The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-07-11-ZBA-min536 Lowell Street 7 -11 -02 7:45PM — RS, JU, FS, AS, NB, JD, BS, MS, DW, LW, SMM(clerk) RS tells audience Bd just handed EM report, peer review of financials, take some time to review, Begin continued hrg at @ 7:50pm RS reads legal notice /updated checklist Asks for appropriate conduct, respect for other points of view, Will BS arrives @ 7:55PM Start evening w /report by Ed Marchant, peer review of financials Walk through memorandum submitted tonight, Purpose was to review the 3 pro formas from applicant submitted 6/3/02, for 32, 28, and 24 unit development(s) Reformatted developers pro formas to better u/stand 3 costs leading to TDC (total development cost) Exhibit A = hard costs + soft costs + site acquisition cost Hard costs = site work, fixed costs unlike variable and semi - variable building costs Pro formas are projections, best guesses on likely costs and revenues Em based cost estimates on his experience Re site work, important number is cost per unit Bolded the meaningful numbers As project decreased in size, per unit costs increase Demolition and site work fixed Roads, drives, utilities semi - variable, and similarly site improvesments in common areas From 22K w/32, up to 37.5 w/24 units (check) Landscaping, driveways,walkwasy, patios, connection to street utility should be included What sq ft nu. Use to make meaningful Industry uses for net square feet (livable space), basically the house Assuming sq ftge numbers correct Is not a significant diff. Between 32, 28, 24 w/ these costs Results in cost/sq ft. from 116 to 124 per sq. ft, On high end, But depends on-, everything to do w /finishes, can boost cost per sq ft considerabley Develper is planning on high quality finishes, at least in Ask for detailed outline spec for finishes in all units * * * * * ** So aware of all diff. Between market rate and affordable units Want to make sure threshold for all units okay Granite countertops e.g Then looked at soft costs Applicant gave quite detailed list of these In general thought these were reasonalble Big line item, is marketing, not unusual to have 5 % or 6% As desirable as Lex. Is still need to sell these units Overhead not included, in general need to include 2 -3% Finally site acquisition, Been significant amt of discussion re this Hoping for simple result that said no brainer, Couldn't Did some sensitivity analysis Basic feeling on site acquisition cost is should not be looked at before design, good project question That's cost side Re revenue side Is what can sell market rate for Checked on some comps in lex. In general these numbers reasonable, Like to think could do bit better Know how difficult is to project thse Condo good in rising market Condo deal bad in sinking market Condo deal is high risk business Have been relatively few high -end condo developments in suburban areas Ref. Weston deal Took longer Think market really looks for 2 garage spaces, A few of market units don't have Quality of finishes is what makes these sell Finishes expensive Affordable units, Think projections reasonabley close Ref to Exhibit C Bdginning w /C -1 Methodology Review this, When make decision, think aboujt incorporating the methodology into any decision Really gives you control over affordable units Then did spreadsheets what em thought, C -2 and C -3 Applies methodology using lex. Tax rate, estimated condo fees, and numbers relatively close, Em numbers lower than em numbers, used 7.5% Higher the interest rate, the lower the price, Pricing based on what affordable to houselhold paying no more than 30% of income Defer, bd can look at, housing comm. Can look at Applicant assumed a 10% down payment, em assumed a 5% down payment Might decide 7 %, 10% fine Those adjustments can be looked at, used later, Back to the development fee, Tried to isolate the development fee Critical factor in looking at dill. 32, 28, 24 units Did not think significant difference between 32 and 28 units Did think significant diff. Between 32 and 24 units Ref. To exhibit D At top, applicant's numbers In general agreed with their costs and sales projections 14.26% to what take to try to match the absolute dollar amt of dev. Fee from 2.134M for 32, down to 820K for 24 (check chart) like to think cd do bit better than they projected how much of increase in average sale price per sq ft wd be necessary to have 28 and 24 dev. Match the 32 dev. Results, wd take @ 11 dollar increase, as percentage not huge, but on per unit basis @ 25K At what point does attached townhouse deveopment , relatively dense, match what could find as single family detached, Always concerned re that price point If wanted to match percentage dev. Fee, Less of impact, @ 6 dollars per sq. ft, doable? Didn't look at cost side This applicant at a disadvantage because don't do own construction, have to go out and negotiate at arms length w /GC, More control over cost and money made if own builder Then looked at 24, Getting this specific implies a degree of accuracy? Based on-preliminary nature of drawings and engineering Still significant amt of time before these wd go to market Back to exhibit on site acquisition, ex. B? Have one appraisal for 13M, One report 2AM to , midpoint, Average 2.14M Look at each proforma, see dill. Difference declines as development gets smaller Ref. Exhibit A 28 unit dev. Gives 101786 per unit site acquisi. Cost what if deduct from total dev. Cost the diff. In land value when calculate that, shouldn't enlarge denominator allow fee take into consideration, not get up to 20%, not use land to increase return no clear guidelines when NEF funded project when did that, want to get rlative sense of land represente din terms of total devl costs if eliminate that from base, the percentage return increases go to exhibit D, see does in fact result in percentage increase from 14.26 if allowed to include differential in basis on which max. allow. Fee included, to 15.6 percent in 28, from 11.96 to 12. (see ex. D) at no point to returns on theis dev. Approach the maximum allowable 20% at ti;mes think discussion of land cost is a red herring should be focusing on site plan and whether or not it is appropriate q. from Bd. NB comment as to what percentage wd be economically feasible Is that part of this? Em comments Experience is when applying to a bank, bank likes to see 20 percent, that fee in part is a contingency and if don't do so well and end up at 15 or 10 percent, bank still gets its smoney back, Development fee as percent, Have to look at develper, some if establishyed, not going to do unless can make X dollars For others, might not have as manyu opporutinities, this might contribute re dev experince, track record, here lot of exp. Working with other companies, not much on own,might be satisfied w /less than 20 percent? Try to relate rewards with risk The dev was around, in proposoals, around 14.26 %, assume that a fee that acceptable to them, Bob S Assume 285 to 290 is price that marketable, what if falls well below that, What if get into down market, At what point, bank going to say Em, bank going to want comparables, like Lexington Even in Weston, do 3 units at a time, piece out, when sell a market unit, begin another market unit? Usually keep short leash on these deals, If market doesn't support that, Have to be ocnerned re deal that goes forward ajnd then dies Take a look at and take some comfort in, at price points, Have 8 units under 600K, never thought wd be good price In lex. Getting good unit for w /600K, 4 units bigger, twice as big as a small ranch, than lot of houses, ?(check no. of units) Russ Tanner, No q. of em, Appreciate that em generally agrees w /our financial analysis Part. That sales prices conservative Appreciate report generally concurs Differ bit w /diff. Between 32 and 28 units, think greater than em does, no major comments q. from aud. Only on em report at this time Bill Passman, In past, discussion, Clarify comment, ability to get 20 dolars or so more per sq ft in sale price Impression from unit dense at 32, down to 24, more open space, cd expect to get an extra 20 to 25 dollars per unit, expect to Em, note in report that as reduce density should be more attractive dev., not prepared to put number on now, but think lower density, the higher the achievable sales price, Here, fighting that are no detached single units, no q. that market pays more for detached single family units, Still having mixed income developments, limits pool of potential buyers, whenever limit the pool, impacts this dev. More because attached units Been number of mixed income dev.1 in suburban communities, e.g. Weston, but these relatively large lot, single family detached units, majority of Andy friedlich, Any analysis done of diff. In acq. Costs How say then that acq. Costs should not influence zba decision Taking great issue that telling bd role Is to review Em, if acq. Cost was 10M or 1 dollar, real issue is is this an acceptable plan Af, but in terms of values of this town, Em, that not in scope of my analysis, obviously number of factors, Af, density huge issue in this town, to say that acq. Costs should be secondary to site reviw Bill taylor, If that were nonissue, l OM versus 1 dolar, whay LIP and other programs have rules against (unreasonable) cost Em, do have rules, Assoc.l members, Q fo em? Aud. Again, Elaine dratch, prec. 5, Re ex. A, including 6 garagess, Why include in cost of 28, should absorb in actual bldg, Re 24 wdn't need at all, Em, cd argue that, feel this dev. Needs more garages, didn't think of deleting them, Wddn't have significant impact either way Stan A. Looking at ex. B, Want to point out that here taking an average of 2 values to use as a typical value of land cost in pro forma, One value we might consider real, of an as-zoned appraisal, Second is a what if, might be value, might range, Cd be a real high value, Somebody's idea of what value mght be, Took that value and averaged that, The number used was an average of a real value with somebody's guess Em, simply said, the land value is probably lies somewhere between Shaw's appraisal and what applicant used, Here tried to say split the appraisal, and one a report by a member of appraisal institue (highest designation for an appraiser), Tony G. Kind of q. on order, Work w /numbers constantly, Find this doc. has enough info.l that cannot be absorbed as received, Might be beneficial to take and q. at next meeting for questions, Normally docs. Submitted well in advance, Jon Witten, atty for group of abutters Re report Nothing for espect for em Said twice now that bd's first order of business is to review site plan, and pro formas later, Urge bd to look at statute, Statute says to look at economics, To look at site plan, Bd's obligation is not to ignore, look at w /secondary, Must look at site plan, and economics pro formas at same time, Never know what number will lead to economic project To ensure that town not giving away something Ephraim Weiss Ask Bd what role of bd is in this process Whom bd represents, whose interests and how to come together Thinks bd should rep. Community at large and try to fit what applicant trying to present and how fits in community at large Em, no comment on that Rs, bd here to rep. Town of lex., obey laws of commonwealth of mass., help resolve discrepancy in number„ find what suitable projedct for this site, Bill passman, Imp.l, what wd make project an economic project See a profit made at 24 units, Given that have hard cost contingency built in and soft cost s built in, Isn't even a 1 percent, but any positive percent, get up to same 14 percent, doesn't' that indicate that 24 unit cd give same profit, and even economic Em, if I were develper, at those numbers, wdn't do the project, Reasonable profit, Comes down to developer, If looking at project w /these risks, Contingencies normally go in to the project Looking at 6.8 1, cd increase somewhat, but all in all wd not be attractive enough to me to u/take this deal Wd view 24 unit dev. As uneconomic Nb, last time investors, put up money and leverage, look at rate of return on investment, Still, big return on investment Em, like venture capital, high risk, expect very high returns Don't know terms Rt, over several years Russ Tanner Rising Tide presentation 2 topics, one a sketch of minor alternative to site plan, trying to respond to trying to save one of trees on site did submit letter to bd, how proceed selecting homebuyers previously 2 large honey locust trees in front had already planned to preserve one, john frye had suggested 2 unit bldg in front, shifts one unit over, so a duplex unit and then a four -plex, shd save tree on second page, a quick rendering of elevation along Lowell St., that 4plex, prob put in the 3bedroom handicapped unit, front toward Lowell Stl, will have front doors and paths, a front treatment, need to be somewhat screened, a patio, walkway, able to get in from back have appearance of being on front, other design issue was concern re setback on parking structure in back, in that version was 6 bays, had to make a 10 ft set back to make work back in area, fenced, somewhat wooded, felt reasonable because of turning area required, to add five feet in back wd have to take 5 ft away somewhere else minor change, re engineering, put small detention basin in back, so had to remove one bay, down to 5 bays, still w /10 ft setback, unless move 5 ft from elsewhere, briefly talk through letter re selection, Rick Waite here, from Meridien, Talk briefly re engineering issues Ref revised plans submitted (see checklist) Storm drainage system, added 3 separate drywells per bldg and 2 small detention basins for driveway drainage etc. Recently, this morning, asked zoning bd for eng. Comments, ?? (see eng. Dept. comments) Specific questions, B Sacco, any idea how much contribution slid be? RW, think suggesting that appliant contribute towards perhaps insufficient capacity of Lowell St. JD Question re lighting information, Ref. Fixture designs, Actual illumination, color corrected? In town meeting, yellow lighting not acceptable to most, Where have choice select white, color corrected Examples in lex. To see Russ Tanner, thse fixtures tremendously flexible, lot of customization can do w /these fixtures AS, q Doc. refer to„ those all reviewed by town engineer at this point, Ref. Snow removal e.g. Tight development, So engineering concurring w /reviswed plans submitted Bill Passman, Just found out someone putting large retention basis in back of property by my house, How large is it, what is it retaining, etc. RW, Ref. 2 small retention basins, 3 ft deep at back edge, other 4 ft both about 30 ft wide infiltration on top of when fill up, ft and half or so of freebod, handle small portion of roadway, Bill Passman, Now large berm in back corner, Removing? RW, No, adding to it Phil Fischer 218 East St q. done any core drilling on site at all? RW, Have done tests for ability of soil to infilitrate PF, reason to believe some ledge RW Have done series of test pits, Found no ledge PF, Wd not like to see any blasting, Now no problems w/ basement Russ Tanner again, Submitted letter to bd. Re questions re selection for affordable units Highlighting main points Suggeswting bd, or town mgr, or bd of selectment, appoint some kind of committee to advise us on coming up w /plan for selection Fair housing, lexhab, E.g. Wd commit to wrking w /that committee Some kind of local pref. Plan for majority of units? Suggesting language Wd submit back to bd for some kind of final selection plan Some kind of non profit, oversees? Wd have to wrk w /monitoring agent as well Some ideas on who in town might quality e.g. Current residents paying more than 40 percent of incomer Employees of town not currently town residents, Households not currently residents, but e.g. have students in schools in metco Houselholds recently displaced from town bec. Of cost e.g. DW, Why can't lexhab be assigned this task, why reinvent a committee? BS, good suggestion, Harriet Cohen Fair housing, Wd be interested in having fair housing participate w /lexhab JD= suggest league of women votersw, e.g., other community input Audience comments Stan Abkowitz 40 yr lex. Resident live on Lowell St, along w /neighbors believe in providing additional affordable housing in Lexington many hrs of wrk, to reasonable alternative to developers intented goals yet consistent whown meeting of bd. Last month, presented to bd, 19 pp document, legitimate concerns w/ 32 dev. Proposed concerns which bd. Should address on behalf of town working w /this bd for many weeks, and prev. w /town committee Bill Taylors presentation was factual, No. of units, lack of open space, Tree destruction, traffic congestion Became clear that all of these legitimate concerns disappear when overwhelming density addressed 40B proposal shd be required to use appropriate true appraised value of land ref. Exorbitant land price w /proper land cost, as little as 16 or 20 units becomes possible, and density problem disappears, consistent w /town, and 4 or 5 affordable units can be added, up until final 15 minutes of last meeting, felt got message across to bd. Suggestion made to get independent appraisal, 2 selectmen made suggestion that town funds cd be available, abutters said funds cd be offered, motion made, no second discussion utterly necessary, want to know from each bd. Member why no discussion insult to injury chr. Asked ed marchant to do peer review neighborhood cd not consider ed marchant an independent reviewer neighbors feel unable to get position of fairness across strongly feel this bd must appraise the true value and require its reflection in the developer's pro forma if bd cannot take such action, wd reflect true insensitivity uphold character of town Bill Passman Overheads, short presentation Provided handout (as did Stan A. of his presentation) Ref. "Alternative: 16- Units" handout Wd like to see anything neighbors come up with be economic Believe much smaller development can be achieved All along, problems when dealing w /units More comfortable when dealing w/ sq. ft. Showed illustration of attractiave 16 unit development, 4 4- plexes, Main contention, 16 units is a profitable development Strong development for a senior center, at Lowell and North St. Andy Friedlich, Write in yrs on cover of bound memo submitted Grave concerns re 40 B develop.' Remarks based on preservation of open space one of core values of town Mercer Consulting conducted townwide sample Preservation of open space was only value all 6 categoreis of residents agreed Confirmed by longrange planning comm. And 2020 committee Depend onZBA for protection Only entity that can protect interests of town residents Should be propounding minimum density rather than negotiating for higher density than allowed Ref. MHFA and LIP guidelines Housing appeals bd wd support zba if applied those guidelines Little regard for town in seeking maximum sale price Is mandatory that have appraisal that represents fair market value This has a direct impact on number of units Received 3 docs. That address this Not willing to have residents unfairly impacted to provide profit to developer Ref. Town of Norton Developers taking advantage of towns re 40B W/ 2 more 40Bs waiting in the wings Bill Taylor, Handout, 20 copies Ref. Porter Lane Follow the handout' Clearly is a difference between developed and undeveloped lots Ref. Bryne McKinney analysis /report Think original estimate, used by em to average, basically wrong Zba slid adhere to mhfa and lip guidelines, fair and accurate value No. of units, Setbacks, Risk of getting 48 units, Something to block intrusion into neighboring yards Land deal Also submitted boston globe article re "antisnob zoning" Unfair that impact on abutters w /no rules, guidelines In particular, Ref. Dennis decision, (make more copies for associates) * * * ** Russ Tanner Respond Appreciate caliber of dialogue One of doc., well worked letter ref. Barnstable decision 2 situations where Barnstable asked for appraisals want to point out how greatly diff. Situation is here one Stuborn? Land write -up In front of housing appeals comm. Now We are not making money on the transaction, trying to cover the costs Mr. Bornstein was tr;ying to make money on the transaction Other, also where created a less than arms length transaction and put into proforma, Tried to put in more That is very dill. From someone who owns land for long time, elects to go forward Second, Reiterate, Strongly believe, MHFS current policy re land transactions Has been misrepresentation re They do not prohibit, Accept in both for sale and for rent, Some discretion, Very comfortable that MHFA wd accept our transaction Invite to call them up and ask them that questin Other comment, re Dennis decision Some language pointed out, While some open space, not usable there, on sloped area, berms, Had there been some open usuable space, patios, e.g, wd go forward BS, feelings re 16 unit proposal RT= hope Ed M.1 has shown 16 units here absolutely not feasible When first met w /neighbors informally, there suggestion/question was why not do 14 -16 unit dev. Allowable u/cluster rules Sorry, said, in affordable housing business Tony Galaitsis, Here not as Planning Bd, Want to ask some questions, Will help u/stand, Some of mhfa rules inaccurate? Like to ask em some questions, Submitted hand -out, questions, (ref. Handout) re last question, em, "there will always be a question re fair market value..." that similar to case involved in in Barnstable, bought property in late 80s, value tanked, transferered to wife, hiked up value, can't do that, developer may not agree w /appraised value zba can do what it wants, developer can appeal to hac hac becomes the decisionmaker, can't determine how the hac, superior court, land court will decide em very clearly stated that 48 unit developer and 5.1M price inappropriate and abuse of 40B tony, hypothetical q..... Russ Tanner, Used one of TG slides, Ref. Question #5 slide Re fair market value "at time of loan commitment ", This is at time of permitting, That is when allowed to put in value Common procedure Ref. To "economic benefits" paragraph, Mhfa will not lend value on amt increased by 40B housing, can use in pro forma, cannot lend on Comes down to what 4 lots worth Easiest as of right is 4 oversized lots Some question re cluster dev. Worth more Are they worth 400K each, or more like 700 -800K, Is a sale on Brent Rd of tear down, @ 1M in last month q. of being on Lowell St. diminishing value not tried to put forward a professional value, value reasonable to us, doc. submitted last month on that don't think difficult to see that worth 700K or so asking to accept that our transaction with seller was a reasonable armslength transaction, move forward Josh Posner Ref. Theory Appraisal is not exact fact We paid a set amt of money is the one true fact dealing w /re this acquisition We've been trying to work so can get something approved locally so doesn't go to hac, Tried to work w /larger community Remain commited, hope can move forward Jonathan Witten, At last hearing, Asked if could obtain copy of second amendment to P &S? More than qualified to comment on Dennis decision Urge bd to cmpare this decision to this site plan Very similar site plans Ref tanner comment, that em already demonstrated that 16 units unecnomcable Reverse by hac, If rt wants to walk from projct Zba obligation to make sure bank funds the project Imoortant to go back to basics Serious impact on my clients Go back to statute The law, As long as conditions do not render project uineconomic Bd has righgt, obligation to set a reasonable profit No entitlement to 20 % profit 2 key definitions, uneconomic ensureing bd sets reasonable profit and then is consistent w /statute continue to September 12, 7:45pm bs, more movement nb, have to look at existing 32 unit still concerned w/bulk of units not sure that 24 unfeasible, uneconomic what from site plan a 28 or 24 wd look like ask RT to concentrate on, nb, uncomfortable w/32, to change 4plexes to triplexes wd shrink the bulk of blds on periphery and if 28 not much different than 32, still economically feasible, remove one of 4plexes? Being close, that garage, shirnk bldge, move garage in, AS, Appreciate information from ed, More comfortable, ea. Unit Still uncomfortable w /out appraisal, Maybe did motion prematurely last time Wd still like appraisal done Done Wd like motion Makes motion to that B/A ask Bd. of Selectmen to get independent appraisal JU -- what see as outcome of that to make difP AS -- wd expect that number to be one that can be put into pro forma, 13M, 2.1M, 23M, makes big difference, wd like B/A to go forward with that, wd like someone we trust to come up w /that number, implicitly or explicitly, BS -- most members felt that having the abutters pay for an appraisal was inappropriate, [Ed] felt that an appraisal, additional wd not really, should really not reach any conclusion, EM -- look at value pretty simply, If price was 13M, wd buy that site tomorrow for that, a steal, gut feeling, somewhere in between, what wd do with another appraisal another queston JU -- another appraisal would give us 3 choices, not 2 FS -- willing to second the motion [to obtain an independent appraisal] on the basis the the town will pay for it BS -- have had conversations wBd. of Selectmen, think request should go to the Bd of Selectmen, to ask them to get an independent appraisal, that the Town (through the Town Manager) would have the appraisal conducted, EM — there is a method where the buyer has an appraisal done, the seller has an appraisal done, and if there is no agreement then [those] two appraisers come up with a third Motion that the B/A ask the Bd of Selectmen to get an independent appraisal of this prop. Second JU -- what going to do w/ it? AS — it gives us a number to put into the pro forma, to use that number and do next steps FS -- I feel that, I expect an appraisal wd come in quite bit higher than [that of the] neighbors, that it could satisfy the neighbors that a higher value is correct, Jposner, to us, re whether can come up with livable with conditions, what gets counted for land value in pro forma is important, as are number of othe r appraisals, Rt, wd ask that town mgr ask for appraisal Rs, we'll go to bd of selectmen, have town mgr. Get, prefer no one know who doing, JU, what about a time element, we've been dragging on for months, get done in week, Rs, address this, move on, Motion, second In favor, 5 -0, unanimous ( * ** *draft letter requesting? Speak to Phyllis re next selectmen agenda) RT flesh out design for either 28 or 24, Russ, have done some re 28, prepared to do more, wd take units out along Lowell St, those are least valuable units, u/some pressure, Re design pressures on abutters, smaller 3 unit bldg on right in frontb \\ Perhaps cd bring freestanding garage down to front? Nb, from neighborhood standpoint, ones on Lowell St., have least impact, if big bulky 4s around outside cd be made smaller, less visual impact, Russ, we have to consider, if getting into a 28 project, It is thinner, Have to think of coming up w /project cd get loan on, get built, Re impacts on abutters, Continue to believe that this project is similar re its impact to other projects in town Re relationship w/burrowes st and east st night JU, sense is contrary to nb, wd like to see bigger open space in middle, take 2 out, JP, cd work up few conceptual approaches Hard to keep moving on one piece, If in situation that don't know how acq. Price to be, ..? JD, concerned re impervious surface, That garage, If went down to 24, wd have significantly more room A significant redesign, JP, some talk re 24 being feasible, When submitted three pro formas, yes theoretically possible, but lot cd go wrong, and not a lot of room for error, Hope from financial analysis standpoint, hoped wd be clear that 24 not feasible at all, AS, if do some replanning on 28, If reduce number of units, no. of sq. Rage should go down somewhat, Ref. Impervious surface, Remember (rt) that large amount there now, RW, today, bldgs, 33% of site covereage, w/32 units, decreases to 27 %, add roads etc,. have additional 15% of impervious surface, to @ 51% No support from bd. For 32 (at this time), too dense Support to try to get them to go to 16? To unreasonable? Bs, problem w /trying to get affordable units down to 4 16 is as unreasonable as 48, nb, hope cd do 24 as, looking forward to digesting numbers heard tonight fs, be much happier w/24, ju, 28, 24 bs, willing to consider 24? Rt, thought owed you financial info re 24, is far off for what can take on for selves, bank, etc. Reputation means too much Ed, thought 24 marginal, think based on my analysis, I wd not do a 24 unit dev., just not economical Ask bd to take real hard look at 24, but come back w /design for 28, Bd like to see on a version of 28 or more Up to RT, Couple of options but very schematic (JP) Bs, interest in project is to move along Af, re appraisal, as currently zoned? Bs, up to bd of selectmen Bill passman, good breakdown of hard costs, sorts costs lumped, Cd ed break that out and make available to us? Time ran out Ed, can try to clarify BS = Bob Sacco JU = Judy Uhrig FS = Frank Smith AS = Art Smith NB = Nyles Barnert EM = Ed Marchant RT = Russ Tanner JP = Josh Posner