These minutes reflect
discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the
Minutes
Senate Committee on Finance and Planning
238A Morrill Hall
Present:
Charles Campbell (chair), Dan Feeney, Michael
Frankosky, Thomas Klein, Joseph Konstan, Michael Korth, Yi Li, Kathleen
O'Brien, Richard Pfutzenreuter, Rose Samuel, Al Sullivan, Sue Van Voorhis,
Warren Warwick, Susan Carlson Weinberg, Michael Volna
Absent:
Calvin Alexander, Brittny McCarthy Barnes,
Guests:
Associate Vice President Laurie Scheich (Auxiliary
Services), Mr. Bob Baker (Parking and Transportation Services); Associate Vice
President Steve Cawley; Senior Vice President Frank Cerra
[In these minutes: (1) parking; (2) new financial
system; (3) University-Mayo collaboration; (4) football stadium; (5) ad hoc
committee on a summer semester]
1. Parking
Professor
Campbell convened the meeting at
Mr.
Baker said that he was uncertain, after reviewing the minutes of the last
meeting of the Committee, what issues it wished him to address, so he prepared
a brief general presentation of budget and financial data. Professor Campbell asked him, before he
began, where Parking and Transportation is in its 2004-05 budget planning
cycle; Mr. Baker said it has not begun.
Parking at the University is an 8-month business, he said, from
September to May; during the winter break and the summer months the demand for
parking drops dramatically. It is too
early in the year for them to begin planning.
Professor Campbell said he hoped that there would be an opportunity to
talk about what impact this Committee might have and how it fits into the
process.
Mr.
Baker then reviewed quickly with the Committee the areas of responsibility of
Parking and Transportation (parking, including total number of ramps, garages,
spaces, meters, etc.; transportation, including U-Pass, paratransit, campus
shuttles, etc.; and surfaces, including campus streets, sidewalks and plazas,
vehicular bridges, pedestrian bridges and skyways, and bike lanes, paths, and
racks). The Twin Cities campus has a
total of 20,174 parking spaces. Parking
and Transportation is responsible for 14.3 miles of campus streets, 46 miles of
sidewalks and plazas, 3 vehicular bridges, 7 pedestrian bridges and skyways,
5.95 miles of bike lanes, and 6500 bike hoops/racks.
The
majority of parking income is from contracts (52%); the remainder is transient
(39%), special event, and meters/other.
Of parking expenses, 31% is debt service (largely due to structures
recently built) and 11% is for capital projects; the remainder is payroll,
utilities, repairs and maintenance, etc.
The inter-campus bus service accounts for 16% of expenses. The capital plan for 2003-04 ($10 million)
includes debt service, East River Road Garage water control, Oak Street Ramp
elevators, structural repairs (floors and ceilings, etc.), and other
items. Mr. Baker reviewed briefly the
projected capital expenses through 2007-08 for each facility on the Twin Cities
campus; the total is $9.2 million. He
commented that in the future, because they have changed from primarily lots to
primarily structures, they know that they will need to increase their
investment in capital repairs, so they must put aside funds for that
purpose. Professor Campbell asked about
the debt service; Mr. Baker said they believe it is stable, at about $7-8
million annually, assuming there are no more projects. Is the parking debt service included in the
University's total debt service figure that Mr. Pfutzenreuter recently
reported, Professor Campbell asked? It
is, Vice President O'Brien said, even though it has revenue to support the debt
service.
Mr.
Baker then noted that the original plan called for continuing rate increases of
about 10%, but that with the current economic situation, they imposed budget
cuts, staffing reductions, saved money on the East River Road Garage, and
enhanced revenue in order to levy only a modest rate adjustment. Mr. Baker outlined the budget cuts and
revenue increases, including elimination of nine full-time positions. He said that they were sensitive to the
issues that had been raised by the Committee last year, which is what led to
the budget cuts.
Professor
Feeney recalled that the Committee in the past has expressed concern that use
of bus passes would reduce the demand for parking but that Parking and Transportation
continued to build facilities. Now there
appears to be enough flexibility in the system to allow reserved contract
parking. Is that what should be done? Should the system allow those who are able to
pay to have reserved spaces? Mr. Baker
said that based on the vacancy rate, they started the reserve contract
plan. As he told the Committee last
April, he said, reserved parking is a standard industry practice; they
initiated the plan in response to requests from individuals for many
years. The requests increased once the
Mayo Garage in the
Mr.
Baker reviewed the elements of the reserved contract plan: it is limited to existing contract holders,
the total number of reserved spaces available is 449--3.12% of the total number
of spaces, 69% of the spaces have been applied for after two weeks, and 47% of
the applicants are faculty, 53% are staff.
The program will not affect capacity, night school access, or hourly parking
availability for events. Mr. Baker said
that they have received both positive and negative comments on the plan. He noted also that there is no waiting for
contacts in several Twin Cities ramps; they have reduced public parking and
added contracts at the
Professor
Feeney said he was concerned about excess capacity and debt service. If bus ridership increases, will there be a
need for parking rate increases to cover the debt service because there are
fewer people parking on campus? Mr.
Baker related that the first week of classes parking facilities were not full
but since then there have been more cars parked. It has taken at least 25 years to solve the
problem of parking demand, he said, so it is no longer a problem. He said he did not know if there will be a
problem in a few years but agreed that debt service could affect rate setting. There may be a need to increase rates because
of a decline in occupancy rates, but they also need to be sensitive to issues
of the marketplace, low-income faculty and staff, negotiations with the
bargaining units, and increases in health care costs. He noted that he and his staff all pay the
same rates that everyone else does.
Professor Konstan reported that he
has a reserved contract space. The
problem is that he found it worth buying.
The Committee last year thought $10 per month was too little to charge;
he said he sees it as a bargain. That
observation goes to the issue of price gradation, he said. Prices should be based on proximity to where
one wants to be, not whether the space is above or below ground. Does Parking plan to revisit the issue of
rationalizing market demands versus the academic objectives of the University? Mr. Baker conceded that he does not always
know how the academic mission exactly relates to parking but they try to be
sensitive to costs for their customers--the students, faculty, staff, and
guests of the University. If one compares
contract rates at the University to its nearest markets, the University rates
are about one-third to one-half of the market (the two downtowns). The hourly rate is aimed at guests and must
be high enough to discourage students from parking all day at an hourly rate
but not so high that visitors are deterred from coming to campus.
One example, perhaps not a good one,
of integrating parking with the academic objectives might be to offer priority
in parking for students enrolled for a full load, Professor Konstan said. And why is the reserved
contract parking such a bargain, he asked. They have not tried to integrate student
parking into the cost structure, Mr. Baker said; they are trying to encourage
students to leave their cars at home.
The U-Pass is $50 per semester, which is "a steal" compared to
the cost of a car. There are student
parking contracts. In terms of reserved
contract pricing, he said he tries to be a conservative fiscal manager and
introduced a new product at a price that people would find acceptable. That rate could increase in the future.
Mr. Klein observed that the
Committee has stayed away from making recommendations on a
parking-space-by-parking-space basis and has instead advised on reductions and
revenue increases. But the Committee is
looking for feedback; it provided counsel on adjustments in reductions and
revenue in order to avoid cost increases, but it appears there was no effort to
re-run the numbers to avoid a contract rate increase by exercising other
options. The Committee has not heard
whether its advice last year was usable.
Mr. Baker said he appreciated the
fact that the Committee was not micro-managing and that the Committee
appreciates the expertise of those who meet with it. They did look again at the numbers and what
they could cut. They believed that for
the long term they had developed a good balance and that they needed all of the
elements of the plan--budget and staff cuts and revenue enhancements--to make
it work. They took the University's
economic conditions very seriously.
The Committee had a spirited
discussion last April, Professor Campbell said, which led to a motion passed
unanimously both by this Committee and the Faculty Consultative Committee that
made recommendations different from what Parking brought. A number of people have asked how the
Committee's recommendations affect what is done. Mr. Baker commented that he serves at the
pleasure of Associate Vice President Scheich and Vice President O'Brien and has
been in the position for 15 years. In
addition, he has a highly-trained and expert staff. They put together the best package they could
and then talked about the resolution passed by the Committee. Their recommendations went up the channels to
Vice President O'Brien and to the President; they were told to proceed
according to the plans they had presented.
Vice President O'Brien said that she
takes the ultimate responsibility. It
was her recommendation to the President.
They brought the package to the Committee and to Vice President Carrier
to review the impact on the University community. She said she disagreed with the assumption
made by the Committee that certain parking rate increases would have an impact
on some segments of the University but not others; everyone parks everywhere. She said she made the recommendation to the
President to continue with the plan as proposed. She said she did not return quickly to the
Committee because the plan was available to it.
She argued in April that the plan was balanced and tried to implement a
sound business plan, with modest increases now in order to avoid bigger
increases in the future.
What is the target for the number of
contract spaces available, Professor Warwick asked. Ideally, it would be about 110%, Mr. Baker
replied. Now it is at about 90%. There is a group that Parking should survey,
Professor Warwick suggested: those who
park two miles away from campus, fill up city streets,
and cause neighborhoods to complain. Why
do they park so far away? Is it for the
exercise or because of the cost? If it
is cost, would it not be better to lower the rates and sell 110% of the
parking?
Mr. Baker said that they do visit
neighborhoods and are aware that the campus population affects the
streets. There are also programs offered
by the cities to help avoid that problem.
They have inquired about those who park so far away; they have learned
that some people are so cheap that any price would be too high for them, so
they walk 2-3 miles. They also have to
be sensitive about prices; he operates a business and is not allowed to run a
deficit, he said. Up until two or three
years ago there were significant waiting lists for parking; now there are not.
Mr. Klein said that the crucial
question for him was whether Parking and Transportation could have followed the
recommendations of the Committee as well as carry out its other plans. Part of the plan was to build a department
reserve; the amount to be used for the reserve, relative to the increased
income from the rate increases, was the salient point. Funds could have been set aside in the
reserve and the rate increase avoided.
It is still not clear why the Committee recommendation was not viable.
Vice President O'Brien said she
answered this question in the spring but would do so again. She has had responsibility for major parking
systems; the only bigger system in the state is the one operated by the City of
Professor Campbell noted that Mr.
Baker had received a copy of the resolution concerning reserved contract
parking adopted by the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs. How does he respond to it? Vice President O'Brien said that as a result
of questions from Faculty Affairs, a week ago they put on hold the reserved
contract program and did an analysis.
They have decided to make it a pilot program, with a limited number of
contracts, and see how it works. They
will provide the information to the Faculty Affairs Committee (which, she
observed, had not asked them to consult with it).
Vice President O'Brien said she was
pleased that they could be here early in the year. She has been involved in setting up a review
process for support and service units; comments made at these meetings are
helpful. Her expectation is that they
will consider directions for next year in January or February, and it is then
that this topic should again return to the agenda of the Committee.
Professor Campbell thanked Mr. Baker
and Vice President O'Brien warmly for their comments.
2. New Financial System
Professor Campbell turned next to
Mr. Volna and welcomed Mr. Cawley to the meeting. Professor Campbell reported that he had
attended the meeting of the Finance and Operations Committee of the Board of
Regents, as he is supposed to do in his role as chair of this Committee; during
the meeting, the Regents asked him (Professor Campbell) whether there had been
full consultation on the proposed new financial system. He said there had been. Since then there have been new developments,
including a Board resolution.
The Board resolution recommended the
University proceed with implementation of the new system ("representing a
net $4.2 million decision based on savings from the existing maintenance
contract and the $5.1 million cost of the financial system") provided that
there is no new information that adversely affects the project and the
administration approves. They are still
modeling the actual costs, Mr. Volna said, and there would remain the two
phases, the trailblazing effort for about 18 months followed by full
implementation. They do not have a good
idea of the budget but it will probably be in the range of $15-20 million. The Board was insistent that over the next
three or four of their meetings they be provided a more detailed budget, Mr.
Volna reported. The model developed by
Associate Vice President Pfutzenreuter extends the
They are comfortable with the extension of the tax,
Professor Campbell asked? Their concern
was that the tax be stable and not increase, Mr.
Cawley said. They also wanted to know
what guarantees exist. The maintenance
costs are manageable and could decrease.
His sense of the deans' concerns, Mr. Volna added, was that they wanted
the project to be on time and on budget and that folks in the colleges have a
product they can use. They have agreed
to establish a council of college financial officers and coordinate campus
representatives that they will meet with regularly so that those individuals
can reassure the deans and chancellors that the new system will meet their
needs.
There has been no change in the situation vis-à-vis
Oracle and PeopleSoft. Oracle extended
its tender offer to mid-October, Mr. Volna reported. Internally, they concluded they needed to
decide if a merger/acquisition would help, hurt, or have no effect on the
University's contract; they have decided that with the guarantees in place, the
University can go forward even if the two companies merge. (If Oracle does not acquire PeopleSoft, some
other company might.) The Regents and
the deans thought that was a reasonable conclusion. There are also maintenance savings in the
contract for the PeopleSoft products the University already has, Mr. Cawley
reported; the Regents' resolution provides that if the University determines it
wants to move forward, the President can exercise the authority to execute a
contract.
When would the typical department be affected and
when must it begin to prepare for change, Professor Korth inquired? And will Financial Forms Nirvana be
eliminated? Mr. Volna said that a
representative sample of departments will be involved in phase one, the
trailblazing effort; it will be three years before departments will need to
start using it. Mr. Cawley said, apropos
FFN, that there will be a web front-end routine, whether it is FFN or something
from PeopleSoft. FFN is also the routing
engine for the REPA forms and for EGMS, Mr. Volna said, so the University will
need to look at whether to keep two systems.
Professor Campbell thanked Mr. Volna for his
presentation and said he appreciated how thoroughly he has consulted with the Committee;
he wished him the best of luck. Mr.
Volna responded that he expected to return frequently for additional
discussion.
3. The University-Mayo Collaboration
Professor Campbell now welcomed
Senior Vice President Cerra to discuss the Minnesota Partnership for
Biotechnology and Medical Genomics.
Dr. Cerra said the University is in
the formative stages of developing a relationship with the Mayo Clinic; he
distributed copies of a handout that was used with the Board of Regents at
their September meeting. The idea
started about three years ago, when he and the chair of the Mayo board were on
a group that looked at issues of patient safety; they talked about where the
two institutions were going and where the state was going in
bioscience/biotechnology. The two
organizations have made significant investments in the bioscience/biotechnology
fields and in the discussion the two of them realized that if the organizations
can come together they would both be able to do better.
This is an attempt to bring the two
institutions together, Dr. Cerra told the Committee. Between the two of them, they account for
99.99% of external research funds in
There are four policy issues
associated with the Partnership:
-- Is the mission consistent with
and/or does it further the mission of the
-- With respect to the $70-million collaborative research
proposal in upcoming years, to what extent will it compete for University
resources or affect its priorities?
-- Also with respect to the $70-million collaborative research
proposal, to what extent will it compete for legislative appropriations?
-- What is the competitive advantage of the partnership and
how is its value quantified?
The competition in the bioscience
fields is stiff, Dr. Cerra said, and the biggest bidder for projects is in the
northeastern corridor of the country. It
has more money and is making more investments.
It is not, however, very far ahead of the University and Mayo. There are a number of factors that drive the
effort, even though the University and Mayo have co-existed in the state for
about 90 years and not done that much together.
The intent is to use the strengths of the two organizations to create
synergy (e.g., the tissue bank at Mayo, the stem cell research at the
University). Part of the effort involves
basic research, part would translate the research into something that can be
used in clinical trials; in this respect, Mayo has
perhaps ten times the capacity of the University to conduct clinical trials.
There is also no place else in the
world where the biomedical industry is as close to and articulated with the
medical device industry, Dr. Cerra said.
This is also one of a small number of institutions that have
agriculture, plant, and human science all in one place, that has made
investments in them, and which faculty can move among. The University has invested $1 million in
genomics education; it has received $19 million in NIH funds that can be
attributed to that $1 million investment.
The first phase of the partnership
is a demonstration project to show that the two organizations can work
together. Faculty will work on research
for the next two years funded by the partnership, at the end of which period
there will be applications to NIH to continue the work. The application process for research
proposals is closed; a committee with representatives from both institutions
will make grants. There will be $3
million divided among 4-8 research groups to do key experiments so that they
can obtain NIH grants in the future. To
ensure quality, experts are being used to critique the grants as they have been
written.
The business model is that this will
not be a third entity; there will be an inter-institutional agreement that will
define how PIs will be identified, how grants will be administered, what rules
will be followed, and so on. There will
be discussion in the future about commercialization; the questions about how to
interact with the private sector and which patents and technology office will
be used have not been answered yet.
The partnership calls for about $70
million to be invested over the next 2-3 biennia, or about $10-12 million over
each of the next 5-6 years. The money
will be used to fund infrastructure and leverage grants so they are competitive
for NIH funding. About $3-6 million will
be used for commercialization.
The ultimate success of the
partnership will depend on the government creating an environment for new
businesses to grow, such as research parks, Dr. Cerra said. But the University cannot be hamstrung on
where the technology goes: They are
working to keep in
The response rate to the request for
grant proposals was very satisfying and showed considerable enthusiasm; there
were about 30-40 groups making proposals between the two institutions.
Professor Campbell said that it was
hard for him to believe, after having been at the University for 30 years, that a $70 million item would not count as part of
the University's allocation. Dr. Cerra
said that all share that concern. The
way the partnership has been planned is that it is to be in the Governor's
budget unattached to the University's budget.
It will be a task to keep them separate but they hope to succeed. There is a meeting later in the fall with the
Governor and representatives from Mayo and the University and this issue is one
of the items on that agenda.
There is much to think about here,
Professor Campbell said, and there will be further questions. Has the partnership been presented to the
Research Committee, he asked? It has,
Dr. Cerra said, and added that he has an obligation to keep people informed; he
will meet with the Committee to whatever extent it deems appropriate. It was agreed that sometime in January or
February would be timely.
Professor Campbell thanked Dr. Cerra
for joining the meeting.
4. The Football Stadium
Mr. Pfutzenreuter now distributed
copies of a one-page handout entitled "Stadium Feasibility Analysis"
and said that the Committee was the first group to see it. It describes what has been going on in the
administration to assess the stadium issues.
The effort started about a month ago, he said, and
is geared to determining what kind of stadium the University would want in
terms of seats, concessions, suites, the cost of construction, maintenance,
revenues and market potential, and how the University might use a stadium to
enhance campus, local, and statewide community.
The final report will include many details, including an architectural
plan, a site plan, a transportation plan (including whether or not a
ramp/garage will be needed and the number of parking spots that can be retained
on the site), concept sketches, design guidelines, project schedule (it will
take 3-4 years, including an Environmental Impact Statement that will take
12-18 months), the project's business model, preliminary community and
neighborhood feedback, and cost estimates.
The cost estimates and architectural plan will organized around four
primary components:
site/land/environmental issues (the site will require a clean-up at a
cost of about $20 million); the stadium district (transportation and roads,
utilities, and urban design); base stadium (field, seating, primary locker
rooms, concessions); and facility enhancements (interior finishes, suites, club
seats and whether or not to have a club, and score boards). With respect to the latter, Mr. Pfutzenreuter
observed, one can buy a low-cost faucet at one store or pay more at another
store; if one buys cheap, one usually has to buy another faucet in a couple of
years. The University could build cheap
but then would likely have to pay more later.
The University has retained the same consultants
that it used when there was a live proposal for a Gopher-Vikings stadium.
The study is expected to be completed by early
November, 2003, and will cost about $125,000, paid for with privately-donated
funds.
Ms. Samuel recalled that when she was last on this
Committee a couple of years ago, there was talk about cutting sports, that
football did not make money, that even if there were a new stadium there was no
guarantee that people would attend the games, that there are opportunity costs
in donated funds, and so on. Professor
Nantell observed that Mr. Pfutzenreuter has talked about a business plan for
the STADIUM; one could expand it to a business plan for intercollegiate
athletics. This is for a stadium with a
substantial private donation, Mr. Pfutzenreuter noted, but that will not be
enough. The goals are (1) to see if a
stadium on campus improves athletic revenues overall (there needs to be a
winning team but the goal is to cut the O&M subsidy), and (2) increase
community building on campus. The
stadium business model includes more than just football, Professor Nantell
pointed out; Mr. Pfutzenreuter concurred.
Professor Warwick asked if the stadium would include
a track. It would not, Mr. Pfutzenreuter
said, but it would accommodate soccer.
There were concerns about infrastructure costs when
the proposal was for a joint-use stadium with the Vikings, Professor Feeney
recalled; while one hopes for at least 30,000 to 40,000 for each Gopher game,
will all the potential infrastructure costs be included in the analysis? They will, Mr. Pfutzenreuter affirmed. The study will fully cost the stadium so the
University knows. There has been no
decision about whether a ramp will be needed.
When the Vikings were involved, there would have been a ramp needed, at
a cost of about $80 million. Mr.
Pfutzenreuter said he was confident that the amount of road moving, transit
costs, and parking will not be of the same magnitude as would have been
required for a joint-use stadium. This
will be a 45,000-50,000-seat stadium and one hopes more students will attend. The Gopher-Viking stadium would have had
70,000 seats with a lot of traffic; this one would have traffic but not of the
magnitude of the earlier proposal.
How did the situation get to where it is now after
everything fell apart last year, Professor Nantell asked? The President said the University needed to
step back and deal with its budget problem, Mr. Pfutzenreuter said, which it
did. Then the donor appeared and got the
University thinking again about a stadium.
What is the plan to get community support, given the state budget
situation, Ms. VanVoorhis asked? Those
efforts were initially derailed because of all the publicity, Mr. Pfutzenreuter
said, but there is a plan that is starting.
The University is still talking with the donor; he said he did not know
what would happen.
All the signals from the Governor and legislators
are that the 2004 session will likely be the one where they deal with stadium
issues. The University must have answers
to the questions that will be asked if it is to be included in any state action. If it is not, the University football team
could end up in
When the administration went through the analysis of
the cost of athletics to the University, Professor Campbell recalled, and
looked at the possibility that football might be able to help pay the bills,
the report from then-Vice-President Brown indicated that even if all football
games were sold out at the Metrodome the increased revenue would be about $3
million per year. Would that number be
larger in an on-campus stadium? That
number was based only on ticket sales, Mr. Pfutzenreuter said; the University
receives nothing from any other source at the Metrodome. In a University stadium, there are
opportunities for revenue from sponsorships, advertising, suites, club seats,
and so on--the revenue possibilities go well beyond ticket sales. The stadium would probably not double current
income; these questions are why the University has retained one of the consulting
firms it has--it can help understand and project income from a stadium.
The Faculty Consultative Committee developed a list
of concerns, Mr. Klein said; it should be provided to the consultants. Mr. Pfutzenreuter agreed. In terms of one question, about a power
source, this stadium would not require a lot of additional power because it
will be open-air. They are also planning
on space for the Marching Band and are talking with Recreational Sports about
other uses. But heating the space adds a
lot of costs, he noted.
Would the stadium be expandable if the team started
winning, Ms. VanVoorhis asked? That will
depend on the cost, Mr. Pfutzenreuter said.
To be able to expand requires more and deeper footings, and so on. There is an argument, from the marketing
people, that the focus should be on a small stadium that can make the game a
good experience rather than having it too big with empty seats. But the possibility of building for future
expansion will definitely be considered.
There are a lot of pressures on the University to keep the price down;
others are pinching themselves and insisting that people be realistic about the
likely cost.
Is there an effort to start looking at the broader
implications, Professor Konstan asked?
For example, might there be symposia series or breakfasts before the
games? In terms of fund-raising, will
the President give the Foundation a list of priorities for people who say they
want to contribute to football so that they can be asked if they would also
give to the colleges? Mr. Pfutzenreuter
said he knows people are worried that fund-raising for a stadium will detract
from other opportunities; no one can say it will not, but the President and Mr.
Fischer at the Foundation are convinced that a lot of people would not give
money to the University except for a football stadium. With respect to activities associated with a
football game, the answer is absolutely yes, Mr. Pfutzenreuter said. The goal is to achieve a sense of community
on game days so the University would want to do more than play a football game.
Professor Feeney asked if students and student fees
would be a significant element of funding for a stadium. Mr. Pfutzenreuter said that nothing was off
the table until the University knows the cost of a stadium. No one knows what the money would buy or what
one would get.
Professor Campbell thanked Mr.
Pfutzenreuter for the report.
It was also agreed that the
Committee would develop a new list of principles, building on the list that the
Faculty Consultative Committee prepared last year, and that Professor Feeney
would prepare a draft.
5. Ad hoc Committee on a Summer Semester
Professor Campbell reported that the
Committee had been asked to nominate two individuals to serve on the ad hoc
committee to investigate the possibility of establishing a summer
semester. He said he had asked two
people, Professors Chapman and Konstan, to serve; both are willing. The Committee approved the suggestions
unanimously.
Professor Campbell adjourned the
meeting at
--
Gary Engstrand