|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenJanuary 14, 2008
|
Chairman Bruce Bowler called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. Selectmen present: George Infanti, Reed Panasiti, Brad Galinson and Thomas Grella (at 6:45 p.m.). Also present: Town Administrator Gary MacGuire and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
Public Hearing
Mr. Infanti moved to open the public hearing at 6:37 p.m., second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Bowler read the public hearing notice pertaining to invoking the authority provided to the Board of Selectmen by the passage of Warrant Article No. 2 at the 2005 Annual Meeting in order to expend the sum of $300,000 to acquire a portion of Map 7 Lot 47 consisting of approximately 40.992 acres. The portion being purchased will consist of 25 acres and subdivided from the larger tract, with the Seller retaining title to the 16-acre balance.
He then read the original warrant article that passed in 2005 for $5.5 million dollars in bonds or notes to acquire open space land to meet conservation and passive recreation needs, with the exception that an amount no greater than 15 percent (or $825,000) may be expended to acquire open space lands to meet active recreation needs.
Mr. Bowler asked Mr. Galinson, representative to OSAC, to begin the discussion. He advised that Peter Rotch and Bill Wichman were in the audience and were prepared to give an informational presentation. Mr. Rotch, Chairman of OSAC, told them the Committee has been meeting frequently since the 2005 Town Meeting vote and this was the first time they had identified a piece of land to be brought before the Board of Selectmen. They have a P&S Agreement subject to their approval.
Mr. Wichman commented that the parcel met OSAC’s and the Conservation Commission’s criteria of open space. There will be another public hearing in two weeks and between now and then the Committee will be having conversations with the Selectmen to discuss financing it. The parcel is 25 acres and located in the north end of Town on Austin Road. The price is $300,000 with the appraised value of $390,000. As shown on the slide, the parcel completed a large area of productive land on both sides of Austin Road. A map on another slide showed the parcel being contiguous to the Arnold and Hazeltine land. This was an area where they could complete a trail system and is a corridor that connects the land across from the Hazeltine lot. However, it was not a suitable corridor for ATV’s. A detailed map showed the Bicentennial Trail that has been in existence since 1978. He also spoke about the proposed trail on the land that would be approximately three miles long within the contiguous area. Mr. Wichman explained that OSAC has a formal set of criteria for every property they consider. A slide showed two pages of the criteria for this parcel that he read and if the criteria was met – it also included a feasibility checklist.
Mr. Bowler opened the hearing to the public for comments and questions. John Harvey, Chairman of the Conservation Commission indicated the Commission held a public hearing on the same property with no members of the public in the audience. They passed a resolution that this should go to the Board of Selection. As a member of the Commission for 15 years, its Chairman for ten and as a participating contributor of the Amherst Master Plan, many people have come to him about the preservation of Amherst’s rural character and he spoke about the major contributions of land to rural character throughout the Town, especially if it was contiguous.
Arnie Rosenblatt, Planning Board member, advised that the Planning Board also agreed to this acquisition. Steve Desmarais, landowner, presented a modification to the appraisal that was based on an engineering estimate to construct the road. He had an Excavator come in and based on his estimate the Appraiser raised the property value to $520,000. Mr. Rotch advised that the purchasing price had not changed after reviewing Mr. Desmarais’ appraisal.
Mr. Bowler announced that the next public hearing would be on January 28, 2008. Mr. Infanti moved to close the public hearing at 7:00 p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Bowler announced the Board would continue their regular meeting before they held their next public hearing as Board members had several things they wanted to present.
Mr. Bowler began by reading a letter from the five-member Board of Selectmen. It began with … “In the past few weeks, there have been three letters to the editor as well as an article in a local paper making vague accusations about alleged wrongdoing, or even worse, corruption in Amherst town government. Let us assure you that we have yet to uncover any substance in any of these allegations.” The letter spoke of welcoming citizen input as well as a citizens group into participating in discussions prior to the Board’s decisions. However, the Board had no further discussions with this particular citizens group. “Though the members of the Board are not in favor of a debate in the media, we feel that not responding to baseless accusations can sometimes be perceived as an acknowledgement of some truth. For that reason, we feel compelled to offer some comment on the recent publishing’s.” The Board acknowledged the Milford Cabinet for giving them an opportunity to answer questions prior to their January 17 published article and were disappointed in the Amherst Citizen for not giving them the same opportunity.
The letter mentioned the Fire Chief’s presentation in 2003 of a warrant article to purchase a tanker by following a replacement schedule already in place. The article failed to gather the required 60% voter support at the polls. The following year it was presented again and approved by the voters at the polls and purchased shortly thereafter. On another note, at the March 2007 Town Meeting, the citizens voted against establishing a Capital Reserve Account to fund the Town’s share of the safety issues in front of Town Hall with those funds being funded by tax dollars. However, the vote by the Selectmen on December 3, 2007 was to fund the Town’s portion by unanticipated revenue, not appropriated funds, approved by Town Counsel and after dedicating a portion of a public meeting to seeking public input. “The majority of those that spoke that evening agreed this was a fiscally prudent decision.” The letter ended by “welcoming citizens to attend Selectmen’s meetings and to participate in the governance of their Town. We will always listen to both sides of each issue, and carefully consider those opinions before casting our votes.”
Mr. Infanti began his commentary … “When I received my copy of our often interesting and at times controversial Amherst Citizen I was surprised to see the one-sided front page article starting with the quote by Neal Foley ‘When the cat’s away, the mice will play’. “It would seem too bad for our Town that Neal and the other cats chose to resign instead of dealing with the mice, if in fact there was a problem, which I am in disagreement with.” He commented on the Editor’s choice of words for the ‘Amherst Five’ that ‘broke away’ instead of saying ‘quit’. Mr. Foley’s statement that when the elected officials told them not to ask questions it was bothersome. Mr. Infanti agreed, however, he never saw the “Fabulous Five” ever afraid to ask questions even though many of them missed many meetings during the previous budget process.” While he could say more for what it was worth he would like the citizens to decide and felt they knew the Selectmen and respected them for the job they did.
Mr. Infanti’s comments included his observations from a Letter to the Editor from A.P. Cid who indicated he was “mortified and disgusted when he read the powerful letters from the Amherst Five”. Mr. Infanti indicated he was the one that was “mortified and disgusted” as he was not sure where Mr. Cid got his information and chose not to address them that night because most of them did not deserve a response. He had called Mr. Cid and invited him to the Board’s meeting or any other meeting to present his allegations along with any backup data to support them.
Mr. Infanti commented that he can assure the “good citizens of Amherst and Mr. Cid” that the scandal he referred to would not become front page fodder and that would not lead to a “black eye” on the Town’s outward idyllic appearance that he fears is only in his mind. He once again welcomed Mr. Cid and his sources to come before the Selectmen and the Town’s citizens to back up the claims with hard facts that he has raised. “We live in a great country where freedom of speech is always allowed, but in this case the speech is allowed, but the allegations are false and border on slander”. Mr. Infanti welcomed any response.
Mr. Panasiti read a small portion of his prepared statement citing the fact that his wife, Nancy was hurt by what Mr. Cid had accused him of doing. He had never been accused of corruption or misuse of power in the many years of town and military service. Time will tell that at no time was he or any of the other Selectmen corrupt or misusing Town money. He said he will demand of Mr. Cid, a formal apology to his wife and family in accusing him of open and blatant corruption and that his comments bordered on slander. “You accuse me of illegal acts and misuse of my position. I take that as a very serious attack on me and I will seek legal advice and if necessary, take legal action.”
Bond Public Hearing
Mr. Bowler announced that initially a bond public hearing was posted, however, the bond warrant article for Baboosic Lake Community Septic System had been removed because it was a lesser amount than last year and Town Counsel advised they could proceed without it.
Budget Public Hearing
Mr. Infanti moved to open the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Bowler reported they would begin with warrant article 22 – the operating budget. He advised the budget was up approximately $94,000 or 1% from last year. General Government – The administration budget was up approximately 2% or about $7,500 due to wage increases and the addition of the cable access channel funding being placed in this budget. Election, Registration & Vital Statistics (Town Clerk) was down 7.5% or $10,000 due to a reduction in the part time clerk’s hours. Financial Administration was up 5% or $8,000 due to the creation of a sick leave incentive line and an increase in audit costs. Tax Collection was up 2% or less than $2,000 due to an employee COLA as well as health insurance increase. Assessing & Revaluation of Property budget is up 2.5% due to wages, benefits and contracted assessing. Legal Expenses budget is up by 9% or $6,000 as a result of an increase in Town Counsel’s hourly rate as well as an increase in labor law expenses due to pending labor negotiations. Personnel Administration / Insurance budget is up 11% or $12,600 because of Workers’ Compensation and disability insurance increases. Planning & Zoning Budgets were down by 4% or $9,000 due to the elimination of the master plan project which is now funded through completion. Cemeteries – this budget is up $12,000 or 39% with the majority of the increase in wages. This was an item that the Cemetery Trustees were previously funding through the Trust Funds. Property / Liability Insurance has increased by 15% or $12,000 and is a result of the most recent insurance premium quotes. Police budget has increased by $68,000 or 4% and does not contain any increases in personnel or hours. Approximately two thirds of the increase is for contractual wage and benefit increases. Other significant increases were in fuel costs and new equipment that included replacement of ballistic vests, non-lethal weapons and additional safety lighting.
Mr. Bowler continued … EMS reflects a gross budget increase of 7% or $29,000. Approximately $23,000 of this is for more part time wages due to the increased calls. This increase is largely offset by an increase in revenues for ambulance billing of $21,500. Fire has increased about 3.5% or $14,000. Half of the increase is related to fuel costs and the full year funding of an increase in part time hours that went into effect midway through the current budget. Wage and benefits as well as vehicle repair and refurbishment account for the remaining increase. Emergency Management is a level funded budget and not being increased for the fifth year in a row. Public Safety Communications reflects a gross budget increase of 4% or $13,000. It is a maintenance only budget and includes no additional positions or hours. The major increase is for employee steps, COLA and benefits.
Department of Public Works - General Government Buildings is down less than 1% or $1,000 because the Cable Access TV funding was moved from DPW to General Government. DPW Administrative has increased by 4.5% or $15,000 with the majority of the increase being in steps, COLA and benefits. It also includes $7,000 for an exhaust removal system at the DPW garage. DPW Operating budget is up 3% or $61,000 with two thirds of this being the Pennichuck Water Main Assessment. Health care increased by $6,000, summer help increased by $4,000 and repair costs increased by $8,000. Street Lighting was level funded. Souhegan Regional Landfill District was up less than 1% or $4,000 due to the Town’s contractual obligation. Transfer Station / Landfill Department was up 4% or $10,000 and includes step and COLA increases for both full and part-time employees and outside hire increased by $6,500 which was mostly for chipping yard waste. Parks & Grounds was level funded.
Mr. Bowler further advised that under Health Agencies the budget was down 4% or $2,000 because several agencies who do not consistently request funds have been eliminated and/or put back on as warrant articles. Welfare budget was down by 10% or $2,000 due to the efforts of Sharon Frydlo in managing this line is largely responsible for allowing this reduction. Recreation is up 1% or $3,000. The increases in wages and fuel costs were offset by reductions in health costs, vehicle lease and Baboosic Lake operating costs. Peabody Mill Environmental Center is level funded. Library is up 3% or $23,000 with over three fourths of the increase is due to wages and benefits. Other increases were in books, audio visual materials and new equipment. Principal & Interest – Long Term Bonds and Notes – Combined these lines were down by $14,000 or 7% as the bonds and notes continue to be paid off.
Linda Kaiser, Manchester Road, asked why wasn’t the Impact Fee Implementation in the budget. If the warrant article for this failed, they could be giving up $2 million dollars worth of income and she thought it unwise to have it as an article. Mr. Bowler asked where she came up with this figure. She indicated that Gordon Leedy gave those figures by adding up all the new developments. Mr. Infanti was not sure where he had gotten that number, but Milford received $181,240 and Bedford $272,430 for the town and schools. Mrs. Kaiser cited numbers she got when Lowe’s went into Derry or Londonderry. After so many years, this was the closest they had gotten to a fait accompli. Mr. Galinson noted that they still have to let the voters speak and the reason why it is in a warrant article. Mrs. Kaiser said that the CIP had to be in place as a mechanism to get impact fees - she felt this was strictly an administrative part of the CIP that implies that they would have impact fees.
Marilyn Peterman, 130 Amherst Street, asked if there was still a contingency fund. Mr. Bowler advised there was and it was budgeted at $38,000. She also had a concern and an observation on the welfare budget that it may be a little too low in this type of economy.
Article 23 Replacement Loader – Mr. Grella reported they have talked about this for several years. They plan on replacing the loader at the Highway Garage with a new one and the one at the Highway Garage would be transfer to the Transfer Station. It would be a five year lease purchase with the first year being $25,231.
Article 24 Construction of DPW Salt Shed – Mr. Grella advised the voters voted on this in 2006. It was thought the DPW would be able to provide the labor to construct the salt shed, however, this would not be the case and they decided to hire an outside firm to do the construction.
Article 25 Impact Fee Implementation – Mr. Galinson advised this $25,000 warrant article is for a consultant to do provide the legal backup to form the impact fees in case they were challenged in the future.
Article 26 Update of Utility Assessments - Mr. MacGuire explained the $32,000 under this article is to hire a consultant to update the utility assessments. Joe Lessard of MRI knew of three towns who received additional assessments after this had been done: Chester $150,000 in ’06, Epping $73,000 in ’07 and Fremont $46,000 ’05.
Article 27 Highway Vehicle Capital Reserve Fund – Mr. Grella advised the $85,000 was to establish a capital reserve fund for the highway vehicle.
Article 28 DPW Replacement Vehicle - Mr. Grella noted the $75,000 was to purchase a fully equipped one ton dump truck and to authorize the withdrawal from the Highway Vehicle Capital Reserve Fund. In response to John Siemienowicz’s question, Bruce Berry told him that the original article was rather confusing because two different vehicles were being discussed and the language was altered for the one ton truck.
Article 29 Fire Department Utility Vehicle – Mr. Bowler reported this was similar to the articles presented for the past several years. This year new Fire Chief Rick Todd was proposing a one ton four wheel drive extra cab pickup rather than an Explorer type SUV for $26,000. He felt it to be better utilized than the others that were proposed.
Article 30 Department of Public Works Land – Mr. Infanti advised this article was for $100,000 to purchase a 2 +/- acre parcel of land for the Amherst Highway Facility the funds to be withdrawn from the LUCT fund and would have no tax impact. It would take away a building lot which had a value of more than $100,000. Chris Nowlan, Melendy Hollow, indicated he had met with Bruce, John and Dick this past Friday and came to realize there were two options on this parcel of land. He was essentially supportive of the land acquisition. Option 1 had a minimal road frontage. Option 2 also being offered for sale had more frontage. Mr. Bowler added it was for $32,000 more. Mr. Nowlan suggested buying the full buildable lot for $132,000 whether DPW needed it or not and when the real estate market got better they could sell it as a buildable lot. Option 1 didn’t give them an option for the future. It was his understanding from Bruce that he would have no intention of utilizing the frontage and wouldn’t be encroaching in the future. As a citizen, he was more in favor of Option 2. Mr. Bowler indicated Mr. Nowlan had made a good observation and they could certainly change the article to the second option. In response to Mr. Bowler’s question, Bruce advised that a great deal of fill would have to be put in on the lot. Mrs. Peterman was under the impression they needed the land in order to do the expansion and something they needed to do down the road. She did not believe the Town was in the business to buy land that they may not need and then sell it to make a profit at a later time. This would put them in the real estate business and she would object to it as a citizen. Mr. Nowlan indicated this was a one shot opportunity. Mrs. Peterman felt they should buy what they need at a cost. Mr. Bowler added this piece of land would be easier to expand on than going out the back.
Article 31 Recreational Facilities Capital Reserve Fund - Mr. Panasiti advised this was basically the same as the last few years in unanticipated revenue of not more than $250,000 to be placed in a fund and used the same way, however, it was worded differently by Town Counsel.
Article 32 – 38 Capital Reserves - Mr. Bowler explained that in the past all Capital Reserves had been in the budget, however, they cannot be in the budget and needed to be a warrant article. They have separated out each Capital Reserve to give the citizens a chance to vote on each one this year. They are as follows: Article 32 Ambulance Capital Reserve $22,000; Article 33 Assessing Revaluation Capital Reserve $25,000; Article 34 Town Computer System Capital Reserve $7,500; Article 35 Communications Center Capital Reserve $5,000; Article 36 Town 250th Anniversary Celebration Capital Reserve to be held in 2010. This is the second of their three year request for $5,000. Article 37 Forestview Cemetery Capital Reserve which started several years ago for $15,000. Article 38 Highway Equipment Capital Reserve which was different than Highway Vehicle for $20,000 and the use was not for trucks.
Deirdre Rogusky asked if Forestview was new. Mr. Bowler told her that it started several years ago, they neglected to fund it last year and was brought to their attention by one of the Cemetery Trustees.
Article 39 Appointment of Capital Reserve Agent – Mr. Infanti explained there was an older article that didn’t define properly who the agents were, this article specifies the Board of Selectmen. Town Counsel felt it needed to be done to give more clarity to this Capital Reserve.
Article 40 Change the Purpose of the Library Land Capital Reserve Fund – Mr. Galinson mentioned this is not to appropriate, but to change the name and purpose of the Library Land Capital Reserve which was originally set up to acquire land. This broadens the Capital Reserve’s purpose to include expansion and renovation of existing Library facilities. Library Trustees Chairman Don Holden spoke about running out of space at the Library and they thought about expanding it. Bruce Berry talked to them about this and they would like to do some design work and look at a feasibility study.
Articles 41-43 – Mr. Panasiti explained that these were for non-profits who have asked to raise and appropriate funds for their individual organizations as follows: Article 41 Keystone Hall $2,000; Article 42 Milford Counseling $3,500 and Article 43 Harbor Homes $2,000. In response to Mrs. Peterman’s question, Mr. Bowler indicated that the first two had not asked for three or four years their funds and it was decided to put them on the warrant for the community to decide. Harbor Homes was seeking funding for the first time.
Article 44 Amherst Climate Change Resolution (By Petition) – Petitioner Marilyn Peterman spoke about piggy backing on what was passed last year and asking the Selectmen to appoint a committee. Since this was passed, a lot of things have happened in the region. There is support in Amherst to become a more energy efficient green community. PSNH, Keyspan and NRPC have been working with several communities regarding this which resulted in revenue savings. She hoped the Board were in favor of moving forward with a committee. Ms. Rogusky asked if there was a potential tax impact to any one of these. Mr. Bowler felt that Petition Article 44 had a positive tax impact. Mrs. Peterman remarked that the easiest thing communities have done was to invite Keyspan and PSNH to do energy audits. Also to encourage the School Department to look at their buildings as well as having people in the community look at their own homes. It was pointed out by Mr. Bowler that the Town has already worked with PSNH regarding street lighting.
Article 45 Elderly Local School Tax Credit (By Petition) – Mr. Bowler advised that it would be hard to calculate any tax impact on this article. They have been told by Town Counsel it was an illegal warrant article and if it passes didn’t mean anything. They would first need something on the State level and couldn’t do anything without it.
Article 46 Creation of a Transportation System for Town Residents Unable to Drive Themselves to Necessary Appointments (By Petition) - Mr. Bowler advised this petition was from the group they heard from several weeks ago and he was surprised it was on the warrant since the Amherst Selectmen agreed to form a committee with the Milford Selectmen.
Mr. Bowler announced that usually the Town began numbering their articles with number one, following in sequence was the Amherst School District with the Souhegan School District beginning their warrants with number one. It was agreed this year that Amherst School District would be numbered from 1-10, Souhegan 11-20 and the Town the remaining numbers through to the end of the zoning articles.
Mr. Infanti moved to close the public hearing at 7:54 p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Further Discussion on Articles 25 & 30
Mr. Bowler asked for the Selectmen’s thoughts on Articles 25 and 30. Mr. Infanti felt for sometime that impact fees should be done in Town. He did not think they should become known as a town that charges impact fees that were unrealistic compared to other towns, but they are necessary. On the other hand, he felt the voters should vote on whether they should enact them or not and let them have their say. Mr. Grella felt the same way and wondered if they had any idea of what they would do for the Town. Mr. MacGuire mentioned they had used Milford and Bedford numbers for the public hearing. Obviously the last several years have not been good for building and development. They will not get any good returns on their investment for the first year. The cost of development will come back to them in impact fees and hard to put a number on it using Bedford’s and Milford’s.
Mr. Infanti commented that sitting on the Planning Board and seeing all the plans they have been reviewing, he would be surprised if they didn’t get something the first year. Mr. MacGuire added that Bedford’s impact fee is $6,000 per house. Mr. Infanti mentioned that Milford had a list of criteria such as sewer & water, police, fire and it definitely was a wake up call when they hand you the sheet. Mr. Galinson remarked that if it didn’t pass, he would be with Linda, but it should be a warrant article and not in the budget. Mr. Panasiti said that Amherst was one of the only towns in the area that doesn’t have impact fees. If the budget got voted down, this would too. Mr. Bowler was fine with it being a warrant article and letting the voters decide.
Relative to Article 30, Mr. Infanti deferred to the Public Works Director who had submitted this proposed article. He thought he understood they wanted the back land for the hanger. Mr. Bowler asked Mr. Berry to join them and asked him his opinion on the matter. Mr. Berry was not in favor of buying land to then sell it in 10-15 years. He was in favor of buying land to build a building. He was looking for something a bit deeper and had no interest in frontage. His preference is what he asked for in the article. Mr. Infanti said he would go along with what the DPW Director felt is more valuable to him. Mr. Grella thought the same way since Mr. Berry is their Director and his feeling to stay with what they have proposed. Mr. Galinson indicated that if there was any chance they didn’t need the land, then he wouldn’t support the article. Mr. Panasiti agreed – Mr. Nowlan brought up a good point and something they didn’t think about because of the way it was presented to them. Mr. Bowler thanked Mr. Nowlan for bring these options forward. Mr. Berry thanked the W&M members for their input.
Mrs. Peterman commented that they have two articles that were revenue producing and there was nothing that said they have to produce them in this form. The update on the utility assessments is critical unless it is explained in detail more than just in the Voters’ Guide and is almost as critical as the impact fees. She agreed with Linda that it was a long time coming to get them for various reasons. Once a consultant was chosen, they will be recouping the money in a very short period of time for approximately two cents on the tax rate.
Bob Petrella, Shadow Lane, indicated that W&M had been running into the problem of what becomes a warrant article, what doesn’t and should someone put together a list of criteria. He was totally in agreement with impact fees as it will lower the attraction of development. He thought they could do a good job of explaining this in the Voters’ Guide and perhaps it could and should be a warrant article.
Mrs. Kaiser again spoke to the subject of impact fees and among other things, citing the fact that it is the Planning Board that is in charge of impact fees, not the voters. She felt it was the Selectmen’s job to get it into the budget. Mr. Infanti agreed with impact fees and used the analogy of raising money for the loader by putting it in the budget under equipment and if this was the case, people would be up in arms. In response to Mrs. Kaiser’s comments, Mr. Bowler reminded her that they have to have the consultant put together the fee structure in order to go forward. Mrs. Kaiser spoke about amending the operating budget at the deliberative session. Mrs. Rogusky indicated W&M were in favor of supporting impact fees by a vote of 7-0.
Old Business
Mr. Infanti reported on the poor turnout at the Master Plan meeting last week. He again stressed how important the Master Plan was in shaping Amherst for the next 10-15 years. Hopefully they will have more input at the next meeting.
Mr. Grella reported that he attended a Heritage Commission meeting and spoke about their role in the Master Plan.
New Business
Mr. Galinson mentioned that there was a house that burned down the night before. Kudos go to the Fire Departments. He has received a lot of emails about what happened, how long is this going to take and how this can be handled and what can the Selectmen do. Mr. Grella explained that the Fire Chief can determine that it is a safety hazard, there was plywood on the windows and until the Fire Chief says it is okay, nothing further can be done. Mr. Galinson said it was a valid concern of the people. Mr. Bowler indicated that twice within several months they had received mutual aid that came to Town. He suggested sending a letter to the other towns to show their appreciation for what they saw in November and today.
Minutes
Mr. Infanti moved to accept the minutes of January 7, 2008 as written, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
PMEC Appointment
Mr. Bowler asked if they heard anything from the person who was seeking a position on the PMEC Advisory Board. Mr. MacGuire will advise the Director that she did not come in.
Mr. Infanti moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:23 p.m., second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant