SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
Minutes of the Special Luncheon Meeting Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Chairperson, and Lee White. Peter Ashdown, David Fitzsimmons, and Oktai Parvaz were not present.
Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright and Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Directors, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 12:00 Noon. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
DISCUSSION REGARDING HOUSING ISSUES
Mr. Simonsen announced that this meeting was a continuation of the last Historic Landmark Commission meeting held on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 regarding housing issues in Salt Lake City. He pointed out that a copy of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan, census information of the historic districts compiled by the Salt Lake City Economic and Demographic Resource Center, and a memorandum from Ms. Giraud had been distributed to the Commissioners prior to this meeting, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Simonsen asked Ms. Giraud to make a brief presentation.
Ms. Giraud spoke of the letter that Councilmember Carlton Christensen, Chair of the Salt Lake City Council, sent to Mr. Simonsen, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. The letter stated that the "Salt Lake City Council had established housing issues as a top priority for the year 2003. Earlier this year, the Council solicited views and suggestions from housing advocates, non-profit housing providers, developers, and property owners on ways in which Salt Lake City government could attract quality housing for all income levels and would contribute to creating stable, attractive neighborhoods. Those who have participated were asked to specifically address the following four topics: 1) Barriers to providing a full range of housing. 2) Opportunities for innovation; 3) Methods to encourage home ownership. 4) Methods to enable family housing for all income levels". Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Zunguze, the Planning Director, directed her to ask the members of the Historic Landmark Commission to present two or three ideas that would be submitted to the City Council in response to the letter.
Ms. Giraud said that she believed Salt Lake City to be very fortunate in having many apartment buildings in older neighborhoods that are still very viable close to downtown. She noted that the Avenues have had a much higher rate of appreciation over the last thirty years. Ms. Giraud added that the price of housing had dictated the appreciation of housing, but at the same time, there is still a higher number of renters than average. However, she said that was a positive thing. Ms. Giraud stated that the Commission might want to remind the City Council that there has been twenty-three million dollars of work done that made the property owners eligible for state tax credits since the tax credit program for the State of Utah passed in 1994. She believed that preservation was really the "key" to housing.
Ms. White said that one of her concerns was that there has been a decrease of children under the age of 18 living in historic areas. She added that there should be incentives for families with younger children to be able to afford to live in historic districts. Ms. White believed there is a perception that housing in historic districts are not affordable to younger families. Ms. Mickelsen said that was true for all of Salt Lake City, not just the historic districts. Mr. Wilde agreed and said that was citywide. He added that families can get a lot more housing for the money the further away from downtown they can go. Ms. White said that the public should know what incentives could be offered to have younger families move back in the city if they want to do so. She stated that she is seeing a "trickle down" effect on schools in the city.
Mr. Christensen said that was an issue, which Councilmember Eric Jergensen mentioned, when he blamed the function of the Historic Landmark Commission of creating barriers for families with three or four children to build substantial additions to make a home inviting. Mr. Christensen said that the Commission has demonstrated over the last few years by reviewing large additions carefully and if they are done in a sympathetic manner and are assets to the neighborhood, they have been approved.
Mr. Christensen said that zoning issues and setback restrictions should be reviewed. He added that substantial additions are not possible in some housing stock because of setback requirements. He said that in some cases certain exemptions needed to be made to make such additions more available.
Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Wilde went through the districts, and found that the setbacks were very minimal in the SR-1 zone. Mr. Wilde said that yard areas are, depending upon the zoning district, in the R-1 zone range from 4 to 10-foot side yards to 8 to 10-foot side yards, generally the minimum requirement ranges are from 15 to 30 feet in the rear yards. He said that unless someone with a very small lot, the yard area is not usually too much of an obstacle. Mr. Wilde said that the 30-foot height limit most neighborhoods might be too permissive.
Mr. Wilde stated that down zoning has been an issue. He said that during the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite in 1995, some large neighborhoods were down zoned from R-4 or R-2 to R-1. He said that has definitely had an impact because in most neighborhoods now a property owner cannot legally create a basement apartment or additional apartments. Mr. Wilde said that the community councils in those impacted neighborhoods were strong advocates of the R-1 zoning to protect the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Wilde continued by saying that the consequence has been that it has limited the opportunities for additional units.
Mr. Wilde stated that the zoning in the downtown area and the area east of downtown is very permissive, especially as the neighborhood approaches the historic district, because it does not require a density maximum. He pointed out that the developers and market necessitates more parking than what the zoning requires. However, he added, that in the Sugar House Business District, the down zoning has been substantial enough that the zoning is too restricted. Mr. Wilde stated that the City is looking at areas that have higher density housing opportunities.
Mr. Wilde said that during a compatibility review, one of the issues that appeared, particularly in Rose Park, Sugar House, and Central City where the typical house size is a 800 or 900 square foot bungalow that peaks out at 16 feet and developers want to demolish the existing house and build a much larger house. He said that these "monstrous" homes would not be compatible with the neighborhood, thus forcing larger families to build outside the city. Mr. Wilde stated that if property values continue to increase and the old homes continue to deteriorate that could become a very significant long-term issue.
Ms. Heid stated that when she bought her home in 1991 in the Central City Historic District the prices of homes were just about at the bottom and there were many homes boarded up. Ms. Heid said that there were incentives, as a first time homebuyer, for her to purchase her home, but she wondered if disallowing property owners to create basement apartments as a rental contributed to the declining population as opposed to the cost factor. Mr. Wilde said he believed that not allowing basement apartments was not much of a factor. Mr. Wheelwright indicated that the change in zoning had no effect those existing units; only the creation of new units. Ms. Heid stated that according to the census, the population in the Central City Historic District is 50 percent below than what it was 1970 so homes are being torn down and replaced by commerce, rather than being replaced by new residences. Mr. Wilde agreed that even though the population has recovered from 1990 to 2000, it is still way down.
Mr. Wilde said that there has been a trend for property owners to convert larger homes, which had been divided into apartments through the years, to single-family dwellings. He said that trend has created a reduction in housing units, as well as structures lost, although he did not know how much of a factor that was.
Ms. Rowland stated that the neighborhoods that are growing in the northwest, west side, and Sugar House, are having an influx of young families. However, she recognized as families get larger, they may move out. Ms. Rowland believed the issue was more affordability, rather than size, or the historic districts. She indicated that she did not see the huge homes above the Capitol Building packed with children". Ms. Rowland said that people with families are looking for homes in a community that has businesses they could support and other people of their culture.
Ms. Giraud pointed out that the west side of the city is the only area where subdivisions can be constructed, but have a problem with scale that would be developed which would make it profitable for the developer. She mentioned that the city only has infill remaining. Ms. Giraud said that large families looking for a home do not have many options in the city; they move to West Valley City, West Jordan, or other places west and south. She said that higher property values that came with gentrification in the historic districts have contributed to a higher quality of schools. Ms. Mickelsen said there are houses in the Avenues and in the University Historic Districts that are large enough to accommodate growing families, but they are not cheap. She noted that families that can afford them usually have fewer children.
Mr. Wheelwright said that he thought Salt Lake City was a victim of its own success. He said that that the City has done things that preserve property values and now property values are extremely high. Mr. Wheelwright indicated that the proof of this are the "teardowns" that are being requested. He added that one would pay a quarter of million dollars for a house and property, tear it down and want to start over. Mr. Wheelwright stated, "It's so desirable to be in Salt Lake City that the property values are so high that I don't think it is limitations of an historic structure or being in an historic district. I think it is strictly economics." Ms. Mickelsen noted that one of the purposes of living in an historic district is the increased property values. Mr. Wheelwright reiterated, 'We are victims of our own success. We have been very successful and now only the wealthy people can afford to live in Salt Lake City. They are wealthy because they have high-end salaries, inheritances, or they are dual income families with minimal children. I think that is as big of factor as anything." Mr. Wilde said, 'We can't be everything for everyone every place". He believed that Salt Lake City at this point affordable housing is going to have to be satisfied with multiple housing.
Mr. Simonsen said that the newer developed subdivisions in the city have lot sizes so large that the real estate alone is harder to afford. He said that he believed the larger lot sizes were due to the lack of parks and other amenities that would meet today's active life styles.
Mr. Wilde said most of the new projects that are being constructed on the west side have 5,000 square foot lots and some are 7,000 square feet for single-family development. He said that some of the lots in the upper Avenues and the foothills are 12,000 square feet. Mr. Wilde stated that he believed the City is becoming quite responsive in reducing the lot size in some planned developments to 3,500 to 4,000 square feet. He also said that the City has experimented with narrow streets in new subdivisions trying to maximize density, but that has not worked very well.
Mr. Christensen said that covered parking is an issue in historic districts. He pointed out that people want their cars to have protective housing so individual garages are desirable. He indicated that sometimes this could be a struggle in an historic district. Mr. Christensen said he did not know how to solve the problem other than using the back alleys to access garages. He noted that the streets in historic districts that are usually quite crowded with parked cars could be seen as "charming" as in San Francisco, but there is a problem with guest parking.
Ms. Giraud said parking is an issue anywhere in the city that has old housing stock. She added that a decision is going to have to be made in high-density parts of the city just where cars can be parked because underground garages cannot be built everywhere. Ms. Giraud said that people do not like someone else parking in front of their house. Ms. Mickelsen said that there were people who live in the city who do not a car. Ms. Rowland said that people who live close to transportation or where they work might not need a car.
Ms. Rowland said she believed that city living is for people who are attracted to the urban setting and some cities are trying to become suburbanized. She cited that Argyle Court is a model of urban city living. Ms. Rowland also said that public dollars going into programs that invite people to live in an urban environment did not make sense to her.
Ms. Mickelsen referred to the website mentioned in Ms. Giraud's memorandum which has some interesting insights as to the importance of retaining old housing stock as a means of meeting affordable housing needs. She said that Mr. Donovan D. Rypkema, President of the real Estate Services Group, was the keynote speaker at a Georgia Preservation Conference in Macon, Georgia, and his speech can be located on the website. Ms. Mickelsen said that one comment he makes is that one can get "more house" in an urban environment because less money would be spent on transportation. Ms. Mickelsen said that affordable housing is equated with families but it affects a number of single people and married people without children, of all ages.
Ms. Giraud introduced the subject of children playing in yards versus all the activities that children now have. Are large yards necessary for families with children today? Mr. Simonsen said that in his neighborhood the children play in the street and any given day probably 15 children are in the street, playing ball, riding bikes, or chasing each other. He realized that not all streets are conducive to that but if they are designed appropriately that works well. Ms. Mickelsen said that on 1200 East the front lawns are big enough for children play to ball in them. She said that wide grassy medians also allow a place for children to play.
Mr. Simonsen stated that he would like to see a policy in the city that that addresses small lots and single-family residences within the community. He said that the more affordable single-family residences often tend to be the ones that are more blighted or are targeted for redevelopment. He suggested finding a way to target those with special programs to improve the properties but keep them affordable, and bring families back into them. Mr. Simonsen believes that the City should do everything possible to preserve single-family housing. He did not think the City should be targeting blighted single-family neighborhoods for redevelopment that would replace them with multi-family housing. Mr. Simonsen said, 'We ought to be targeting low-density commercial development and ways to bring multi-family components into the city."
Mr. Simonsen stated that the L.D.S. Ward structure is an important social entity in neighborhoods. He said he notices that many aging residents want to stay in their single family home because of the familiar social structure of the ward boundaries. Mr. Simonsen said he wondered if ways could be found to bring diversified housing types to the single family community and seniors with the opportunity to stay in the neighborhood where they have a strong social network with a different type of housing. He said that would allow families to occupy those homes. Mr. Simonsen said that might have a large impact on the demographics where the population is shrinking. He mentioned that on his street approximately one-third of the residents are people over 75 years old. He said that elderly people are important resources and wonderful assets to a neighborhood so if there were housing types more conducive to their stage in life, such as assisted living centers or some type of retirement centers, they may be attractive to the aging.
Mr. Simonsen stated that there is much focus on encouraging home ownership. He said that he was not certain that the City needed to encourage that. Mr. Simonsen said that he believed there should be a policy encouraging people to live in the and providing all the housing types that meet their needs. Mr. Simonsen said there is too much emphasis on condominium type housing in the downtown area, which people are not buying. He said that the available rental housing in the downtown area is filled almost immediately. Mr. Simonsen said that rental housing is often a transitory period. He said that it is possible that people may not want to live in downtown for more than five years because of their position in life or employment and to buy a home for a short period of time may not be economically justifiable. Mr. Simonsen said that transitory rental housing is needed. He said, "I think that the population will continue to increase as demographics change and as the population in general grows."
Mr. Simonsen stated that housing is central to transportation systems. He said that housing is important but the city should work at increasing bus service, such as bus connections and frequency of buses throughout all of the neighborhoods, and also to continue the expansion of light rail. Mr. Simonsen said that getting a transit corridor using the old right-of-way to the granite rock is essential in the Sugar House area. He said that if bus service was at the same frequency as Trax there would be a dramatic increase in people who use the bus.
Mr. Simonsen stated that it has been his observation that many of the commercial developments that have occurred in the historic districts have a negative impact on the district. He added that carefully planned commercial developments address the transition between low-density developments replacing higher density historic developments. Mr. Simonsen said that the City has moved into a very suburban comn1ercial development throughout its borders with lots of parking. He pointed out that parking lots attract vandalism and other criminal elements even when they are well lighted. Mr. Simonsen said that the focus should be how to develop commercial properties while trying to retain residential uses on the commercial sites. He said that low-density commercial development is a place to bring in new housing types, especially multi-family housing. Mr. Simonsen said he thought multi-family housing makes a good buffer between single-family and commercial developments.
Ms. Rowland said that it seemed as if there was an abundance of commercial/office zoning and almost no private family zoning in the city. She said she saw the down zoning of R-1 as pro-preservation. Ms. Rowland said that the City should review the possibility of changing some of the commercial/office zones to commercial/multi-family zones. Mr. Simonsen said that tends to be predominantly the blighted residential areas.
Ms. Giraud said that the Planning Office is reviewing the nonconforming properties, such as the Kensington Apartments, where she lived at one time, where the zoning is not compatible with the density. She added that a new zoning district would have to be added. Ms. Giraud said because the Juel Apartment building is zoned RMF-35, it meant that the structure has to have an enormous parking lot, larger than it ever historically used for parking. She said that the older apartment buildings close to downtown have to be zoned to be compatible with the density.
Mr. Wilde said that the City has tried to create incentives for encouraging mixed use in commercial districts. He noted that in those zones the City requires residential housing above or behind, but not on the street frontage. Mr. Wilde added that the private sector has not responded well to mixed use. Ms. Rowland said that it would not be financially viable.
Mr. Simonsen said that one of the challenges with the unlimited density is that it often affects the land value and in some cases may be overdone for what the markets can financially support. He mentioned that he has been working with some clients who were looking at some parcels of land that has a density of something like 100 units per acre. Mr. Simonsen stated that the potential clients claimed they could not afford to build something with that many units at one time and yet the land value has been based on this limited or high density. He said, "It takes a lot of potential players out of the deck because they can't afford the base property."
Ms. Rowland said that was the case of commercially zoned properties affecting the value of commercial land. She said that she hoped that would turn around. Mr. Simonsen said he was not sure how those dynamics could be changed but that is a real challenge for a lot of developers that do primarily residential development.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that he believed that the highest and best use philosophy of appraising property should be tempered by a realistic market view. He said that developers hold out trying to get that ultimate value and the ground would sit vacant for years and years.
Ms. Mickelsen said that is happening to existing buildings. She added that one could rehabilitate an existing historic building for much less than building a new one and it would not promote urban sprawl, but reinforces the use of the building and reinforces the neighborhood so that people would want to live in it.
Ms. Mickelsen said that there are many vacant upper floors in medical office buildings in the East Downtown area and believed the City should be encouraging those vacant upper floors to be converted into residential housing. She said that she realized there would be many zoning and code issues. Mr. Wilde said that might be something to pursue. He mentioned that the limitations to those conversions, re-adapting those commercial buildings, would be more of a building code issue rather than zoning. Mr. Wilde said that the City relaxed the building code standards enabling commercial structures to convert to housing. Ms. Mickelsen said that she found on the website that Seattle converted a firehouse to residential. Mr. Wilde said that it might be interesting to select a few properties and see the result at the end of the process. Ms. Rowland wondered what the parking requirements would be in that transition. Ms. Giraud indicated that there were tools in the zoning ordinance that dealt with parking issues.
Mr. Simonsen stated that the City has a very progressive Planning Staff who have been quite incredible looking thoroughly at the issues and trying to solve problems creatively. He said that he believed the important message that he was not sure the City Council understands is the basic changes and the way the City approaches growth in the communities and where the City focuses its resources.
Ms. Rowland said that how the City spends housing dollars from the federal government is sending the wrong message. She said that the largest portion goes to home ownership, which sends the message that the City does not want renters. Ms. Rowland said that the City acknowledges that problems occur when there are too many renters, and that the percentage of renters is too high. She said that she did not agree with that belief. Ms. Rowland pointed out that renters are a large part of any urban city and not a detrimental part of the city. Ms. White said that there are many people who move to the city for a few years doing a residency or involved with some other opportunity and do not want to buy a home. She said that they make up an important part of the city.
Ms. White stated that there is a need for a general information resource, something that farr1ilies or individuals who want to stay where they are, but have questions about their 900 square foot homes could get an answer, such as would it be feasible to build an upper story, especially with the earthquake possibility in the city. Ms. White said that sometimes these folks want to stay in their homes but are intimidated making the first telephone call to the City or afraid of calling an architect. Mr. Knight said that Chicago has a service that is provided to the thousands of bungalow homeowners to let them know how they could work on their bungalow homes and other such services. Ms. Rowland said that some communities have design centers that are provided as a service to homeowners.
Mr. Simonsen said that accessory dwellings have made the difference between people being able to or not being able to move into his neighborhood. He mentioned that in his own situation, he could never have afforded to move in the neighborhood when he did if he had not been able to rent his basement apartment to help subsidize the house payment. Mr. Simonsen said that he had a renter for three years before he needed the extra space for his family. He indicated that he had to have the property rezoned to a single-family residence. However, Mr. Simonsen said that was unfortunate because if he lost his job or became disabled and needed to rent out the basement apartment again to provide additional income, he could not because he lost that option. Mr. Simonsen suggested that the City revisit the option of allowing a conditional use for accessory dwellings. Mr. Wilde said that some communities allow that option as long as the size and the occupancy is limited and it does not increase any zoning standards. He agreed that could be an issue for discussion.
Ms. Rowland said that some communities have a granny flat ordinance to deal with that issue. She added that some cities in California allow units above a garage. Ms. Rowland said that the City copes with the density for allowing brand new or old transition to high density in some minor way by allowing accessory units rather than tearing something down.
Mr. Simonsen said that he ventures to say there are six or seven residences, which are zoned single-family that have basement apartments. He said he assumed that some of them are non-conforming now since the down zoning, except those which were legally converted, and most of them have been rented. Ms. Mickelsen noted that the street on which she lives is one of the nicest in Salt Lake City, and probably one-third of the buildings are multi-family structures. Mr. Simonsen said having a basement apartment for "empty nesters" creates an opportunity to provide affordable housing to college students.
Mr. Wheelwright indicated that rental property that has the landlord onsite is much better tolerated in a neighborhood. He said that he believed the rebellion against multi-family dwellings was because of mismanagement and absentee landlord issues. Mr. Wheelwright pointed out that the down zoning was not caused by basement apartments but by neighborhoods fearing the possibility of a four-plex development with an absentee landlord. He added that the down side of the zoning change is that the City is shorted on its utility payments such as water, sewer, and garbage collection fees with only one family living in a building rather than two. Mr. Wheelwright said that is an issue that should be pursued. Ms. White inquired if the change would be made on a unit-by-unit basis creating a blanket zoning change. Mr. Wheelwright said there could be an accessory unit provision that would not affect the base zoning. He continued by saying that instead of changing the zoning from R-2 to R-1, there would be a provision to go through a process for a second unit whether it was above the garage, detached, or a conversion of the basement or attic. Mr. Wilde said that conversions might be difficult to meet building codes because safety issues could not be created.
Ms. Rowland stated that there are programs where a low interest loan or a second mortgage is provided to the homeowner to help with this type of conversion. She added that the process would help legalize those accessory dwellings so they are not in violation.
Mr. Wilde said that Mr. Simonsen mentioned earlier that the City needed to retain existing housing stock. He stated that the issue is that the houses become dilapidated and they are demolished. Mr. Wilde said that the City has a Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance that does not work very well. He noted that there has been much discussion about fixing it. Mr. Simonsen said that the idea is not to lose housing. He added that the loss of single family dwellings to multi-family dwellings complexes is not the same kind of housing diversity.
Ms. Heid commented that one of her children live in Ashland, Oregon, in a community where the entire marketing concept is move into this neighborhood and never have to move again". She said that the community offers a diversity of housing types from starter single-family homes, condominiums, and assisted living and care centers. Ms. Heid said that was a way to build a strong community.
Mr. Wheelwright mentioned that there were many successful conversions of nonresidential structures in the downtown area to residential structures because the zoning allows that conversion. High-rise structures was discouraged unless compatible to the neighborhood environment.
Mr. Simonsen talked about his grandparents selling their home and renting a condominium downtown and using the money to travel. He said that they were fine with renting based on their fixed income.
Mr. Wheelwright said that his parents hung onto their single-family home because it was paid for and their social ties, but it became a burden on them. He mentioned that a family moving into the home could have revitalized the neighborhood.
Mr. Simonsen stated that rather than tearing down the structure on the property at 300 West and 700 North and redeveloping the property, why not make that money available through the Redevelopment Agency to use in such a way that would preserve the historic structure, rather than build something new. He added that historic properties are important resources for the city.
Ms. Mickelsen also suggested putting money into relocating housing to available properties rather than demolishing them.
Mr. Simonsen addressed the City making funding available for affordable housing. He mentioned that there had been much discussion regarding this matter. Mr. Simonsen suggested that the City Council approving a referendum to find out if there is sufficient interest in the public corr1munity for affordable housing. Ms. Giraud said that the housing trust fund is controlled by the Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Rowland said that the Redevelopment Agency puts something like 20% of the tax money into their housing trust fund. She also said that some cities, like Seattle, passed a bond election for housing and others have a portion of a real estate transaction that goes into a housing fund. Ms. Rowland noted that some cities have had a public policy where each agency in the City has an obligation towards affordable housing. Ms. Giraud cautioned that money from the housing trust fund does not always support the preservation of historic structures.
Ms. Rowland stated that it has been unfortunate that some of the latest developments in the city like Fred Meyer and Sugar House Commons were not required to put housing on top of the retail. Mr. Simonsen said that the city has not had that kind of development over the last 30 or 40 years. He added that there was no models of success that would give reinforcement and take away the risks from the local financial institutions.
Mr. Simonsen pointed out that there is a MacDonald's in downtown San Antonio that has two stories of residential above it, so there are models out there.
Ms. Mickelsen stated that developers should guide the way the market is going rather than to force it to go another way. She said that a good example of that kind of marketing is the Redevelopment Agency property at 300 West and 500 North.
Mr. Simonsen suggested that the Commission should hone in on the four points listed in Councilmember Carlton's letter.
Ms. Rowland said that she was not comfortable with redoing the housing plan. She said that did not know what the City Council's goals were for housing. Ms. Rowland mentioned that she is skeptical because the Administration had not focused on housing issues.
Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Zunguze was expecting the Commission's response to be in a memo form, and does not need to be very formal or lengthy. Mr. Wilde said that Councilmember Carlton's letter went to all the boards. He added that the Commission's response should be directed to the issues included in the letter. Ms. Giraud suggested that Staff put something together and e-mail a memo to the members.
Mr. Simonsen summarized the points that were discussed at this meeting, and then inquired if there were any issues for discussion. Hearing none, he thanked everyone for being at the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE MEETING
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Heid moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. White seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 1:50 P.M.