City of Springfield Weekly Calendar: January 25-January 29, 2010

Monday, 1/25/2010

10:30 AM Springfield/Greene County Park Board Finance Committee Park Board Offices , 1923 North Weller Contact: Jodie Adams, (417) 864-1049

6:30 PM City Council Meeting Old City Hall, Council Chambers, 830 Boonville Contact: Brenda Cirtin, (417) 864-1650 (agenda)

Tuesday, 1/26/2010

8:00 AM Mayor's Commission for Children Midtown Carnegie Branch Library , 397 East Central Contact: Denise Bredfeldt, (417) 864-1656

10:30 AM Solid Waste Management District Region O Executive Board Greene County, Room 309, 940 North Boonville Contact: Ronda Gulley, (417) 868-4197

12:00 PM Cancelled Council Lunch Busch Municipal Building, 4th Floor Conf. Rm., 840 Boonville Contact: Anita Climer, (417) 864-1654

2:30 PM Traffic Advisory Board Pedestrian & Bicycle Subcommittee Busch Municipal Building, Traffic Eng.1st Floor Conference Rm, 840 Boonville Contact: David Hutchison, (417) 864-1971

3:30 PM Traffic Advisory Board Busch Municipal Building, Traffic Eng.1st Floor Conference Rm, 840 Boonville Contact: Jenny Turner, (417) 864-1980

4:00 PM Urban District Alliance Downtown Forum (residents, business owners, property owners, employees, patrons, and students interested in downtown are invited by the Urban Districts Alliance) Missouri State University Alumni Center, 300 S. Jefferson Contact: the office of Urban District Alliance 831-6200

6:00 PM Citizens Advisory Committee for Community Development Midtown Carnegie Branch Library , 397 East Central Contact: Vern Morgan, (417) 864-1844

Wednesday, 1/27/2010

No Meetings Scheduled

Thursday, 1/28/2010

3:00 PM Board of Public Utilities City Utilities, C. Frank Knox Board Room, 301 East Central Contact: Gayla Jones, (417) 831-8311

3:30 PM Jordan Valley Advisory Committee Busch Municipal Building, 4th Floor Conf. Rm., 840 Boonville Contact: Olivia Hough, (417) 864-1092

Friday, 1/29/2010

No Meetings Scheduled

Sources: City of Springfield Public Information Office; Springfield News-Leader (reformatting for ease of use)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

City of Springfield Weekly Calendar: January 11-January 15

Monday, 1/11/2010

8:30 AM Library Board Programs/Services/Technology Committee Library Center , 4653 South Campbell Contact: Debbie Eckert, (417) 883-5366

12:00 PM Cancelled Partnership Industrial Center West Administrative Council Contact: Ryan Mooney, (417) 862-5567

6:30 PM City Council Meeting Old City Hall, Council Chambers, 830 Boonville Contact: Brenda Cirtin, (417) 864-1650 (agenda)

Tuesday, 1/12/2010

8:30 AM Library Board Buildings & Grounds Committee Kirkpatrick, Phillips, & Miller, CPA's , 2003 E. Sunshine Contact: Debbie Eckert, (417) 883-5366

9:00 AM Board of Equalization Greene County, Room 113, 940 North Boonville Contact: Richard Struckhoff, (417) 868-4055

12:00 PM Council Lunch* Busch Municipal Building, 4th Floor Conf. Rm., 840 Boonville Contact: Anita Climer, (417) 864-1654

5:00 PM Watershed Work Session Watershed Offices , 320 North Main Contact: Loring Bullard, (417) 866-1127

5:30 PM Sherman Avenue Project Area Committee Busch Municipal Building, 2nd Floor West Conf. Rm., 840 Boonville Contact: Marti Fewell, (417) 864-1039

6:00 PM Mayor's Commission on Human Rights Busch Municipal Building, 1st Floor Conf. Rm, 840 Boonville Contact: Bob Hosmer, (417) 864-1834

Wednesday, 1/13/2010

8:00 AM Downtown Springfield Community Improvement District Board of Directors Busch Municipal Building, 4th Floor Conf. Rm., 840 Boonville Contact: Barb Baker, (417) 831-6200

Thursday, 1/14/2010

8:30 AM Police Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System Board of Trustees Busch Municipal Building, 4th Floor Conf. Rm., 840 Boonville Contact: Kenneth Homan, (417) 883-3838

8:30 AM Workforce Investment Board Youth Council Missouri Career Center , 1514 South Glenstone Contact: Karen Dowdy, (417) 887-4343

6:00 PM Art Museum Board of Directors Art Museum , 1111 East Brookside Contact: Jerry Berger, (417) 837-5700

Friday, 1/15/2010

9:30 AM Cancelled Public Housing Authority Contact: Tom Barnett, (417) 866-4329

12:00 PM City Council Community Involvement Committee Busch Municipal Building, 4th Floor Conf. Rm., 840 Boonville Contact: Lisa Harley, (417) 864-1443

-------------------------------------------------

*Tentative Jan. 12, City Council Lunch Agenda

1. Follow-up to City Council Meeting held on Monday, January 11, 2010

2. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Mapping Update - Nick Heatherly

3. Any and all matters to come before City Council

Source: City of Springfield Public Information Office

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

City of Springfield Weekly Calendar: January 4-8, 2010

Monday, 1/4/2010

No Meetings Scheduled

Tuesday, 1/5/2010

8:00 AM Mayor's Commission for Children Executive Committee Community Foundation , 425 E. Trafficway Contact: Denise Bredfeldt, (417) 864-1656

11:45 AM Special City Council Meeting* Busch Municipal Building, 4th Floor Conf. Rm., 840 Boonville Contact: Brenda Cirtin, (417) 864-1650

12:00 PM (or immediately following the Special City Council Meeting) Council Lunch** Busch Municipal Building, 4th Floor Conf. Rm., 840 Boonville Contact: Anita Climer, (417) 864-1654

1:30 PM Board of Adjustment Old City Hall, Council Chambers, 830 Boonville Contact: Matt Schaefer, (417) 864-1100

Wednesday, 1/6/2010

8:00 AM Workforce Investment Board Marketing Committee Missouri Career Center , 1514 South Glenstone Contact: Karen Dowdy, (417) 887-4343

5:30 PM Landmarks Board Old City Hall, Council Chambers, 830 Boonville Contact: Daniel Neal, (417) 864-1036

Thursday, 1/7/2010

5:30 PM Building Trades Certification and Examination Board Busch Municipal Building, 1st Floor Conf. Rm, 840 Boonville Contact: Nick Heatherly, (417) 864-1059

6:30 PM Planning and Zoning Commission Old City Hall, Council Chambers, 830 Boonville Contact: Mike MacPherson, (417) 864-1831

Friday, 1/8/2010

8:30 AM Springfield/Greene County Park Board Park Board Offices , 1923 North Weller Contact: Jodie Adams, (417) 864-1049

9:00 AM Commercial Street Community Improvement District Busch Municipal Building, 2nd Floor West Conf. Rm., 840 Boonville Contact: Donnie Rodgers, (417) 880-3435

*Special January 5, 11:45 AM City Council meeting Agenda:

1. ROLL CALL.

2. FIRST READING BILLS. CITIZENS MAY SPEAK. NOT ANTICIPATED TO BE VOTED ON.

3. COUNCIL BILL 2010-001 (O'Neal)A special ordinance authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $13,000,000 principal amount of special obligation bonds (State of Missouri - Direct Loan Program - ARRA) series 2010 of the City of Springfield, Missouri, for the purpose of extending and improving the City's sewerage system; prescribing the form and details of the bonds and the agreements made by the City to facilitate and protect their payment and prescribing other related matters.

4. NEW BUSINESS

Budget Cuts - Greg Burris

5. ANY AND ALL MATTERS WHICH FALL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL.

6. ADJOURN.

Note: Springfield City Clerk Brenda Cirtin indicated the Council wouldn't be taking action on Council bill 2010-001, and the public hearing will be continued to the regular January 11, City Council meeting. After hearing from the public the Council will likely vote.

"Just wanted Council to have plenty of time to review it, as it is ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) money," Cirtin wrote in an email.

**City Council Tentative January 5, Lunch Agenda:

1. Citizen's Advisory Committee for Community Development (CACCD) - Vern Morgan

2. Continued Q & A regarding City Manager's Proposed 2nd Quarter Budget Cuts - Greg Burris

3. Any and all matters to come before City Council

---------------------------------------------------

Sources: City of Springfield Public Information Office and City Clerk Brenda Cirtin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Allow Newspaper to Do its Job, Mr. City Manager

In a rather scathing "Voice of the Day" letter in the "Springfield News-Leader" on Sunday, City Manager Greg Burris asked the Queen City's daily paper of note to "Allow task force to do its job." The task force the headline was referring to was the Police and Fire Pension Citizen's Task Force.

My suggestion to Mr. Burris would be, let the newspaper do its job, and consider giving your own Public Information Office some instruction on how to better perform their jobs.

Burris' letter followed, almost a month to the day, what I, personally, would call a tantrum, thrown by past Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver, in which he stated he was planning to wait until after he left his Council post to come back to a City Council meeting and "...discuss some of the coverage that I've felt that we've received on issues...in the past," in News-Leader editorials.

The News-Leader's quick response to Deaver's charges of inaccuracy on the part of past editorials, which were most recently, at the time, pertaining to a trash hauler agreement between the city and its two largest trash companies, was answered swiftly in a March 25, News-Leader "Our Voice" column:

"Oddly, he [Deaver] had never asked us to clarify anything in numerous news stories and editorials, and he didn't ask to write anything to offer another opinion himself. He also never sought a correction on the issue...."

Sunday's letter from Burris carried on this, apparent, traditional view on the part of the city, it's officials and certain Council members, by further displaying "the City's" disdain for communicating with the public through, what should be, or, at least, could be, the most valuable medium available to them, the daily paper. Burris wrote:

"After I was asked to put together a citizen task force to study the police/fire pension issue, our city staff made a conscious decision to step back and let the task force do its work rather than engaging in the News-Leader's various pronouncements about the pension plan.

"I remain hesitant about responding, mainly because I don't want my response to infer that I'm giving the material credibility. But Sunday's self-aggrandizing editorial warrants comment for the sake of the task force and our public-safety employees."

I would say to Mr. Burris, much more credibility is given to editorial comments in a newspaper when they are not rebutted, if wrong, than when they are rebutted.

The public wants the facts. The public wants the truth and, I have found, is quite ready to accept it when it is shared. Don't blame the newspaper for the City Management and the City Council's unwillingness to engage in discussion and to correct mistakes, when made. You, and the City, have no one to blame but yourselves for not being forthcoming when erroneous information is shared. Take responsibility for that fact.

When the public hears nothing from you, your employees or elected superiors, after faulty information is shared, they have no recourse but to believe that the information must have been correct.

But, all that said, I wonder, why is the City Manager of the City of Springfield writing letters to the News-Leader? Why aren't errors or misrepresentations (if they exist) being dealt with by the Public Information Office when they occur? Why are such errors, presumably, based on Mr. Deaver's comments, allowed to continue to build suspicion in the minds of the public with no rebuttal or correction on the part of the City?

Springfield's City Manager should let the daily newspaper of note in Springfield do its job and should be asking his own Public Information Office to do their jobs, they are under the manager's authority, the writers of News-Leader are not. Perhaps, instead of expecting writers of the newspaper to cease sharing information with the public about the pension issue, the City Manager should be addressing the City's Public Information Office about dealing with these issues as they arise? Is this a task beneath them?

What is the purpose of the meetings of the Police & Fire Pension Citizen's Task Force being open to the public? Why do they have their own City of Springfield provided Web page, with links to documents of the task force available for download to the public? Because, as the City's elected, appointed, and hired servants have inferred, they want the public to be informed or, because it's the law and since they have no choice anyway they might as well put a good spin on it? I ask these questions because the public keeps hearing lip service from "the City" about how citizen input is desired, about how the city desires this process, and that process, to be open and transparent but, sorry, actions speak much louder than words.

Blaming the newspaper, because they have done their job in reporting about city issues, including the police and fire pension issue, for police and firefighters retiring at the first available opportunity? Really? If confusion about the issue is to blame, it would behoove the City Manager's office and City Council to clear up the confusion. If, as Burris wrote, the News-Leader's editorials are culpable for, "scaring firefighters and police officers into retiring as soon as they hit eligibility," one would think the City Manager would wish to make addressing errors within those editorials a top priority.

I'm one person. I don't have a staffed Public Information Office behind me but, when I see a mistake in the News-Leader, somehow, free of charge, and all alone, with no support, I manage to report it at this Web log. It's amazing to me that the City, with all its staff, can't manage to do what I, often, do for nothing, all alone, here at this blog.

Take responsibility for those under your charge, Mr. Burris.

The News-Leader is not under your charge, but, would benefit from the attention of your staff when they need to make corrections. If there is not enough money in the general fund to properly address important issues of the City, hmmm, how did we get there? Oh, I know, it's the News-Leader's fault. Maybe, had they not reported on the State audit of the City, that pension sales tax might have passed in February, then the City could have afforded to address public relations through its Public Information Office.

Funny, everything bad that happens is, often, someone else's fault these days.

Allow the media in this city to do its job, which, whether you like it or not, happens to be reporting on your actions, the actions of those under you and the actions of those who are your elected superiors.

If the City's message is not accurately being portrayed or the City is having trouble retaining personnel, perhaps the City needs to look within.

In the end, I think everyone is just trying to do their jobs.

It continues to trouble me that the City appears to prefer taking an adversarial attitude toward the print press in this city, rather than working with them, to make sure factual information is shared and properly understood.

Oh, one more issue. Burris mentioned, again:

"We invited the Save Our Springfield group the News-Leader champions to present its plan, which includes a "bias" toward a tax trade-off. (They declined the offer)."

JackeHammer sent out an email inquiry to one of the spokesmen of the SOS group the City Manager claims the News-Leader "champions," inquiring about why the group declined to make a presentation to the Pension Task Force. Darin Chappell responded to that inquiry on Friday or Saturday:

"I cannot speak for everyone, but I decided not make a presentation on my own account for two reasons:

First, the SOS plan was never designed to be a permanent solution to the problem. It was only supposed to offer a temporary band aid to allow the City time to do what they are now doing. So, going before the task force to tell them what they really cannot use for the final solution seems a bit pointless.

Second, I do not think that it would serve SOS for me to be the one to make the presentation, even if it needed to be made, given the recent events between the City and myself.

So, for both of those reasons, I told Mark Wright that I would not be presenting anything.

In the final analysis, I believe we accomplished all we set out to do in that we got the people thinking about other options besides tax increases...got the City to establish the task force...got the Mayor to sign on to much of our platform (including reopening the police and fire academies), and most importantly, let the City know that we're watching."

A later email inquiry posted to Mr. Wright has not been answered.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Stage is Set for Springfield-Greene County Parks to Take Over the Skatepark

First, the park board* decided not ro renew an operating agreement with the Springfield Skatepark Association. That contract ran out October 31, 2007, according to a City of Springfield news release, leaving one to conclude that the operating agreement the park board "elected not to sign," was an agreement all parties had been satisfied with for at least one year.

Now, again, according to the City's news release, the public is informed that "the Springfield Skatepark Association has elected not to sign a new operating agreement for the Skatepark facility."

The Park Board proposed changes to the original agreement in 2006, when the Park Board and the Skatepark Association began meeting "to try to work out a new agreement in anticipation of the contract expiring on Oct. 31, 2007."

In the meantime, the City's news release reminds us that, "In late 2007, the Springfield R-12 Board of Education offered to donate the property on which the majority of the Skatepark facility is located at 945 W. Meadowmere St. to the City."

It was recommended the City Council approve acceptance of the donated property. When City Council approved it, the donation, the news release reports, "eliminated the need for a lease agreement between the Park Board and the R-12 Board, which streamlined the ownership process."

"After receiving the donation offer, a third mediation session was scheduled in January 2008 based on these new circumstances and as an opportunity to possibly resolve this matter with the Skatepark Association."

It seems, to me, those "new circumstances" could have had the effect of taking all leverage away from the Springfield Skatepark Association and putting all the leveraging weight at the end of the Park Board's citizen-approved-1/4-cent-sales-tax-sponsored-teeter-totter. Not such a good position from which the Springfield Skatepark Association was forced to negotiate.

But, the Park Board and the City Council attended the third mediation session in January 2008, "to demonstrate their commitment to resolving the matter, to attempt to keep the Association involved in operating the facility, and to avoid unnecessary litigation."

As long as the Park Board and the City Council attended the mediation session, "to demonstrate their commitment to resolving the matter, to attempt to keep the Association involved in operating the facility, and to avoid unnecessary litigation," what can any disgruntled, dissatisfied, Skate Park Association Board member or supporter say?

The Park Board attempted, they really attempted, to negotiate a new and improved agreement with the Springfield Skatepark Association and that Springfield Skatepark Association, "has elected not to sign a new operating agreement for the Skatepark facility," you know, that agreement based on those new circumstances?

According to this News-Leader story, Springfield Skatepark Association President Annette Weatherman said, "In those mediations, they never conceded one thing to us," she said. "They didn't want to work with us. They just simply wanted to take the skate park."

The city's news release touted all the money taxpayers have spent on the Skatepark as the Parks Department used "voter-approved Parks and Recreation Sales Tax," but didn't bother to outline the expenditures of the Skatepark Association, only noting the Springfield Skatepark Association, "showed a loss of $9,371 for 2002; and a loss of $8,176 for 2003," and then, the news release further noted, "the Springfield Skatepark Association could not or has not provided IRS forms for 2004-2007."

I'd have to verify it, but I believe, unless a business shows a profit, they aren't required to file IRS forms, so just file that away in your take it with a grain of salt file, meaning, since I haven't verified it, you should verify it, yourself, before accepting it as fact.

Now, "The Park Board and City regret that no resolution has been reached with the Skatepark Association and that the Board has been left with no choice except to take legal action to regain possession of the facility in order to address park policy, safety and liability concerns."

Again, from the News-Leader story, Public Information Director Louise Whall was reported to have said, "the city and the park board worked hard to reach an agreement with the Skatepark Association," adding, "The most important thing we want to stress is that we don't want to close the skate park," she said. "We want to make it a great experience for the people who are currently using it and bring more people into the facility."

The most important thing to stress to whom, Louise?

There are, certainly, some things that trouble me about the way this news was reported, by the city's public information office, to have failed due to the Springfield Skatepark Association's election not to sign a new operating agreement. The city might even have good reason to take over Skatepark operations, but since all parties "signed confidentiality agreements regarding the actual mediation," the public isn't likely to receive answers to questions regarding this matter.

Springfield Skatepark Association members, employees and/or volunteers of the Springfield Skatepark have no reason for dismay, however, there is a silver lining. Anyone working there now can always apply for a job working at and for the Park Department's new operation. All applicants will be "considered."

You know, it isn't my intention to question everything the city/city-county park's department does as suspect, (well, yeah it is, but only because they seem to set it up that way, leaving more questions than answers in many cases, and that isn't my fault). I just really think it's important to consider both sides of the story. In this case, we really can't. If the Springfield Skatepark Association shares their side of the story, they'll be breaking a confidentiality agreement they signed. We don't even know the circumstances of that signing, was it a condition of the negotiations? It's doubtful the Skatepark Association could even tell us that, because, if it was a condition of the negotiations, then the circumstances under which it was signed by the parties also falls under the confidentiality agreement. All I can say is, if the city of Springfield wants to be perceived by the public as being open and transparent, this isn't the way to accomplish that goal.

If you'd like to read the city's news release in its entirety, Community Free Press has made it available on their website, where you can read all the City's news releases, any time, by clicking on their City of Springfield link.

Jim Lee of busplunge also has it posted at his blog, "Park Board / Skatepark Association At Impasse: Sk8rs Run Risk Of Losing Say In Operation," where he weighs in with his opinion.

Also, be sure to read the News-Leader story, as linked above. The Springfield Skatepark Association doesn't appear to be taking this news lying down. There's more on that at in the News-Leader story.

*All emphasis mine

Council Bill 2008-052, Park Central Square Renovation

It's 1:07 p.m. and citizens interested in the bill which Council will vote on at 11:30 tomorrow morning is still not available online. The bill authorizes city staff to adopt the design proposal of Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc. for the downtown (Park Central) square.

I have a copy of the bill in my possession, my thanks to Mike Brothers of the city's Public Information Office for spending a great deal of time on my behalf getting this information to me.

Brothers wrote in an email response that they will be voting on the resolution on Tuesday, February 12. Brothers indicated that because it is a resolution it only requires one reading and the Council can vote on it. He wrote, "The Council could decide to hold it over, but that doesn't often happen with a resolution."

Here is what he gave as the reason for it being held in a Tuesday vote rather on the Monday night agenda:

"The reason it was called for Tuesday instead of Monday was to make sure we would be able to meet the 24-hour posting notice per the sunshine law, which would be 11:30 a.m. today, in case it wasn't completed by end of the day Friday."

Since it is (or was) still unavailable online (at the time of this writing), here is the pertinent information on the bill, transcribed from the document Brothers sent me this morning, some of the layout varies but the words are directly from the bill:

Sponsored by: Deaver

Substitute No. 1
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2008-052 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION

AUTHORIZING city staff to adopt the design proposal of Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc. for the downtown square.

____________________________________________

WHEREAS, the City of Springfield has determined that the downtown square is a functionally obsolete public asset, last renovated 38 years ago; and

WHEREAS, for the last year, the City, the Urban Districts Alliance and a committee comprised of members of the community conducted numerous public meetings to seek input from members of the general public regarding design alternatives for the downtown square; and,

WHEREAS, over 750 people offered input to assist in designing alternatives for the downtown square; and,

WHEREAS, Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc. designed three variations for the redesign of the downtown square; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council, in an effort to comply with time frames set forth in the redevelopment agreement with Kevin McGowan for the redevelopment of the Heer's Building has determined that design alternatives proposed by Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc. have sufficiently encompassed the concerns and proposals offered by the citizens of the City of Springfield and are ready to proceed with the design and construction of the downtown improvements; and

WHEREAS, the City has obtained federal funding for the design and implementation of Phase 1 for the redevelopment of the downtown square; and

WHEREAS, Urban Districts Alliance, the City, and the business community are working in a joint effort to raise funds to assist in implementing the remaining phases of the square.*

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD as follows, that:

Section 1 - The recommended design of Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc., as presented to the Springfield City Council on February 5, 2008,* is hereby accepted by the City Council of the City of Springfield as the proposed design for improvements to the downtown square.

Section 2 - City Council hereby directs staff to take any and all steps necessary to prepare plans, documents, and drawings and to proceed with the design set forth above. The City Manager is further authorized to enter into agreements necessary to effectuate the terms of this resolution.

Section 3 - This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SUBSTITUTE #1: EXPLANATION TO COUNCIL BILL NO. 2008-052

ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: City Manager

PURPOSE:

To adopt the design proposal of Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc for development of the downtown square and to permit the City Manager to enter into agreements to meet the terms of the resolution.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Springfield received a federal grant to assist in the renovation of Park Central Square. After an extensive public input process, Butler Rosenbury & Partners presented alternative designs to City Council on February 5, 2008.

REMARKS:

This resolution adopts the recommended alternative design presented February 5, 2008, directs staff to proceed with construction plans, and authorizes the City Manager to take all actions necessary to implement the preferred design.

Submitted and approved by:
Bob Cumley
City Manager

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike Brothers, Special Projects Coordinator, City of Springfield wrote:

"The public will be able to comment on Tuesday."

If you would like to comment tomorrow, Tuesday, February 12, 2008, the meeting will be conveniently held in City Council Chambers at 11:30 a.m.

*Emphasis mine. Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc., recommended the complete package offered, Phase 1, 2 and 3.