Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6B
Minutes of Regular ANC Meeting
September 13, 2006
There was a quorum for conducting business.
Adoption of Agenda
The Chair stated that the ABC Committee report will be moved before the Planning and Zoning Committee report.
Commissioner Jarboe wanted to add the 2007 Fiscal Year Budget to the agenda. It was placed after the Financial Report Corrections as 9A on the agenda.
The Chair made the motion to approve the amended agenda. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. There were no objections to the adoption of the agenda. The agenda was adopted as amended.
Ms. Martine Shorter, Ward Six Assistant Center Director,
Higher Achievement Program, which is located at
Ms. Shorter provided attendees with a fact sheet describing their Mentoring Program. She invited those interested in finding out more to visit their website www.higherachievement.org or to call her at (202) 544-3633 x. 130.
Community and Commission Announcements
Commissioner Jarboe announced that the Capitol Hill Transportation Study is conducting its Final Study Report Open House on September 27th from 5:30 – 7:30 pm at the North East Library where DDOT will display their recommendations for solving our transportation problems on Capitol Hill.
Commissioner Glick announced that Chain Reaction Community
Action Bike Shop, a non-profit, has just reopened its doors at
Commission Russell announced that the Barney Circle Historic
District will be holding it meeting October 27th at 7:00 pm at
Commissioner Olson announced that the Barracks Row Festival will be held Saturday, September 16th and will start with a parade starting at 11:00 am. All are invited to attend.
Mr. Schmidt, a retired marine, stated that their 31st Marine Corps Marathon will be Sunday, October 6, 2006 and will utilize several District streets, although not any within ANC 6B.
There will be a Runner’s Exposition which will be held on Friday, October 27th and Saturday, the 28th at the DC Armory from 9:00 am until 7:00 pm each day. It is open to the public and is free. All participants are required to attend the expo to receive their race number, champion chip, T-shirt and runner’s goodie bad.
There will be a Healthy Kids Fun Race, which is a one-mile race for children from the ages of 6 to 16, on Saturday, October 28th and will start at 8:00 am. The race will circle the DC Armory. The street closure around the armory will be from 6:30 to 9:30 am.
If you are interested in obtaining more information you are invited to visit their website at www.marinemarathon.com or call 1-800-RUN-USMC.
Marion Park Designation – Presenter – Glenn DeMarr – National Park Service
Mr. DeMarr, Project Manager, Office of Lands, Resources and Planning, National Park Service, National Capitol Region stated that he was representing the Superintendent of the National Capitol Parks-East who is the manager of Marion Park, which is located in ANC 6B.
DeMarr stated that the park has been titled Marion Park since 1887 "in
honor of the distinguished soldier Francis Marion who hailed from
National Park Service was contacted in late 2005 by Mr. John F. McCabe of
the legislation is not site specific, if signed into law, it will enable the
memorial to be potentially sited in
central point of Marion Park is where
Mr. DeMarr stated that the Superintendent would like to have an opportunity to meet with the representatives of ANC 6B in the future to discuss their proposal. Currently there is not a design for a sculpture and they realize that if the legislation is approved that it will take any where from three (3) to seven (7) years to raise the money and complete the design work.
Commissioner Olson stated that the park has become the
neighborhood dog park and there have been discussions about making this park an
The Chair turned the meeting over to Commissioner Glick to make the Committee report.
Commissioner Glick made the following report:
Lic. # 75692 – Harris Teeter, Inc., 1391 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Retailer B - Full Service Grocery Store
The representative for Harris Teeter, Attorney Paul Pascal, stated that Harris Teeter is applying for liquor license as a Full Service Grocery Store. As such, Harris Teeter will to sign a Voluntary (Cooperative) Agreement with ANC 6B stating that they will not break up a manufacturer’s retail package of the product, and that they will not sell singles greater than 24oz.
The store will be open from 7:00am-Midnight, Sunday-Saturday, and they will be open for alcohol sales from 9am-Midnight.
The Committee recommends to not oppose this license, contingent upon receipt of a signed voluntary agreement, which states Harris Teeter agrees to not break up retail packaging and that they will not be selling beer in containers larger than 24oz.
There was no new information on this case.
The Chair stated that the recommendation of the Committee comes before the Full Commission in the form of a motion requiring no second. He then asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was 7-0-1.
Lic. #72633, 18th
Due to owner being involved in traffic problems, no one was present to represent 18th Amendment. Therefore, the Committee recommends no action.
Commissioner Glick asked if anyone was present to represent 18th Amendment.
Mr. Menard came forward and apologized for missing the ABC Committee meeting due to his traffic problems. He asked if it would be permissible to speak for both 18th Amendment and Trusty’s at the same time. Commissioner Glick responded that since he is representing both establishments it would be okay to do so.
Mr. Menard stated that 18th Amendment will have seating for 16 people and Trusty’s will have seating for 8 people on their respective patio areas. The applications stated that the sales of alcohol at the 18th Amendment will be Sunday through Saturday 11:30 am – 12: 00 am. Trusty’s alcohol sales will be Sunday through Thursday 4:00 pm – 11:00 pm, and Friday and Saturday 12:00 pm – 12:00 am. However, he is not planning to have either patio area open past 11:00 pm. He went on to say that it is his understanding that the new Public Space Regulations will require that sidewalk cafes close by 11:00 pm.
Commissioner Cernich asked about the noise situation at Trusty’s. He referred to when Trusty’s was originally applying to open and neighbors voiced their concerns about potential noise problems with the opening of his establishment. Commissioner Cernich asked if the neighbors of Trusty’s were experiencing the same noise problem. He stated that he has not had any problems with his neighbors, especially with noise.
Commission Glick recommended that the Commission not oppose either application provided 18th Amendment and Trusty’s sign an Amended Cooperative (Voluntary) Agreement stating that the closing time of the patio area will be 11:00 pm each day the establishments are open.
The Chair made the motion that Commission not oppose either application provide 18th Amendment and Trusty’s sign an Amended Cooperative (Voluntary) Agreement stating that the closing time of the patio area will be 11:00 pm each day each is open. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olson. The Chair asked all in favor to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
Lic. #60848, Trusty’s
Due to owner being involved in traffic problems, no one was present to represent Trusty’s Bar. Therefore, the Committee recommends no action.
Planning and Zoning Committee
The Chair turned the meeting over to Commissioner Campbell for the Committee report.
Commissioner Campbell made the following report:
Steve Lawlor, Architect representing owners, the Shermans,
propose to build a two-story rear addition onto their SFD at
Commissioner Jarboe asked if there was the possibility of this case being placed on the Consent Calendar, and if so he would like to amend the Committee Report to say that it would not have any objections to the case being on the Consent Calendar. The amendment was agreed to.
The Chair stated that the Committee’s recommendation comes in the form of a motion requiring no second. He then asked all in favor of the Committee’s recommendation as amended to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
Ms. Megan Walsh of Art Design Architects, representing Jerry
and Diane Weinberger, is requesting a variance from the lot occupancy rules to
construct a rear addition to a SFD at
As the lot is a nonconforming size, this meets the rules for a special exception under Section 330, 403, and 2001.3. The owner’s agent, Ms. Walsh, has an e-mail letter of support attached with the proposal but as there is no indication of the owner’s address or proximity to the proposed project. Ms. Walsh will try to obtain letters of support with identifying names and addresses from affected neighbors. Pending receipt of these letter/s of support, there exist no other issues of concern from the Committee. Therefore the Committee recommends this project for approval to the full ANC.
Commissioner Campbell stated that he has received a timeline
regarding their attempt to contact one neighbor who lives at
The Chair made the motion that the Commission supports the Committee’s recommendation regarding this project. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jarboe. The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
The Chair announced that HPRB Case for
HPRB #06-443, 419 First Street, SE – Demolition and rebuild 2-story Single Family Row house and retain frontal façade
Mr. Sheldon C. Griner did not appear before the P&Z Committee meeting on September 5, 2006.
Commissioner Campbell stated that HBRB had provided the Commission with a copy of an engineering report that was prepared by ET&A Consulting, Inc. The inspection was designed to inspect the faming for structural serviceability. The findings of the inspection were:
Discussion Analysis and Recommendations:
Foundation walls where visible seems serviceable. Floor framing except where otherwise noted does not feel mushy, but further investigation will be needed after building is gutted. South wall projects away from foundation wall. This condition needs further investigation.
They recommend the following:
The report summarized that their visual observation of the visible section of the structure does not confirm the adequacy or serviceability of the existing framing.
Commissioner Campbell asked if anyone was present to represent the case.
Mr. Griner rose and stated that he is requesting approval of his project. Mr. Griner stated that a fire occurred at the property in the rear of the building requiring it to be replaced. However, when his builder was called in to make the repairs, he recommended that the interior of the building be torn down due to the severe rotting in the walls, floors and weakness of the floor joists. Therefore, he is seeking approval to demolish and rebuild the 2-story structure including the burned out rear addition area.
Commissioner Jarboe asked if Mr. Griner was extending the rear portion of the building. Mr. Griner responded that he was extending it 4 feet. Commissioner Garrison asked if he knew what the lot occupancy would be. He was not sure, but he knew that the depth of the lot was 91 feet. Commissioner Jarboe stated that if the entire length of the structure was 48 ft. 8 ¾ inches of the total lot, then the lot occupancy would be less than fifty (50%) percent. Thus the structure would be less than 60% lot occupancy.
Mr. Griner was advised that he needed to get with his immediate neighbors and advise them of his plans for renovating the structure and to get letters of support from them. He was advised that letters of support are very important in determining the Commission’s level of support or not.
Commissioner Campbell made the motion that the Commission supports the case, subject to receiving letters of support from his neighbors. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olson. The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
Z.C. Case No. 04-33A - Map and Text Amendments - Inclusionary Zoning Overlay District
Earlier this year, the Zoning Commission approved the general rules for an Inclusionary Zoning program which will require any residential development of 10 units or more to set aside 10% of those units for affordable housing. In return, the developer will be allowed certain additional building density. The affordable housing units will be made available to low and moderate income households – 50% of the units for each category. Low income is defined as below 50% of the area median income and moderate income is defined as between 50% to 80% of the area median income.
This fall, the City Council will be taking up legislation on issues of enforcement and management related to this program.
The Zoning Commission is now taking up the question as to which areas of the city should be included in the Inclusionary Zoning Overlay District. Originally, the Office of Planning had identified certain portions of the city as target areas, based on land-use policies such as transit-oriented development. Within ANC 6B, these included the HillEast and Barney Circle/Pennsylvania & Potomac Avenue areas. However, the Office of Planning is now recommending a different approach that would make the Inclusionary Zoning requirements mandatory for certain types of zoning districts, regardless of their location in the city. In the case now before the Zoning Commission, Inclusionary Zoning would be required in areas zoned R-3 through R-5-D, C-1 through C-4, CR, SP and W-1 through W-3.
Under the new Office of Planning proposal, almost all of ANC 6B would be covered by the Inclusionary Zoning program.
Under the Inclusionary Zoning program as adopted by the Zoning Commission, the basic bonus density granted to a developer is a 20% increase in the floor-area ratio (FAR). In order to allow for this increase, certain changes in the height and lot occupancy ratio are required. In a C-2-A commercial district, the lot occupancy for Inclusionary Zoning is increased from 60% to 75%. No additional height is allowed. For a C-2-B district, an additional 5 feet of height is allowed but no additional lot occupancy. In R-4 residential areas, construction is allowed on slightly narrower and smaller lots (but, as it turns out not any narrower or small than many Capitol Hill lots). In an R-5-B district, no changes to height or lots are required to achieve the 20% increase in FAR. Importantly, all other requirements remain in place. For example, the number of required parking spaces and the minimum lot size per unit will not be changed.
Because of the limited nature of the bonus densities, analysis by the Office of Planning indicates that Inclusionary Zoning would have little impact on the character of Capitol Hill neighborhoods – either in or outside of the historic district. Almost all of ANC 6B is either C-2-A or R-4 (with a very few areas of R-5-B) and there are a limited number of locations where developments of 10 or more units are possible. As a result, the Inclusionary Zoning program could potentially result in a slight increase in the density of any new developments on Capitol Hill but not change the basic character (height and scale) of the neighborhoods. The one exception is Barracks Row south of the freeway, as is discussed below.
The Committee was very pleased to hear that the Inclusionary Zoning requirements will be factored in for areas where there currently is no zoning, when that zoning is applied. This is especially important for the HillEast Waterfront – Reservation 13. In such areas, the base zoning will incorporate the additional density bonus (height, lot occupancy and FAR) rather than layer the additional bonus density on top of the base zoning. This avoids creating an even denser area.
However, the Committee is concerned that such density might play a factor in areas that might potentially be up-zoned as a result of the update of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the area around the Potomac Avenue Metro might be up-zoned to a C-2-B or C-3-A category. In these areas, the Inclusionary Zoning bonus density would then raise the permitted heights and densities even further. The Committee recommends that the same process for incorporating the Inclusionary Zoning bonus density into the base zoning for un-zoned areas also be applied to areas that are up-zoned to prevent a layering of the bonus density on top of the underlying change to a higher category.
One unresolved issue concerns how the Inclusionary Zoning bonus would apply in the area of Barracks Row south of the SE Freeway. This area is zoned C-3-A but is covered by the Eighth Street Overlay District which has a height limitation of 45 feet. Normally, this type of zoning district would allow heights up to 65 feet. Part of the rationale for the height restrictions in this area was to prevent higher buildings from overwhelming the historic Latrobe Gate at the Navy Yard. Because of the concern, the ANC should oppose any application of additional bonus density in the Eighth Street Overlay District that would allow building higher than 45 feet.
The Committee is also concerned that the requirements may not apply to all residential conversions, such as the conversion of a school to residential. The final rule should make clear that it applies in all cases where new residential units are created.
Thus, the Committee recommends support, conditional upon our recommendations on areas that may potentially be up-zoned and on the Eighth Street Overlay Area, in order for the Office of Planning proposals to be an effective and fair way of increasing affordable housing on Capitol Hill while minimizing changes to the character of our neighborhood.
The Chair stated that the recommendation from the Committee comes in the form of a motion requiring no second. He then asked all in favor of adopting the Committee’s recommendation to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
The Chair stated that Commissioner Jarboe had spent a great deal of time reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and has provided the Commission with his comments related to the plan. He then passed the meeting over to Commissioner Jarboe.
Commissioner presented his comments on the Mayor’s Draft of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that most of them have been forwarded to the Office of Planning, who is working on a response. He proposed using this as the basis for the Commission’s discussion on Wednesday. The City Council has scheduled a hearing on the Comprehensive Plan for September 26.
Commissioner Jarboe’s comments:
Planning Area boundaries
The first major problem I had with the draft was the boundaries of the Capitol Hill Area Element, which excluded the HillEast Waterfront.
The Office of Planning is now proposing a major modification
to the Mayor’s Draft Comprehensive Plan to change the boundaries of the Area
element. The Hill East Waterfront (both
Res. 13 and the RFK Stadium site) will be moved into the Capitol Hill Planning
Area. Other areas north of
This is a very welcome change. It removes a major problem. It does leave one minor problem. The area of Barracks Row south of the SE Freeway will remain in the Lower Waterfront Planning Area. This area, however, is part of the Capitol Hill Historic District as well as a special overlay area to limit heights and density - so as to keep it similar to the rest of Barracks Row rather than M Street (it also serves as a design buffer to the size and character of the buildings along M as they come up the hill from around 5th and M SE to the high point at 8th and M SE). Special policy language will be needed to address scale and design continuity along Barracks Row on both sides of the freeway. This should include a cross reference to (and amplification of) the Policy CH-2.2.5 where it talks about encouraging retail on 8th south of the freeway -- adding something about maintain current heights and density.
As drafted, the Comprehensive Plan could have a major impact
on the area around the
The concern is especially acute on Penn East around Penn and
Specific protections and wording in place in the Capitol Hill Area element concerning the Potomac Ave Metro and the Eastern Market Metro are needed:
1) Policy CH-2.2.6 -
2) adding a recommendation that a small-area plan be done
for the Potomac Ave Metro area (similar to the recommendation FSS 2.4-A for the
3) Policy CH- 2.2.3 Eastern Market Metro Station could be amended to read "Consider development of moderate density housing with ground floor retail on underused commercial sites in the station vicinity in keeping with existing zoning."
With the change in planning area boundaries, the text in the former Anacostia Waterfront Planning Area concerning the HillEast waterfront – Res 13 and the RFK site – will be moved to the Capitol Hill Planning Area. There are some specific concerns about language in the Comp Plan as it relates to these sites:
1) In the Land Use Element, Policy LU-1.2.5 Public Benefit Uses on Large Site. This is of concern as applied to Res 13, as it implies exactly the type of public and institutional uses we have been trying to move away from for that site. The concern might be decreases with the use of "appropriate" rather than "a large component of" public benefit uses. It might also be taken care of by specifically referring to Res 13 in the next Policy LU-1.2.6 New Neighborhoods. (In fact, Res 13 is a perfect illustration of what the Comp Plan is trying to accomplish in LU 1.2.6)
2) In Policy AW 2.5.4 Stadium-Armory Metro Station - the reference to "development of medium to high density housing on the site" is inconsistent with the Master Plan - if by "site" the Plan mean the around the Metro (and not Res 13 as a whole). The area directly around the Metro is designated as "moderate" residential as it makes the transition from the neighborhood west of 19th. In fact, use of "high density" residential is generally not consistent with the Master Plan either, as there are only a few places that will be able to accommodate anything over 7 stories (see Policy AW 2.5.5).
3) In the Master Plan, the taller buildings are to be located on the eastern edges where the land slopes down so as to mask their height, not necessarily in the interior (for example, Archibald Hall is in the interior and it is about the right height). The wording should be modified to something like "Taller buildings should be located near the eastern edges of the site where the land slopes down to the water, in order to maintain a gradually decreasing view of building tops."
Central Employment Area
The plan calls for the extension of the designation of the
Central Employment Area to include the
Land Use Map
There are a number of concerns and corrections on the Land Use Map that need to be addressed.
Map amendment 6B-2 changes the west side of New Jersey Ave
SE from moderate density residential to mixed use moderate density
residential/low density commercial as reflecting existing conditions. The encroachment of commercial activities in
this area is controversial. There is
some rationale for recognizing that this area will be commercial but it is not
clear that this should necessarily be lock in.
In a related matter, the land use plan is not change to reflect the
legitimate commercial corridor on the east side of
Map amendment 6B-14 calls for a change of the Jenkins Row property from moderate density residential/moderate density commercial to mixed use medium density residential/moderate density commercial. It is unclear why this change is needed, especially not to “medium density residential.” The site is currently zone C-2-B – which is an anomaly in the neighborhood. The proposed change would potentially lock in that anomaly beyond the life time of the existing development simply because that development exists today.
Map amendment 6B-16 calls for a change in the area of Barracks Row south of the freeway to mixed use medium density residential/moderate density commercial. This area is covered by the Eight Street Overlay which limits heights to 45 feet. This would be more in keeping with a designation of moderate density residential instead.
Map amendment 6B-17 calls for a change of the area between
In a related issue, map amendment 6D-32 includes an area
that should not be included, specifically the area east of
Map amendment 6B-21 calls for designation of the interior
part of Reservation 13 as high density residential. This is incorrect. The Master Plan for Reservation 13 calls for
higher buildings along
Action CH1.1-B calls for the re-zoning of the
The Office of Planning may wish to also consider the
rezoning of the areas south of
In general, I support the discussion of issues in the Transportation Element. However, I would have wished to see the issue of commuter traffic on neighborhoods streets addressed specifically, rather than implicitly folded into a number of the points. The issue is addressed in the Capitol Hill Area Element. But since the problem is city wide and will likely require a city-wide, if not a region-wide, solution, it should be specifically addressed in the Transportation Element
The transportation element shows
Some positive parts of the Comp Plan
While I have some concerns as outline above, there are many parts of the Comprehensive Plan I support. They are too numerous to identify. I can, however, highlight a few.
For example, I think we all can generally support the
statements, policies and actions included in the Capitol Hill Area Element,
especially with the addition of the HillEast Waterfront section from the former
Anacostia Waterfront Area Element. I
would note that as the Capitol Hill Area Element points out, “the Hill is
already one of the densest communities in the
With that in mind, I am pleased with the emphasis on conserving neighborhoods as described in section 2 of the land use element. There are numerous policies and actions within this section that we would strongly support. One I would highlight addresses a perennial issue on Capitol Hill is the location of night clubs and bars. Policy LU-2.4.7 states that “new uses that generate late night activity and large crowds should be located away from low and moderate density residential areas”.
Likewise I am happy that there is an extensive urban design element, which includes important policies, such as Policy UD 1.3.5 to protect river views. Of special interest as it relates to the development of Res 13, Action UD-2.3-A states “develop design guidelines for large sites prior to their development.” This is especially important given the recent history concerning the lack of design guidelines on the Reservation 13 site – and is consistent with the ANC’s position that no development should have occurred on that site until design guidelines were in place.
I would also point out that language in the Comprehensive
Plan in many places is consistent with the community’s recommendation that
there be no new traffic bridge over the
Commissioner Jarboe further stated that Comprehensive Plan is an on-going process and there will be revisions up to and until the meeting on September 28th. He stated that the big revision that will occur is that they will be changing the boundaries.
Commissioner Garrison stated that on the procedural matter his disposition is to be supportive of or not objecting to going on with the plan. He went on to say that he understood that other ANCs have expressed concerns about moving forward with the plan.
Commissioner Russell asked about potential amendments to the plan after it has been passed.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that that was on of the issues they were planning to do was a process where they would bring up a series of amendments during 2008.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that the one big issue he has with the Comp Plan is what is does potentially around the Penn/Potomac Metro Station, whether it ends up laying the groundwork for rezoning that area as a higher zoning area. It will come down to whether or not the Jenkins Row project will becomes the norm or the exception and it is sense is that he would like for it to be the exception rather than the rule.
Commissioner Garrison stated that he wanted make sure that the message was not sent that Capitol Hill (ANC 6B) refused to consider any increase in density, especially as regards development around Metro stops and the thinking about how to best use the land around these transit nodes. He went on to say that he thinks Commissioner Jarboe had gotten it right and that he was supportive of what he was presenting.
Commissioner Jarboe then asked Commissioner Garrison if he (Jarboe) was correct in stating that it was his desire to put into his comments that the Commission still leaves open the options for PUD and nothing is being said to foreclose other options. To which, Commissioner Garrison agreed.
Commissioner Jarboe went on to state that prior to delivering his testimony on the Comprehensive Plan that he would submit his testimony to the other Commissioners for their review and comments.
Commissioner Jarboe concluded his comments by stating that he wanted to commend the planners for doing a great job in working on the plan.
Commissioner Glick commended Commissioner Jarboe for his tireless effort in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and for the quality of his recommendations regarding the plan. He then made the motion that Commissioner Jarboe be authorized to speak (give testimony) on behalf of ANC 6B presenting his memoranda to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garrison.
Commissioner Jarboe, as a point of clarification, stated that he would add the note that Commissioner Garrison had about the PUD process still being available.
The Chair then asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
Committee reports and announcements
There were none.
Approval of Minutes
Commission Olson stated that everyone has copies of the July minutes and stated that if anyone had any corrections or deletions to speak now. There were none. She then made the motion that the minutes to be approved as written. Commissioner Cernich seconded the motion.
The Chair then asked all in favor to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
Financial Report Corrections – IRS
Commissioner Jarboe, Treasurer, stated that the Commission owes a penalty of $72.45 because back when the Executive Director was hired, the incorrect form was used to submit back 941 forms. He went on to say that the IRS is not charging the Commission any interest on the payment because it used the wrong form. However, they are charging us interest on the penalty for using the wrong form.
Commissioner Olson made the motion to authorize Commissioner Jarboe to pay the $72.45 to the IRS. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Campbell.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
Commissioner Jarboe stated that he had passed out the proposed Fiscal Year 2007 Budget to all the Commissioners and it is exactly the same as this year’s. He stated it was because he was not exactly sure how much money the Commission would be receiving. Congress has not acted on appropriations bills yet. However, he believes the Commission will receive the same amount as before, but as a backstop he wanted to propose this budget instead of doing continuing resolutions. He stated that once the final amount is know, the Commission can come back and amend the budget.
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion to approve the adoption of the FY 2007 Budget as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olson.
The Chair asked all in favor of adopting the budget as presented to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
There was not further business and Commissioner Olson made the motion that the meeting be adjourned until its next meeting date of October 10, 2006. The motion was seconded, and the vote was 8 to 0.