Loading...
1994-09-07 ARRA MinutesD D u MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTH ORITY Wednesday, September 7, 1994 5:30 p.m. The meeting convened at 5:32.p.m. with Chair Mayor E . William Withrow, Jr. presiding . I. ROLL CALL: Present : Councilmember Ralph Appezzato, City of Alameda; Proxy for Councilman Arnerich, Albert DeWitt, City of Alameda; Mayor Ellen Corbett, City of San Leandro; Mr. Mark Friedman, Aide to Supervisor Don Perata, District 3 ; Councilmember Karin Lucas, City of Alameda; Vice- Mayor Richard Roth, City of Alameda; Vice-Chair Sandre Swanson, District Director, 9th Congressional District; Chair Mayor E. William Withrow, Jr., City of Alameda. Absent: Oakland City Councilmember Dezie Woods- Jones. (Mr. Mark Friedman, Aide to Supervisor Don Perata arrived at 5:35 p.m.;··· Mayor Ellen Corbett of San Leandro arrived at 5:39 p.m.; Barry Cromartie, a non-voting representative for Oakland Mayor Harris' Proxy Councilmeinber Dezie Woods-Jones arrived at 5:45 p.m.) Also present:· Non-Voting , Ex-officio Proxy Member, Gail Greely , Alameda Unified School District . A. Approval of Minutes -Regular Meeting of August 8, 1994 Councilmember Karin Lucas moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 8, 1994. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Richard Roth and carried by a unanimous voice vote. II . AGENDA ITEMS: A. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of a Letter from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee Requesting that the Committee, BCDC, and MTC Commit to Reconsideration of the Port Priority Designation Decision on Naval Air Station Alameda Property After the Community Reuse Plan is Completed. Mr. Dave Louk, representing Executive Director Don Parker, reported that currently Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda carries a port priority designation that covers the entire base . When the military leaves the base, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has first right of refusal with the port priority designation. \ I September 13, 1994, the port priority designation will be removed from all of the bai . except for the Northwest comer. Staff believes that this would be advantageous to the reuse and redevelopment of the base because it removes, except for the Northwest comer, the port priority designation which restricts the uses allowable on the base. Staff recommends that the ARRA agree with the Seaport Advisory Commission's findings, and asks that when the Reuse Plan is completed in December of 1995, the Seaport Advisory Commission of BCDC revisit the issue of the Northwest comer. This would be in conjunction with all of the other requests for land use in Alameda including all of the property conveyances and McKinney requests. Speakers: Mr. Vello Kiisk of the Military Base Conversion Consultants stated the Seaport Plan can only be changed every five (5) years when it comes before the Seaport Planning Commission and warned the Executive Director to be very careful about the Seaport Plan because it is a two edged sword . He stated that he agreed with the staff recommendation to delete it from the Seaport Plan completely. He added that by deleting it from the Seaport Plan now does not mean that a port or container terminal cannot be done in the future; however, once it is in the Seaport Plan, it is cast in stone. Chair Withrow asked Mr. Louk that by not strongly opposing the seaport designation at this time, whether the Authority is up to a five year hiatus? Mr. Louk stated that there have been indications by their staff that this issue can be revis L J in December of 1995, and agreed that in the past there have been five year interval reviews. Chair Withrow asked Mr. Louk if this commitment to revisit the issue of the Northwest comer in December,· 1995, could be obtained in writing because he would feel more comfortable if it was in writing. Mr. Louk agreed to look into the possibility of obtaining this commitment in writing. Mr. Louk commented that once an area is designated as a port, it is very difficult to get it removed and that the time to fight it is now. Chair Withrow asked why we were not taking a stronger position in terms of addressing the removal of the designation for all of NAS, and hopefully getting some congressional backing as opposed to waiting until the Reuse Plan is in place to remove the designation on the Northwest comer. Mr . Louk reported that it was staffs' belief that this is the best deal that could be struck at this time with the majority of the Naval Air Station having the port priority designation removed. It gives the Seaport Advisory Commission something to hang on to and i" '\ . I : 2 n [] r concensus building issue, at least until December of 1995, when it can be revisited . Also, it will give the Reuse Authority time to better articulate the argument against seaport reuse with scientific evidence on the cost of the dredging, the removal of the spoils, and the Reuse Plan would be in place which could show the economic non-viability of the $120M bridge which Korve said is possible. Chair Withrow requested that the recommendation be changed to be subject to a guarantee by BCDC staff that the port priority designation for the Northwest corner be reviewed in December, 1995 . Mr. Louk stated that staff would do whatever the Reuse Authority Members requested, but could not predict whether the Seaport Advisory Commission would accept the request. Vice-Mayor Roth stated that his concern was that the seaport designation has been requested to be completely removed immediately. He asked how a Reuse Plan could be developed that doesn't address the 200 acres when it is not known if planning is possible for the 200 acres. He agreed that it may be 4-5 years before the property is actually usable, but in the development of the reuse plan the 200 acres is a whole section of the Naval Air Station that cannot be planned for . Chair Withrow stated that it is more than just the future of the 200 acres, but rather all of the access issues with respect to movement of trucks and the environmental aspects that go along with being a port town. This casts a swathe far outside of 200 acres and could well have an impact on the kind of industrial business development that could be recruited with the concern that the traffic channels currently present are limited. This is a concern because of future traffic impacts. Councilmember Appezzato stated that he heard only negatives and did not understand the rush or the sense of urgency to remove the port designation from this 198 acres . He stated that there is no alternative development in site and will be 2-112 to 3 years before the air station will close. He said that he could support the staff proposal for the deletion of the port priority designation from NAS except for this 200 acres because this is a regional determination and that the Authority needs to think regionally -not parochially. He stated that there is plenty of time to remove this 200 acres once a development plan is in effect. He reported that he strongly opposed the removal of the port designation from the Naval Supply Annex for the same reasons and added that the issue needs to be addressed from a regional perspective . The City of Alameda is surrounded by the Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland , with the airport to the south, the seaport to the east, and the City of Oakland on the other side. He stated that he was not prepared to remove any potential or future reuse opportunities at this time . In 1995, when the Plan is completed and findings are that the land can better be utilized than having a port designation, then he would support it. He concluded by stating that there was no doubt in his mind that the 1/3 of the island cannot be developed without improved access and transportation routes, but is not advocating railroads and truck traffic all over 1/3 of the island . However, development 3 B. without improved access and transportation, regardless of what you put on the base, will l necessary . There will have to be some kind of bridge or improved access. To revisi1 a 1-1/2 years has his support as long as it is done forcibly or arguably against BCDC Chair Withrow stated that the flag comes down on the base in April of 1997, which is 2-1 I years . He assured everyone that Alameda would not sit idle, waiting for the Navy to pu . out and the economic impact to occur or allow a ghost town to develop on the base . It i the intent of the Authority to pursue planning ahead of time and to move in on the base o: an interim leasing basis so that a light on the base can be maintained proceeding up througl the 2-112 years. He added that not everyone in the City of Alameda is in favor of puttin1 another access on to this island, and is an issue that the citizens should have to vote on. I is a controversial issue which could change the island of Alameda. Mark Friedman moved that the Authority support the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lucas. Vice-Mayor Roth made a substitute motion that the Reuse Authority accept the staff recommendation with the exception that the 198 acres be removed immediately from the seaport designation. Chair Withrow seconded the motion and requested a roll call vote. The motion was defeated by the following roll call vote : Ayes : (3): Lucas, Roth, Withrow; Nayes: (4): Appezzato, Arnerich, Corbett, Friedman; Abstentions: (1): Swanson. Chair Withrow requested that the Assistant General Counsel give clarification with res1 It to the significance of this issue and land utilization and the number of members of I r Alameda City Council that are required. Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin reported that the Joint Powers Agreement requires the vote of five members of the Governing Body, including three members of the Alameda City Council to take action on the adoption of a Community Reuse Plan, formation of a redevelopment district, adoption of any plan or land use proposal in contradiction with the City's land use plan, (which does not apply here), delegation of authority to another body, transfer of any real or personal property, adoption of or amendment of any bylaws, termination of the agreement, or selection of the Chairperson . She reported that this issue requires only a majority vote of the Members of the Governing Body and does not require a special vote of the Authority. Chair Withrow then returned to the original motion and called for votes . The motion was carried with (6) ayes and (2) nayes. Report from the Executive Director Recommending the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Participate in a Joint Letter to be Sent to the Navy Requesting a Delay in the Implementation of the McKinney Process to Provide an Opportunity to Incorporate Homeless Interests Into the Community Reuse Planning Process. 4 n D Mr. Louk reported that recently there has been much interest in the McKinney Act and how it will affect the Reuse Plan. This interest has been local, regional and federal. Don Parker, Senator Dellum' s office, the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission, the City of Alameda, and the homeless providers are all anxiously waiting to see what, if any, legislation is going to come out of Washington, D. C. In the event that something is not forthcoming from Washington, D. C., all of these groups have felt that they need to go forward with some individual actions, that they cannot get the job done unless they have some type of cohesion and concensus to work together. There are competing interests in the McKinney Act process, and much work has been put together to try to get all of the different groups to come together to see if they cannot work out a cohesive effort. The joint letter represents a cooperative effort to incorporate homeless interests into the community reuse planning process. The letter outlines that the homeless providers will work with the Reuse Authority, and the Reuse Authority will take into consideration the necessity to provide for homeless in the reuse planning process, and together they agree to request a delay in the McKinney Act until the Reuse Plan is complete. Mr. Louk added that the letter is scheduled to go before the EBCRC on Thursday, September 8, 1994 . Mark Friedman stated that all of the Members realize that the homeless issue and the current provisions of the McKinney Act have among them the most potential areas of conflict for the whole reuse planning process and that the leadership shown by Congressman Dellum' s office in trying to bring everyone together to come up with a coordinated plan has been much appreciated. He added that if the Authority agrees to endorse this letter and a similar endorsement is received from the EBCRC, the Authority will be well along the way to buying the time needed to complete the process of bringing all of the parties together so endless rounds of litigation, conflict, and contention, which will hamper all of the reuse efforts, can be avoided. The letter is very carefully worded, and will be a benefit towards making sure that the process can continue of trying to work out some of these thin~s in an amiable manner. Vice-Mayor Roth stated that at Senator Feinstein's workshop, she seemed to think that there should be a reuse plan in place before any of the entitlements are done. He added that he supported the letter because it is going to the Navy, but recommended that Senator Feinstein be copied on the letter. Senator Feinstein also requested that information be supplied by the Authority as to what we think should be in the bill. Vice-Chair Swanson stated that a lot of good work had been done so far by all of the staffs involved. The spirit and principles represented in the letter go a long way to showing the kind of cooperation necessary for the community to scale this hurdle which has been a serious impediment to reuse planning in other areas of the country. He added that he supports the signature of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority on the letter. The Reuse Planning Budget has been augmented to include a staff position that will be working along with the homeless during reuse planning and the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission attempting to get a regional person to work with the homeless from that side. Chair Withrow requested that staff verify that the addressees were appropriate from a protocol standpoint. He also recommended that the signees be changed to include the Chair 5 of the Reuse Authority, the Mayor of Oakland , the Chair of the EBCRC, and Supervisor '1 Campbell from the County with Congressman Dellums being the lead signature . :· I Proxy De Witt stated that he endorsed the proposed letter before the Authority because ·it gives the homeless providers an opportunity to incorporate homeless interests into the Reuse Plan when it is being developed by the community. Vice-Chair Swanson moved that the Reuse Authority participate in the joint letter to the Navy . Mayor Corbett seconded the motion which was carried by a unanimous voice vote . C. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Conversion and Reuse Budget Submittal to the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA). Mr. Louk reported the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority staff has been meeting extensively with the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to work out the details of the budget, and that the final approval is not far off. He stated that the budget represents a very complete Reuse and Redevelopment Plan. Some of the reuse planning budgets from other cities are not in line with Alameda's; however , these other Reuse and Redevelopment plans that have been developed have not been as complete as what the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority is developing . The budget this year from OEA will be approximately $1. lM. Vice-Chair Swanson questioned the staff fringe benefits and what they included. I l Mr. Louk reported that the benefits package includes paid vacation, sick leave, deferred compensation, and a percentage taken from the fringe benefits is used to pay the taxes that are normally paid by the employer. Vice -Chair Swanson stated that the reason he raised the question was because of the temporary nature of the project, and also because it represents perhaps several years of an employee's work life . Hopefully the fringe benefits would include health benefits as well as some sort of retirement or deferred compensation so as to not penalize employees for the temporary status of their job . Mr. Louk reported that the benefits are chosen by each individual employee based on their own personal needs, i.e., cafeteria style benefits. Vice-Chair Swanson stated that many times when organizations are begun like the Reuse Authority, it is two years down the line before someone realizes that employees have invested the time, but have not had adequate benefits. 6 n D u Dave MacKinnon of OEA stated that OEA has no specific rules about what kind of fringe benefits are offered, only a maximum amount in dollars . If something more than that is desired, it must come from another source. Vice-Chair Swanson stated that he feels that the Reuse Authority should be as aggressive as possible with the benefits and retirement package. He encouraged staff to take a look at the benefits currently offered so that if employees work a number of years for the ARRA, they are compensated appropriately. Chair Withrow stated that we are looking at a cap of subsidized dollar input from OEA for benefits, and that the City of Alameda could kick in the extra so that benefits are consistent. He added that the ARRA would not want the employees of the Authority to be inconsistent in terms of the benefits package compared to the balance of the City staff. Mr. Louk reported that he did not feel that there would be any surprises from OEA, and that perhaps Mr. MacKinnon of OEA would like to comment. Dave MacKinnon stated that he could not commit for OEA; however, he stated that he and the staff of the Reuse Authority had worked very hard on the draft, and redefining the consultant's work scope to fit for comparative purposes with other community's reuse planning budget. He added that OEA was rather surprised by the high amount of the grant request; however, when broken down into generalized planning and more detailed investigation planning it is easier to understand Alameda's budget compared to other base reuse budgets. He added that he was very happy with the form of the budget document , and that all of the small details had been worked out. Mark Friedman requested information on MBE/WBE from members of the EDA W consultant team. Mr. Louk stated that the consultant contract was signed on August 22, 1994, and is retroactive to July 15, 1994. The full team has changed to include some local consultants. The architectural consultant originally aligned with EDA W was dropped, and a local firm, Wittler, Brochier, & Associates has joined the team to cover the architectural aspect. Additionally , McClaren-Hart, a local environmental firm, has been added and Gabriel Roche who is involved with the homeless will be a part of the team, is also local. Minority participation (MBE/WBE) includes Lamphier & Associates, Zander & Associates, Baseline Environmental, Roche, St. Patrick's Copy Warehouse, Northridge Group , Kitahata Associates, YEI Engineers, Inc ., and Bay Area Economics. Mark Friedman requested information regarding the accounting services of $28,200, and whether it included audit services. Mr. Louk stated that the amount includes audit services. He then thanked Julie Mantrom and Elizabeth Brydon for completing the budget on time and in the form required by OEA. 7 Councilmember Lucas asked Mr. Louk what he meant when he referred to "loc: .1 . I contractors. . J Mr. Louk stated that the term "local" indicates the firm is in Alameda County . He added that McClaren-Hart is in Alameda and some of the principles of other "local" firms live in Alameda, though their firm may be located in Oakland, such as Wittler Brochier. Chair Withrow requested that, in the future, when referring to local, it be broken down into l~cal/ Alameda, local/Oakland, local/etc. within Alameda County. Vice-Chair Swanson moved that the budget be approved. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Roth and carried unanimously by a voice vote . D. Report from the Ex.ecutive Director Recommending Approval of Proposed Change to Bylaws Allowing Members of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority to Receive Meeting Compensation. Mr . Louk reported that it is the intent of staff, if possible, to provide each Member of the Governing Body with $100 for attendance per meeting. Funding is not currently available to provide for this, and OEA would not approve it as an expense. The recommendation of the staff is that the ARRA should adopt an amendment to the bylaws allowing this to occur, if additional funding is developed. I I Councilmember Appezzato stated that he would not support the change. Vice-Mayor Roth stated that, as a City Council Member, he is an employee of the City, and requested that his role as a Member of the Authority be clarified. Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin stated that Members are not considered employees, but as officers of the Reuse Authority. Vice-Chair Swanson stated that he would support the change; however, in the case of himself and his proxy, they would have to get a ruling from the House Ethics Committee before any compensation could be received and the compensation would probably have to be deferred. However, the provision should be there as there are Members of the Authority and proxies that are serving where compensation may be necessary. Proxy DeWitt stated that he supported the proposal regarding compensation and that Mr. Arnerich also supports it. Vice-Chair Roth moved for approval of the proposed change to the bylaws allowing members to receive meeting compensation. Vice-Chair Swanson seconded the motion and was carried with (6) ayes, (1) naye and (1) abstention. 8 D D LJ E. Report from the Executive Director Recommending Approval of Proposed Change to Bylaws Appointing a Representative of the Alameda Unified School District to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority as a Non-Voting, Ex-officio Member, Specifically, the President of the Board of Education of the Alameda Unified School District with One Non- Voting Proxy to be the Vice President of the Alameda Unified School District. Councilmember Lucas moved to approve the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mayor Corbett and carried by (7) ayes and (1) naye . F. Dis~ussion and Action (if any) Regarding Procedure for Formation of ARRA Subcommittees. Assistant General Counsel McLaughlin reported that this item was put on the agenda on an on-going basis to allow the Members to discuss and act, if necessary, on subcommittees . Mr. Louk reported that this item was carried from the last agenda to the current agenda at the request of Councilmember Lucas in the event that discussion and action was required to form subcommittees. III. ORAL REPORTS A. B. Joint Presentation by the City of Alameda Recreation and Park Department, Alameda Unified School District, and East Bay Regional Park District on Their Beneficial Conveyance Proposal for Alameda Naval Air Station. Mr. Louk reported that the joint proposal is composed of the East Bay Regional Park District, the Alameda Unified School District, and the City of Alameda's Recreation and Park Department. This is one of four public benefit conveyances which have been received by the Reuse Authority thus far for property at the Alameda Naval Air Station. This joint proposal was presented to the BRAG earlier this year where it received a favorable endorsement, and was presented to the City Council receiving another favorable endorsement. The agencies comprising this joint proposal have been working very closely with staff of the Reuse Authority to ensure that the proposal can fit in and complement the final Reuse Plan. When the joint proposal's expression of interest was submitted, one of the things required by the Navy was a date to submit the formal application for a public benefit conveyance . The date chosen was December 1995, the date when the Reuse and Redevelopment Plan will be completed. They explained to the Navy that they did not want to submit a formal application until it can be done in conjunction with the Reuse Plan. Ms . Ardella Daily from the Alameda Unified School District, Ms. Carolyn Knudsen from City of Alameda Recreation and Parks Department and Mr. Mike Anderson of the East Bay Regional Park District made brief presentations on the proposal received by the ARRA. Oral Report from Chairman of the Alameda Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) Updating the Reuse Authority on BRAG Activities. 9 Mr. Lee Perez, Chair of the Base Reuse Advisory Group, reported that the BRAG, wh i -.) advises the Alameda City Council, requested that a BRAG update be included on the Re\' · 1 Authority agenda in order to introduce to the Reuse Authority the very vital group v i volunteers in the City of Alameda that are working very hard on base conversion. The BRAG has been in existence for approximately one year and some of the accomplishments of the BRAG in this past year have been: a community forum was held in February and BRAG is in the process of conducting another one on October 8. He reported that BRAG should be the public participation forum for the City of Alameda. There are 11 BRAG Subcommittees that are working on eleven different general areas that hopefully cover the full continuum of the life experience as it will be impacted by the closure of the base. In doing this, a tremendous amount of data has been collected. The upcoming community meeting will allow the BRAG to once again go back to the community and give a report card of what the BRAG has done, is involved in, and questions still outstanding. Some of the more specific items 'that the BRAG is involved in are the specific proposals which have been made thus far. One proposal, which seems rather exciting, is the AEG Proposal for the interim leasing for the refurbishment of BART cars, which would create 100-150 jobs and the homeless interests. Mr. Perez commended Ms . Alice Garvin, Chair of the Housing Subcommittee for all of her long hours working on this particular issue. Other issues before the BRAG have been the public conveyance process and the joint proposal by the Alameda Unified School District, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the City of Alameda Recreation and Parks Department, and the Pan Pacific educational institute Proposal. Mr. Perez concluded by stating that the BRAG continues to enjoy very h=-i.._ interest from the community, and expects to increase this interest to ensure that when. I I final Reuse Plan is completed, the community can say "we have been involved, we may . . have agreed, but we have had our say". Mayor Corbett asked Mr. Perez for details on the public Town Meeting . Mr. Perez reported that it would be held on October 8, 9:00 a.m., buses will be ready at the Officer's Club for a guided tour, and afterwards have a "workshop". (Since the time of this meeting, this date has been changed to Saturday, October 29 at Woodstock Elementary School.) C. Oral Report from Executive Director Regarding Next Agenda for Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. Mr. Louk reported the next agenda will include the AEG proposal as mentioned by Mr. Perez, a McKinney Act update, and a request by the Port of Oakland to the Navy to modify the aviation easement for Runway 13 to install a large crane in the Port which would preclude precision approaches to Runway 13 but not non-precious approaches. The aviation easement currently exists between the military and the Port of Oakland and does not exist at all after the property is transferred. Also, a command on base called "The Navy Disease Vector Ecology and Control Center" (about 10,000 sq. ft. and 15 employees) has a new home which will not be ready when the base closes requesting to stay on the base for approximately seven months after it is closed. Finally, the Gun Test Facility will appear on the next agenda. Naval Air System Command's lawyers have said that the Gun 1 -: I 10 D LJ Facility cannot stay at NAS and transfer the work load from Concord. More DoD lawyers are reviewing it again with ~he hopes that they will overturn the decision. The result should be available at the next meeting. They are currently planning on transferring the workload to China Lake. Chair Withrow asked Vice-Chair Swanson for some help with the Gun Test Facility as it involves job retention. Vice-Chair Swanson requested a briefing paper from Mr. Louk on this issue, and Mr. Louk agreed that he could provide this for Mr. Swanson . Vice-Mayor Roth suggested that Mr. Louk check with the Airport Land Use Commission regarding the crane and runway item before bringing it to the Authority. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) v . Speakers: Mr. Neil Patrick Sweeney, a citizen of Alameda, requested that the Authority create an organized computer information data bank of every activity and key personnel to help anyone design participation recommendations to support base conversion . Mr. Richard Neve/in , a Committee member, discussed the topic of the Reuse Authority establishing more committees and described it as inappropriate because of the number of subcommittees already in existence. Mr. Nevelin suggested perhaps some of the BRAG subcommittees could serve the Authority rather than forming their own subcommittees. He also suggested a developed shared use of the facilities for model airplane flying on the Naval Air Station . Mr. Bill Smith of Base Commercialization Bureau, recommended that for environmental purposes, the military could be asked to ask for the previous historical usage of every square foot of property on the base. Mr. Herb Severns, citizen of Alameda, asked Vice-Chair Swanson for status information on the electric car business interested in space on NAS Alameda. Mr. Swanson gave Mr. Severns an update. COMMUNICATIONS FROM GOVERNING BODY Vice-Chair Swanson reported that the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission is involved in an effort to develop a promotional brochure for the workers at NAS Alameda. The idea is to make 10,000 four-color brochures to be mailed out to industry containing very positive information regarding the talent of the workers at the base, emphasizing the kinds of work that they 11 have been doing, the history of the base, and the fact that it has been a profitable base . A - advertising agency is working with the Commission in putting together the brochure . The brocht ::· - would also offer a computer disk which would give an employer information regarding particu _ employees, their skills, etc . Workers from the base felt very encouraged by the fact that someone was trying to put together such a brochure . VI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Withrow adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizal:ieth Brydon Secretary ~c4- 12 I _]