September 30, 2003 minutes

September 30, 2003 Meeting Minutes

MINUTES

DRYCLEANER ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TRUST FUND
COUNCIL of ILLINOIS

HOLIDAY INN SELECT
NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS

SEPTEMBER 30, 2003

John Polak, Chairperson, called the Drycleaner Environmental Response Trust Fund Council of Illinois meeting to order at 12:13 p.m. A quorum was present. Roll call was taken with the following members present:

Augustine Chung (via telephonic conference)
Andrew Chweh
David Gibson (via telephonic conference at 12:46 p.m.)
Young B. Kim
Jerry Lewicki
John Polak

Also present were:
H. Patrick Eriksen, Program Administrator's Office
John McCarthy, Program Counsel
C. Michael Perkins, Program Administrator's Office
Juho So, Program Administrator's Office

PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

The minutes from the July 24, 2003 Council meeting were reviewed. Mr. Kim noted that the minutes reflect an increase in the perc solvent tax from $3.50 per gallon to $10 per gallon in 2004 and he expressed a concern of that large of increase based upon input received from the public hearings. Dr. Chweh indicated that it was his understanding that the Council was going to be looking at a package of fee increases that involve increases in subsequent years. Mr. Eriksen responded stating that the Council had initially approved rates going out into the future but that in review with legal counsel, it was determined that the Council could not set rates to go into effect at some future date (e.g., July 1, 2006) but could only set rates which go into effect now and at such time that the Council wanted to adjust the rates, they would have to go back through the notice and public hearing period prior to making such adjustments.

Mr. Polak noted that this is the major topic for Council discussion today.

On a motion by Mr. Lewicki and a second by Mr. Chung, the minutes were approved by a vote of 5-0.

LICENSE LATE PAYMENT APPEAL

The license late payment penalty appeal before the Council today is Norge Cleaners, located at 6201 S. Kedzie Ave, Chicago, IL.

Mr. Eriksen reviewed with the Council the background information included in their Council packet. He noted that the Administrator's records indicate that Ms. Linares took over operation of the facility on April 5, 2000. The old facility was licensed at that time and the license was timely renewed for calendar year 2001. The Administrator's records indicate that the 2002 license fee was paid on March 16, 2002, at which time the late payment penalty of $370 was assessed. Ms. Linares subsequently appealed the license late payment penalty fee. The appeal was denied by the Administrator and it is before the Council for their review and action. Mr. Eriksen noted that enclosed for the Council's reference was the appeal correspondence between the Fund and Ms. Linares.

Ms. Linares addressed the Council stating that she was late in paying the license fee for calendar year 2002 because she did not have the funds to pay the fee when it was due. She stated she did not know that there was a $5 per day late payment penalty for not paying the license fee on a timely basis. She admitted she knew the fee was due by December 31, 2001.

Mr. Polak asked Ms. Linares if it would have made any difference to her if she knew there was a license late payment penalty, i.e., would the payment have become a priority. Ms. Linares replied that she thought so. In the early going, there were tough times in the business. She was behind on her bills but now things are running more smoothly and she is aware of her responsibilities in terms of the timeliness of payments to the Fund for licensing.

Mr. Polak asked the Council members their thoughts on the issue. Mr. Lewicki stated that as a drycleaner he has to pay his bills on time and feels it is the responsibility of every drycleaner to pay their bills on a timely basis. Mr. Kim had no comment. Mr. Chung noted he had nothing further to add other than ignorance is not an excuse. Dr. Chweh commented that if she did not understand the process, it may not be right for the Council to assess the late payment penalty. Mr. Polak sympathized with financial situation but felt that there was no deviations or extenuating circumstances that were different than many other appeals heard by the Council.

On a motion by Mr. Polak and a second by Mr. Lewicki, the Council voted 5-0 to deny Ms. Linares' waiver of the license late payment penalty in the amount of $370. Mr. Eriksen noted that she would be informed, in writing, of the Council's decision and her right to appeal the Council's decision to an Administrative Hearing Officer. Mr. Polak noted that since Mr. Gibson was still unavailable for the meeting, he would like to change the printed agenda order to deal with some of the less substantive issues prior to discussion of the adjustment of the drycleaning solvent taxes and annual license fees.

OPERATIONAL ISSUES

G. Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriation Update

Mr. Eriksen updated the Council on recent discussions with the Governor's Office regarding the fiscal year 2004 appropriation error. They confirmed that it would be necessary to have an amendment approved by the legislature during the November 2003 veto session in order to correct the appropriation reference error. Mr. Eriksen noted that the error reduced the Fund's overall appropriation by approximately $2.2 million. This will be a technical correction that should not incur a great deal of discussion or debate by the legislature.

He referenced that included in the Council packet was an article from the Chicago Tribune noting there have been transfers from Special Use Funds to the State's General Revenue Fund. He noted that the Illinois Drycleaner Fund was not one of those designated to transfer monies to the General Revenue Fund. He is hopeful that the efforts spent by the Council and the Administrator in educating the Governor's staff and staff of The Bureau of Management and Budget about the workings and financial situation of the Fund that such a transfer will not occur in the future.

D. Payment of License Late Payment Penalties in Installments

Mr. Eriksen reported that the Council previously adopted a policy and procedure allowing for the payment of license late payment penalty fees in 12 equal monthly installments when the total license late payment penalty fees equal or exceed $1,000. This installment opportunity has been utilized by 16 drycleaners over the past several years.

He noted recently a drycleaner who had paid his 2001 license late payment penalty fees totaling $1,310 in monthly installments did not pay the license fees for his facility for 2002 and 2003 until June 13, 2003, incurring late payment fees totaling $3,455 for those two years. The drycleaner has inquired if he can pay the $3,455 in late payment penalty fees via the installment method.

The issue for the Council's consideration is does the Council wish to allow drycleaners to use the installment method more than once in paying their license late payment penalty fees or do they wish to allow the drycleaners to only take advantage of the installment method one time?

Mr. Lewicki stated that he did not have an issue with the drycleaner utilizing the installment method again as the license late payment fee is a fairly substantial penalty for late payment. Mr. Polak indicated he was somewhat surprised that someone would fall into this situation a second time as he felt for the most part it was a one-time scenario where people incurred the late payment fee because they were not knowledgeable when the fee was due. He stated the penalty was established as a deterrent for people to pay their license fees late. Mr. Lewicki noted it is still costing this drycleaner three to four times in license late payment fees over what his license fee was, which is a sufficient penalty in and of itself. Mr. Chung indicated he had no problem with drycleaners being able to use the installment payment method more than once.

On a motion by Mr. Lewicki and a second by Mr. Kim, the Council, by a vote of 5-0, reaffirmed the existing policy whereby any drycleaner who incurs a late payment penalty fee over $1,000 may pay the late payment penalty fee in 12 equal monthly installments, with no limitation as to how frequently they can utilize this installment plan.

Mr. Polak recessed the meeting for a short break at 12:40 p.m. Mr. David Gibson joined the meeting via telephonic conference at 12:46 p.m. Mr. John Polak reconvened the meeting at 12:49 p.m.

A. Adjustment of Drycleaning Solvent Taxes and Annual License Fees

Mr. Polak reviewed with the Council that they had taken action at their July 24, 2003 Council meeting to increase both the solvent taxes and the license fees effective January 1, 2004. The Council proposed increases in solvent taxes and license fees were subject to public hearings and written comments and he asked Mr. Eriksen to update the Council on the results of those public hearings and written comments.

Mr. Eriksen noted that included in their Council packet is a summary of the four (4) public hearings and copies of the written comments received on the proposed increases to the solvent taxes and license fees. He reported public hearings were held during the month at Fairview Heights, Bloomington, Lincolnwood and Bolingbrook, with approximately 200 individuals in total attending these four (4) meetings. Written comments were received from 10 individual drycleaners plus written comments from the Korean/American Drycleaners Association of Chicagoland (KADA). In addition to the two-page memorandum outlining their position on the proposed increases, KADA submitted 369 petitions opposing the increase in the chlorine-based solvent tax to $10 per gallon and supporting a $7 per gallon chlorine-based solvent tax.

Mr. Eriksen reviewed each public hearing with the Council, summarizing the general sentiments of the various speakers at each meeting. Mr. Eriksen summarized the key concerns expressed at the public hearings and from the written comments as follows:
1) The drycleaning industry is in a down economic market cycle and the increases are too high for the drycleaners to absorb at this time;
2) The license fee increases are too high for the larger users of solvent; that the license fees should be capped at a set amount or the license fee should be the same for all drycleaners; and
3) The increase in the petroleum solvent tax as compared to the increase in the chlorine-based tax is not equitable and that the 5 to 1 ratio is not applicable for a majority of the petroleum drycleaners in the state.

Mr. Eriksen stated he had received three (3) letters subsequent to the public hearing cutoff date and today had received an additional letter of protest from the KADA. KADA's letter reflected that site investigation costs based on their survey are less than the Fund's projections.

Mr. Polak stated that even if the Council utilized the savings numbers that KADA identified through their own research, the Council would still require a $10 per gallon solvent tax rate on chlorine-based solvents to remain solvent. Mr. Kim stated that since neither an increase in the chlorine-based solvent tax to $7 or $10 is enough per the financial projection scenario as presented by the Administrator at the July 24 meeting or per KADA's numbers, that he recommends that the Council consider increasing the solvent tax only to $7. Once the Council knows the exact number of claims, they can adjust the fees accordingly.

Mr. Polak noted that the Council, in establishing the proposed increased rates, had tried to look at the equity among the drycleaners at the beginning of the program and hopefully some equity at the end of the program. He noted some of the larger volume users were subsidizing various classes of drycleaners based upon the proposed license fee schedule. The Council needs to look at a balanced mechanism to keep the fees as equitable as possible, but noted that this is a process that will need to be addressed on an annual basis to ensure that the Fund is solvent.

He stated it was his opinion that there should be no more than a tripling of license fees where practical for all current licensees so that a sense of fairness in terms of the classes of the fees being paid on day one of the Fund would still exist after the proposed increases went into effect.

Regarding the solvent tax increase, Mr. Polak stated that the Council will probably be looking at another increase a year or two from now and a compromise rate of the proposed $10 per gallon rate and the KADA request of $7, $8.50 may be reasonable at this time. Mr. Kim did not agree that there should be a cap of the license fees. He believes whoever uses more solvent should pay higher license fees as they can better afford to do so. Mr. Polak stated that he would not suggest a permanent cap but would support a cap of the license fee at $4,500 for the calendar year 2004 license fee which is due January 1, 2004. The Council should revisit the cap issue again in the future. Mr. Polak went on to explain that no one likes the size of the proposed increases but by capping the license fees, it would provide the drycleaners additional time to address their pricing structure in a way that is more conducive to them financially.

Mr. Chung stated that he believes that the current solvent tax rate on chlorine-based solvent has been too low for quite some time and that the Council has been talking about a potential increase for over three (3) years and that a phase in period is not necessary. He recommends that the Council stay with the proposed solvent tax increases that they approved at the July 24, 2003 Council meeting. Mr. Polak stated that based on the public comments received, that the proposed increases in the license fees was not as significant an issue to the drycleaners as the solvent tax was. The Council conducted a general discussion noting that legislation had been pending for almost two years at the time SB1000 was passed and the industry has been provided notice that increases would need to take place to keep the Fund solvent. Mr. Polak stated that the Council may wish to stay with the proposed fees they approved at the July 24, 2003 meeting. Mr. Gibson commented that he understands that in reality the Fund will need at least $10 per gallon chlorine-based solvent tax but if a compromise is what is necessary at this time, he could support a smaller increase at this time. Mr. Chung stated that he could support a compromise next year, something maybe higher than $10, such as $12, but feels the Council needs to stay with the originally approved $10 at this time.

Mr. Lewicki noted that the difference in the chlorine solvent tax proposal of $10 compared to $8.50 per gallon is $150 on 100 gallons, which is a minimal difference. He stated the difference between a license fee of $8,500 and $4,500 is significant and he could support a cap on the license fees but recommends staying with the $10 per gallon solvent tax. Mr. Kim stated KADA and ISFA need more time to do more studies, why make the decision today, why not allow them more time to do research on costs and needs and bring their research back to the Council at a later date? Dr. Chweh inquired how KADA arrived at their $7 per gallon chlorine solvent tax. What was their justification for that number? Without that information, it is difficult to make a decision which would require additional time to review and digest new information. Mr. Kim noted that nothing had been received from KADA justifying their $7 number. Mr. Polak reported that their numbers on site investigation costs and remediation costs do not support a $7 per gallon tax on chlorine-based solvent. Dr. Chweh asked Mr. Dae Kim of KADA if they had data to support their $7 per gallon proposed tax on chlorine-based solvents. He stated that they did not have data to support the $7, this came from meetings that KADA held subsequent to the July 24th Council meeting in which their members expressed support for an increase up to $7 per gallon. Mr. Polak indicated that a waiting strategy to get more information does not help deal with the projected financial deficit the Fund is facing. If KADA has no data to support why the increase should only go to $7, it would make sense that the Council stays with their $10 per gallon increase. Dr. Chweh indicated that KADA's memo stated that they had interviewed nine (9) environmental companies. Was the $7 based on public input? Mr. Dae Kim replied that they were just trying to show that there was uncertainty surrounding the proposed increase.

Mr. Polak made a motion, seconded by Mr. Lewicki, to cap the maximum license fee at $4,500, with the intent that the license fee categories be structured in a manner that, if possible, to not more than triple the current license fee for any drycleaner that uses the same amount of solvent during this year; that the solvent tax on chlorine-based solvents be increased to $8.50 per gallon from $3.50 per gallon and that the solvent tax on petroleum solvents be increased from $ .35 per gallon to $1.75 per gallon, maintaining the Council approved ratio of 5 to 1. The following was the roll call vote:
Dr. Chweh no
Mr. Kim no
Mr. Gibson yes
Mr. Lewicki yes
Mr. Chung no
Mr. Polak yes

The motion failed on a 3-3 vote. Mr. Polak stated that since there was not a consensus on the capping of the license fees or a compromise on the reduction in solvent taxes, that he would make a motion to approve the Council's proposed increases that were unanimously passed by the Council at the July 24, 2003 meeting in which the solvent tax on perc would be set at $10 per gallon, petroleum at $2 per gallon and the license fees schedule as approved at the July 24, 2003 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Chung. The following was the roll call vote:
Dr. Chweh no
Mr. Chung yes
Mr. Kim no
Mr. Lewicki yes
Mr. Gibson no
Mr. Polak yes

The motion failed on a vote of 3-3.

Mr. Gibson stated that he felt that the cap on licensing was a good compromise in trying to keep the license fees as equitable as possible, based upon the initial legislative structure. He made a motion where the solvent tax on chlorine-based solvents would be $10 per gallon, petroleum would be $2 per gallon, green solvent would remain at $1.75 per gallon and the license fee structure would be as previously approved by the Council on July 24, 2003, except it would be capped at $4,500 with the intent to adjust the other categories such that any current licensee, if possible, would not have more than a tripling of their license fee in 2004 if they use the exact same amount of solvent in 2003 as they did in 2002. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lewicki. The following was the roll call vote:
Dr. Chweh no
Mr. Chung yes
Mr. Kim no
Mr. Gibson yes
Mr. Lewicki yes
Mr. Polak yes

The motion passed by a vote of 4-2. Mr. Eriksen clarified that because of the new license fee categories of 50 gallon increments, it would not be possible to limit all of the licensing fees to a tripling.

Mr. Chung stated that he would have to be excusing himself from the meeting. Mr. Chung excused himself from the meeting at 1:48 p.m. Dr. Chweh left the meeting at 1:50 p.m.

B. Compliance Program Audit

Mr. Eriksen reviewed with the Council the draft of the compliance program audits, noting that the Council had briefly reviewed the report at their strategic planning meeting but had not taken any action at that time. He noted in his summary that the documentation was not consistent across all programs and that as he had summarized, it would appear that the compliance programs expended considerable efforts in the start up phase but have not matured as well as might be expected with all but one or two. He noted it was the Administrator's recommendation that the Council enforce the definitive criteria it set forth as the standard a program must meet or lose their certification. Documentation of facility inspections, continuing education and employee training were the areas that were the most severe in lack of documentation.

The Council conducted a general discussion of the compliance programs, stating that it may be necessary to develop a model compliance program for the other compliance programs to follow. Mr. Parker stated that there is general training that needs to be done for all the compliance programs and the compliance programs may be able to work together to come up with some improved suggestions for the Council. He stated he would review this issue and provide some suggestions for improving compliance programs to Mr. Eriksen in the near future. Mr. John Lee, representing the Asian/American Small Business Program, stated that he understood the operational issues or concerns mentioned but felt that the Council could assist more in helping track and remind the drycleaners about their continuing education requirements. After additional discussion, the Council directed the Administrator to look at more definitive criteria in terms of the compliance program requirements that may strengthen the Council approved compliance programs and submit them to the Council at a later date for further discussion and consideration.

C. Procedures for Issuing Insurance Coverage for Uninsured Facilities Wishing to Pay Back Insurance Premiums to June 30, 2000 and Facilities That Had a Lapse in Continuous Insurance Coverage Since June 30, 2000 in Order for the Site to be Eligible for Remedial Benefits

Mr. Eriksen noted that included in the most recent Council packet was a revised memorandum on this topic. The revised memo clarified terminology in the previous memo.

Mr. Eriksen noted that there were five (5) separate issues outlined in his memorandum. Mr. Eriksen reviewed each of the individual issues and the Administrator's proposed response to the issue in detail with the Council.

After general discussion by the council, on a motion by Mr. Polak and a second by Mr. Lewicki, by a vote of 4-0, the Council voted to accept the Administrator's response on each of the five (5) individual issues related to this topic as outlined in his September 8, 2003 memorandum to the Council.

Mr. Polak then recessed the meeting at 2:30 p.m. for a break and reconvened the meeting at 2:43 p.m.

E. Definition of Petroleum Drycleaning Machine with a Reclaimer

Mr. Eriksen reviewed with the Council that SB1000 created two (2) distinct licensing categories for drycleaning machines using petroleum-based solvents. The first category is for drycleaning machines using petroleum solvents without a reclaimer and the second category is for petroleum drycleaning machines with a reclaimer. He offered the following definitions for Council review:

1) Petroleum drycleaning machine without reclaimer
This would be a drycleaning machine that uses a transfer process in which the garments are cleaned in one machine and then transferred to a dryer that does not recapture the solvent remaining in the garments. The dryer emits the solvent vapors directly into the atmosphere.
2) Petroleum drycleaning machine with reclaimer
A petroleum drycleaning machine with a reclaimer would be classified in one of the following three categories:
• A transfer machine process in which the damp garments are placed in a reclaiming dryer that utilizes a water cooling tower to capture the solvent vapors during the drying cycle for reuse in the drycleaning process. Mr. Eriksen noted that sources have indicated that the transfer process in these reclaimers are 50-60% efficient in reclaiming the solvent used in cleaning the garments. An example of a reclaiming dryer would be a Hoyt-Petromiser.
• The drycleaning machine process involves a transfer machine in which the garments are dried in a reclaiming dryer that uses a refrigeration unit similar to the refrigeration units on perc drycleaning machines. These dryers are reported to reclaim 70-80% of the drycleaning solvent in the garments.
• A dry-to-dry drycleaning machine in which the clothes are not removed from the drycleaning machine during the complete drycleaning cycle and the solvent vapors from the drycleaning cycles are reclaimed during the cool down cycle and are returned to the drycleaning still.

Mr. Kim provided the Council with a brief update on the history of the NESHAP regulations dealing with air emissions and how they impact the solvent mileage for each applicable drycleaning machine.

On a motion by Mr. Lewicki and a second by Mr. Kim, the Council approved the Administrator's proposed definitions for a petroleum drycleaning machine without a reclaimer and petroleum drycleaning machine with a reclaimer by a vote of 4-0.

F. Update - United Cleaners Pilot Remedial Project

Mr. Eriksen stated that Mr. J. Jaktar was present to give the Council an update on the status of the United Cleaners in Lemont, IL, pilot project.

Mr. Jaktar thanked the Council for their support of the pilot project and their patience as the initial system was installed and subsequent modifications were made to try to make the project successful. He noted that the installation of the system began in September 2002 and after six weeks of testing, significant reductions in the level of contamination occurred in the hot spot that had been identified as the main area of the contamination plume. He noted that as time passed there was a rebound effect and there remains one hot spot that has a range of contamination from 150 to 400 ppm that the system was not able to effectively remediate. He believes that the problems are associated with the soil type. The soil at the facility is a very tight clay that just did not seem to loosen up over the period of time that the system was in operation. He reminded the Council that he has had good results in conducting such remediation in silty clay soils. Based on the current status at the site, the consultant will be removing the remediation system as there is no further point to operate it as it does not appear that it will be effective on the remaining hot spot due to the tight clay soil. Mr. Polak asked Mr. Jaktar if there has been anything that he learned that he could share with the Council where the technology might be more successful in the future at other sites. Mr. Jaktar replied that it would probably be more successful at sites that did not have such a tight clay soil. The system was moderately successful and that 80% of the contamination identified was removed. Unfortunately, there still remains over 4,000 ppm of chlorinated solvent remaining in the soil at the facility. Dr. So inquired what was the advantage of a heated soil vapor extraction system over a regular soil vapor extraction system. Mr. Jaktar replied that the cleanup period is shorter using the heated soil vapor extraction versus the soil vapor extraction.

Mr. Eriksen noted that the remedial consultant for the facility is requesting three (3) bids for additional technologies to complete remediation of the facility.

REVIEW OF ACTIVITY REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Mr. Eriksen reviewed with the Council the August 2003 and July 2003 activity reports, noting that current licenses in force at the end of August were 1,418, with 847 licensed facilities participating in the Fund's insurance program. The number of open remedial claims on active facilities stands at 205, representing reserves of $12,717,478. An additional 200 facilities have submitted and had their budget approved for intrusive testing with the outstanding cost proposals on these 200 sites at $888,050.

Mr. Eriksen also reviewed the August 31, 2003 and July 31, 2003 financial statements noting that year-to-date revenues exceed expenditures by $36,942, leaving a Fund balance of $6,283,865 at the end of August.

OTHER ISSUES AS PRESENTED

Mr. Polak noted that he would have the Administrator check to see if November 6th or 7th would work for the next Council meeting. Mr. McCarthy stated that he wanted to remind the Council members that the proposals for the administration of the Fund are due by 11:00 a.m. on October 15, 2003. There were only two (2) potential bidders who showed up for the mandatory pre-bidders conference on September 17, 2003, at the Holiday Inn in Bolingbrook, IL. They were Williams & Company Consulting, Inc., and Haynes, Theodore Accounting & Taxation. He noted that upon receipt of the proposals that are submitted in response to the RFP, he would forward them to the Council for their review. He would like the Council to review and take action on the proposals as soon as possible in as much as the Administrator's contract expires on December 6, 2003.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

Mr. Chang Lee addressed the Council regarding comments that he had made at two (2) of the Council's public hearings. He stated he disagreed with the Administrator's response to him regarding the issuance of cancellation notices for the insurance policies. Mr. Eriksen stated that if he provided the specifics on a site, he would follow up on the cancellation notice issued for that specific site.

Mr. Augustine Chung rejoined the Council meeting at 3:30 p.m. Mr. Gibson excused himself from the meeting at 3:37 p.m.

Mr. Sung Do Kang addressed the Council stating that he had requested much information and many meetings with the chairman and the Administrator to discuss the proposed increases. Mr. Polak noted that there was only one meeting that was proposed that he could not attend. Mr. Kang stated that he had received many comments from over 500 drycleaners opposed to an increase in the solvent tax on chlorine-based solvents from $3.50 per gallon to $10 per gallon. He made reference to Dr. Chweh's earlier comments regarding proof of why $7 is adequate. He asked does the Council have proof that $10 is adequate? If we knew all the facts, the program could run smoothly by setting the necessary rate at this time. He referenced that the Council did not consider all the facts in setting the proposed rates as KADA has additional information that shows testing costs could be reduced by $10,000 to $15,000 and that again, due to September 11, 2001 and the poor economy, $10 per gallon solvent tax on chlorine-based solvents would have a negative impact on a large number of his members. Mr. Kang stated it would be best for KADA to work with the Council and the Fund administrator to look at ways to further reduce expenditures and wanted the Council to understand that much effort went in to collect data on the proposed site investigation and clean up numbers. Mr. Polak agreed with Mr. Kang's comments on Fund expenditures and requested that the Administrator respond to KADA's letter regarding lower cleanup costs. Mr. Kim asked if there was a cap on site investigation costs. Mr. Eriksen replied no, that there was nothing in the statute or in previous Council policy that restricted the number of dollars that could be spent on testing.

There being no further business, on a motion by Mr. Lewicki and a second by Mr. Kim, the Council meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m., on a vote of 4-0.

Back to Top