HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-04 Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Minutes
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Minutes
Councilors Attending: Geoffrey Gratwick, Frank Farrington, Hal Wheeler, Gerry
Palmer, Susan Hawes, Patricia Blanchette, Peter D’Errico,
Richard Stone
Staff Attending: Ed Barrett, Jim Ring, Brad Moore, David Gould,
Chief Ron Gastia, Dana Wardwell
Others Attending: Carol Epstein, Kathy Moriarty, Kim Marchegiani
Committee convened at 5:00 p.m.
Consent Agenda
1. Sewer Abatement Request: 89 Larkin Street – Account #043067
Councilor Stone moved and Councilor Blanchette seconded with no discussion.
Regular Agenda
2. Discussion – Landscaping Requirements of the Land Development Code
A. Carol Epstein has requested the opportunity to address the
Committee regarding concerns about existing landscaping requirements
for development projects.
Carol Epstein, developer in Bangor. She said when they were working on a small
potential project on Odlin Road, they started looking at the landscaping
requirements, and had some concerns. Carol wanted to share those concerns
with the Committee in a constructive way. Carol said they were not against
landscaping and would really work to enhance their buildings with landscaping
with nice lobbies, sculptures, and all kinds of things. And she thought those
things do wonderful things and most of their tenants really appreciated it. For
landscaping, they go beyond with seasonal, both flowers and perennials beyond
what the City required. She did become concerned with that project (laid out the
plan for Committee review) that this was a little 10,000 square foot building on
Odlin Road, recently approved. It was a multi purpose building with office,
perhaps retail service. They were trying to accommodate some potential tenants
who had needs for both office and storage. This building offered good visibility
and access. It was approved, but quite honestly was hoping not to have to build
1
it because of costs. When they do the landscaping that was in the City Code, it
required a perimeter of a lot of trees and shrubs that block visibility and line of
site and viewing the building. They felt that landscaping should enhance the
building not block the view of the building. The City Code favors the latter rather
than the former. This being a commercial district and one would want to go
there because it would be accessible and visible. The landscaping requirement
was so heavy around the perimeter that it would block the signage and visibility
and some safety components. When spending out on the perimeter it would
consume the budget, and would not be able to put landscaping next to the
building which would be a much more attractive place to put the landscaping
with a mix of both. She was concerned that the City Code offered no method for
waivers and there were times when the general topography of the site may slope
up at the back, which acted as a natural buffer. She said there was no way to
say was there a need to put in the bushes when it was not accomplishing what it
was geared to. She said she clearly understood why there was a heavy buffering
between a commercial zone and a residential zone. But VIP Auto was
neighboring and not sure what they were buffering from them. The cost was
of concern. For a few years her friends in Portland had asked how she built in
Bangor because the rents didn’t justify the cost of construction. She said it used
to be able to work through that, and honestly now didn’t see how that can be
done. The construction was not just building materials, site costs, moving dirt,
not just pavement. They had budgeted $7,000 for landscaping. They did’t have
a quote on landscaping and don’t usually because they felt comfortable with the
numbers they figured. They started running some numbers on an acre plus site
which required 22 coniferous trees, 17 deciduous trees, 35 coniferous bushes,
and 35 deciduous bushes. Installed trees run between $300-$400 minimum,
when multiplying all this was well over $20,000. That didn’t take into account
loom, mulch, and seed. Carol said again, she hoped not to have to build but had
a proposal out to a tenant and if they said yes she would have to build. That
location was a good niche and good use for that property. She said they weren’t
just throwing up a metal building; it would have a lot of glass, brick, with
attractive front, something that would enhance the neighborhood and stand out
as a quality project. She said from a cost point it was unworkable. Carol said
something was wrong with the City Code when it forced someone into that kind
of position. Councilor Gratwick said he thought this would be the initial phase of
discussions. David Gould asked for suggestions on what he should comment on
per Councilor Gratwick’s request to provide an overview. The best reference
David could provide was the last ½ dozen projects that had been built in the City
using those exact same standards. The bank (Merrill Merchants Bank) and
Walgreen’s on Broadway, the Shaw’s on Stillwater Avenue their building hadn’t
been built but the landscaping was put in. He said that’s what the Code “gets
you to” as opposed to looking at a plan, looking at a site what it looked like out
there as you drove by. Councilor Gratwick said part of the homework was to
bring this back and for each Councilor to go look at those sites with that in mind.
David said he thought they would get a better feel for what the standards looked
like on the ground when going by a site that’s built as opposed to looking at a
piece of paper, a plan. Ed asked David to give the Committee a summary of
those sites because they were not all comparable, in particular the Walgreen’s
2
site, it abuts residential which increased buffering. He asked if that was correct.
David said Walgreen’s was a private business which would require heavier
buffers. Ed suggested providing the Councilors with a summary of the site and
any particular situation that might make it different from the proposal. Councilor
Blanchette thanked Carol for bringing this forth and that this had been a problem
around the City which she had a great number of complaints about. Buffers
were required on developments but never stopped to think of the severity of our
winters, winter kill was really high. When plowing, if you have a parking lot and
you have to plow it, you go up and knock the trees down. That meant next year
going through the same process of planting them. She said she had no problem
with buffers adjacent to residential zone. But Odlin Road did not have too many
ranch houses for single occupancy. She stated it was a business district. If the
buffers for the City reflected on the Shaw’s project, we’re in trouble. Because
they tore down paradise to put up a parking lot and took the buffers away from
the residential neighbor so all the carbon from the cars would go into
neighborhood areas. Councilor Blanchette suggested looking into it because
there was a difference between a residential neighborhood and industrial
neighborhood and what should be required. She had people complaining about
Code Enforcement going out and really being gung ho on re-plantings. Her
comment was if that’s all they have to do, maybe there was overstaffing. She
also said the City went through this when a resident cut down a tree over on one
of the streets. There was a need to look at, but was not saying they were going
to change one thing, and may not find one thing out of line, but should be
reviewed for appropriateness. The last thing in the world that should be done to
a business was to be over-burdensome. She felt it should be looked at and work
with Dave and the Planning Board and find out. Councilor Blanchette said to
Carol “as government we move slower than a snail”, a process that municipal
government required, so it would be the new Council to look at this, but it had
been long overdue that they go in and separate the impacts on a residential
neighborhood from industrial. Jim Ring asked Carol about the comment she had
made about landscaping up against the building, (beneficial) they were carrying
an allowance of $7000, and looking at $20,000- If they were not required to do
the $20,000 if they had a preference of doing something different how much
planting would be done up against the building? Carol stated she didn’t have a
sense of dollars, but on that site there were clearly nice spots next to the
building. She recalled 824 Stillwater Avenue where they placed trees, bushes,
and some perennials and annuals right up next to the building, same with Key
Plaza, 900 Hammond Street, 12 Stillwater Avenue which enhanced the look of
the building. Jim said he liked the look on some of her other projects. And
asked if still required to still place the same number of plants, but had flexibility
to do that up against the building or separate islands, would that be preferable?
Carol stated, absolutely she would love to be able to get the cost down, but if
not able to she would much rather take some plantings and enhance the look of
the building. Councilor Stone said he agreed with Carol. And stated sometimes
there were opportunities to have exceptions. He said he was going to take credit
for this because he was the one who pushed for it, but he also recognized there
were times it didn’t make sense. He, however, didn’t agree with Carol on the
safety issue and visibility because of all the other buildings. He hadn’t seen
3
anything where visibility was a problem. He mentioned Ames Corporation. and
two or three landscaping architects. The original plan was changed because of
their concerns about safety and those issues were addressed then. The intent
behind it was to shield the general public from vast spances of parking lots. He
stated he agreed with Carol and Councilor Blanchette that if there was nothing in
the backyard, why put something there. He also said there was room for
everybody to work together and come up with something. Councilor Gratwick
said this was in an information sense to get the wheels turning. He asked Ed
and Dave how they would begin to look at that more carefully because it wasn’t
a decision that was going to be made today. Ed said what could be done first
was to follow-up on David’s suggestion to give examples of what had been done
and expand that, to go back historically and take pictures that showed how
things had changed over time, so they could see how beautiful Bangor Shopping
Center looked in places. To provide an example of when there wasn’t a standard
so they could see how that had changed over time. Also, to take a look at what
was required and see if there were other approaches to take, example take a
look at performance standards as opposed to particular levels and say we want
sufficient trees on the property to provide X degree of whatever. He suggested
taking some time and see what might work. Ed agreed that what they were
after was to make the properties that look nice. And that historically, properties
that didn’t have much landscaping didn’t look nice. He said there had to be
some way to look at potential ways to be more flexible, as Jim suggested. Ed
suggested to maybe to look at performance standards, because trees, plantings,
and shrubbery not only played a part in aesthetics but also with stormwater and
it would give ways to manage and treat stormwater on site and that would be a
big push in the future, probably on a City-wide basis. Right now that focus was
on impacted watersheds. He said there were a number of factors and give Staff
time to see what they could come up with. Councilor Gratwick asked if it would
be reasonable to turn back to Staff, then come back here in four/six weeks. He
noted that it was the tip of the iceburg which included TIC and the Planning
Board. David said there were a couple of things that needed to be looked at.
He said as long as he had been in the Planning Department, since 1983, they
were always working on the buffer standard which had evolved over a ½ dozen
times. Historically, the biggest problem was getting the stuff to show up on the
sites. Part of what needed to be done, was to get the Committee to understand
what the requirements were because it changed district by district, some district
like this one required a buffer around the whole property. There were other
districts that don’t, it would only require buffering of the parking lot. He stated it
was important to understand the regulatory scheme then get Councilors out to
see what the current Ordinance looked like when it was in place. The plans
weren’t good representations of what it would look like in the field. Councilor
Gratwick asked if at some point there would be a workshop where David would
give what the current standards were and provide examples. He said it may be
done in conjunction with the Planning Board and that they and the whole
development community all may be educated. Councilor Farrington said they
seem to be talking about two general principles: cost and what is the quality, art
or beauty. If it were possible to set something up in a general principle sort of
way so that when someone came in to develop everyone would know there were
4
two goals in mind. Is this something that was a percentage of the value, there
must be some guideline that they could come up with about what was
appropriate to put into a building? He said the court building wouldn’t have
much because it was just built on a plot of land, very little land. Was there a
ratio? He suggested Dave come up with a general set of principles which would
be helpful. Ed said anything in the Ordinances had to be in sufficient detail for
someone who read the Ordinance would know what it required. One of the
difficulties would be to make it specific enough so it was not a subjective
judgment. Councilor Blanchette pointed out that it was election day and there
would be two/three new people that would need to be brought up to date. It
would be wise to put this to Staff and waiting to update the newly appointed
members. She would prefer not to rehash and get bogged down. It would give
the Planning Department snap shots of different developments in town so they
could look at what would be appropriate for Stillwater Avenue, Odlin Road.
Councilor Gratwick said it would go back to the Council at a time uncertain.
Note for the Council that Councilor Gratwick and Jim had been talking about
roads and road widths, also talking about having a bus tour for the Council.
Councilor Wheeler asked Carol if there was a timeline for her that needed to be
considered. Could she wait out the process? He sensed that there was a great
deal of understanding and sympathy for her concerns. He said that these things
did’t happen very quickly, it would involve the Planning Board as well as the
Council and the Planning Board could vote thumbs down and the Council would
have to override it with a two/thirds vote. That would be just one of the political
humps in the road. Councilor Wheeler asked Carol how soon she’d need some
action one way or the other. Carol said they had already been through the
review process and if they received the go ahead to do this, she would be doing
it with those standards. She stated she didn’t have any illusions and recognized
the complexity of the issue and that there would be no quick solution. Councilor
Stone noted there was one time where they were in the process and made
something retroactive for things that had been approved for a date and nothing
had happened by that date, something on Broadway with Andy Hamilton. He
stated that obviously there wouldn’t be planting this fall, and he was not going to
stick to something he felt was right but also wanted to be flexible with Carol and
other developers. Ed stated they could look at and if there was a retroactive
change it would have to go back to the Planning Board to make sure it met the
standard. David said they had done this because the standards were heavier
than they were in this particular plan. There had been a number of sites with
revised plans approved with less landscaping. There were more plantings than
that a few years back. Carol had a question on the process. She noted there
was an item on the Agenda for changes to the Ordinance and wondered if she
were allowed to comment on that. Councilor Gratwick said the next item was
Section B.
B. Possible Ordinance changes – Attached is a draft Ordinance
amendment to §165-135 that would clarify plant type requirements for
submitting additional landscaping information for projects exceeding
$1,000.000 in construction costs.
5
David said the amendment came about from specific concerns about species of
planting people were putting on sites. The Planning Board didn’t require people
to identify a certain kind of tree or shrub. They only asked they identify
deciduous, evergreen, and shrubs. There was concern about people planting
shrubs and calling them evergreen trees. Councilor Stone requested the
Planning Board develop a list of plants, to say if you don’t pick from our list, not
going to count what you’ve got. They opted to site a universal source, the bible
of landscape materials which identified trees and shrubs. The other item of
concern was the issue of Home Depot and their huge loss of plantings. They
put into the amendment that if a project were detailed enough, they would be
done by someone that was certified to do that and submit that to the Code office
to ensure the developer got what he was paying for. This would be sort of a
quality assurance. At a certain value of development should be another step in
the process. Councilor Gratwick pointed out page 25 under planting details.
Councilor Blanchette asked where they acquired the book. David said they may
have gotten across the road. Councilor Blanchette mentioned she would get her
own copy. Councilor Stone stated, as an example, every couple of years the
electrical code mirrors the national electrical code when updated for the
protection of contractors and the owners. The intent would be the bidder would
be required to provide the intended product. Carol said she appreciated the
goals of what this was trying to accomplish; to ensure things actually got
planting, and stay alive. She asked regarding Section 2.1; a million dollar, why a
million dollar? Her project was over a million, being a smaller project. Under
plant materials section the concern would be an allowance for substitutions when
the nursery didn’t have something in stock and offered others in its stead.
Planting details, specifying soil amendments, watering schedule and maintenance
plan would not be realistic. Nobody would check whether it was done. She
didn’t think putting that on the paper would help and said that inspections would
be more important. Meeting or exceeding the American standards there would
be no issues. Some of the large nursery chains may not meet those standards.
Requiring certain types of engineers, she said she was surprised because she felt
the City had not been flexible in not specifying credential issues with engineers
and letting the licensing boards do that. She said she found that to be a
different direction for the City. The biggest issue would be enforcement and
needed to be addressing that. Ed said the City had started trying harder to
enforcing the landscaping standards. One thing the City would be doing on a
regular basis would be after a year that landscaping had been done, see how
much had died off and deal with that. They also had started picking areas of the
City and reviewing those during the summer. Ed said, for instance, they did a lot
of locations in the mall area, they found that pretty much everything had been
taken out so they had to put it back in. Ed said they were trying to be more
systematic and concurred with Carol that it wouldn’t be any good to have
standards if they were not enforced. He also said they were trying to keep an
eye on it more than have in the past. Ed suggested taking time to think about
what Carol had presented. He suggested perhaps instead of using dollars, they
could determine by acre size, which would avoid the one million today being the
five million tomorrow. He said Staff would look over and come back with
suggested changes and modifications. David said he had contact with the local
6
nursery and landscape architects. They would love the City to require it on every
plan. He said it would also help keep the bidding fair. Councilor Wheeler
thanked Carol Epstein for a very insightful commentary on the wordings of the
Ordinance and he didn’t think this was the only Ordinance that they needed to
look at, with a little more objectivity rather than subjectivity. He said the
majority of actions by the Planning Board were initially Staff originated, or Staff
driven as a result of an application from a developer. Once again he thanked her
for pointing out, from her experience and practical knowledge, that there needed
to be a little less over-reaching and try to involve developers who may not even
be involved in the particular project in the process of refining and making
Ordinances as practical as possible. Councilor Gratwick thanked Carol for coming
and showing the deep geological faults.
3. Discussion – Winter Parking Regulations
Ed gave a brief introduction that Jim Tyler suggested the City take a look at this.
There had been a little bit of a chance to talk about it at Staff level and felt that
it would be a good chance to initiate a discussion. He stated they had the
emergency situation in downtown for two years. He said it was generally
working well and not had very many problems with it. Public Works and
Engineering were amenable to trying it on a City-wide basis with a couple of
caveats, they had run into one little confusion factor because not only did they
have the overnight parking ban there was the odd/even system. During the
winter parking was allowed on one side of the street depending on the day so
there was always clearance for vehicles to get down streets as widths lost due to
snow and the opportunity to pull snow out of the areas. If the parking ban was
eliminating right now, the odd/even system runs from six in the morning to
midnight. Between midnight and six you can park wherever you want but when
it comes six o’clock cars better be on the odd or even side of the street. They
would have to work through that. They thought it was important to keep the
odd/even system for safety, ability to remove snow, and avoid the necessity of
pre-posting areas if there was a need to do snow removal. The Police
Department was concerned because this would result in more of a need to ticket
and tow. He said there were times when the Police Department has had a hard
time keeping up in a snow storm. There would be additional workload and
delays that may result in trying to get vehicles ticketed and towed. Jim Tyler,
154 Parkview Avenue he stated he lives on section between Garland and Mt.
Hope. The houses were vintage 1910-1920 when the land standards of the lots
were postage stamp Bangor lots, 50x100 / 50x75 house nestled in behind
houses. What had happened over time was that many of the larger colonel
homes were converted into multi-family dwellings. The Land Development Code
recognized the higher density in the neighborhoods; that the Ordinance was
consciously encouraging a decreasing of that density over time. He said in the
meantime there are lots of dwelling units in very dense areas with very small
st
driveways. The winter parking ban November 1 to March, there are 100’s-
1000’s of people who are scrambling around trying to get a car off the street so
they don’t get a $20 dollar ticket when there was no need for snow removal.
7
The problem with the downtown area and the residential area was that the
downtown area had alternatives, such as the garage. When on Maple Street,
couldn’t go to the school, nearest business, where would you go with a car? For
many who have college kids, etc. for three to four weeks over Christmas, their
dogging $20 tickets every night or shuttling back and forth to the parking
garage, which was very burdensome. He said initially he thought this was a
pretty simplistic request after it had already been downtown. He said he wasn’t
even sure what to do with the odd/even, but it would certainly be nice for those
who avail themselves of on-street parking didn’t have to get out of the way for
150 nights. Chief Gastia said he would concur there were a lot of people who
left their cars parked on the street; they know that from the amount of tickets
written during the winter months. He said he agreed there was a lot of
scrambling going on, particularly when there was snow, people trying to run to
their cars before they actually get there or before the tow truck arrived. In the
snow months parking wasn’t a problem and it did create issues with the
odd/even. It would take some thought on how they would work around that. He
said the concerned was that it would stress the Police Department resources.
They don’t typically tow when the plows aren’t running, but ticketing was done.
The first of November cars are ticketed to let them know they can’t do that and
more importantly to train them that it was better to get a ticket now than towed
sometime when it does snow. He said there was a warning period before the
first of November. When Public Works notifies the Police Department they’re
going to plow then at the earliest chance they start driving on their beats to put
a ticket on a car and call it into dispatch, a list is started, and the tow company is
called. That’s after midnight, between eleven and 1:30-2:00 in the morning
being the busy time with bars let out, and busy with many calls. Sometimes
they don’t get there as fast as some of the Public Works workers would like them
to. The concern Ron had was if they allowed parking during the night without
restriction during the winter, when it came to the snow days when it’s posted on
television and radios the Police Department would be required to get out there
as soon as possible to start ticketing and towing. The numbers would increase
significantly. He said Portland did this, they allowed parking on the street except
when notification was made. He said he was unclear on the number of vehicles
towed/ticketed. If this was something the Council would prefer to try, they could
try for a year and put a sunset clause on it and said that would be his
recommendation/request. There needed to be a chance to evaluate, as he didn’t
know what it would do to the resources. Jim said he was speaking on behalf of
Public Services, that it might be workable. Ron outlined some valid concerns.
He said he didn’t know, over time, if they might potentially end up not ticketing,
less work on a routine basis, but it would take a while to get to that point. He
also stated he would be very concerned about limitation odd/even- some years it
hadn’t been a problem. Dana Wardwell, Public Works Director said he didn’t
have much different to say other than last year Public Works posted 29 bans for
downtown area, the year before posted 17. Councilor Stone said he was not
even sure what Staff’s final recommendation would be, and in the interest of
time, rely on the Public Works Director and the Chief to come back with
something that would be workable for them, not the Councilors. Ed concurred
there needed to be more time to work through the odd/even issue, because that
8
just came up today. They would have more conversations with Jim and see
what they could come up with. Staff would come back and report if successful
or not. Councilor Blanchette said this would not be a fast fix, and suggested to
look at it. She also suggested City Staff contact the media for them to place a
“scrolling message” on the channel if there was a parking ban, like Portland.
People needed to be informed and should be able to work with the local media.
If the policy were to change, they would have to depend on the media to get the
word out. Councilor Wheeler asked Ron Gastia when he said he would be
agreeable, all things considered, did he mean a calendar year, or snow season?
Ron said he was thinking about a snow season from November through March.
Councilor Gratwick said it should be reasonable to bring back in two to four
weeks. Ed said it should probably come back next time with an update.
4. Water and Sewer Billing Software Update
Brad introduced Kathy Moriarty, General Manager at the Bangor Water District.
Kim Marchegiani, Office Manager with Bangor Water District. Brad said the
Board had already considered this at the Water District and would like to move
forward. Brad said updates had been provided over the past couple of years
regarding the selection of software that could handle the business practices. The
Water District approved the direction that was being taken and brought this to
the Committee to acquire approval and go ahead to continue with the process
and purchase of the software. The system in place now was purchased fourteen
years ago and was a DOS based system. The company that sold that no longer
supported that software which necessitated moving to a different platform in
order to do water and sewer billing which had been done since 1968. Through
the original process, the company that had the software that they were using
said they had a different platform, a windows based system that could handle
the billing. They gave every reason on paper and verbally that would
accommodate the needs. That software was purchased and during the first day
of training it was evident that their software could not accommodate WWTP and
BWD business practices. Through a number of years, this Munis had said the
next version would accommodate WWTP and BWD business needs. They had
never been able to provide software that would accommodate the needs to be
able to operate. WWTP and BWD decided they should look elsewhere. Brad
said the memo explained what they went through at the end of last year. They
wanted to find a New England vendor, one that already had a Maine lien
package that was already operation, which was specific to their requirements at
the WWTP. Brad explained that the software had to be able to handle what the
laws/statutes of the State of Maine say they needed to do in order to secure
services that had not been paid for, overdue bills, which eventually put a lien on
the property if it were not paid. Also they wanted to talk with people who were
already using the software in New England. They invited four vendors who did
presentations and it was determined that two could/could possibly meet their
business practices. It came down to one that responded to a Request for
Proposal that went out, Northern Data Systems. He referenced the memo with
the cost of the hardware and software necessary to purchase and implement.
9
He said he did have the money in this year’s budget to purchase. Kathy said she
did not have anything to add. Councilor Stone asked about Munis not meeting
the needs, but they were one of the final vendors as noted in the memo. Brad
said there was hope that their verbal commitment that they could. Councilor
Stone asked if paying them initially $24,000 was it ever recovered or an effort to
try to recover it. Brad said the answer was no to both of those questions.
However, they have a plan in place to try to recover. Councilor Stone asked if
the time period for recovery was past. Brad said he had Norm Heitmann in Legal
look at the contract and they were not in a position to have to pay any money
back. He said he should probably defer that to Norm. Brad concurred with
Councilor Stone’s suggestion to not make the same mistake twice. He also
added they were still going to pursue it. Councilor Stone said he must leave and
supported Staff recommendation. Councilor Hawes asked if that equipment was
new or reconditioned. Brad said it was new equipment. Councilor Hawes asked
if Brad had a sense that their service would be what he would need from them, if
there were a problem with the system. And was this a Portland/Falmouth based
office. Brad said they do have specifications for the server and desktop
computers to be used. They had given what was required and could buy on the
market competitively. However, the software was exclusive to that company.
Councilor Wheeler said he was attracted to the comment that the money was in
the budget. He asked if the money was there now, or would it have an impact
on water/sewer rates? Brad said the money had been set aside in the Budget as
a line item for the purchase of the software and hardware, which had already
been figured into the sewer rate. He said that this would not have an effect on
the increase in sewer rates. Councilor Blanchette would like to know if it needed
to be referred to the full Council or did the TIC Committee have the authority,
where the money was already there. Ed said he thought this Committee could
do this, because the Water District was the agent purchasing through their
process. WWTP was contributing their share to it through their agreement with
the Water District that was already in place. Councilor Blanchette said this had
been something that they had been trying to update for years. The current
equipment had been used and abused and served them well, but it was time to
move on. Councilor Blanchette motioned and it was seconded for passage.
Meeting moved and seconded to adjourn.
Councilor Gratwick noted this was the last meeting of the political season and
offered Councilor Farrington a great debt of gratitude for hang in for many years.
Meeting was adjourned.
10