SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT COMMISSION MINUTES

Transcription

1 SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT COMMISSION MINUTES March 21, :00 A.M. Room City Hall #1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place (400 Van Ness Avenue) City and County of San Francisco EDWIN M. LEE, MAYOR COMMISSIONERS LARRY MAZZOLA President LINDA S. CRAYTON Vice President ELEANOR JOHNS RICHARD J. GUGGENHIME PETER A. STERN IVAR C. SATERO Airport Director SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Minutes of the Airport Commission Meeting of

2 March 21, 2017 CALENDAR AGENDA RESOLUTION SECTION ITEM TITLE NUMBER PAGE A. CALL TO ORDER: 4 B. ROLL CALL: 4 C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of March 7, D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: 4 E. POLICY: 1. Automated License Plate Reader F. ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: 2. Establish Pool of Pre-Qualified Investment Banking Firms - Provide Bond Underwriting, Derivative Counterparty, and Related Services Modification No. 4 to Professional Services Contract PMSS for Terminal 1 Center Renovation Project - ACJV, a J.V. of AECOM and Cooper Pugeda Management Modification No. 4 to Professional Services Contract PMSS for New Boarding Area B Project - T1 Cubed - A J.V. of Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. and AGS, Inc Reauthorize RFQ/P - Contract , Design-Build Services for Terminal 3 West Modernization Project Determination to Proceed with High Speed Gate & Issue RFQ/P for Contract , Design-Build Services Issue a RFQ/P for Contract , Design-Build Services for the Wayfinding Enhancement Program Modification No. 3 to Contract Airfield Shuttle Bus Service - SFO Hotel Shuttle, Inc G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 9. Modification No. 1 to Professional Services Contract PMSS for Terminal 3 West Modernization & Boarding Area F Passenger Boarding Bridge Project - WCME JV, a J.V. of PGH Wong Engineering, Inc., Cooper Pugeda Management, Inc., MCK Americas,

3 Inc., and Environmental Construction Solutions H. NEW BUSINESS: 14 I. CORRESPONDENCE: 14 J. CLOSED SESSION: 14 K. ADJOURNMENT: 14 Minutes, March 21, 2017, Page 3

4 AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 21, 2017 A. CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the Airport Commission was called to order at 9:00 AM in Room 400, City Hall, San Francisco, CA. B. ROLL CALL: Present: Hon. Larry Mazzola, President Hon. Linda S. Crayton, Vice President Hon. Eleanor Johns Hon. Richard J. Guggenhime Hon. Peter A. Stern C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of March 7, 2017 were adopted unanimously. No D. ITEMS INITIATED BY COMMISSIONERS: There were no items initiated by Commissioners. E. POLICY: Item No. 1 was approved unanimously upon a motion by Commissioner Crayton and a second by Commissioner Stern. 1. Automated License Plate Reader No Resolution adopting the Automated License Plate Reader Policy. Ms. Eva Cheong, Operations & Security... In January 2016 the California State Legislature enacted a civil code which now requires all public entities using automated license plate recognition readers (ALPR) to develop a security and use policy and allow public comment prior to adopting that policy. We use this ALPR technology in our parking garages and now is part of our ground transportation management system on the roadways for managing ground transportation. Our proposed policy defines the appropriate use for the ALPR data, the authorized users, and the audit and retention requirements for that information. It also outlines training and data retention. Therefore, I recommend the Commission approve the adoption of the automated license plate reader policy for the Airport to conform to the California Civil Code. Minutes, March 21, 2017, Page 4

5 Commissioner Crayton... can you give us more details? Ms. Cheong... the policy outlines how long the data will be retained and all of the users... so it defines users and administrators and they will all have to be trained on what data can be shared and who it can be shared with. Commissioner Stern... did the policy actually change how we re using the data, or is it just putting the policy here and there? Ms. Cheong... it s just a policy regarding who can share the information and who can read it. F. ACTION ITEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: Item No. 2 was approved unanimously upon a motion by Commissioner Guggenhime and a second by Commissioner Crayton. 2. Authorization to Establish a Pool of Pre-Qualified Investment Banking Firms to Provide Bond Underwriting, Derivative Counterparty, and Related Services in Connection with the Airport s Capital Financing and Debt Management Program No Resolution establishing a pool of pre-qualified investment banking firms to provide bond underwriting, derivative counterparty, and related services in connection with the Airport s Capital Financing and Debt Management program. Mr. Kevin Kone, Finance Director... every two years we solicit qualifications from the underwriter/investment banking community to insure that we always have access to a pool of the best qualified underwriters to support our financing needs. During the next two years we ll use the pool to finance a significant portion of the $5.7 billion Capital Plan that you approved last year. Our goal in the RFQ process is to establish a pool of highly qualified underwriter/investment banking firms that are eligible to participate in the Airport s financing transactions for a period of two years. The banks that become part of the pool will have experience in selling general airport revenue bonds, variable rate bonds, hotel financings, jet fuel system financings, special facility bonds, index rate bonds and interest rate swaps. Due to the size of the Airport s Capital Plan we may be selling up to a $1 billion a year for the next couple of years. We received a total of 26 statements of qualifications. A three member panel was convened consisting of one City employee with extensive experience in debt financing, one member from a financial advisory firm, and one staff person from a large Bay Area city, both with extensive public finance experience. As stated in a request for qualifications, we selected the top 10 proposers for this pool. Commissioner Guggenhime...how is this pool different from what we had before? Mr. Kone... it s the same type of pool, it s just that the city requires us... Minutes, March 21, 2017, Page 5

6 Commissioner Crayton and Commissioner Guggenhime... how many are new? Mr. Kone... there are two new firms, and the difference with this pool compared to the last pool is that for this pool we re asking for expertise in hotel financings, special jet fuel facility financings, and special financing mechanisms that will help us put together a sound financial plan to execute the $5.7 billion Capital Plan. Commissioner Crayton... you re looking for firms with hotel experience and jet fuel experience. Having said that, how do people get started so that they can move up and we can have more inclusion and diversity? Firms that do this kind of work but don t have hotel and jet fuel experience. I don t see Bank of America. Mr. Kone... they re in there under their corporate name, Merrill Lynch. Commissioner Crayton... thank you for that clarification. I noticed that Wells Fargo is listed and you know they ve had many issues, and other folks that were not included for one reason or another. Is there an African American or other ethnic firm included? Mr. Kone... let me answer your first question about how to provide more inclusion for firms that don t have hotel or jet fuel experience. What s different about this underwriter pool compared to construction contracts is, first of all, these firms need to have a fair amount of unrestricted capital in their holdings because during a bond sale, in the event we cannot find investors, they need to write the check for us. That s what makes it a little harder for smaller firms to compete when an Airport is selling a billion dollars of bonds. In essence, in the event that there s a meltdown in the market that day, those underwriter banks participating on the transaction literally write the check for a billion dollars to the Airport. They then have to go out and sell those possibly at a loss on their balance sheet. So that s the first item that makes it tougher for the smaller firms to compete. There s not a lot of hotel and jet fuel financings in the country... there s Boston, Los Angeles, small hotels or large hotels in different cities, not a whole lot of work nationwide for these firms to get the experience we re looking for to be inclusive. In terms of the firms that got in versus the firms that didn t get in, we are looking for firms that are really strong in the Airport sector. The firms that got in are really the cream of the crop in the industry. They bank the nations, at airports and all the large major construction projects around the country. The firms that didn t get in are very good firms, but they just don t have that little extra of what s needed to be at the top tier. If you look at the scores, they are within a few points of the ones that are in the top 10. So, it s not that they re bad firms, they do really good work around the country, but it s those specialty items that the airport is looking for over the next two years that really differentiated this pool from the last pool. Item Nos. 3 and 4 were called together. They were approved unanimously upon a motion by Commissioner Crayton and a second by Commissioner Guggenhime. 3. Modification No. 4 to Professional Services Contract No Project Management Support Services for the Terminal 1 Center Renovation Project - ACJV, A Joint Venture of AECOM and Cooper Pugeda Management - $8,100,000 Minutes, March 21, 2017, Page 6

7 No Resolution approving Modification No. 4 to Professional Services Contract , PMSS for Terminal 1 Center Renovation Project with ACJV, a J.V. of AECOM and Cooper Pugeda Management, in an amount of $8,100,000 for a new contract amount of $18,650,000 for services through April 30, Modification No. 4 to Professional Services Contract No Project Management Support Services for the New Boarding Area B Project - T1 Cubed - A Joint Venture of Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. and AGS, Inc. - $5,100,000 No Resolution approving Modification No. 4 to Professional Services Contract , PMSS for the New Boarding Area B Project, with T1 Cubed - a J.V. of Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. and AGS, Inc., in an amount of $5,100,000 for a new contract amount of $16,900,000 for services through May 4, Mr. Geoff Neumayr, Chief Development Officer... This item approves Modification No. 4 for Project Management Support Services (PMSS) for the third year of services for the Terminal 1 Center project with ACJV, a J.V. of AECOM and Cooper Pugeda Management in the amount of $8.1 million for a new contract amount of $18.7 million, and for the Boarding Area B project with T1 Cubed a J.V. of Parsons Brinckerhoff and AGS, Inc. in the amount of $5.1 million for a new contract amount of $16.9 million. The Terminal 1 Center and Boarding Area B projects provide for the redevelopment of the existing Terminal 1 and the new 24 gate Boarding Area B projects under the Terminal 1 program. The forecasted amount has increased from $23 million to $49 million with an increased duration of three years, for a revised total of eight years for the T1 Center Project. The Boarding Area B Project has increased from $29 million to $35 million with an increased duration of one year for a revised total of seven years. Both the Terminal 1 Center and Boarding Area B projects have completed programming and schematic design. Through this effort it has been determined that in order to meet earlier than anticipated future passenger growth and gate requirements by 2022, scopes of work that were originally scheduled for the 6 to 10 year approved Capital Improvement Plan now need to be completed in the next five years. This scope is now anticipated to be delivered sooner and will be recommended with the revised 5-year Capital Program which will be presented to the Commission in the upcoming months for approval. The forecasted amounts for both PMSS are within 5% of the anticipated construction cost for both projects, which is our target. The proposed modification is for the third year of services and provides for continued PMSS that include design management services, project controls, cost and schedule management as well as construction management and inspection services. The City s Contract Monitoring Division has approved a 20% local business enterprise (LBE) sub-consultant participation for both of these contracts and the consultants are both committed to meeting this goal. Commissioner Johns... the original price was $23 million and now it s $49 million. Mr. Neumayr... the original contract forecast, because it was based on a shorter Minutes, March 21, 2017, Page 7

8 contract duration, will now run three years more. That s because we are moving the project from a 6 to10 year Capital Plan Program to the 5-year plan. Commissioner Johns... so, the scope of work is much larger? Mr. Neumayr... correct. The projects were always in the 6 to 10 and we are moving them to 5-year. Item No. 5 was approved unanimously upon a motion by Commissioner Crayton and a second by Commissioner Stern. 5. Reauthorization to Issue a Request for Qualifications/Proposals for Contract No , Design-Build Services for the Terminal 3 West Modernization Project No Resolution reauthorizing the Director to issue a Request for Qualifications/ Proposals for Contract No , Design-Build Services for the Terminal 3 West Modernization Project. Mr. Neumayr... this seeks your approval to re-authorize the Director to issue a Request for Qualifications/Proposals for Design Build Services for the Terminal 3 West Modernization Project. The project will include the renovation and expansion of the existing Terminal 3 West facility and the renovation and expansion of Boarding Area F and seismic renovation of the facility. This proposed resolution authorizes the Director to advertise this contract in accordance with San Francisco Administrative Code. The project contract duration is 60 months with an estimated cost of $632 million. In a previous authorization staff proposed for the selection process to evaluate only the two top firms and base selection solely on cost at that point. Following outreach with the contractor community, staff now recommends returning to the best value approach as allowed by the San Francisco Administrative Code and have cost represent 40% of the selection criteria for all shortlisted and interviewed proposers. Staff will work with the City s Contract Monitoring Division to develop the LBE subcontracting participation goals for this contract. Commissioner Guggenhime... on February 7 we authorized the Director to issue an RFQ/P, and then it says, however, following outreach to the contractor community, staff requests modifying the evaluation criteria. What caused that? Mr. Neumayr... We had proposed to shortlist down to two firms and then to make the cost of their management services the sole determining factor between the top two firms. During that time we received a lot of feedback from the construction community. In fact, we met with them yesterday and they were very supportive of the back to best value approach, which means the cost is included with the evaluation criteria, the technical proposals so that there s a best value approach. We respected that input from the community at large because we had Minutes, March 21, 2017, Page 8

9 all the major contractors in the room at the same time. One of the things that we value greatly is to have a fair and transparent process to our design build community so that they respect our decision. This is the result of that outreach. Commissioner Guggenime... so you re saying that the price will be included? Mr. Neumayr... yes. Commissioner Johns... haven t we done that before? Mr. Neumayr... yes. One of the thoughts of the original intent was that we would have two qualified firms and the cost would be the sole determining factor. The community was fearful that it would force people to actually lower the price beyond what they were actually capable of doing, which would almost discount the qualification process we went through. Their feedback to us was that they would not be able to provide the same quality of people. So, since the process has worked for us in the past, we recommend returning to the way we ve been doing this because it has worked for us. Commissioner Crayton... I thought you just said two qualified firms and that cost would be the determinant. That s not been the way we ve always done it? Mr. Neumayr... that was not the way we have done it. We had typically advertised and potentially get anywhere from two proposers all the way up to seven proposers. We would evaluate the technical proposals. We would shortlist up to four firms at that point for the interview. Then we would evaluate the cost proposals as a scoring criteria and we would add those to the technical oral interviews as a combined total and rank those four firms. Commissioner Crayton... this is a major shift in how we do it. It seems to me that was a major decision. Mr. Neumayr... this is actually the methodology we ve been using... the secure connector, the Terminal 2 project, Boarding Area E, T3 East, the new Air Traffic Control Tower. This was implemented by the Airport about 2008 with the progressive design build model. Commissioner Crayton... it seems I m hearing two different things. If we ve change our process I would have thought we would have heard about it beforehand. Mr. Neumayr... the change we proposed in February was a slight change in our process. What we re proposing now is actually consistent with the approach we ve taken. Cost was not always a sole determining factor when we got down to firms, but we always wrapped it in. We re going back to that because it s been very successful for us. Commissioner Crayton... is everyone aware of that change? Mr. Neumayr... yes. I met with the community yesterday about all of our RFPs to Minutes, March 21, 2017, Page 9

10 gain their input. We value their input because we want to make sure that they see our process is fair. Item No. 6 was approved unanimously upon a motion by Commissioner Crayton and second by Commissioner Guggenhime 6. Determination to Proceed with the High Speed Gate Checkpoint Installation Project and Authorization to Issue a Request for Qualifications/Proposals for Contract , Design-Build Services for the High Speed Gate Checkpoint Installation Project No Resolution determining to proceed with the High Speed Gate Checkpoint Installation Project and authorizing the Director to issue a Request for Qualifications/Proposals for Contract No , Design-Build Services for the High Speed Gate Checkpoint Installation Project. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the Project pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code. Mr. Neumayr... this item seeks your approval to determine to proceed and authorize the Director to issue an RFQ and bid for Design Build Services for the High Speed Gate Checkpoint Installation Project. This project will provide for the design, construction and installation of high speed gates, including required infrastructure, at the West Field Checkpoint. This project will complete the last of three high speed gate installations at the Airport. The Commission had previously authorized the Director to call for bids as a construction contract only. Since that time, scope and revisions have been made necessitating the need for further design. Staff has determined that a design build delivery is the more prudent contracting strategy to expedite this project. The proposed contract duration is 200 calendar days with an estimated cost of $5.2 million. This project is funded by the Airport s Five Year Capital Program. This RFQ will contain minimum qualification requirements to assure appropriate technical skills given the size and complexity of the project. Staff will convene a selection panel to evaluate and score the technical proposals and staff will open bids of all proposers who meet the minimum pre-qualification score. Staff will then prepare a recommendation to award a contract to the responsive proposer with the lowest responsive bid. The City s Contract Monitoring Division has approved a 22% local business enterprise sub-consultant participation for design services and a 20% local business enterprise sub-contracting participation for construction services. Commissioner Guggenhime... it s the first time I ve seen the word throughput. Minutes, March 21, 2017, Page 10

11 Mr. Neumayr... these are super gates. Item No. 7 was approved unanimously upon a motion by Commissioner Stern and a second by Commissioner Crayton. 7. Authorization to Issue a Request for Qualifications/Proposals for Contract No , Design-Build Services for the Wayfinding Enhancement Program No Resolution authorizing the Director to issue a Request for Qualifications/ Proposals for Contract No , Design-Build Services for the Wayfinding Enhancement Program. Mr. Nemayr... this item seeks your approval to authorize the Director to issue an RFQ /P for Design Build Services for the Wayfinding Enhancement Program. The Airport completed a Wayfinding Study in 2013 to identify areas that would enhance the passenger experience by providing clear identifiable wayfinding throughout the Airport. This program will implement those Airport-wide recommendations for signage and wayfinding improvements identified in the study. The program will also include providing technology solutions in the way of dynamic signage that is integrated with information from other systems, such as our Terminal Management System and Mapping System so we can provide a seamless message to our passengers. This proposed contract is for Design Build Services with an estimated duration of Five Year Capital Program. The RFQ will contain minimum qualification requirements to assure appropriate level of skills for the project. Staff will convene a selection panel and evaluate and score the technical proposals and oral interview. The cost scores will be added to each proposer s scores and then ranked. Staff will work with the City s Contract Monitoring Division to develop the LBE subcontracting participation goals for this contract. Commissioner Crayton... I had questions about American Airlines, so has that been included in this wayfinding issue? Mr. Neumayr... those comments were collected and they were given back. You awarded a consultant contract and they actually went back and looked at the 2013 requirements and updated them for We d be happy to share what we will be doing for these particular signs in the Airport and explore that with you. Item No. 8 was approved unanimously upon a motion by Commissioner Crayton and a second by Commissioner Guggenhime. 8. Modification No. 3 to Contract No Airfield Shuttle Bus Service - SFO Hotel Shuttle, Inc. - $1,410,000 Minutes, March 21, 2017, Page 11

12 No Resolution approving Modification No. 3 to Contract No with SFO Hotel Shuttle, Inc. to provide for airfield shuttle bus service at SFO in an additional amount of $1,410,000 for a new total contract amount not to exceed $64,281,617. Ms. Eva Cheong, Operations & Security... We are proposing Modification No. 3 to our existing shuttle bus contract with SFO Hotel Shuttle, Inc. to add additional scope for airfield bus shuttle services. These services will go from the terminals to remote hard stand aircraft parked in various places at the Airport. These shuttle services will support our growth throughout the T1 construction, where we now find ourselves with a shortage of gates for the proposed airline growth that we have in the domestic terminals and the international terminal. We have identified three different locations: one in Terminal 1, one in Terminal 2, and one in International Terminal Boarding Area A, where we can have bus operations for customers to support additional traffic during peak times. SFO Hotel Shuttle currently provides the services from the terminals to our parking lots around the vicinity of the Airport, so it s the same services, we re just adding it on the airfield to provide services from the terminals to the aircraft and back again. These services are anticipated to be needed throughout the construction of Terminal 1 until we open more gates in the Terminal 1, Boarding Area B complex. Right now we re asking for $1.4 million to take us to the end of this contract term, which will be June 30, We will add scope into any future bids for shuttle bus services so that we have the flexibility to use it on the airfield. Commissioner Guggenhime... give me an example, from what gate to what gate. Mr. Ivar Satero, Airport Director... yes, it s related to the consolidation of Alaska into Terminal 2. For example, in Terminal 2 there is a hold room downstairs near Gate 59 and we re now calling that downstairs hold room Gate 59 Bravo. It s got a B on it. We ll be able to check in passengers through the Terminal 2 checkpoint, they will assemble out in that hold room area and there will be a bus pickup zone outside of that hold room. They will board the bus and be driven around Terminal 2 to outside the Terminal 1 construction site. We will set up three positions there for remote operations. There will be another position for aircraft operations on the other side of the International Terminal. We have three of these operations that we can accommodate within the terminal spaces. Commissioner Guggenhime... and that would apply only to certain airlines, right? Mr. Satero... Alaska and Virgin will make the most use of it, and there will also be an opportunity for Southwest to use it for regular operations in Terminal 1. We ll also have the ability to use it in the International Terminal, potentially for JetBlue. We may also use it if aircraft have to wait for a gate. To avoid long wait times for passengers on aircraft, we can off-load and bus them to the terminal. Commissioner Johns... it s for departing and arriving folks? Ms. Cheong...yes. Minutes, March 21, 2017, Page 12

13 Commissioner Johns... there was a lot of confusion when we did this before. The gates weren t posted the night before when you did your check in, some people got to the Airport and they had to be bussed from one place to another and they weren t told. Are we going to coordinate so that passengers aren t confused, either upon departure or arrival? Ms. Cheong... ideally, we ll be able to coordinate with the carriers and have a scheduled operation. That will help us with the bus drivers as well. However, obviously during bad weather, there are times when it might have to happen just because of back ups on the airfield. Ideally, we would like to plan it ahead of time. Commissioner Johns... and this bus company can supply the number of buses that will be needed, correct? Ms. Cheong... we own the buses. We have two airfield buses already purchased and we re getting more. All of the buses they operate, even for the landside services, belong to SFO. Commissioner Guggenhime... think about DFW, where you have to take transportation all over the place. This offers more flexibility, it gets planes to gates faster, there s less passenger delay, etc., right? Mr. Satero... right. During this three year triage period while we re getting Terminal 1 ready. Once Terminal 1 opens, we will get rid of this operation. Commissioner Crayton... I can t wait because I m tired and I don t like to walk. G. CONSENT CALENDAR OF ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: The Consent Calendar, Item No. 9, was approved unanimously upon a motion by Commissioner Crayton and a second by Commissioner Stern. 9. Modification No. 1 to Professional Services Contract No Project Management Support Services for the Terminal 3 West Modernization and Boarding Area F Passenger Boarding Bridge Project - WCME JV, a Joint Venture of PGH Wong Engineering, Inc., Cooper Pugeda Management, Inc., MCK Americas, Inc., and Environmental Construction Solutions - No change to the contract amount No Resolution approving Modification No. 1 to Professional Services Contract , Project Management Support Services for the Terminal 3 West Modernization Project and the Boarding Area F Passenger Boarding Bridge Project, with WCME JV, a Joint Venture of PGH Wong Engineering, Inc., Cooper Pugeda Management, Inc., MCK Americas, Inc., and Environmental Construction Solutions, for an additional year of services through April 3, 2018, with no change to the contract amount. Minutes, March 21, 2017, Page 13

14 H. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion only. This is the Public Comment section of the calendar. Individuals may address the Commission on any topic within the jurisdiction of the Airport Commission for a period of up to two (2) minutes. Please fill out a Request to Speak form located on the table next to the speaker s microphone and submit it to the Commission Secretary. There were no requests to speak. I. CORRESPONDENCE: There was no discussion by the Commission. J. CLOSED SESSION: There are no planned agenda items for a Closed Session for the current meeting. In the event of any urgent matter requiring immediate action which has come to the attention of the Airport Commission after the agenda was issued and which is an item appropriately addressed in Closed Session, the Airport Commission may discuss and vote whether to conduct a Closed Session under Brown Act (California Government Code Sections (b)(2) and ) and Sunshine Ordinance (San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.11). If the Airport Commission enters Closed Session under such circumstances, the Airport Commission will discuss and vote whether to disclose action taken or discussions held in Closed Session under the Brown Act (California Government Code Section ) and Sunshine Ordinance (San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.12). K. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further calendared business before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 9:36 AM. (Original signed by: Jean Caramatti) Jean Caramatti Commission Secretary Minutes, March 21, 2017, Page 14