Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-19FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 19, 2012 CITY OF KITCHENER The Finance and Corporate Services Committee met this date commencing at 11:06 a.m. Present: Councillor S. Davey - Chair Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors J. Gazzola, Y. Fernandes, K. Galloway, B. Ioannidis, Z. Janecki and D. Glenn-Graham. Staff: D. Chapman, Deputy CAO, Finance & Corporate Services J. Willmer, Deputy CAO, Community Services C. Fletcher, Acting Deputy CAO, Infrastructure Service R. Gosse, Director, Legislated Services & City Clerk S. Adams, Director, Community & Corporate Planning M. Seiling, Director of Building J. Witmer, Director of Operations R. Hagey, Director, Financial Planning L. Baillargeon, Manager, Asset Optimization A. Ahkoon, Manager, ERP Business Transformation D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator FCS-12-041 - OCTOBERFEST 2012 - DECLARATION AS A CIVIC CELEBRATION 1. The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-12-041, dated March 5, 2012, regarding Oktoberfest 2012 and its associated activities being declared a Civic Celebration and that K-W Oktoberfest Inc. be granted a Temporary Retail Market Licence. On motion by Councillor B. Ioannidis - it was resolved: “That in conjunction with K-W Oktoberfest and its associated activities, the period October 5-13, 2012 inclusive, be declared a Civic Celebration; and further, That K-W Oktoberfest Inc. be granted a Temporary Retail Market Licence, provided that the necessary licence, including Health and Fire approvals, is obtained.” FCS-12-040 - CUSTOMER INFORMATION SYSTEM (CIS) REPLACEMENT 2. The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-12-041, dated March 13, 2012, regarding replacement the existing Customer Information System (CIS) billing program it is recommended that an Expression of Interest be issued for the business requirements of the SAP Customer Relationship & Billing (CR&B) as a replacement solution. Mr. D. Chapman gave a brief overview on the background of the CIS program and the work already completed by staff. He advised that the City retained Prior and Prior Associates Ltd. In 2009 to undertake an evaluation of the CIS system, to propose potential solutions for the billing system going forward. He advised that staff presented an initial report in September 2010, and in accordance with the CIS assessment, Council recommended that staff continue with their due diligence to pursue the acquisition of the SAP tax and utility system to replace CIS. He further advised that since September 2010 staff have completed additional research into the SAP Customer Relationship & Billing (CR&B) solution and are proposing the next steps to implementing a solution. Ms. Norah Prior, Prior and Prior Associates Ltd. presented an overview on the work conducted by her company, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of the CIS billing system, including their proposed options going forward. She advised that the CIS currently supports billing for water, wastewater, stormwater, taxes and gas, and that it is a critical application for the majority of the City’s revenue billing. She stated that the system was initially purchased 14 years ago from Sierra Systems who decided not to continue supporting the software. She indicated since then the City has been managing the program through our IT Division to continuously enhance the system over time to accommodate Council direction and any new legislative regulations. Ms. Prior advised that through their review they have identified three possible options: continue with the current CIS System; buy an off-the-shelf replacement; or, redevelop (re-architect) CIS to a more sustainable architecture and technology. Through the FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 19, 2012 - 74 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-040 - CUSTOMER INFORMATION SYSTEM (CIS) REPLACEMENT (CONT’D) 2. evaluation of functionality, implementation considerations, staff satisfaction, risks, maintenance, and costs, there was a clearly demonstrated advantage for pursuing an off the self-solution. Mr. A. Ahkoon gave a further presentation on the CIS System highlighting key points within the staff report as well as the research that has been conducted by staff since 2011. He stated that during the course of their research they have contacted a number of utilities and municipalities that have already, or are considering, implementing the CR&B system. He advised that the CR&B system for utilities billing has been identified as a well proven solution run by more than 2000 utility companies worldwide. In considering the program in relation to property taxes there is an opportunity to take advantage of the SAP CR&B flexibility to design and configure the City’s property tax requirements into the program; a solution that has already been adopted by two other municipalities. Mr. Ahkoon further advised that through the initial research phase the implementation costs have varied considerably from the initial estimate provided by Prior and Prior compared to a second estimate received by SJH Consulting. The initial implementation estimate was projected at $4.6M, whereas SJH Consulting projected an implementation cost of $16.4M. The primary reasons for such a significant cost difference is in relation to: the customer base; the number and type of utility services; the number of users; and, the category of systems integrator. Mr. Ahkoon stated that although there is significant difference in implementation costs, the additional research, conducted through staff’s research, SAP CR&B is still considered to be the preferred option for replacing the CIS system. Staff is requesting at this time to issue an Expression of Interest for a business requirement discovery and solution scoping engagement, to deliver a detailed business design document and the technical specifications to establish a more detailed budget for the implementation. Following the Expression of Interest staff will be able to provide a more definitive recommendation regarding the implementation of the CR&B program. Councillor B. Ioannidis questioned whether consideration had been given to partnering with a local technology firm to configure billing software that would accommodate the needs of the City, and could potentially be advertised to other municipalities as a means of reducing the cost. Mr. Ahkoon advised that although there would be some advantages to creating software specific for the City the advantages of going with a larger company like SAP would outweigh those benefits. He noted that SAP is a large company that spends approximately 14% of their annual revenues on software research and enhancements, and their expertise and user base would be far more significant than obtaining software with a smaller user pool. In response to questions, Mr. Chapman advised that the annual maintenance cost for CIS includes: internal staff maintenance time; any required server upgrades; previous consultant requirements; and, any required development testing. Councillor J. Gazzola requested clarification on the cost estimates and whether they were strictly for implementation. Ms. Prior advised that the cost estimates provided include all costs, maintenance, and licensing for the life of the program. In response to questions, Mr. Chapman advised that the SAP Program was installed in 2008 in conjunction with the Cityworks program and the total implementation of both programs cost $7M. Councillor J. Gazzola questioned whether there will be significant benefit between the SAP CR&B and the current SAP program. Mr. Chapman advised that the City will have substantial benefits to using the CR&B system as the billing system is a module of the SAP program currently in use. In response to questions, Mr. Akhoon advised that the City could opt to continue using the CIS program but the older the program gets the greater the risk that the system will no longer be able support any future enhancements that maybe required. Councillor J. Gazzola questioned whether there had been any consideration to outsourcing the gas billing portion of the utility bill to another company.Mr. Chapman advised that there has been some consideration to outsourcing; however, Council has always identified the preference to have a one-stop-shop for customers to make one call for the majority of their FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 19, 2012 - 75 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-040 - CUSTOMER INFORMATION SYSTEM (CIS) REPLACEMENT (CONT’D) 2. utility services. Councillor Gazzola stated that with the challenges regarding the gas industry and obtaining a vendor willing to support the gas billing portion of the system, it may be something Council should consider at this time. Councillor J. Gazzola questioned whether staff had contacted the City of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge to determine their need and willingness to implement a new billing system; and whether a solution could be found to benefit all three municipalities. Mr. Akhoon advised that both the City of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge have recently implemented the Vailtech system for their property tax billing. The City’s system requirements are more complex due to the integrated utility billing that is required. Currently Customer Service Representatives have the opportunity to complete a “move in / move out” service that is a one step process to disconnect: taxes, sewer, water, gas, stormwater and rental water heater billing and reconnect the resident to their new address if it is still within the City. If two separate billing systems were implemented there would be a loss of synergy in that business process. In response to questions, Mr. Chapman advised that staff is looking for Council’s endorsement for the release of an Expression of Interest. He indicated that a more detailed specification is required to determine the overall implementation, maintenance and licensing costs of the program. He commented that the initial estimates had significant variations in the costs and overall requirements to be able to provide Council a definitive recommendation. Councillor D. Glenn-Graham questioned whether there was a large enough pool of system integrators to make a competitive tender process. Mr. Akhoon advised that there are 5 to 6 potential companies that would likely be eligible to bid through the tender process. In response to questions, Mr. Akhoon advised that the cost to maintain the SAP program annually is approximately $90,000. Councillor Y. Fernandes requested clarification on the number of modules that the City would require for the CR&B billing system and who would ultimately decide which modules were required. Mr. Akhoon stated that any proposed adjustments to the billing program would require approval from the CIS Steering Committee prior to implementation. In response to questions, Mr. Akhoon advised that the approximate timeline for implementation would likely be around 22 months for a complete transfer of information from CIS to SAP CR&B system. Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned whether there were any significant requirement changes between the initial implementation estimate from Prior and Prior in comparison to the second estimate received from SJH Consulting. Mr. Akhoon advised that the difficulties in London were factored into the higher estimate. London Hydro in considering their execution strategy they chose initially not to purchase the Customer Response Module which created a significant impact on customer service by increasing their customer call durations from 4.5 minutes to 7.5 minutes. He stated that the initial implementation estimate from Prior and Prior did not include the purchase of this module; however, research has proven its success and it was added in as an item for consideration in the second estimate. Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned whether the implementation of the CR&B system would potentially have an impact on staffing requirements. Mr. Akhoon advised that there is only one resource currently allocated to support the SAP program. It is likely that the implementation would cause a reallocation of resources to ensure that all software systems are sufficiently supported. Mr. Chapman further advised that the CR&B system will have a number of new functions currently not supported by CIS, including e-services, which will also require support staff. In response to questions, Mr. Chapman advised that staff are proposing an Expression of Interest rather than a tender to receive responses from vendors that have had significant experience and resources to implement a program of this size, rather than simply trying to obtain the lowest bidder. FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 19, 2012 - 76 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-040 - CUSTOMER INFORMATION SYSTEM (CIS) REPLACEMENT (CONT’D) 2. In response to questions, Mr. Akhoon stated that the gas utility billing is the most complex portion of the City’s billing system. If the system did not require that function then the program requirements would be significantly different. Mayor C. Zehr requested clarification on the initial estimates and whether the figures were comparable to what is currently being spent to maintain the CIS program, recognizing that there would be some initial upfront costs for implementation. Mr. Chapman advised that a more refined cost for the purchase of the program and implementation would be required to confirm whether that would be the case. On motion by Mayor C. Zehr, the recommendation contained in report FCS-12-040 was brought forward for the Committee’s consideration. Councillor J. Gazzola questioned whether the Expression of Interest was also to be used to select a system integrator and the potential for one vendor to do both. Mr. Chapman advised that staff will have to adhere to the requirements of the Purchasing By-law and in considering selection for the Expressions of Interests be careful to ensure that there is no conflict in respect to selection of the system integrator. In response to questions, Mr. Ahkoon advised that it would likely be another year before staff would be in a position to begin implementing a replacement for CIS, with execution anticipated for 2015. Mr. Chapman further advised that the Expression of Interest process will take about 6 to 8 weeks and the business case will be finalized in 2013 to be considered for the 2013 budget process. Councillor J. Gazzola requested clarification on the recommendation and whether it was also approving the use of the SAP CR&B system. Mr. Chapman advised that Council already approved perusal of the SAP program and staff are trying to ensure that there is a complete understanding of the program, its uses and its overall cost. Once everything has been fully identified staff will report back to Council to provide a more definitive recommendation if SAP CR&B is the best option for replacing the CIS system. Councillor S. Davey questioned what type of billing system was being used by Kitchener Wilmot Hydro. Mr. Ahkoon advised that the system they are using is an in house billing program that has recently been customized to accommodate their time of use billing requirements. He stated that staff had spoken to Hydro and they have no interest in helping to support our billing needs. In response to questions, Mr. Akhoon advised that the ownership of the modules and any customizations built into them to support the City’s billing needs will be retained by SAP. Mr. Chapman further advised that it is staffs intention to limit the amount of customizing required by purchasing an off-the-shelf system. On motion by Mayor C. Zehr - it was resolved: “That staff be directed to continue to pursue the acquisition of the SAP Customer Relationship & Billing (CR&B) solution to replace the existing Customer Information System (CIS); and further, That staff be directed to issue an Expression of Interest for a business requirements discovery and solution scoping engagement to deliver a detailed business design document and the technical specifications of an SAP CR&B solution that meets the City’s requirements, and to establish a detailed budget for implementation.” The Committee then recessed at 1:00 p.m. and reconvened at 1:46 p.m. with Councillor S. Davey – Chair, Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors J. Gazzola, Y. Fernandes, K. Galloway, P. Singh, B. Ioannidis, Z. Janecki, and D. Glenn-Graham present. FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 19, 2012 - 77 - CITY OF KITCHENER CAO-12-012 - WATERLOO REGION SMALL BUSINESS CENTRE 3. The Committee considered Chief Administrator’s Office report CAO-12-012, dated February 28, 2012, regarding the Waterloo Region Small Business Centre (WRSBC) including their achievements for 2011 and their goals for 2012. Ms. C. Farrell advised that the Small Business Centre serves all industry sector small business clients from pre-start up, through to five years of business. She stated that they have an office located in the Kitchener City Hall and one each in the City of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge. She commented that the Business Centre functions as a one-stop-shop providing a wide array of business services essential to aspiring entrepreneurs and small businesses, regardless of industry sector or stage of business development. Ms. Farrell advised that in 2011 the WRSBC developed a strategic plan that outlined five major areas of focus to ensure the future success of the organization and strengthen the local economy. She outlined the five areas of focus including: Start-up City, to be the first stop for business start-up ideas; Skills Development; Collaborate, to build upon business to business networks and partnerships; Flexible Programs; and, Innovation. Ms. Farrell further advised that for 2012 the WRSBC has identified emerging needs and will be offering new programs to support those growing needs, referencing a list of new programs outlined in the report. In summary she advised that the Business Centres strategic imperatives will continue to focus on program flexibility, brand development and diligent fiscal operations management. Councillor J. Gazzola requested that Ms. Farrell provide a financial summary report for the WRSBC operations for the past three years. In response to questions, Ms. Farrell advised that the WRSBC has aligned with the City of Kitchener’s Economic Development Strategy. She noted that aligning with similar strategies within the City of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge has likely already been achieved as the small business needs are similar in each of the municipalities. Councillor P. Singh questioned whether the WRSBC also assists businesses that are currently in operation in addition to new businesses. Ms. Farrell advised that 80% of their inquiries come from businesses that have been operating for less than 2 years. She noted that the remaining 20% are from businesses that are currently in operation seeking additional advice. Councillor Singh questioned whether assistance to currently operating businesses was a service lacking at the Centre. Ms. Farrell advised that the real need of the WRSBC is to assist with business start-ups. Councillor D. Glenn-Graham questioned whether the Small Business Centre has entered into partnerships with the local universities and colleges to promote small business start-up. Ms. Farrell stated that the WRSBC is active in both the University of Waterloo and Conestoga College doing presentations and encouraging young entrepreneurs to establish their own businesses. FCS-12-039 - 2011 YEAR END VARIANCE REPORT 4. The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-12-039, dated March 1, 2012, regarding the City’s financial performance versus the 2011 budget. The report includes information on: the tax supported services; rate supported enterprises/utilities; and, supplementary information related to investment income. Mr. R. Hagey reviewed the report, noting that the overall results of the review were positive. Mr. H. Drewitz raised concerns with the capital reserve close-outs being transferred into tax reserve funds to help establish a balanced budget. He expressed the view that if funds were identified for the Capital Budget and there is an identified surplus, the surplus should be used on future capital projects, rather than transferring the funds to the Operating Budget to achieve a balanced budget. He further advised that there were several areas in the financial statement where significant changes have been identified, since the August 2011 projections, noting: operations administration; gapping; and, stormwater rebates as areas of concern. Mr. Drewitz suggested that Council should be reviewing financial variance reports on a quarterly basis to ensure there is a zero balance at the end of each financial year. FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 19, 2012 - 78 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-039 - 2011 YEAR END VARIANCE REPORT (CONT’D) 4. Councillor D. Glenn-Graham requested clarification from the delegation on whether he has spoken to staff prior to this meeting regarding his concerns. Mr. Drewitz indicated that he had spoken to staff regarding the projected differences in gapping specifically and was advised that an in depth review in the compensation packages for municipal staff identified surpluses not initially projected. In response to questions, Mr. Drewitz expressed the opinion, that the Capital and Operating Budgets need to be dealt with and maintained separately. He stated that if there are surpluses identified within the Capital budget specifically at the end of each year, the surpluses should be maintained in the Capital Budget. He commented that some members of Council have continually stated that our infrastructure is declining and if the surplus funds were maintained within the Capital Budget it could help in addressing infrastructure deficiencies. In response to questions, Mr. Drewitz advised that the Operations Administration variance doubled from what was initially projected in August 2011 and the comment for the increased variance indicates: supervisor costs at the KOF, harsh winter at the beginning of the year; additional fleet costs; and, loss of work completed for the Region. He questioned why some of these factors were not identified in August 2011 when Council received their last financial summary report. Mayor C. Zehr requested clarification from staff on the Operations Administration Budget. Mr. D. Chapman advised that a more detailed breakdown of the Operation Administration budget was not available at this time; however, staff would be able to follow up with the information prior to March 26, 2012 Council meeting. Mayor Zehr requested clarification on the capital close-outs and whether the entire year’s budget surpluses within enterprise accounts (i.e. golf, sewer, water, etc.) are transferred into the tax stabilization account. Mr. R. Hagey advised that when there are budget surpluses in those accounts, the surpluses go back into the respective enterprise budget and are not transferred to the tax base. Mayor C. Zehr raised concerns that if yearly deficits are not mitigated by Capital close-outs it will have impact to the next year’s budget as it is his understanding any remaining deficit would become the first order of business to address and would have to be funded out of the tax levy. Mr. Chapman confirmed that the Capital close-out funds come from the Capital out of Current pool, which has not been historically done; however, there has been insufficient funds in the tax stabilization reserve to address deficit positions. He stated that using Capital close-outs is not viable long term and would be better used to fund Capital programs but have become the first draw to support funding year end deficits. Mayor C. Zehr requested clarification on the differentials identified in gapping. Mr. Hagey advised that there were three components to the changes in gapping: an increase in gapping for three senior management positions that were vacant for the majority of the year, not initially projected; higher than typical gapping in Fire; and, higher than typical gapping from a detailed year-end review of compensation accounts. Councillor J. Gazzola requested clarification on the loss of work completed for the Region under the Operations Administration budget and what those works include. Mr. J. Witmer advised that this relates to write-offs for 2008 and 2009, specifically relating to winter maintenance and transit shelter maintenance.He further advised that staff is currently reviewing practises relating to bus shelter maintenance to determine if the City will continue to do this work for the Region. Councillor J. Gazzola questioned the reported surplus in the Building Enterprise Division and the loss of revenue from what was initially projected in August 2011. Mr. M. Seiling advised that staff anticipated the receipt of a large permit application prior to year end, that wasn’t submitted. Councillor J. Gazzola expressed concerns with final budget figures posted for water revenues. He stated that there was a 4% different between the figures provided on Final Budget Day, than reflected in the year end variance report. He advised that a 4% difference could have FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 19, 2012 - 79 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-039 - 2011 YEAR END VARIANCE REPORT (CONT’D) 4. meant a potential reduction in water rates for 2012. In response, Mr. Chapman advised that the actual difference between what was projected versus the year end result was a difference of $65,000. equating to a variation of 0.02%, making overall projections almost on target. Councillor J. Gazzola requested clarification on the increased revenues in the gasworks, noting that the actual revenues were significantly higher than what was forecasted for 2011. Ms. L. Baillargeon advised that winter is when the City normally experiences high consumption; however, winter conditions have been unnaturally mild and the gasworks is already approximately 11% behind in consumption rates resulting in less revenue. She noted that due to these variances, staff would normally consider doing a rate adjustment in April; however, review of the rates has been delayed until July. Councillor J. Gazzola questioned the adjustment in the stormwater charge and whether there was a potential savings in this category. Mr. Hagey advised that due to a mild start to the winter staff were able to complete additional maintenance work on the storm system prior to the end of 2011; and could not confirm whether any additional savings were achieved. Councillor J. Gazzola requested clarification on the difference in capital close-outs referenced in the final budget package in comparison to the variance report received this date. Mr. Hagey advised that there were a number of initiatives not considered in the budget process that had capital close-out money applied to them, indicating the boathouse as one of those initiatives. In response to questions, Mr. Hagey advised that the difference identified in the enterprise division was due to the increase rental revenues achieved through the Auditorium and arenas. Councillor J. Gazzola questioned the significant difference in the Operations sidewalk repairs account. In response, Mr. Witmer advised that the initial sidewalk expenses are forecasted as part of the operations budget and any additional expenses are recovered from a capital account through the Engineering Division. The surplus is the balance remaining from that expenditure. In response to questions, Mr. Hagey advised that in the event the Centre in the Square has a deficit the City will cover half of the deficit amount; and conversely, if there is a surplus identified than the City will receive half the surplus amount. Councillor Y. Fernandes requested clarification on the difference between turf maintenance and sports field maintenance, noting that there was a deficit in the sports field account and a surplus in the turf account. Mr. J. Witmer advised that they are two separate categories, with sports fields specifically referring to outdoor facilities and both have a different service level. Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned whether the surplus in the turf category would allow for a reduction in the 2012 budget. Mr. Hagey advised that operating budgets are set for the entire year and the 2011 surplus for turf was transferred to the tax stabilization reserve. In general, surpluses are not used to decrease budgets and if the surplus had not been transferred to reduce the 2011 deficit the overall deficit would have increased to $500,000. instead of $238,000.; which in his opinion is not prudent to do. In response to questions, Mr. Hagey advised that stormwater rebates when approved by Council were retroactive to January 1, 2011. He indicated that although the funds will be paid out in 2012, the 2011 budget was charged for that year’s portion of the rebates. Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned whether Council could be provided financial reports on a quarterly basis to provide a greater understanding on the annual budget process and identify deficits and surpluses earlier in the fiscal year. Mr. Chapman advised that staff currently update Council on the City’s financial status three times annually, noting that a fourth quarter update is a challenge due to Council’s summer break. Councillor J. Gazzola requested that Council be provided with a monthly status report to ensure that Council is more informed on the fiscal budget. In response, Mayor C. Zehr advised that more frequent reports will create confusion as they are less reliable for reporting and he did not want to see Committee time being taken up every month to address what is FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 19, 2012 - 80 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-039 - 2011 YEAR END VARIANCE REPORT (CONT’D) 4. likely to amount to the same questions being repeatedly asked. He reminded that Council’s responsibility is that of governance, not management and in his opinion, the 2011 variance report demonstrates staffs ability to project and monitor the budget. Councillor J. Gazzola put forward a motion for consideration to require staff to provide monthly financial reports to Council. Mr. Chapman advised that a financial report requires analysis and explanation to fully understand what has transpired and without will not provide an accurate summary of the budget. He noted that currently there is no municipality that reports to Council monthly on the status of their budget. Councillor P. Singh questioned if the intent of the motion was to have the status report as a monthly agenda item. Councillor J. Gazzola clarified that it was still his intention to receive three annual updates at Committee and that monthly summary reports simply be circulated to Council. Councillors K. Galloway, B, Ioannidis and S. Davey did not support receiving monthly statements, raising concerns that appropriate explanations of accruals would be absent leading to misinterpretation and inaccurate assumptions. Lost Councillor Gazzola’s motion was then voted on by a recorded vote and , with Councillors J. Gazzola, D. Glenn-Graham, Y. Fernandes and Z. Janecki voting in favour; and, Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors S. Davey. K. Galloway, P. Singh, B. Ioannidis voting in opposition. Councillors B. Vrbanovic and F. Etherington were absent and accordingly did not vote. ADJOURNMENT 5. On motion, the meeting adjourned at 3:18 p.m. D. Saunderson Committee Administrator