lewis, and Jarett Sanchez

Dale Berman, and Vern Tepe

AYE:

NAY:

Clifford Surges

ABSENT:

Authorizing the Submission to the Electors of the County of Kane by

Referendum on the April 1, 2025, Consolidated Election Ballot the Question of

Imposing a 0.75% Special County Retailers’ Occupation Tax for Public Safety

Purposes

Committee Member Lenert voiced his options to address the budget deficit. He

asked the Fin. Exec. Dir. Hopkinson what other options the Committee has,

besides cuts to departments/offices. Fin. Exec. Dir. Hopkinson stated that the

number one solution for the County would be to raise revenues. The County's

Capital Projects Fund is the single fund for all of the County's facility

improvement and technology projects receives a single source of revenue from

the General Fund. This past few years, the County was lucky enough to receive

the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding to catch up on long-term projects

that were not done. However, there is no County plan to fund certain projects

needed in the future. In her opinion, Hopkinson stated that the County should

have never utilized one-time federal revenues to pay routine operating salaries

in the Sheriff's Office of approximately $25M. This has credited a false sense

that the County has extra money. The entire point to balancing an annual budget

is to not use reserves. Hopkinson stated that reserves should not be used to

fund routine operating expenses. There should be new revenues to match the

County's operating expenses. Hopkinson stated the proper information has been

shared regarding the Occupation Retailers' Sales Tax. She reviewed the recent

information shared to the Committee depicting that $80M of the General Fund's

expenses is not funded by dedicated revenue sources are Public Safety and

Judiciary. Hopkinson stated that a 1% sales tax would raise approximately

$69M, which would fund Public Safety. Much discussion ensued.

KC Finance and Budget Committee

Committee Chairman's Comments

None.

Hopkinson stated that she will take action on the resolution that passed at today's

meeting reducing the RTA Sales Tax allocation. The resolution that will be written will

be similar to the one that was presented today. She asked for the Committee's

advisement. There will be 2 resolutions: recommend at budget and special retailers

occupation resolution.

She asked the Committee for any information that they would need for the Special

Occupations Retailers Tax. She reviewed the information that has been shared.

Discussion ensued on the information needed. Madam Chairman asked for a 5-year

projected growth chart on the occupation tax. Lenert suggested that within in the

resolution there should be a sense of urgency. The Executive Committee needs to vote

upon the $75M cut from the County Board budget. Discussion ensued.

10.

11.

Executive Session (if needed)

None.

Adjournment

RESULT:

APPROVED BY VOICE VOTE

Bill Lenert

MOVER:

Leslie Juby

SECONDER:

This meeting was adjourned at 11:53 AM.

Savannah Valdez

Sr. Recording Secretary