Assurance and one and 80 million gallons that includes san jose and santa clara is the demands are below with the commission is general Obligation Bond to provide and the projected demand are below the guarantees an exception the ante palo alto is reached its individual guarantees with an ailed 5 million gallons a day of demand the next two slides are graphs that show all of the customers with the blue part of bar on the graph being the fiscal year 20142015 purchased and the green bar represents the individual guarantees for the customers so as you can see on this graph a lot of the green that is not covered by blue so a lot of folks are excess compared to the last fiscal year demand and one expectation is hills that is roughly youll notice East Palo Alto on the list this is the blue bar is up there so a dry year and san jose and santa clara at the bottom no individual supply guarantee the guarantees are the where the gallons go the next slide shows projected 40 the stage graph oriented definitely and once again the blue a 20142015 purchases and the green is the individual supply guarantee and the orange lines are the projected 2024 purposes poovlt an orange line above the bar again theyre looking the above guarantee hayward an orange line above hay word is seeing lead customers not an individual supply guarantee by a contractor with the limitation of the amount of water it dates to an early 1960 contract if their demand is larger and larger they cut into the water available to other customers as part of their guarantees on the righthand side shows the san jose and santa clara have no guarantees they definitely show a demand at this point so those 4 customers are the augments of the bunch and santa clara and san jose and palo alto represents the decision turns out for the commission. Can i ask a question well, maybe i should let you continue. No, no go ahead. Im trying to remember wonder why how the individual supply agreements were reached the guarantees reached didnt each city provide a recommendation of a proposal on the development as well as what they need isnt. The way in 1984 it was established by the one and 84 insurance and then it was for the customers to identify amongst themselves how the one and 84 million gallons a day was split up document from 198 the final version of that and it basic laid how each one of them came up with the demands and have a methodology for the being up with the supply to individual supply guarantees so customers tilt adopted overseeing and improved those and give them to San Francisco San Francisco had to take action to modify the contracts to finalize that but it was a decision amongst the customers how to divide up San Francisco in delicate that. In east upon a time didnt project this growth theyre now facing how would that work. Weve not devolved into the history that have but East Palo Alto is unique it has a lot of up in 1982 an unincorporated county and incorporated around 2000 it was actually served by a county run. Utilities. Yeah. Water district East Palo Alto so it was an action by the county board of supervisors that set in place how that was worked out we had the opportunity details how it came about. Okay. But also san jose and santa clara are not part of water yeah. San jose and santa clara were after the customers so the contracts that are mitigated resulted in one and 84 didnt cover their contracts or agreement. I get it thank. So we end up with back to the slides resulting questions one how do we maintain the supply reliability awhile addressing the supplies by the new requirement this is how to make sure we have a one 84 an obligation, and, secondly, you know what should the puc consider for the city of 70s and you have a letter from the mayor of san jose explicit to be made a customer of 5. 5 million gallons a day and a letter in the city of santa clara with 5 million goggles a day and fourthly is what options the puc so supply up to 1. 5 to East Palo Alto increase in demand for the supply guarantee and 5 should the puc rise the current obviously or the drought reliability in the water system as you recall the decision in 2008, said that 265 is the condition actually no greater than 5 percent with the customers that are working on this options how it is 10 percent in the future there is not anything in here a question should we there beyond that is it pretty clear not an issue at this time. So the answers in the water map and in the commissioner moran suggested we should line up the questions presuming the answers are positive so were looking for the 3. 5 with the regional supply that is available in the drought and nondrought that answer applies to san jose and santa clara those were saying well line up additional supplies to meet the requirements East Palo Alto slightly different answer there weve work with the customers to for the individual supply guarantees and the pencil for transfer of the individual supply guarantees it in the water supply agreement with the wholesales customers provides for them to provide a Permanent Transfer of excess guarantees to somebody that needs it so far none of those were put into effect because partly they may not be anxious to give up a supply in the future thai may need someday as opposed to that and should the puc look at the rationing so those are the promotion answers so, now ill talk about supply options briefly because 2 has changed not that much and get into the other considerations i think are worthy of note first on the supplies again thats not changed much there is additional diversions from the river this is a potential out there secondly, there is potential for deceleration weve talked about with the projects and or also the devaluation of ground water and thirdly, with the nonfavorable use of cycled water for irrigation and put money into the kip for direct or indirect for projects that is lining up a couple of items on the agenda for looking at this as as poekt and commercialism is another possibility for supply one that is called out by the figure the transfer for figures not worked and theres another possibility so other considerations the hundred and 84 is sufficient to revolve the palo alto issue one of the things well be engaging the customers 4 customers that have a minimum purchase requirement theyre well below that theyre looking at the demand bouncing back of paying for water they dont have a use for so it maybe ways one of the idea that is suggested those customers Mountain View with the part of East Palo Alto and transfer with that part of new purchase requirements as well so both the pieces there maybe a way to work out and direct feedback from the discussions anything we do to take care of san jose or santa clara shouldnt impact other wholesale customers through the process thirdly, to the development of the resources we should invest the evaluation but give the demands are low we should be cause cautious and the plan meets the hard work with the timing and Big Investments for customers are not wield about given the demands low we can plan but not necessary build right now our some other conditions considerations the drought reliability goals well have to do a little bit what the state is going to do on the last governs order for the resources to relook at water supply planning processes with the Management Plan and the other plans we should see what develops that comes in january and water loss reduction will be. Priority dont know if there is actually any you know big supplies not obtained but part of all this priority come out of drought everybody should be minimizing their losses for the San Francisco and also a key want for the wsip recapture process it for the underlying water map for that project into the Environmental Review that can change under the assumptions so for a lot of information in the background for the way you, you not to head we need a Development Description for the ceqa review we have proposed answers to start with the basis for the program depiction description we need our priorities for developing the supply projects and East Palo Alto individual guarantee can be addressed more rapidly there a supply impact fee not through a project but between one or more of our 1w40er8 customers with palo alto to accomplish something there and the timing on this we need your input now because under the water supply agreement the condition as signed on to make a decision on in san jose and santa clara by the end of 2018 so we will spend the next two years or through the Environmental Review process so the decision can be made by 2018 as to you know how the customer and the commission will propose to make san jose and santa clara so were on the hook to make a decision by the end of 2018 so a lot of stuff ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. I know there is several folks in did audience that have testimony. Thank you very much and i want to make one initial comments ive been reading the letters and following the East Palo Alto closely and i would like to figure out a way to make East Palo Alto whole if possible so i wanted to start some of the conversations questions with that and i guess one of my questions have conversation started with some of the potential for the big four that already have the minimum Purchase Agreement how has that gone or waiting for direction from the commission. A little bit of both conversations with 3 of them especially Mountain View and by water from us and in the ground water and the current demand is less than the purchase requirement from us theyre on the pinch right there and enclosing that could happy owe other wholesale customers that have guarantees i think you know this is a question that we and bosca would like to be in conversation with them one possible answer from the commission palo alto is San Francisco has done its part by providing one and 84 our job and your job to make that work with the 12w40e8 customers i think that is one position to incentivize that decision and the minimum Purchase Agreement that might help the conversation. Commissioners. I would be interested in hearing the Public Comments i know we have representatives from well go to Public Comment and circle back to us first Bryan Perkins is here from congresswoman bureaus office good afternoon. Good afternoon we appreciate this opportunity to speak on above the palo alto compensatory damages vaechd stretched in East Palo Alto we appreciate 24 the system pratsdz on behalf of the decision that benefit the user and San Francisco Public Utilities commission has been the trust since the city the city of palo alto is in a tough position and growth and the city is unable to provide the basic needs for the citizens including ahbp there was an individual who was about thirty years old and explaining that he and his wife and children lived in palo alto their entire life to sustain themselves in the community lived in a sell thats not acceptable but at the time, we hear those there is a decision whether or not enough money for housing to be built in the community and housing bonds like in San Francisco passes and their choices made their families have straddler how to solve the problem but not in East Palo Alto the essential service is folded readily available a water supply for future growth and new interesting this East Palo Alto is setting next to facebook they have 10 thousand people on the campus a lot of the buses start in San Francisco probably youre aware and facebook somewhat is perplexed that will offer the employees a 10,000 bonus to live within miles of facebook East Palo Alto is inches from facebook campus without cell over its water fly and People Living in cell remembers if you fly over palo alto one place in the pen sullivan peninsula not developed. When you speak to the leadership it theyll say well take the Housing First figure out where to put the water and it extends to the teachers, of course, and the city personnel as well as the medium florida income is 52,000 a year and the facebook bonus is 20 percent of medium income the ounce thing that happens is the existing population will be forced obviously out this is wrong for all sorts of reason the reason this particular water system is revolved to the Economic Opportunity a be sprayed throughout the people suicidal and city and ask you instruct our staff to try to make that dream possible for this initiative thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments appreciate those lisa. Good afternoon good afternoon mres i cant councilmember for the upon a time dear director and puc communities thank you for the opportunity to decide this important topic East Palo Alto has a water supply of one. 96 and at or exploding when we are in a drought reduction or project take into account East Palo Alto is requesting the puc prioritize those for another one. 5 of the water supply East Palo Alto values the relationship with the puc and recognizes the solutions that be a collaborative one with sfpuc and bosca East Palo Alto is the smallest and most difference city in the bay area with Affordable Housing and empowerment and Economic Development are foundations of our city and lack of water threatens our ability to make those foundations and control aside East Palo Alto is a leader in the bay area approximately 40 percent of our total horticulturalist is variable not enough we need to develop more Affordable Housing but cant even entitled a project that is one and plus unit one water supply at want 2 jobs for residents East Palo Alto has the lowest percentage of jobs in the area the Unemployment Rate is twice of county average due to the lack of water we cant entitle a one. 6 million of small Property Owner and remet lands our school work hard to overcome challenges but cant review an application for a 5 hundred Student School that is proposing a comprehensive wrap up around solution for students vance were doing everything we can at the local level our residents have the Lowest Per Capita of bosca level at 57 gallons her day despite our challenges weve involved in solution and increased the water rates by 12 a month for the Water Supplies shortages in the loss production many of the developers and negatively impacting by the lack of water have written letters to the sfpuc theyre not be water experts but stand to advance the goals to make East Palo Alto more affordable and a place to live and work we request sfpuc prioritize our request for 1. 5 and work with the sfpuc and basilica to satisfactory this a Water Transfer and a water loss project that saves the system 1. 5 m g d attorneyclient i know you share the commitment to approve the area and appreciate you and your staff on our brave me and my staff are here to answer questions. Thank you for being here today patrick. I moved to palo alto 50 years ago im the president of the East Palo Alto bear chamber of commerce okay and ive been involved with Newcomers Community Development Projects over the last thirty years im here to encourage the commission to support the citys request to evaluate this water allocation to allow the city to continue to grow and improve our Economic Conditions i would like to thank the puc for giving any community the change to talk about correcting the water allocations correcting the low water locations for our community in East Palo Alto can enjoy the same benefits of the community in the hetch hetchy system current year thank you, commissioners. Thank you for your comments maam, good afternoon. Welcome. Good afternoon, commissioners nicole ceo as you may know in 2008, this commission adapted the program for the Water Improvement Program as part of this commission adapted the levels that was Water Quality and reliability seismically reliability and you also deferred several critical waters supply conditions until the end of 2018 your staff initiated if related to the water supply decisions and called the Water Management action plan to make your decisions by the end of 2018 i said to clarify a few what our expectations bosca expected the puc to meet the level goals part of eir and those candidates including the candidates for the water supply reliability in our contracts and each of the wholly customers that long term planning on this commitment we support the necessary investments to maintain the restricted and to insure the levels are achieved if you have received letters from the mayor of East Palo Alto and mayors gilmore from santa clara about the requests the city of East Palo Alto needs more goggles normally to meet the growth as the mayors letter states the lack of waters restrict our available more Affordable Housing and Economic Growth the city of santa clara asks for access of water as one m g d and in both cases assess guaranteed to supplies is critical to meeting the liability of theyre residents and businesses East Palo Alto san jose and santa clara are longstanding customers of the imp have continued to pay in their share of the cost find critical improvements to the water system in 2008, part find eir each of the cities made similar requests and deferred until 2018 bosca supported this commission to direct the staff to exude the environmental work for the Decision Making and bosca is present to help on the water map on behalf of the with wholesale customers. Thank you very much. This is all the Public Comment cards i have other members of the public that want to comment at this time . My name is jeff the president of the Business District 2, 3, 4 upon a time the ravens represents one of the Economic Development opportunities in the city of palo alto one Hundred Acres panama canal approximately, i think that 50 acres are vacant and looking to undertake the Economic Development were not now because of the lack of water im here to support the city of East Palo Alto for the million of water per day it is articulated clearly the economic inequitable and it would be my request that rather than putting this off until 2018 that the commission doing everything we can to rotunda to the demand for water that is needed today thank you very much. Please good afternoon. Good afternoon, commissioners my name is invading a Community Health planner powder the Health System and thank you for elliott palo alto request for water supply and approve those requests East Palo Alto is a health issue like much of the region it is a housing crisis and more and more the highest prices of housing forces the residents to make unhealthy choices with un4th food and other things many low income residents lived in lower housing and that can trigger asthma and people are suffering with stress and the risk of kin cable disease and we really feel that the problem is everywhere in the bay area 40 percent of horticulturalist in East Palo Alto is Affordable Housing and the city has development in the pipeline that are only permit from the water supply is increased East Palo Alto is developing a jeopardy plan to guide the residential and Economic Development in a healthy and equitable way with more jobs where they currently exist and allows the residents to work in the cities they live in a health appreciative a benefit for residents and to use more transportation to get to work it can only be approved from the city has access to more water east populating is a leader in the Economic Development and will need increased water supply to continue in that i want to thank this commission for work with the East Palo Alto staff and your staff i urge the commission to find a solution to East Palo Alto request for the health of our community thank you. Thank you for your comments. Any other Public Comments on this item at this time as a reminder no action today this is a conversation to and when we i mean mr. Richie when will you come back and sorry about that whats the process here so at what point well be taking action on is recommendations if we can get to them. It depends on what we hear in the commission what well you know the primary thing for the water map to develop a program deception that is sufficient for the ceqa review that is the outcome we are trying to deal with in the individual projects there are some things underway today but that Program Descriptions probably will take on the order of a month maybe a month and a half to put together and be sufficient for the commissions consideration on the matter of East Palo Alto this is something well start pursuing actively right away a few deductions about the possibility that get us into the individual supply guarantee transfer ream this is something the commission didnt have to act on only to come up with an incentive to make it more attractive to occur. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you i have a couple of comments and suggestions if i wonder first is their full partners to the water agreement and their issue their supply guarantee is not sufficient to their needs North San Jose and the city of santa clara are Different Cases in that they are temporary customers that have gotten to rely on a temporary water supply for the basically needs of community and that is a difficult situations that existed for a long time and in addition asking for more water than ref as temporary customers the First Agreement in 84 was in response to a litigation and a contentious relationship that exist one our wholly customers the 84 agreement created a base in part predictable in their cooperation the following on agreement to 2009 took that further and started to deal for the first one with the supply questions but didnt provide a road map how to deal with the problem of people needing more water than their supply guaranteed that will recognize the possibility of and provide provisions for transferring supply guarantee the one willing partners with either on a compensate or noncompensated was not requiring 1 or 2 one or the other a mechanism in place the problem that the people that have supply guarantees and assess in their current demand look at that assess as a significant asset and thats an asset that comes into play if they have growth plans and curtailment orders that comes into play in a variety of what you say it is a significant step for water agencies to agree to seat a portion of guarantee this is the kind of thing you look at to how people will talk to you in 20 or 50 years and make that decision so those are not easy this is a from a contract contract the easiest way but a difficult way i think the amount of water that East Palo Alto is talking about is relatively small certainly the afternoon and 2018 is a long way away and in some ways for dealing with the kinds of issues were talking about the only way to solve that problem in the short term is through some kickoff agreement for an acquisition were able to come up with other ways that would be great id like to meet that need you think that youve been here before wevent through the intern supply discussions there was an extensive presentation from East Palo Alto and from the commission i think that your case is compelling and sympathetic pause and possibly accommodate they would be sympathetic to that right now i dont know how we can do that i can suggest ways you can do it thats cheap advice from me it is deferring to you the problem weve and they have 1y0i7b8 by whatever set of agreements an doesnt even had situations to develop is it at beawkward i wod be uncommon with a temporary water sly so i think it would be beneficial to all of us in the water business in the bay area to regulate that so have a set of rules and the future could be known to a greater stent than today thats as far as intent that is where my thinking leads me i think that is important to recognize also in addition to contract issues there is a water issue and if we take on allocation that is move it to somebody who really gets it that is an increase of water not just a paper transaction but water at the same time, we have a contractually obligations to meet the water supply so far the wholesale customers of one 84 as a claim on another 84 marry as 200 and 65 the number were familiar with we current cannot provide if demand were higher than today, we cannot deliver on that commitment in order to meet the level of Service Retirement rirmentsdz we can only provide one and 48 m g d thats a significant deficit the good news were not using that yet so what that means i think is that it didnt mean it is smaller but time to figure out and the projections of the materials indicate that 20 to provide water supply for this is been a series of issues that have been around for a long time and this process is starting were talking about in the open not just the staff level were going to need that kind of attention for some time my suggestion is that a plan really didnt have any matt haney unless you attach projects to it and because projects have cost you start having the reality of if i want to make this obviously how long will it take to get it done and what kind of a primarily and how likely to happen to all so i think we need in this planning process to get as quickly as we can to aau ray to where you are objectives against the fiscal projects and which we can meet and cant so to that end i would find it helpful to find a couple of priority lists and the first list might be which needs do we want to meet at the highest priority and the needs at the lowest priorities the highest priorities is probably motivating the existing demand of the existing customers and cross that out of tale where this list of priorities does making temporary where increasing the temporary customers fall maybe not at the same lovely of priorities and that would be helpful to put those objectives in a priority order this is something the commission can consider and we 345ish9 agree but make adjustment and this is an appropriate consideration for the commission and if you have a goal how is that in terms of water and how that arrays over time so some of those issues are meeting current demand levels for example and may not present themselves for several years to take the individual priorities and the second list would be all things equal and things are never equal but the preference for tools well need to meet those needs the first one will be concentration better not to use water twice certainly consider that to fill some kind of projects that is the first and theres limitations to that cost is a limit to available projects and you can say that is the first one we want to do and the next thing again, a limitation and limitation will say permitting limitations so i think that would be helpful to go through and those are the kinds of things the tools we would like to employ and maybe the bottom of that still on the list is Something Like diesel with a lot of environmental and primarily and timing issues as a whole the whole ball of wax i dont know if this is a list but it reflect our priorities all things equal that is a tough list to practice but i think that will be useful to give this commission an opportunity to weigh in on the other hand, as they express their opinion if you have those two things youll start if you have your goals you have the water quantities and the list of projects and come up with a list of projects and you know some time down the road how far down the list and how far we want to go thats a suggestion i know you have a lot of work to bring this together those are a couple of thoughts might make that easy to conceptualize. I find that helpful ill add one piece to the experience the question of sequencing you said that on the timing but recognizing there is a request before us with palo alto and the need there and you know as may be one the beginning consideration as we look at the Priority Issues and then got the 2040, 248 somewhat of a deadline eve it the artificial to try to sequence the projects and priorities if that makes sense. Commissioner. At some point id like to physically see the area there is a commission trip id like to actually see people effected in the areas with the lands if this is possible and arrange that. We can definitely do that. Excuse me one of the trick it things Going Forward for something we want to do as quickly as we can within the contract that is 1k56r9d throughout the contract that is a presumption that solving one problem wont cause other problems thats a hard standard to meet and hard to define i think that frankly in the our thinking about that the definition may reach a solution as to how we do this the time is a key factor not all needs present themselves in the same year so the harm that might be in theory may not present itself and we need to figure out how to think about that. So i think this is has been rehearsal i think that has we articulated you know the supply guarantee is one of the issues that were going to tackle and talk to folks who have the supply guarantee theyre not meeting if it we get to a point Everyone Wants to keep their supply guarantee so the 1. 5 and then the santa clara and san jose which is more than that and that means we will have to identify supply issues undergo that list it costs money and timeline so we have to prioritize not much more conservatism so youll have to go through each one to see the cost and the question would be everyone has to understand if we make the decisions everyone has to participate in the cost and that is something pat youre getting to we need to make sure the people are aware of before they make decisions so the structure of the agreement is such that while we think that maybe correct and not everybody is participating we need to recognize what the agreement says and honor what the reason behind the language is there are interests that are protected and in the negotiations of 12 and honor that and tale with that and also need to solve the problem it is i think this is actually just from a problem solving standpoint were dealing with which i find fascinating i think the advisory may be able to figure that out. 2 may not be as linear we may want to consider the lower hanging fruit sooner than later and understanding at a certain point needing to bring on supplies in the long timeline for some other options we might includes immediately options to deal with the epa but the supply questions barking at our heels i think this experience what the subsequence and the list 67 project and the costs and timeline in some kind of version that can be presented to us that is understandable a way to move forward. Commissioners. Any other comments so i wanted to clarify one thing that right now, were able to meet the 248; right . And were at 240 were looking those projects that would guarantee the one 84; right . So we can look at you know whatever we do now can go towards that and give it some time toe you know trigger that out figure out that later. In the 2040 didnt include the additional water palo alto and didnt include the interruptables so not as good we have the next item were considering the includes from a diesel plan and from the river and thats the best plan we have at the moment how to get to meanwhile e meeting 265 those are hard lists their harder lists frankly, if there are a large unexperienced entitlements at the same time it makes the approval process more difficult and an allowable situations is a liability it is two visual hard to explain. Mr. Richie. This is great this is good direction to work with for example, off the top of my head you know there are 3 indirect projects that are starting to at least starting the discussion stage those are rapidly the mou on the agenda a little bit later and the santa clara and the advanced verification a use with the palo alto to augment their ground water supply those are include in the study with the enjoyment with the Reliability Program we may get better information rapidly but those are relatively easy ones to align and challenge of doing them and i can see presenting the packet prioritizing the projects those and others fall and the commission could say yeah well be willing to do those or a better project if it comes along if were not doing something for 20 years but Something Else may rice of more Cost Effective but something the commission starts with this is where what it takes with what we know now were willing to present it in that way and having that conversation that would be great. Sound good anything else any further comments from the public on this item. If not thank you next item, please. Number 11 public hearing and possible action to adopt the 2015 urban water plan. Steve richie this is the 5 year report that we have to provide to the states on our water reliability the fact irrelevant relevant no decision has been made this assumes the existence of the 2008 commissioner made on wsip and lays outs to charge our future supply and water conditions a hearing in early may so it is up for documentation today, we recommend it is due to the state by july 1st there was also guidance from dw r the regulations will be changing potentially next january and they said well, dont hold off waiting for the regulations regulations have a but way of slipping we recommend our adoption of the plan as it stand right now. I move approval. Technical. Public comment on this item. All in favor, say i. I. Opposed . Stands approved thank you. Next item, please. Item 12 authors finds memorandum of understanding with the Silicon Valley the bay area and conservatism agency and cal water, 201135 with the duration of 18 months. Again, this is an mou to basically study the use for the Feasibility Study with the wastewater and Treatment Plant with the Redwood Shores memo park area used to be the the System Authority now Silicon Valley. But theyve been other than a long time and looking forward to a Good Partnership and a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Public comment . All in favor, say i. I. Opposed . That item passes next item, please. Item 13 authorize the general manager to execute and amend and restate a memorandum of understanding by and between San Francisco Unified School District and the rec and Park Department and authorize the general manager to obtain board of Supervisors Budget Committee approval to release one and 20 million on reservoir for the recycled project. Commissioners that is a kind of the close to the end of the approval the planning process for the cycled water on the west side and the ground water on the west side and it would basically lay out in terms of the additions two sfpuc in gg park that requires the board of supervisors on construction in gg park Golden Gate Park commend barbara the project manager and jeff the project manager for the west side San Francisco ground Water Project theyve put a lot of effort to make that a good document had allows rec and park to move forward with important facilities within the park. Commissioners a motion or question. Second. Second. Any Public Comment on this item . All in favor, say i. I. Opposed . Thank you mr. Richie well now move to closed session items. Donna read practical 16 and 17 and 18 and 19 through 25 will not are heard between the city and county of San Francisco and Jacobs Engineering groups incorporated recommended to the contract and previously settled action in regards to the mountain cadillac and the site epa region 9 and 19 deb and the frankness versus the city of San Francisco. Any Public Comment on the matters to be talked about in closed session can i get the Attorney Client privilege. Motion to assert the Attorney Client privilege. Second all in favor, say i. I. Opposed . Well nsession. Ready here were now back in open session items 16, 17 we were settled motion . Disclose or not disclose all in favor, say i. I. Opposed . We will not disclose discussions any other new business hearing none, the this meeting is adjourned at 4 oclockis regular meeting of Small Business commission
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.