Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Committee For Persons With Disabilities - 09/18/2002 - Special p MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING COMMITTEE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES September 18, 2002 Committee Members - Present Committee Members - Absent Chairperson: Ms. Crystal Lyons Vice Chair: Mr. Roberto M. Flores Ms. Linda Fallwell-Stover Ms. Sandra Cabazos Billy R. Sayles Ms. Toni Padilla Mr. Eloy Soza Ms. Mary J. Saenz Mr. Glen Ray Tomo CITY STAFF: (ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT) Building Official: Park & Recreation Director: Mr. Gunning for Mr. Art Sosa Dan Whitworth Human Relations Administrator: Legal Advisor: Mr. L. David Ramos, Director Mr. Joseph Harney Human Relations Analyst: Other City Staff Present: Wanese Taylor Butler Angel Escobar Human Relations Management Assistant: Mary Frances Teniente Ms. June Shultz Margie Rose Andrew Quittner Before the meeting started: • Ms. Lyons asked Mr. Ramos to give a presentation on the recent conference he went to on Recreation and Accessible Programs/Activities. • Ms. Fallwell-Stover and Mr. Harney had a general discussion on the Ordinance Draft and the items (3 Sections) that the Committee wanted clarification/interpretation of language. Mr. Harney was asked to have a report at the October meeting. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Lyons ATTENDANCE - Roll Call — SCANNED Crystal Lyons — P; Robert Flores — A; Sandra Cabazos — A; Linda Fallwell- Stover —P; Toni Padilla —P; Mary Saenz — A; Billy Sayles — P; Eloy Soza — P; Ray Tomo— P. We had a quorum. INTRODUCTIONS: None. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: None at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS: This Special Meeting was called to address the draft Transition Plan presented to the City Council on September 9, 2002. However, first Andy Quittner of the Legal Department provided a powerpoint presentation regarding a variety of pictures of local street curb ramps and/or problems encountered — as well as examples of curb ramps in other cities, such as Austin. Mr. Quittner illustrated problems and discussed possible solutions and estimated costs. Types of problems: • Off to side • Property ownership issues • Warning signs • Straight curb cuts and utility issues Ms. Fallwell-Stover asked about crowning issues? Mr. Quittner indicated there is a problem with a lot of crowning, particularly in the older sections of town. • Additionally, we may have to move light poles. • Also driveways can be a factor. • Sidewalk barriers • 9"-11" change in depth and water drainage issues • Service Areas • Short walks • Recent repairs that are already not in compliance • Areas near small businesses • not really sidewalk areas, no existing sidewalk, marginal sidewalks that pick up and end, or alternate marginal routes • ramp pads up to it or ramp but no sidewalk Revised:11/13/02-Corteaiom to 9/18/02 Minutes • cross walks don't line up • angle parking • no right of way or limited • possible need to condemn property • lack of space • height changes and utilities • too much cross slope • deep drainage • Ramps by bus stops Mr. Quittner thought showing this examples and pictures would help clarify what would be needed when addressing curb ramps. Transition Plan Summary Presentation— provided by David Ramos Monday, September 9, 2002, the draft Transition Plan was provided in a walk-through presentation to the City Council. He shared history and current CIP projects. The information provided today is a summary of how to tackle the deficiencies identified in the self-evaluation process. It identifies needs, costs, and projected timelines for completion. Background information was provided about how the City had an initial plan and process, that David Garcia, City Manager, moved the responsibility from Human Resources to Human Relations. The City Manager designated the City's ADA Coordinator (Mr. Ramos, Director of Human Relations). We've established ideas on how to address complaints. The self-evaluation guide (proposed by ADAAG) was used for departmental and facility reviews. Each department identified ADA coordinators. Evaluations were completed. Meetings were held. We started assigning costs to deficiencies. Recalling previous review of the self evaluation information by Mr. Tomo and Mr. Ramos - Ms. Butler and Mr. Ramos went back to revisit some original documents and departments. Jim Boggs went with them — that's how costs were derived for facilities and equipment. Jim Boggs, Architect, helped with costs. Deficiencies were identified by the Departmental ADA Coordinators first, then Mr. Ramos and Ms. Butler went back and plugged in the dollars. We looked at programs. However, because of the public comments received, the main concentration was on: • Park and Recreation - what services and programs were offered; Revised:11/13/02-Corrections to 9/18/02 Minutes 1 • videos and close captioning, including close captioning for Council meetings; • Museum (programs and services); • contacts with Commission for the Blind to establish assistance with providing materials in large print, Braille or alternate formats; and providing education and training to City departments. It would be available for all City services and all City departments, including Utilities, Municipal Court, the Police Department, City Hall, the Library - anywhere citizens might come in with requests or if someone called ahead with a request for a service or program. Also, we coordinated estimates that when requests came in, where any policy that was impacted, or something arose through a complaint of a discriminatory practice, from the CFPWD or Department, that we would correct that policy right away. That would allow us to look at all programs, policies, and services as we go along. Additionally, the CFPWD are currently working on the ADA non-discrimination ordinance, using City of Austin model. We are looking at all City contract language. All contracts would include language on no discriminatory practices on the part of whoever the City contracts with regarding persons with disabilities. That would include ballparks, etc. Also, we are reviewing the Internet process on how we are going to approach it. We have held open public meetings. We can have presentations with the Planning Commission, CCHRC or other Commissions, to help bring about or address changes. This is an on-going working document and process. No action was taken at this time by Council. We need to bring it back to Council in next few months as a regular or consent agenda item. The Council made some recommendations to the preliminary draft plan. Mr. Ramos asked for recommendations today from the CFPWD, to be included in the plan. Ms. Lyons asked if we could call another special meeting. Continuing with the overview of the Council presentation, Mr. Ramos indicated that we are continuing to look at curb ramps, restrooms, other facility items; and the whole process. Mr. Soza asked if we included an inventory of the public comments from the public meetings in the information? Mr. Ramos indicated that a copy is available, implemented some in the plan - i.e.: Texas Commission for the Blind suggestions, addressing sight impairment accessibility, including cost estimates. Their expertise and knowledge would be helpful. Including a Revised:11/13/02-Corrections to 9/18/02 Minutes d contract for interpreter services through the Corpus Christi Area Council for the Deaf Mr. Ramos didn't have copies of all the public comments for everybody at this time. Mr. Soza indicated they need the comments of public meetings included as a part of the document. Mr. Ramos asked if they wanted it in a summary or a list? Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated that she also would like a copy of that information, because it shows areas of concern. She also asked about services from the Texas Commission for the Blind (TCB). Mr. Ramos indicated they could assist in providing training to staff on how to provide accommodations and how to address requests for accommodation. We would have Braille information or alternative format needed. They could provide one on one training. In the public meeting Ron Sharp, of TCB, offered these services as an option. Street curb ramps - Engineering Services did a survey of all streets, with a breakdown of arterial, collector, and residential streets. They identified streets with no curbs or gutters and unconstructed streets. They also addressed CDBG projects, new construction and items renovated in the last ten years. They want to approach it from a four-part process: 1. Existing streets, to be altered - upgrade as work is done (on-going basis) funded by CIP, CDBG, etc. - automatically. 2. Construction of new streets - part of project, built into project. 3. Schedule of streets to do through curb ramp project - with number of ramps per year - most traveled or populated (arterial and collectors first). 4. Also citizen call in requests - those would come in to Human Relations and be forwarded to Engineering Services. The 4 part process would be handled concurrently in a given year, per the Executive Summary. Show funding, time frame and options. There was a review of estimated costs and detailed summary. We want to implement everything starting next year, because of the budget process. We need to take the plan is take this back to the City Council in December of January. Our budget process begins in January, and the City has already begun working on the CIP. We need to finalize some of this for the CIP, as soon as possible. Revised:11/13/02-Corrections to 9/18/02 Minutes 5 Staff had been looking at completing all of the facilities in a 1-3 or 1-5 year planning options. But we want to do it immediately and then on Programs for 5 years, to have $606,650, which included an on annual basis items like close captioning, etc. We would also have some line items for maintenance and upkeep. Ms. Lyons asked about the Mayor's comments. Mr. Ramos indicated the Mayor wanted the facilities done all at one time. The Council also had other suggestions and directions. Mr. Ramos will include that at the end of the presentation. Mr. Ramos also indicated that the Council recommendations, along with whatever recommendations the Committee had today would be incorporated into the document. There was discussion about the section on Site Development. Mr. Sosa discussed the proposed changes in Building Inspection, ordinance changes, sub-division approvals and including curb ramp issues, as well as plans to help train and certify inspectors and estimated costs. Outreach, training staff and informing the public in general and commercial industries. There was further discussion on funding for citywide curb ramps and individual citizen requests for curb ramps. There was discussion on monitoring and outreach, summary, of funding and time frame for facilities, site development, outreach and curb ramps. Appendix A was a review of actual facilities estimated costs. This is a summary of what Mr. Tomo and Mr. Ramos looked at. Some of cost is from Jim Boggs past experience and/or calling current and specific vendors on costs. Added in engineering costs and contingency costs, in Appendix A. Ms. Lyons questioned the need for engineering costs if Mr. Sosa's staff have training? Mr. Ramos clarified training for inspectors to be TDLR certified. Mr. Torno indicated that it is customary to add in Engineering administrative costs. Mr. Ramos also discussed including for contingencies and design changes. This is only for the facilities part of it. Mr. Tomo indicated they could plus or minus some of this or any one item on facilities list, but as a whole, in the ballpark. Mr. Ramos indicated they rounded off the figure to nearest $100.00 or closest estimate. Ms. Lyons questioned, but that is a 10% increase? In considering the information for the Council, Mr. Ramos discussed how prices might go up - it was suggested by Engineering Services. Mr. Tomo indicated that it depend on how it is packaged - larger projects, then they go down on scale. Ms. Lyons questioned why 25% for design, signage, outside consulting firm on every item? Mr. Torno indicated that it depends on how the package is put together - 6 to 12% for construction costs, TDLR reviews and 10-12% Engineering administrative Revised:11/13/02-Corrections to 9/18/02 Minutes fi costs for design and changes. Mr. Gunning, City Planning Director, in for Art Sosa, indicated the contingency fee are a plus, factor in time for project bid and design fees, not coming out of money in the project. There is a cushion there - it may be less, but they wanted the Council to have an idea, and they tried to identify the maximum costs. Ms. Lyons however questioned that is 25% in addition to the 10%, which is excessive. It's an awfully big estimate - a lot of these don't require outside engineering services or construction when we have City staff. Mr. Whitworth indicated that often when we do outside work and for situations when the final review indicates that it is not up to code. Ms. Lyons indicated then you make the contractors pay for it. Ms. Rose indicted she understood the Committee's concern - sometimes after you've gone out to bid, you may need to make some alterations. This is common contingency cost. Mr. Tomo indicated that he agreed that this is the average cost. Ms. Lyons still questioned if the 10% wasn't sufficient? Mr. Tomo indicated that it was marginal and the 10% she was discussing, isn't the same as the 25%. Mr. Tomo indicated that they are not related. Ms. Lyons indicated then she'll buy that, but they were using the word "Contingency" in the 25% pertaining to the design fee. If it's different and not related, I'll buy that. Committee continued to review facilities. Ms. Lyons then asked Mr. Ramos to move on to services. Mr. Ramos indicated yes and began reviewing the information on services, i.e. videos - 22 half hour issues and answers shows on Channel 20. Quadrant Technologies provided cost on annual basis. Closed Caption issue - Council Meetings, on an average 41 meetings a year. The City Secretary got bids for $49,200 initial purchase of equipment, plus $39,200 annual to provide live close captioning. The Museum included information on their needs as well. We looked at postproduction, devises and modifications to viewing areas - $5,000.00; Library - book aisles do not meet all accommodations. Proposed alternate designated area with lowered counter to request book retrieval or assistance, lowered counters and/or tables of proper height and an attendant to provide assistance. Accessible Internet - when developing the plan, the cost hadn't been given yet. The contract is being worked on. Contract provisions address contractor making services in compliance with ADA standards. Ms. Lyons questioned to what standards? Mr. Ramos indicated he isn't sure - they ran it through BOBBY and updated it to include further provision. That is a work still in progress. Ms. Lyons questioned why this would get put in the Transition Plan? When this is a normal cost - it has to be accessible. Ms. Butler clarified that this was identified as a deficiency. Revised:11/13/02-Corrections to 9/18/02 Minutes 7 Ms. Lyons indicated but this is a new system. Mr. Ramos indicated that this would be a new contract to update existing equipment. They would use a consultant to convert it. In the future it would be a part of her annual budget. Ms. Lyons indicated they need to get away from pulling it out separately. It should be a part of their annual budgets. Ms. Butler further clarified the website was initially identified deficient during the self- evaluation, before the any new upgrade. Ms. Lyons wanted to clarify that this taking away, instead of being in the regular budget and the City has got to stop this. Ms. Fallwell-Stover also expressed a concern that things have to be part of department's regular budgets. Mr. Ramos indicated that they will be tracking it, but as part of their budget. The discussion moved on to Park and Recreation - cooperative youth program with CCISD. Mr. Ramos and Ms. Hodge would like to come back and discuss recommendations, processes and innovative ideas that other cities used and services provided. Ms. Lyons indicated that this is not adaptive. Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated that adaptive went away and nothing else was implemented. We need to be inclusive and integrated. Mr. Ramos indicated that following the symposium they recently attended we have come up with recommendations for Mr. Whitworth to consider. We do need to look at it and accommodation requests and see if it fundamentally alters the game or program, then some items can't be implemented. Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated that it looks like an awfully small budget for youth programs. Mr. Ramos indicated that this isn't Mr. Whitworth's budget for next year for Park and Recreation. This is for some concerns brought forward to us. Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated she would also like to see some programs for seniors and middle age activities. Mr. Ramos indicated that staff can come back with information from the conference, including options for Senior Community Services staff. Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated she was glad to hear that. Mr. Ramos indicated that with their input and adding in information from the Park and Recreation Symposium, we could come back with a good draft. Ms. Lyons asked about other recommendations. Mr. Ramos again addressed Braille, large print, tapes, etc. in response to Ms. Fallwell-Stover's inquiry on audio/visual items. This is based on information provided by the Texas Commission for the Blind. On Ms. Fallwell-Stover's question on Further Integration Allocation, Ms. Butler indicated this money is set aside to assist or meet accommodation requests of unknown items at this time. Revived:11/13/02-Corrections to 9/18/02 Minutes Ms. Lyons indicated she was speaking on behalf of Ms. Padilla's concerns - such as close captioning and other related issues. She was concerned that these items would be reflected as a secondary priority, when there are approximately 10% of the population with a need of assistive listening support. Mr. Ramos indicated they could change the priority. Ms. Fallwell- Stover questioned that by primary, this means in terms of timeline that those items will come first? Mr. Ramos indicated they had used ADAAG recommendations as a means to prioritize, The Transition Plan calls for some type of prioritization. The timeframe was addressed by the Council, with direction provided. Mr. Ramos discussed aspect of Site Development, training by TDLR to go out and inspect any project $50,000.00 or less. (This came out of recommendation from the CFPWD and ordinance change.) This allows us to fulfill this. Ms. Fallwell-Stover indicated she remembered the conversation and asked if this means Mr. Sosa's staff will assess all projects $50,000 or less - any or all? Mr. Ramos indicated all those $50,000 and under. Ms. Lyons indicated that it would include all those requiring building permits. Asked to have accessibility put back in. Mr. Gunning indicated that in the future, funding will be put in all future budgets. Ms. Fallwell- Stover expressed a concern of sufficient staff and resources to do this. Mr. Ramos discussed outreach and training. Additionally, touched again on curb ramps that some streets may not require curb ramps on all four corners. Ms. Fallwell-Stover asked if they were going to target arterials? Ms. Lyons discussed the unconstructed streets on the Island. Mr. Gunning discussed how many streets are not built, streets are platted or on paper, but may not be done. Ms. Lyons expressed an opinion that these figures may not be accurate. Mr. Gunning indicated the information came from Engineering and that some streets are dedicated, but may not be improved. Need to ensure modifications are included when they are done. Ms. Lyons indicated that there are no sidewalks on the Island and that's a lot of miles. Is that included in unconstructed or new construction? Mr. Ramos indicated that we would have to ask. Ms. Lyons indicated that could really change the data. Mr. Tomo indicated that they are unconstructed right-of-ways (ROW) and Engineering would have to clarify. Mr. Torno expressed a concern that this is a scary number (474 miles and 21,500 curb ramps) - can't get to it. Ms. Lyons indicated so is $9,535 for a curb cut. If we can't get a $50 million dollar Marina built, how do we get this? Mr. Torno stated it's the aggregate number. I can't get my mind around that. I can understand $500,000 worth Revised:11/13/02.Corrections to 9/18/02 Minutes 0 of improvements to facilities, but the $205 million is mind boggling. Mr. Gunning discussed ROW and how property owners are responsible for installing infrastructure, unless there is an arterial. No exception to having sidewalks on the Island. He thinks that any new subdivision would be required to include sidewalks and gutters. If no sidewalk, and an improvement - then who'll pay for it? Ms. Lyons asked about taking the Island out of the equation? There are no sidewalks and there never will be any. Might be able to get figures lower and more palatable. Mr. Ramos asked Mr. Escobar if the Island was included? Mr. Escobar indicated they had included statistics for the Island. If there are no sidewalks or if it is a new subdivision or park road, it is included in the 474 miles. Ms. Lyons questioned if there are no sidewalks, why include them, if there will never be any done there? Mr. Escobar indicated he projected for curb cuts only, not for sidewalks. Ms. Lyons indicated that didn't answer the question. Mr. Escobar indicated that if it is a new sidewalk or an old, we treat it identically. If you want to reduce the numbers and say we'll never put sidewalks on the Island, then we would need directive of that. Ms. Lyons indicated she knows that it is not being done now and that they are just adding in numbers that will never be spent. Ms. Escobar indicated that we could remove it or any others, such as Country Creek, as you direct us. The approach was, we know where we are now, but we don't know what may occur in the future, so we need to put in contingency. Ms. Lyons indicated that we need to back those out, and find out if there are any legalities we need to consider. Mr. Escobar indicated that there is enough cushion. Ms. Teniente indicated that the information reflects the current bond election and from 1986 identified those streets improved. CDBG curb cuts, paving assessments, programs since 1974 included curb ramps - all statistics show those that meet the requirements. Mr. Ramos asked about the number of ramps and how the number was arrived at? Mr. Escobar discussed miles of streets (coded), subtracted all miles belonging to TXDOT, coded miles done by CDBG, new subdivisions and new construction since 1974. All miles in the 1986 Bond Election and 2000 Bond, as they have or will be done and got an end result. Then they went into a typical 1 square mile - Kostoryz and Carroll Lane and checked on how many corners - coming up with 15 per linear mile as an average sample, with residential street. They projected an average of 3 curb ramps per Revised:11/13/02-Corrections to 9/18/02 Minutes n intersection with that applied to the equation - coming up with approximately 21,300, rounding up to 21,500. Out of that amount of ramps, every one will have other factors to address. There was an average cost of $2,500, plus $945, then factor in 25% increases for the various other types of problems encountered. Mr. Escobar discussed various factors and adjustments, such as valve adjustments, header curb along with ramp, fire hydrant, power pole, striping, milling of pavement and traffic signal adjustments. Ms. Lyons asked if he went back to get counts for traffic signals, etc.? No. They used averages. They took a representative figure of a typical residential area. Deducted miles that don't have curb and gutter, because they will have to be built at some point. They tried to work through a methodical fashion of obtaining a representative figure. Mr. Tomo indicated that using 25% for all those intersections for the various factors/adjustments assuming every one will have it, he thinks that is excessive. There was further discussion of survey average concerns. There was a request for multiple samples of different locations through the City. Mr. Escobar indicated he could do that. There was discussion about various sections of town being worse than others regarding the need for additional adjustments when factoring costs, such as down Staples, Park Street, downtown - high curbs, drainage, manhole covers, costs involved in tackling higher congested areas. Discussion of streets with need for less than 8 curb ramps. There was discussion about if there is a need to change the rationale, they can. Mr. Tomo indicated the real problem is how we will get around the numbers. Ms. Lyons indicated one thing is that we start today and let other people figure out how to do the rest of it. And yet, we have a plan and the $205 million Mr. Ramos reported was in (year) 2002 dollars. Mr. Escobar showed maps of streets and general discussion ensued. Didn't assume fixing sidewalk from intersection to intersection. Ordinance says sidewalks are the responsibility of owners, which hasn't been enforced. Mr. Tomo indicated the issue of accessible route has not been addressed. Mr. Escobar indicated no. Further general discussion. Ms. Lyons asked about reconstruction - enforce ROW that belongs to owners, so these things can be addressed during development. Mr. Escobar indicated they are working on an ordinance surrounding public ROW to facilities of commercial buildings requirement of being accessible. Then it would be their responsibility if Revised:11/13/02-Corrections to 9/18/02 Minutes development or redevelopment of lot must be their responsibility. Ms. Lyons indicated the CFPWD need to know when to some and support this. Ms. Lyons requested that they adjourn due to the hour and hold another special meeting. Mr. Escobar asked that when the CFPWD decides, tell Mr. Ramos, so they can get it done for and before the CFPWD's and the Council's requirements. He will do the additional survey and give his recommendations based on the new data. General discussion. (Mr. Escobar and Ms. Teniente left meeting.) Ms. Lyons asked if they wanted to set the date and a time limit for another special meeting - possibly one hour. She asked Mr. Ramos if he could cover the information on the Mayor's comments. Mr. Ramos indicated he could do that real quickly now. The Mayor wants to do all the facilities in one-year time frame. So we will need to change the timetable. And on the curb ramps, he wants to do them as quickly as possible. He wants us to give him a figure. Ms. Teniente is working on that. Ms. Lyons indicated that what she got was that the Mayor didn't care how long it took, as long as there was a start and end date. We will need to start on a reasonable number of ramps per year. We need to determine how many are needed and how many will be done each year. Even if it takes fifty years, the Transition Plan should say it will start on this date and will end (even 50 years from now) and that we will do so much. We'll get from non-compliance to compliance and let subsequent Councils determine how to get there. Mr. Ramos asked members if they wanted to make any changes to survey information. Mr. Soza asked if they could request a list of better sampling. Ms. Lyons discussed holding another special meeting next week and having a list of recommendations at the meeting. Mr. Ramos asked if we could make a decision today on the different varied sampling, so they could start. Mr. Soza wanted more varied sections of town. Ms. Lyons asked for 3 or 4 locations. Mr. Ramos asked if they were giving that as a recommendation? Mr. Tomo asked them to pick an area, delineate it and drive it. Ms. Lyons emphasized that we needed several areas of town (at least 3). Ms. Lyons indicated that CFPWD members and/or City staff can help with obtaining the information, if they need the help. Mr. Ramos indicated that we could do a request to Engineering for three samples of areas in the City of 1 mile at each one. They can keep the current information as one of the three. But we ask that they do actual counts and physically view them. Mr. Tomo Revised: 11/13/02-Corrections to 9/18/02 Minutes 19 indicated the concern of 25% (plus or minus) is a huge number and expressed concern of what the public will think of it. Ms. Lyons stated address it each five or four years, when they do a bond election. One thing the public needs to know is that we're all comfortable with the numbers, even if it's huge. Then you just try to sell one package of it at a time. Other communities have passed them. Before you get ready to have a Bond Election, hopefully the proposed $1.00 Utility Fee (State Bill) will pass. That $800,000 or $900,000 a year, you may not be able to do more than that. Austin passed a Bond Election (a portion of which) funded approximately $1 million a year (for ADA). They are having a hard time finding contractors to do all the ramps they need done. We may be able to live on that. Mr. Torno expressed a concern that he's not sure the surcharge will happen. Ms. Lyons indicated that the way the bill is written, that it is up to the local authority. City Council could approve it. If they are convinced it is the right thing to do, it could happen. Mr. Soza asked for four sites. Mr. Torno indicated they might only need three. Ms. Lyons asked for one to be done around Port and Tarlton. Mr. Ramos indicated he would ask Ms. Teniente to select the additional sites and report back to the CFPWD. It was decided that they would call for a special meeting in the afternoon for next week. Committee members were asked to e-mail their concerns to Mr. Ramos. The City Staff will call and set-up the meeting location and time. It was suggested that next Thursday, September 26, 2002 would be good. They also asked for an Appendix of the public meeting comments. Meeting adjourned. Mitt tes Approved: j /2 , ye, /j//a /0a rys,:l Lyons, Com, ittee Chairperson Date Revised:11/13/02-Corrections to 9/18/02 Minutes 11