Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-30 RMLD Board of Commissioners MinutesReading Municipal Light Board of i Regular Session 230 Ash Street Reading, MA 01867 April 30, 2002 Start Time of Regular Session: 7:35 p.m. End Time of Regular Session: 10:06 p.m. 20611 JUL ► 0 A 3 Attendees: Commissioners: Messrs. Ames, Pacino, Hughes, Soli, and Herlihy RMLD Staff: Mr. Cameron, Acting General Manager and Mr. Blomley Mses. Cavagnaro, Antonio and O'Leary CAB Members: Messrs. Lessard, Carakatsane, Corbett, Stevenin and Bartlett Selectmen Liaison: Mr. Cummings, Reading Board of Selectmen (attended first portion of meeting) RMLD Employees: Mses. Blomley, Maillett, Hadley, Benson, and Parenteau Messrs. Hadley, Seldon and Butler Guests: Mr. Robert Turosz, North Reading Transcript Mr. Richard LaCapra, LaCapra and Associates This meeting is being video taped for distribution to the community television stations in Reading, North Reading, Wilmington and Lynnfield. Tapes of this meeting can be purchased from RCTV ($2 tape). Mr. Hughes, Chairman of the Board, called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Report of the Chairman of the Board Subcommittee Reorganization Mr. Hughes distributed a revised RMLB Subcommittee list and asked for volunteers to fill various vacancies. Mr. Pacino noted a correction be made on the Subcommittee list stating he is the first back up with Mr. Hughes as the second back up for signing the Accounts Payable Warrants. Mr. Pacino also noted, due to his background, he would best fit serving on the Audit, Pension, Operating and Capital Budget Subcommittees, in addition to the General Manager Search Subcommittee. Mr. Hughes stated he would prefer to be assigned to the Public Relations Subcommittee as Chair and would like to stay on the Operating and Capital Budget and General Manager Search Subcommittee as well as continuing as second back up for the Account Payable Warrants. Mr. Soli stated he will continue on the Account Payable Warrants, however, is interested in the Power Contract and the General Manager Search Subcommittees. Since there are already two Commissioners volunteering for the General Manager Search Subconunittee, Mr. Pacino pointed out if three RMLD Board of Commissioners serve on a subcommittee this involves postings for an open meeting. At this point, Mr. Hughes explained the discussions he had relative to the General Manager's Search Subcommittee, stating in addition to asking Mr. Pacino to sit on the committee as Secretary he also chose four outside individuals due to their experience with similar searches: Mr. Tim McCarthy, Belmont Light Plant, Mr. Bill Wallace, Wakefield Light Plant, and Mr. Fred Nemergut, former RMLD Commissioner and utility field expert and Ms. Beth Klepeis, Town Treasurer. Mr. Herlihy stated in addition to his current position on the RMLD Task Force and the Accounts Payable warrants, he expressed interest in serving on the Public Relations Subcommittee. Mr. Pacino asked if there were any interest in the CAB Board Subcommittee explaining this committee consists of two RMLD Commissioners and two CAB members which meet twice a year in the spring. This Subcommittee is responsible for approving the payment to the towns for in lieu of taxes. Mr. Ames and Mr. Soli will sit on the CAB Subcommittee. commissioners R CEI VEQ TUN CLERK R-E DING, MASS ~VIr. Ames expressed his interest in the Audit and Pension Subcommittees as well as the CAB Subcommittee. April 30, 2002 A Report of the Chairman of the Board (Continued) Subcommittee Reorganization Mr. Cameron asked Mr. Ames if he will remain on the Power Contracts Subcommittee, Mr. Ames replied, yes, he would continue to serve on this committee. Acting General Manager's Salary Mr. Hughes addressed the issue of compensation for Mr. Vincent Cameron, Acting General Manager, who was drafted into this position of Acting General Manager back in January. He further stated Mr. Cameron embraced this role head-on without hesitation providing damage control and kept the Department running smoothly while staying in compliance, etc. Mr. Hughes informed the Commission of the previous General Manager's salary of $140,000 and suggested Mr. Cameron's salary be advanced to $120,000/$122,000 per year while he continues to serve as Acting General Manager and should be retroactive back to January 1, 2002. Mr. Ames reminded the Commission he was Chairman of the RMLD Board of Commissioners during the time Mr. Cameron became Acting General Manager. He further commented, despite the traumatic events taking place, Mr. Cameron performed above and beyond the call of duty although he commends Mr. Cameron on a job well done, he suggests a subcommittee be formed. Mr. Ames envisions this subcommittee will investigate a salary study and analyze salaries of other General Managers in Massachusetts, as well as analyzing the structure of the organization, etc. Mr. Patin stated he is in favor of compensating Mr. Cameron, as he has done an excellent job in the face of adversity. Mr. Soli stated since the former General Manager was the highest paid in the Commonwealth, he is in favor of forming a subcommittee to determine fair and reasonable compensation to the Acting General Manager. Mr. Herlihy agreed with forming a subcommittee drawing a comparison of other Town Department officials with the RMLD General Manager as well as the fact the Town Meeting just recently voted on budgeted salary ranges. Mr. Pacino stated he has no problem forming a subcommittee, however, the Commissioners must remember the RMLD is slightly different from the Town due to the competition of other utilities such as Massachusetts Electric and Nstar. He agrees the former General Manager may have been the highest paid, however, the second and third highest paid weren't far behind. The reason for these salaries in a utility department is to attract good people, otherwise there is a risk of losing good employees to other utilities. Mr. Hughes commented there was no subcommittee established when the trauma hit, Mr. Cameron readily and willingly stepped in as Acting General Manager. Mr. Herlihy commented on the Assistant Police Chief and Assistant Town Manager positions being cut from the Town budget leaving the Police Chief and Town Manager without assistants and over-extending themselves as well, they receive no extra compensation. Mr. Ames made a motion seconded by Mr. Herlihy that the Acting General Manager's salary study be referred to the General Manager Search Subcommittee. Motion approved 5:0:0, by a show of hands. Mr. Ames stated he wishes to testify, although not participate, at the subcommittee. Mr. Pacino asked for clarification on what exactly the Commission needs from a subcommittee in order to make a knowledgeable decision relative to the Acting General Manager's salary. Mr. Herlihy suggested a comparison of salaries from surrounding towns for similar positions. Mr. Soli commented all the salaries are on the annual reports to the DTE. New General Manager Search Mr. Cummings, Reading Selectmen Liaison, asked the Commission to hold off on their search for a new General Manager until which time the Reading Selectmen and the RMLD Board of Commissioners can hold a joint meeting to discuss the details. fines suaiea concerns for holding off the search for a new General Manager. As he stated, it will be at least three to four by the time a subcommittee makes recommendations and wants to stabilize the Department and "keep the ship sailing." April 30, 2002 New General Manager Search (Continued) Mr. Ames noted the Task Force is meeting in the middle of May and asked Mr. Cummings if the two Boards could meet by the end of May. Mr. Cummings agreed to the end of May time frame. Mr. Soli wanted confirmation as to whether Mr. Cameron is willing to continue as Acting General Manager for the time being. Mr. Cameron confirmed his commitment to fill in as Acting General Manager until all issues are resolved. Mr. Hughes thanked Mr. Cameron for his continued loyalty. Mr. Herlihy commented it is important to improve the dialogue between the Town and the Department and since Mr. Cameron is doing a great job as Acting General Manager we can keep him in there for a while. Mr. Hughes agreed Mr. Cameron is doing an outstanding job and the importance of improving communications with the Town. It was then decided to hold off coordinating a General Manager Salary Study Subcommittee until after the joint meeting with the Selectmen at the end of May. Minutes of April 16, 2002 Mr. Pacino moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 16, 2002. Mr. Ames seconded the motion with the following changes: On page one sentence should read "what doesn't kill us, makes us stronger." On page one replace "should of with "should have." Page one, sentence should read "above and beyond the call of duty." On page seven, the motion should read 5:0:0, not 4:0:1 with Mr. Ames sustaining. On page seven, sentence should read, "Mr. Ames noted the role of the Light Commission in the Town has been misunderstood." On page five, sentence should read, "to clarify after was told "yes" by Mr. Cameron." On page two the approval of minutes from the March 27`h and April I" meetings should read, "Although Messrs. Herlihy and Soli were present for the meeting they were not voted in as Commissioners, as yet." Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Ames to accept the changes and approve the minutes of April 16, 2002 with the corrections noted. Motion carried: 5:0:0. Citizens' Advisory Board, Selectmen Liaison, and Customer Comments Mr. Lessard addressed the Commission stating the CAB unanimously voted on the following recommended motion: "Move that the Citizen's Advisory Board approve the Purchase Power Adjustment Charge as presented and recommended by the Acting General Manager." Presentation (Vin Cameron/Richard LaCapra) Purchase Power Adjustment Charge Mr. Cameron noted at the last meeting he and Mr. LaCapra made a presentation on incorporating a purchase power adjustment charge within the present rate structure due to two factors. Continuing, he stated one factor is excess money in the Rate Stabilization Fund (RSF) that should be given back to the customers. He noted both, himself and Mr. LaCapra did separate analysis and came out with the same figure of $8.5 million being a prudent figure to have in the RSF. He also noted at the December 2001 closing, the RSF had about $14 million. Mr. Cameron said the Energy Services Department, Mr. Seldon and Mses. Parenteau and McHugh, have enacted some power deals over the past year that are going to save RMLD money on the base cost and some of the cost will be shifted to the fuel charge and overall it will result in lower costs to the customer. However, right now the RMLD does not have a vehicle to refund money to the customers. The proposal is that a purchase power adjustment be put into the present rates, which is the most economic and efficient way of refunding money to the customers. He explained since the current billing system, although Y2K compliant, is not very user friendly and will cost a lot of programming, money and time in order to convert a new rate change. Mr. Cameron said to do a purchase power adjustment and levelize it for all the customers is the most economic way to accomplish a refund, saying it is similar to the way a fuel charge has been done for the past twenty-five years. Mr. Cameron also noted in this presentation, he and Mr. LaCapra recommended the PPA being the only vehicle to obtain the new rates, further stating the RMLD is in the process of selecting a new computer billing system and one of the requirements for this new computer billing system is the billing software which will allow a rate change very easily. What Messrs. Cameron and LaCapra have come up with is a schedule to get the PPA in order to _get this money back_to_ the customersin a -fair and - °quitable manner and to do a cost of service study in early 2003, which is when it would go into the new customer billing system projected to be in place by the second quarter of 2003. April.' 0, 2002 - ~ vu Presentation (Vin Cameron/Richard LaCapra) Purchase Power Adjustment Charge Mr. Cameron clarified the reason Ofor this second presentation at this meeting, it is based on Commissioner Soli's input at the last Board meeting. Mr. Cameron's presentation encompassed analysis of the proposed rate reduction, showing the customer class usage for the RMLD main customer processes, kilowatt hour, revenues and percentage of total sales, and a levelized rate reduction of 1.14 cents. This figure is estimated given the fact next year the Department should give back $2.75 million out of the RSF and about $400,000 per month and because of the purchased power deal the Department recently restructured the estimate total is 1.14 cents. With this rate reduction there would be a reduction of about $7 million. Mr. Cameron stated Mr. LaCapra, whom was hired to help with this, is a rate expert in rate studies and rate analysis and he agrees with this formula. He said simply, the money that we are giving back was collected on a cents per Kwh basis, it should be given back on a cents per Kwh basis equally from all the rate classes. Mr. Cameron illustrated the rates and noted historically, the RMLD has been at the DTE due to rate discrimination. The Twenty-Year Agreement was born out of such a disagreement. To be fair and equitable to all the customers PPA should be given back on a Kwh basis. Mr. Cameron further explained the money would be refunded back to the customers starting June 1, 2002 if this is voted on this evening. The RMLD needs a new cost of service study, however, if the Department does a cost of service study now, the rates are going to be exactly the same and won't change. The cost of service study will cost approximately $40,000 - $50,000, and it will take at least two or three months, then the CAB will need to review this thus an additional thirty days for the DTE to review. Therefore it will be October or November by the time the customer gets back any money and the RSF will have another $2-3 million dollars in this fund. Mr. Cameron said the time is now to give the money back and thinks the way to do it is on a levelized basis. At this point, Mr. Cameron asked Mr. LaCapra his opinion. Mr. LaCapra stated he had one point of clarification, the reason why the money was proposed to be given back on a per basis is because that is how it was collected and this preserves the equity of the rate. He further explained this is a regulatory body, however, while being a regulatory body there is not an infinite amount of solutions within your jurisdiction, there is a serious amount of regulatory and case law on what constitutes just and reasonable and what constitutes equity in developing structures for electric pricing. To leave a formula of return, or funds that are being returned to the customers differently than how they were collected from the customer, opens up certain issues of equity and there is very little reason to do this for two reasons. First, Mr. LaCapra stated, the majority of the funds being returned to the customer are not from the RSF, they are from power cost reduction so ultimately they should be moving back to the customers the way the power cost incurred and this is where most of the funds are coming from right now. Secondly, any aberrations occurred over the last decade on cost will be corrected in a short period of time. Mr. LaCapra's second point of clarification is each class of customers pay different rates, not because of the RMLD's power bill but the RMLD's distribution cost. Different classes of customers use different amount of distribution costs, therefore, each class is being returned a fair amount of power cost. The fact that one rate is being reduced more or less has nothing to do with the equity of the power cost it has to do with the fact that the distribution cost for smaller customers make up a disproportionably large portion of the rate so if all customers are paying 5 cents for power and returned to each of them a penny because my power cost went down a penny they are all paying 4 cents. Mr. LaCapra further explained his thoughts on the formula for refunding money to the customers. Mr. Cameron thanked Mr. LaCapra for his explanation and asked if anyone has any questions Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Cameron what his experience was with cost of service studies prior to assuming the position of Acting General Manager, what background or tenure did he have in this particular presentation. Mr. Cameron's response is that he has directed or performed four or five cost of service studies going back to 1988 so he has been involved with several rate analysis since 1988 with the RMLD. Mr. Cameron further stated there has been a question of whether RMLD is cost of service anymore. He recalls in some years the RMLD over collected and in some years under collected. Mr. Cameron remembers the lean years in the early 1990's when the RSF was at $3.5 million and it was very uncomfortable at times. The over recovery for the RSF for this year without the MMWEC flush of $1 million was under $743,000 and looking at our revenue requirements which includes our 8% return that means that the RMLD missed the cost of service by 1.6%. Dividing what the Department over recovered by our total revenues we were 1.6% different meaning it is close to the cost of service. Mr. Pacino moved that the RMLD Board of Commissioners approve the purchase power adjustment charge as presented and recommended by the Acting General Manager and on the recommendation of the Citizen's Advisory Board. Mr. Soli asked to further discuss this motion, stating he has some transparencies to illustrate his findings Mr. Hughes explained to Mr. Soli his presentation was not on the agenda and all items must be communicated to the Chair and/or General Manager and added to the agenda prior to the meeting. He further explained this is usually done by noon on the Wednesday prior to the meeting for time purposes. However, Mr. Hughes agreed to allow Mr. Soli to make his presentation, but in the future go through proper channels. April 30, 2002 Presentation (Vin Cameron/Richard LaCapra) Purchase Power Adjustment Charge (Continued) Mr. Soli opened his presentation with a famous quote inferring that nothing must be done in haste. He stated the motion has three "un's" - it is "un"fair, it is "un"ept (not suitable or not appropriate) and it is "un"clear. Mr. Soli noted "unfair" - taking numbers f rom Mr. Cameron's chart as to reducing two different ways, the residential rates will subsidize commercial by $280,000 per year meaning the average residents will subsidized $11.68 this year. He stated he would not want to be the person to go to a Town Meeting or to a citizen and answer those questions. Mr. Soli's believes the motion's method fails this simple test. In conclusion, the method is unfair. Mr. Soli demonstrated his illustrations and continued with an explanation of his formula. This motion would not fly in Town Meeting and stated he would like to amend the motion. Mr. Soli moved to replace the original motion with the following: "Move that the sum of $5 million be removed from the Rate Stabilization Fund and used to provide a one time credit to all electricity customers who are customers on 1 August 2002. The amount of each customer's credit shall be in proportion to the total amount paid by that customer for electricity service during the pervious 12 calendar months (1 August 2001 through 31 July 2002). That the RMLD shall solicit bids for cost-of-service study to modify all current rates to reflect current customer usage and to reflect the customer rate structures of power contracts held by the RMLD. The solicitation shall be in two parts, with the first part of obtain qualification packaged from known vendors of such studies and from vendors who respond to a published solicitation. The second part shall be the solicitation of bids for the actual cost-of -service study. " Mr. Ames noted for the Point LePreau contracts the base rate was reduced by an energy amount exactly equal to the amount of the fuel fund. The Wilmington customers were not happy with this because it gave a proportionally larger increase to the industrials over the residential and the sense was it should have been proportional cost. Now this is going in the opposite direction, refunding money and the proposal is based on a Kwh basis therefore it has already given the Department a reason to be challenged for rate discrimination. Mr. Ames explained the Board policy for setting rates is that rates should be cost of service based. If the Department puts in a rate structure by refunding the money over a period of time the Department must be under cost of service therefore we have been violating Board principle and cannot continue to violate Board principle by reducing the amounts and still be at cost of service. The only way to stay cost of service rates is by refunding the money and the only way we know how much money to refund is by having immediate cost of service study performed and making the refund on that basis. To an extent this concurs with Mr. Soli's motion, which states we should take some amount of money, do a cost of service study and execute refunds based on that cost of service study. In separating the issues, Mr. Ames also stated he does agree the PPA, it is needed, however, he does not like a PPA for refunding excess RSF. RSF should be refunded to the customers who paid it. Mr. Pacino stated both sides make sense and one of the issues discussed is being unfair, given the fact the present customers paid into the system, to do levelized changes of who paid into the system is unfair. Further stating Mr. Pacino supports the PPA, it is one of the issues he has been fighting for two and one-half years, a rate reduction. Mr. Pacino senses the Board as being polarized on this and perhaps should hold off and go to a cost of service study immediately pushing this off. A cost of service study means pushing this off six months, if not longer. In the meantime if the Department continues to over recover, customers continue to pay more in. Mr. Pacino supports the original recommendation from the Citizen's Advisory Board to go with the PPA. Mr. Carakatsane, CAB member, stated the only fair way does not even exist as an option which is to refund the RSF money back to the customers who are no longer in the system going back quite a few years. It is impossible to come up with computer records. The original recommendation from the CAB is as fair as anything. Mr. Bartlett, of the CAB, requested the RMLD Board of Commissioners approve the PPA for the base power cost savings. Extensive discussion ensued relative to the pros and cons of the two issues in question and three ideas for motions. One motion was finally decided upon. Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Ames to move that the Reading Municipal Light Department Board of Commissioners approve the Purchase Power Adjustment charge with respect to base power cost to be applied to the Department's rates as of June 1, 2002. Motion carried: 5:0:0. Mr. Pacino suggested Messrs. Ames and Soli, who are the Rate Setting Subcommittee, can call a meeting and bring a recommendation back to the Board with _respect _to a cost of service study and_the_other recommendations which were discussed. - Mr. Hughes thanked the Commission. Action Item April 30, 2002 Bid #2002-2 Line Truck On March 20, 2002 a bid invitation was placed as a legal notice in the Reading Chronicle, Wilmington Town Crier and Lynnfield villager requesting proposals for one (1) line truck consisting of a cab, chassis, service body and 40'aerial bucket. Legal notices were also placed in the North Reading Transcript, Reading Advocate and Wilmington Advocate on March 21, 2002. Bidders via the RMLD web site obtained bid specifications. Bids were received from James A. Kiley Company, Moore GMC Truck, Inc., Liberty Chevrolet, Inc. A "No Bid" was received from Stoneham Ford, Altec Industries and Doering Equipment Company. The bids were reviewed, analyzed and evaluated by the Acting General Manager. Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Ames to move that Bid #2002-2, for one (1) Line truck consisting of chassis, cab, service body and 40' Aerial Bucket for use in electrical line work be awarded to James A. Kiley Co. as the lowest qualified bidder for a total of $126,756.00 on the recommendation of the Acting General Manager. Motion carried: 5:0:0. Acting General Manager's Report PriceWaterhouseCoopers/Melanson Heath Reports Restitution Mr. Cameron will meet with PWC and general counsel with respect to restitution. PWC will have a matrix back by the end of the week, and a recommendation will be made to the Board, if not by the next meeting, the following meeting. Mr. Ames asked Mr. Cameron if he will coordinate this meeting with Mr. Heckenbleikner. Mr. Cameron responded he has already spoken with Mr. Heckenbleikner. APPA Workshop, Governing in a Changing Environment, August 1"-3`d Mr. Cameron told the Commission he had brochures put in all Commissioner's mail slots about the APPA Workshop in August which is designed for public power board members. Mr. Cameron noted it proved valuable to the Commissioners who have attended in a past. Mr. Hughes agreed with the value of the Workshop and ask if Messrs. Herlihy and Soli are interested in attending. Mr. Soli is not sure whether his schedule will permit him to attend, he will get back to Mr. Cameron. Mr. Herlihy said it is unlikely that he will attend as he is not an advocate of conferences and/or workshops. He has attended many in the past and does not get much out of them. E-mail Issue Mr. Cameron recently received a copy of a Boston Globe article by Carolyn Louise Cole regarding Belmont officials asking to turn over e-mails due to the discrepancy of business taking place one on one via e-mails. Mr. Cameron reminded the Commission that e-mails are for informational purposes only. Mr. Pacino used the analogy that whatever you do not want posted on a bulletin board should not be put in an e-mail. RMLD Professional Services -1996 - 2000 Mr. Cameron noted, enclosed in the Commission packages is a list of professional services by project and vendor for the Commissioners to review. Mr. Herlihy asked abut the status of contract for legal counsel. RMLD Professional Services -1996 - 2000 Mr. Cameron explained there is no contract for professional services such as legal counsel. Those serviced are not bid out, however, a general rule three prices are sought out. Mr. Cameron will obtain the specific laws relative to this for Mr. Herlihy. Assistant General Manager, Linda Bernat's Status 7 April 30, 2002 Mr. Cameron reminded the Commission that as of April 12, 2002 Linda Bernat was put on unpaid administrative leave which has been extended through May 10, 2002. This request came by her attorney who was involved with a another case in Vermont and needed extra time to work on Ms. Bernat's case. RMLD Policies Review Mr. Cameron informed the Commission the policies are not complete, as yet, therefore, he did not include policies at this meeting. Mr. Cameron is working on the unsigned letter policy with Human Resources as well as the petty cash and travel policies with Accounting and will include the policies at the next Board meeting. Removal Sheets for Warrants Messrs. Pacino and Hughes met with Mr. Fournier, Accounting Services Manager regarding removal sheets for the warrants as Mr. Soli suggested. It was decided that if something is questionable, it will not be on the warrant, therefore, the warrant will not be held up for individual expenses. Mr. Pacino explained due to the grievances filed against Mr. Fournier as a result of this past crisis, he is committed to making sure no questionable expense is on the warrant. Mr. Soli asked for clarification on the removal sheets Mr. Pacino stated any questionable expense on the warrants should be flagged and brought to the attention of the Acting General Manager or himself and they will obtain clarification for the expense from Mr. Fournier. Mr. Cameron agreed to have an employee list readily available for the new Commissioners to verify employee names when signing warrants. Former General Manager Legal Expenses Mr. Cameron informed the Commission he and Mr. Hughes met with Rubin and Rudman to review all the legal bills which were received for the former general manager. General counsel reviewed and wrote an opinion as to what laws in the General Manager's contract and indemnification. The Tine Case bill and Article 8e which totals an activity of $141,000. Board Discussion 'Mr. Hughes confirmed that other Commissioners received an invitation to MMWEC and asked they RSVP. Mr. Herlihy opened a discussion relative to Group 4 classification retirement and was under the impression this classification was for police and fire fighters. Mr. Ames explained a brief history dating back to 1993 when the Municipal Light Department employees were allowed into Group 4 retirement. The spirit of Group 4 is to enhance the retirement benefits for anyone working in hazardous duty, and potentially life threatening jobs. Mr. Pacino explained not only the linemen are put in hazardous conditions, sometimes the General Manager and Assistant General Managers need to go out to sites, particularly during storms, etc. Again, he reiterated the competition the utility companies present and taking the Group 4 classification away from RMLD would be risking hiring and keeping good employees. Further discussion ensued Next Meeting Date The next RMLD Board of Commissioners meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 13 1h at 7:30 p.m. Motion to Adjourn At 10:06 p.m., Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Ames to adjourn the Regular Session. Motion carried by a show of hands 5:0:0. A true copy of the RMLD Board of Commissioners minutes as approved by a majority of the Commission. Mr. Philip Pacino Secretary, RMLD Board of Commissioners