 |
A. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Richard Aries, Joseph Carino, Carol Fletterick, Vicki Paliulis (arrived at 7:04 p.m.), Donald Antaya, William Vees
Members Absent: Robert Dickinson
Alternates Present: Edward Havens, Jr. sitting in for Robert Dickinson
Alternates Absent: Richard Siedman
Staff Present: C. Fred Shaw, Superintendent of Pollution Control
Donna Thompson, Recording Secretary
Others: Karen Isherwood, Isherwood Civil Engineering
Ben Wheeler, Design professionals
Bruce Kelley, RSK-Kellco
Chairman Richard Aries called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. The following actions were taken during the March 6, 2012 Regular Meeting of the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA).
Chairman Aries appointed Mr. Edward Havens, Jr. to sit in for Mr. Robert Dickinson.
B. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
February 7, 2012 – Regular Meeting
Mr. Joseph Carino stated that the use of initials in reference to organization names should first be identified with that organization, such as South Windsor Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) on page 1 and Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) on page 2. Mr. Carino requested that Mr. William be corrected on page 5 to Mr. William Vees. Mr. Carino requested the spelling correction of drain on page 6 to drained and pump station on page 7 to pump stations to reference the 3 pump stations.
Motion to accept the February 7, 2012 minutes as corrected.
Motion was made by Mr. Carino
Seconded by Ms. Fletterick
The motion carried unanimously.
C. NEW BUSINESS
1. Interior Lot – Kochanski, 225 Lawrence Road (Approval to connect)
Karen Isherwood, Isherwood Civil Engineering, presented the application. The Planning and Zoning Commission has approved the subdivision of 225 Lawrence Road. There is currently an existing house on septic, garage and driveway. Due the reconstruction of Lawrence Road there is an existing sanitary lateral for the house lot. An interior lot has been created by subdividing the original 5.9 acres. The existing house remains on a traditional lot of .95 acres, with the rear lot being 4.94 acres. The original plan was for a new sanitary lateral serving the rear house and tying into the main, but the Town Engineer requested a shared lateral utilizing the existing lateral for both houses. An easement is proposed through the first lot to the rear lot allowing for a proposed sanitary lateral
approximately 370 linear feet, slope is 2% minimum. The house is not being constructed at this time. They are just creating the lot.
Mr. Carino’s concern about how the shared lateral would be affected by any change in ownership of the 2 lots was addressed with the proposed easement, which should stipulate that the easement is with the property not the owner.
Mr. Havens questioned whether there could be more than one house built on the rear lot. Ms. Isherwood stated that it would not be feasible economically to build more than the one house.
Motion to approve sewer connection for Kochanski interior lot at 225 Lawrence Road.
Motion was made by Mr. Antaya
Seconded by Mr. Vees
Per Mr. Shaw’s recommendation, Mr. Aries suggested the motion be modified to include two conditions for approval.
Motion to approve the application as presented for proposed Interior Lot located at 225 Lawrence Road, South Windsor, CT for the connection to the Town’s sewerage system, as more specifically shown on plans entitled: “Resubdivision- Special Exception-Site Plan, Interior Lot – Kochanski, 225 Lawrence Road, South Windsor, CT”, Prepared by Isherwood Civil Engineering, South Windsor, CT; “Grading/Utilities/Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan”, Sheet C-2, Project No. 1014, Dated: 1/9/12, Revision Date: 2/6/12. This approval is subject to the following conditions: (1) A draft of a private easement between the property owners for the installation and maintenance of the sewer must be obtained, reviewed, and approved by the Town Attorney; (2) a sewer benefit assessment at time of
construction for sewer connection.
Motion was made by Mr. Havens
Seconded by Mr. Vees
The motion carried unanimously.
2. Buckland Commons, 350 Buckland Road (Approval to connect)
Ben Wheeler, Design Professionals, introduced the project. The project has received approval from Planning and Zoning Commission, Inland Wetlands Agency and Zoning Board of Appeals. The project, set on 4.349 acres, consists of two buildings: a 2,000 sq ft bank on the northern end of the property and an approximately 17,200 sq ft two story retail/office building on the southern end. There is an existing 18 inch sanitary line in Deming Street. There is no existing sanitary line along the frontage in Buckland Road. There is an existing lateral as part of the line in Deming Street that extends out of the first manhole to the east of the intersection. That lateral was extended by the client Buckland Commons, also known as RSK-Kellco, at the time Deming Street was widened several years ago. The plans reflect a more accurate location of the lateral and have allowed them to make some adjustment to the alignment of the sanitary system to serve both buildings and properties to the
south. The plan is to extend the stub to the south and create a public sanitary main which will serve the two buildings on the property and future development at the south side of the property as sanitary is not available on that portion of Buckland Road at this time. The stub is an 8 inch stub to match the 8 inch line in Deming Street and an 8 inch line will be continued all the way to the southern property line, with three proposed sanitary manholes. One located at the northern end and two along the frontage, all less than 300 feet apart. The last manhole would be approximately125 feet north of a stub that would be left for future connections to the south. The invert at that stub location is set an elevation determined by the Town Engineering Department to be of adequate depth to provide service to properties to the south so that all properties between Deming Street and M & R Liquors could be served by sanitary sewer in the future. Each of
the buildings on site would be separately connected by a 6 inch lateral to the main pipe that would be extended. They have received approval by Planning and Zoning to construct this project in two phases. The northern phase, which is the 2,000 sq ft bank, would be Phase I and the southern phase would be Phase II. As part of the phasing, the extension for the sanitary would go up to and include the proposed sanitary manhole #2. The remainder of the extension of the sanitary main would not be constructed until Phase II is built. Since the 8 inch line would be a public sewer, an easement would be granted for the portion that crosses Buckland Commons property. Because of the location of the existing lateral that is well back from the intersection with Buckland Road and also because there is not much room between the edge of Buckland Road and the right of way line, a good portion of the proposed main extension would be on the subject property until
the southern portion where the right of way for Buckland Road widens out. They would grant an easement to the Town since this would be a public sewer. Buckland Commons has agreed to construct the sanitary main across the frontage if both phases move forward and are constructed and they have requested of the Town and WPCA to be allowed to put in place a developer’s agreement with properties to the south to reimburse Buckland Commons at the time the properties connect into the sanitary main extension. The developer’s agreement would remain in place until the properties are connected in, with no expiration. For example, if it takes twelve years for those properties to be purchased, get developed and connect in, they could still recoup their money for extending the sanitary main passed what is required for their property. They are requesting that in the approval a provision be made for the developer’s agreement to be worked through with
Town staff, Mr. Shaw and the Town Attorney, and that such agreement would be subject to their approval.
Mr. Aries asked if it was their intention to go from Phase I directly to Phase II in a continuous manner. Mr. Wheeler said that Phase II is contingent upon Buckland Commons leasing the retail/office building. There is a tentative agreement for the bank which is the reason for splitting the project into two phases.
Mr. Aries questioned and Mr. Wheeler confirmed that there could be a delay between the completion of Phase I and the start of Phase II. Mr. Aries suggested that Buckland Commons could come back to WPCA at the time Phase II is ready to begin.
Mr. Wheeler clarified that they are seeking approval for both Phase I and Phase II at this time. The reason being that if Phase II was to go forward and be constructed as shown on the plans, they would not have to come back to WPCA again.
Mr. Shaw asked what would be included in the developer’s agreement. Bruce Kelley, member of Buckland Commons LLC, stated that they are open to suggestions. Mr. Aries questioned whether the Town has the jurisdiction or authority to get involved in a developer’s agreement. Mr. Wheeler stated that it had been done in the past. Mr. Shaw noted that the Town Engineer had asked that the line be extended passed the Buckland Commons property. Mr. Kelley stated that they could tie in their six inch lateral for Phase I into manhole #2. The extension of the line from manhole #2 to the southern property line is all for the benefit of the southern abutter. Buckland Commons does not need it for any reason on their site. Mr. Kelley stated that he sees the reason for doing it now versus
later as it would entail digging up the area again in the future should further development occur. Mr. Kelley was agreeable to installing the sewer when doing Phase II if a developer’s agreement could be designed to ensure re-imbursement to him for the cost of the portion he doesn’t need when/if other development occurs – no matter how far in the future that might be. Mr. Carino stated that an indefinite time period was not acceptable. Mr. Carino asked if a ten year developer’s agreement would be acceptable to Mr. Kelley with an assessment at that time. Mr. Kelley stated that he was reluctant to enter into an agreement for only ten years considering that the area has been difficult to market/develop in the last twenty years. Mr. Kelley would rather get approval for just Phase I and not have a developer’s agreement at all if it would be limited to ten years. Mr. Kelley does not need to do the sewer for his property;
it would only be a benefit for future development. Mr. Kelley asked if he did the construction up at manhole #2 at his cost would the Town be willing to pay for the Phase II sewer at this time. There would be no developer’s agreement, the Town would either pay for it or have it done, costing about $60,000. Mr. Shaw felt it was appropriate to consider a developer’s agreement for the extension, the indefinite timeframe is questionable. Mr. Aries asked if this is governed by an ordinance. Mr. Shaw stated that the developer’s agreements are negotiated between the WPCA and the developer, that it is not an ordinance, and have been limited to ten years. Mr. Aries asked if the ten years was stipulated in the regulations. Mr. Shaw did not believe that it is, but will check on that. Mr. Aries questioned how it is determined, under a developer’s agreement, how much is paid by each of the abutters at some future time when
tying in. Mr. Shaw said that in the past, as stated in the agreement it is a definite fee, such as the connection charge or the sewer assessment rates in effect at that time of connection. In regard to the developer’s agreement, Mr. Kelley felt, at a minimum, he should be reimbursed 100% for Phase II, whatever part of the sewer he is not using and, in an ideal world, he would get reimbursed for some of the sewer in Phase I. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Kelley what he would expect to be reimbursed in terms of the sewer in twenty years (i.e., what it cost him today). Mr. Kelley said that he wished someone else would pay the sewer main, but if he did it he would expect at least his initial costs. But Mr. Kelly realizes that reimbursement in the future could be different than cost today. Mr. Shaw’s point was that both Mr. Kelley and the WPCA would have to agree to what is stated in the developer’s agreement. Mr. Carino was adamant
about a specified term of ten years with an automatic review of the area at that time. Mr. Carino felt that Mr. Kelley’s willingness to do the sewer main was a good thing, that it would be helping the Town to extend the sewer in accordance with the plan for that side of Buckland Road. Mr. Aries felt that based on the uncertainties involved that Phase I only should be approved at this time. Buckland Commons would have to come back to the WPCA when it was time for Phase II and at that time there might be more information about the southern properties. Mr. Wheeler stated that the main reason for not specifying a set term of ten years for the developer’s agreement was timing – if someone wanted to develop one of the properties, they could just wait until the agreement expired and would not have to reimburse Mr. Kelley at all. Mr. Wheeler stated that the Town Attorney would have to be involved in designing the developer’s agreement. Mr. Aries asked when Phase I would begin. Mr.
Kelley said that it depended upon the bank signing the lease. Mr. Wheeler said that the bank wants to be open this year. Mr. Wheeler asked how the sewer fees work for Phase I and Phase II. Mr. Aries said the fees will be assessed when the building gets tied in. Mr. Wheeler clarified that he meant if the building has multiple tenants, is each tenant responsible for some of the fee. Mr. Shaw stated that it is the property owner’s responsibility to pay the fees. In this case, Mr. Kelley would be billed for both buildings proposed for the property. It was decided to approve just Phase I at this time. More information would be needed from the Town Attorney in regard to developer’s agreements prior to consideration of Phase II.
Motion to approve the application as presented for Phase I of the Buckland Commons Project for the connection to the Town’s sewerage system, as more specifically shown on plans entitled: “Buckland Commons, Site Plan, 340 & 350 Buckland Road, South Windsor CT”, Prepared by Design Professionals, South Windsor, CT; “Grading & Utilities Plan”, Sheet CU-01, (Sheet 4 of 10), Project No. 3085, Dated: 11/15/11, Revisions Dates: 12/6/11, 12/13/11, 1/6/12, 1/16/12, 2/10/12. This approval is subject to the following condition: (1) Provide an easement in favor of the Town for a public sewer.
Motion was made by Ms. Fletterick
Seconded by Mr. Havens
The motion carried unanimously.
3. Pollution Control Budget FY 2012/2013 (Review)
Mr. Shaw stated that this next year will be the first full year for the new plant and that there are a lot of unknowns some have been identified, while others have not. There has been an increase in amount of oil and electricity used (see Exhibit A1). There has been a reduction in the use of chemicals. In the past, the plan has been to limit increase in the operating cost to 4%. This year the increase could be 8%, much of it due to unknowns that we have no handle on yet, as well as the costs that
are known to be greater - increases in employee benefits of $41,000, increased insurance costs. Salaries are budgeted for 3.5%, but the union contract is up in June and will have to be re-negotiated. Mr. Aries questioned how the overtime will be reduced. Mr. Shaw said that the overtime is being reduced because of a new means of dewatering and sludge management, which cuts out dewatering and transportation on weekends. Costs have been reduced wherever possible. Mr. Shaw stated that they are looking at some new equipment such as a replacement for the 17 year old CCTV Equipment and Truck which is used for other departments as well, a cost of $145,000. This equipment is beyond its life expectancy with the truck body deteriorated and tracking for the camera in need of repairs. Additional equipment listed such as laser alignment equipment, which would reduce costs by allowing them to do this work in-house instead of hiring an outside contractor
would cost $11,000. A snow thrower for the Bobcat would be used for the new roadway around the perimeter of the treatment plant and would provide access to storage bins in the back. Mr. Vees asked if there was data available to show cost of contracting this work out versus buying the laser alignment. Mr. Shaw said he did and, for example, the one recent need for shaft alignment cost $2,500 for just that one. The snow thrower would make it less difficult to clear out the pump stations also. Mr. Aries stated that the project increase is $238,000 for the upcoming year. Mr. Shaw agreed. Mr. Shaw stated that the engineer had told them years ago to expect at lease a 2% increase over what would normally be budgeted for. What is normally budgeted for is 3-4%. Mr. Shaw feels that it will be more than 2% greater. This pertains to the operating budget. Mr. Aries asked where the fuel cost is located on the proposed budget.
Mr. Shaw indicated it is included in line item 360. Mr. Shaw stated that there has been a large increase in oil use this winter due to the new heating and ventilation (HVAC) system. Another increase is for contractor services in line item 371. This increase is associated with the regular specialized preventive maintenance contract for the new and much bigger HVAC system. Mr. Aries asked what accounted for the savings of $23,000 under Equipment Repair, line 232 and $33,000 under Operating Materials, line 221. Mr. Shaw said that the savings on line 221 is mostly attributed to the reduction of chemicals purchased for odor control and for the control of sulfide gases for the safety of the equipment operators. The savings on line 232 is mainly because of the reduction in materials and repairs for maintenance at the treatment plant and pump stations due to the upgrades. Mr. Shaw provided the commissioners with additional information for
Debt Service (see Exhibit A2), which accounts for the Town’s share for improvements in Vernon subject to an inter-town sewer agreement, the Clean Water Fund loan for the upgrade to the UV system and the loans from the Clean Water Fund for upgrading the Pleasant Valley pump stations and three submersible pump stations. Mr. Aries asked if this is completely separate from the other debt service (Treatment Plant Upgrade) discussed previously. Mr. Shaw said it is; that the debt service for the last three pump stations will go into effect in the spring of 2014, with the treatment plant upgrade debt service in the process of being determined. The contribution
to the Reserve Fund for manhole rehabilitation is included in the same account used to fund our share of the Planning Study for the Sewer System Evaluation, which is subject to the 55% grant. Mr. Havens asked where that is reflected. Mr. Shaw stated it was on the second page, which was handed out at the meeting. This budget does not include everything. There are still elements of work which include the $900,000 for the replacement of the concrete sewer line that was identified in the recent study. Also, there has to be some understanding and agreement of what we may be paying for in terms of sharing debt service with the town government concerning the upgrade of the plant. The Town Council will receive the budget from the Town Manager on March 21st. This involves the operating budget, which is increasing about 3.4%. There is a lot that we do not have control over, as well as the unknowns. Realizing that it would be
difficult to predict, Mr. Vees asked what’s the worst case scenario regarding the unknowns – how much could it be off. Mr. Shaw stated that it would be very difficult to predict, but that there were other costs incurred and not budgeted for this fiscal year, that hopefully most would be reimbursed to the Town from FEMA funds. We are still awaiting FEMA funds from the winter of 2010-2011. These anticipated funds are not included in this budget. There has not been a full year yet of costs associated with the running of the upgraded plant. Mr. Vees then asked what the procedure is after the budget is approved when additional costs are identified – does the WPCA review it again at that time. Mr. Shaw stated that this is the purpose of the reserve – to be able to handle the unknowns as they occur. It will be a challenge to put anything toward the reserve in the next two or three fiscal years. Mr. Vees asked if funds
from the reserve need to be used, does it come to the WPCA for approval. Mr. Shaw said yes, absolutely. The WPCA has so far only approved $42,000 for the design for the replacement of the concrete sewer line. The engineer expects to have the design ready by early April. Mr. Vees then clarified what he meant: “We approve a budget, we are going to exceed it, we know we need to tap into our reserves, do we come back to WPCA to approve tapping into the reserves?” Mr. Shaw said using the reserve is usually automatic, once WPCA has approved a project. Mr. Shaw said that anytime money is taken from the reserve we come back to the WPCA. Mr. Aries stated that it is sometimes after the fact. Mr. Aries also stated concern for the $900,000 projected cost for the concrete piping that could be needed anytime from now to five years, and which Mr. Shaw recommends doing this year. Mr. Aries wondered how it will translate when talking
about sewer user fees, what kind of increase we will be looking at. Mr. Shaw stated that when he has a better idea about debt service, he will come back with different scenarios as he has in the past. Mr. Shaw said that only a portion of the budget is being looked at tonight and the impact on the user fee is going to be dependent upon discussions between WPCA and the Town Council. Mr. Aries stated that, nonetheless, there will be a segment of the debt service, the concrete pipe replacement and this budget the WPCA will be responsible for. These categories translate into WPCA’s assessment of what the sewer use fee is going to be and looks like it could be an increase that’s going to be very tough. Mr. Shaw said that for the next meeting the engineer will provide a new estimate of costs upon completion of the design and another evaluation of that estimate’s costs based on what if scenarios. Mr. Aries stated that ultimately he
relies on Mr. Shaw’s assurance that he has been judicious in the maintenance costs and equipment purchases, that basically these are necessary items. For example, is the replacement of the 17 year old truck with associated equipment in the amount of $145,000 absolutely necessary, especially in this tough budget year with the $900,000 concrete pipe replacement pending. Mr. Aries would defer to Mr. Shaw’s judgment as to the absolute necessary for certain expenditures, if they are absolutely necessary. The main concern in expenditures was the CCTV Equipment and Truck for $145,000.
Motion to approve the Pollution Control Budget FY 2012/2013 after removal of CCTV Equipment and Truck pending further review.
Motion was made by Mr. Vees
Seconded by Mr. Havens
The motion carried unanimously.
4. Industrial/Commercial Sewer Billing List for FY 2011/2012 (Approval to bill)
Mr. Shaw stated that there was only one new commercial user; there was a 2% in decrease in flow, and a 15.6% increase in revenue (see Exhibit B). There is a footnote, we had a very unusual event occur this year – the water consumption records from the MDC were not available due to a computer system problem. Hopefully, later this spring accurate information will be available. Mr. Shaw used the water consumption figures MDC reported to the Town last year. There will be a note in the billing to
our customers, who are also MDC customers, of the problem. When the updated, correct water consumption figures for this past calendar year are received, adjustments will made. Mr. Shaw said that this is the first time this has ever happened in the time he has been here. Mr. Aries clarified that for every MDC customer we will be sending out two bills – first the estimated bill, then the revised bill, and questioned whether it would be better to wait for the correct information. Mr. Shaw stated that they had waited as long as they could, but had to proceed and will make adjustments as needed. There should not be any big shift either way. Mr. Vees and Mr. Aries asked what would happen if a business had been, for example, shut down for half the year and only sent in the amount for half a year’s use, would they get penalized for not paying the full amount even though the accurate records will reflect the lesser use once MDC provides the
information. Mr. Shaw answered that yes, they would. The bill must be paid as stated. If they underpaid, there will a penalty of 1 1/2 % per month along with the additional amount due. Accurate information will be relayed to customers as soon as available from the MDC.
Motion to approve Industrial/Commercial Billing List for FY 2011/2012 as presented.
Motion was made by Mr. Havens
Seconded by Ms. Fletterick
The motion carried unanimously
5. Capital Projects Closeout
Mr. Shaw presented a list of projects that have been completed, stating that all the money appropriated for these projects has not been used (see Exhibit C). It is now up to the WPCA to close out these projects and return the funds to the Fund Balance. Mr. Aries questioned if there it is usual to come in under. Mr. Shaw stated that there have been very few over the last 30 years. Sometimes it is an accounting issue, where the wrong project was debited. Mr. Aries asked what this relatively
large sum for Lawrence Road is attributed to. Mr. Shaw said this particular situation was mostly due to money being taken, out of the reserve, in error, that was set up for I & I and manhole rehabilitation. There were two divisions of Public Works involved and the Engineering Division at some point used the wrong project number. Most of the $141,000 will go back into the reserve. Mr. Aries clarified that all the remaining available balances being returned to the Fund Balance will not necessarily all be going to one particular line item. Mr. Shaw stated that that was correct – there are a couple of reserves.
Motion to approve close out Capital Projects as recommended by Mr. Shaw.
Motion was made by Mr. Carino
Seconded by Mr. Antaya
The motion carried unanimously
D. COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
Mr. Aries discussed the first meeting of the WPCA Task Force. In attendance were Mr. Aries, members of the Town Council, the Town Manager, a representative from Connecticut Water Co and some residents. Mr. Dickinson was unable to attend. The task force was established at the request of the Town Manager to help resolve some annual issues between the WPCA and the Town Council regarding the managing of debt service and establishment of sewer user fees. Mr. Aries reported that the Town Council is no longer disputing the WPCA’s authority to set the rates. WPCA sets the rates and that’s that. In past years, the Town Council has tried to have the WPCA keep the rates low no matter what – to the point of being artificially low. At this meeting, that doesn’t seem to be
the case. Mr. Aries feels they realize the importance of maintenance of the system, especially after the collapse of a sewer main at a major roadway intersection; that money needs to be spent so the rates have to be at an appropriate level. Mr. Aries said we have shown the Council that compared to neighboring towns and also statewide average cost for sewer use charges, we are right in the middle (lower than the state average at this time). They should not feel the need to pressure the WPCA to lower rates. The outstanding issues are: the debt service - still a “ticking time bomb”. In September 2013, there is a balloon payment of $1.4-$1.7 million due to the Clean Water Fund for the treatment plant upgrade. Mr. Aries has been advised by Mr. Shaw that there is an option available to advance the payment by a year and start making monthly payments beginning September 2012, which will avoid the balloon. The benefit would be a savings
of up to $500,000 in interest over the life of the loan repayment. This is an option due to interest rates being very low. Mr. Aries stated that this increases the level of uncertainty between what Town Council will put toward debt service versus what WPCA will put toward debt service. Once the final figures are determined a strategy can be worked out for how to present a proposal to the Town Council for their contribution based on this new month to month payment option. There were minutes taken at the meeting. The other issue, brought up by the Town Manager, was for the WPCA to consider a dramatic shift in the way user fees are structured for residential properties - to make them more equitable by taking into account consumption; to allow those with low consumption, such as senior housing and single residences to be billed according to consumption. This issue has been raised in the past, but it is more complex when done that way. Mr. Aries
said they have been shown that it is a very difficult thing. Mr. Aries was in agreement with the Councilor that said there is no such thing as a fair system that is fair to every individual. If somebody paid less someone else would have to pay more.
1. Treatment Plant Upgrade (Progress Report) - none
2. Dry Pit Pump Station Upgrade (Progress Report) none
E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Items not on the agenda) - none
F. BILLS, CHANGE ORDERS, DISBURSEMENTS - none
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – none
H. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING CLAIMS - none
I. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 pm.
Was made by Mr. Havens
Seconded by Mr. Vees
The motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted, Originally Posted: March 26, 2012
Approved Date: April 3, 2012
______________________________
Donna Thompson , Recording Secretary
| |
