MINUTES - SHOREWOOD BOARD OF TRUSTEES Committee of the Whole September 4, 2018

Transcription

1 MINUTES - SHOREWOOD BOARD OF TRUSTEES Committee of the Whole September 4, 2018 Call to Order President Rozek called the meeting of the Committee of the Whole to order at 6:08 p.m. in the Court Room. Statement of Public Notice Clerk Bruckman stated that the meeting had been posted and noticed according to law. Roll Call President Rozek called the roll. Present: Trustees Davida Amenta, Tammy Bockhorst (6:10 p.m.), Michael Maher, Ann McKaig, Wesley Warren. Trustee Jessica Carpenter was excused Others Present: Village Manager Rebecca Ewald, Assistant Village Manager Tyler Burkart, Finance Director /Treasurer Mark Emanuelson, Department of Public Works Director Leeann Butschlick, Deputy Clerk/Customer Service Director Diane DeWindt-Hall, Planning and Development Director Bart Griepentrog, Code Compliance Tim Koepp. 1. Discuss snow dumping alternatives. Assistant Village Manager Tyler Burkhart led this discussion. He explained that historically, snow has been removed from the business district to improve access to businesses and to increase visibility. With the improvements to Wilson Drive and resident s concerns about snow dumping, DPW staff provided an analysis of options for snow dumping (attachment 1 of the materials) and Village Engineer Mustafa Emir reviewed that analysis. Mr. Emir provided information on Best Practices which the Conservation Committee reviewed and then provided their top three recommendations: a. Stop removing snow from the business district and let the businesses remove their own snow. b. Leave the snow on Wilson Drive until a better long-term approach can be identified. c. Spread the snow over multiple locations. The Board discussed the ability to expand snow dumping on Wilson; staff explained that with the redesign there was no longer sufficient space or the desire to continue dumping snow on Wilson Dr. Staff was asked if some analysis about the amount of snow being discussed could be available for the 9/17 meeting. Ms. Butschlick will attempt to obtain that information by doing an estimate based on numbers. The Board was reminded that first it needs to determine if the Village should continue removing snow in the business district and noted that the Conservation Committee is looking at long term engineered solutions, i.e. park space or parking lots, etc. The Board discussed snow being dumped from the business district versus snow being dumped from parking lots and alleys. Staff indicated this is difficult to determine. Discussion about storing the snow in the parking lots. It was noted this would impact off-street parking. The Board asked about the results of the soil survey test. Ms. Butschlick responded that the study did not look for specific soluble salts and that there is no appreciable difference in the soil between the east and west side of Wilson Dr. It was a very basic test. 1

2 Staff also addressed the need to restore Wilson Dr. after the winter season. Restoration was dependent on whether the ground was frozen or not when the dumping began; it would be the same issue if snow was dumped on E. Menlo Blvd. Discussion moved to the River Park Lot and how much snow it could hold. Staff will bring back an answer to the September 17 meeting. Board discussed toxins in the snow vs. rainwater. Ms. Butschlick noted that the toxins are similar and yes there is salt in the snow from the ground, however, not significant amounts because otherwise the snow would melt. Board also discussed if moving cars off the lots to the street would affect clearing the streets of snow. Staff would then request alternate side of the street parking. The Board would consider providing hardship parking. Board asked to remember that street parking in that area is quite different during day and night and that the front lots are used by other businesses in the area. Asked if numbers could be provided for the 4400 Oakland lot with regard to snow capacity. Question about where the snow melt would drain and if it would be putting toxins in the water system. Perhaps a filtration device could be placed over the drain. Or the Parking Utility reserve balance, along with MMSD grant funds, could be used to purchase permeable pavers or some sort of infiltration. Requested more data on if we can put the snow on a parking lot, how many spaces would be affected and can the street accommodate more cars and to hear from the businesses that would be affected for next session. Requested data about the percentage of snow from each business, parking lots, alleys from each; and information (EPA report or something similar) on what toxins are found in urban snow. President Rozek opened the floor to public comment at 6:45 p.m. Resident, C. J. Rybold, 2225 E Menlo commented that there are many things found in urban snow heavy metals, street trash and other waste. He referenced a June 7 letter about Menlo being in the combined sewer area so MMSD may not agree with snow in the boulevard; City of Milwaukee recommends letting the snow melt on asphalt. Resident Michal Woll, 2400 E. Stratford Court asked the trustees to take a look at the Menlo neighborhood prior to the September 17 meeting. It s a small strip of land in a very dense neighborhood with many families who use the area. Resident Paul Zovic, 2504 E Newton, is an environmental consultant and noted that the toxicity and impact to the river, analysis says that about 150 years for those contaminants to travel to the river. Menlo is more landscaped area than Wilson. The soil is in better condition than that on Wilson Dr. The sheer weight of the snow over the years would change the nature of the ground to be less permeable. The challenge is to encourage policies to perhaps make the snow less toxic by using less salt, move less snow, less bare pavement and clearing less area. Resident Christopher Schreiber, 2516 E Menlo is concerned about the possible high piles of snow and visibility; there are other streets to consider; Menlo does not really solve the Wilson problem; quality of life on the boulevard; maintaining the green space is important. Turning that green space into a dumping ground is not the best option. Resident Susan Armour-Seidman, 2412 E Stratford Court, commented that residents of River Park Apartments use the parking lots on Oakland elderly and disabled need to be considered; w/regard to Menlo parking, visibility is an issue; safety of kids potentially playing in the snow piles; consider the upper parking lot of Hubbard as an option, encourage trustees to think creatively; opposes using tax $$ to remove snow from the business districts and the TIFs and façade program,; should be to the benefit of residents not for for-profit businesses..

3 Resident Janet Slater, 2225 E. Menlo Boulevard question the River Park area, south and north corner of the park. How about using the unused green space behind the batting cage, concession stand and the building (River Park Apartments) and it could be fenced off. Ms. Butschlick responded that they are unable to move equipment onto the property to dump the snow and interference with the berm that was constructed to assist with storm water runoff. There are more feasible options. Resident Donna Pollock, 4395 N Alpine, sent an to Ms. Ewald and Tr. Amenta and others. The soil study in the packet was a very basic study; it was not a comprehensive study as requested by the Conservation Committee. This study is not adequate to make a decision. Be sensitive to wherever we dump; but Wilson Dr. should not be the dumping ground especially in light of the work being done encouraging residents and others to use the area. Ericka Lang, Shorewood BID Director, Shorewood BID, 4230 N Oakland Ave #295, met with the BID Board in July/August and they will not take a stand on this. This does not fit into the BID s role. Businesses and commercial property owners were contacted via letter from the Village and the BID sent the letter to the 270 businesses. Only two responses received. President Rozek commented that Whitefish Bay has special assessed businesses to maintain parking spaces on the street for their businesses. That is an option if the Village does not want to leave snow in the business district, Resident Henry Tomasiewicz, 4220 N Ardmore (Conversation Committee member) asked that a permanent solution to found and that a chemical analysis be conducted to look for heavy metals, hydrocarbons and anything else found in oils, especially look for lead. Tr. Amenta questioned the difference between lead/heavy metals in snow from business district versus snow from any other part of the village. Mr. Tomasiewicz replied probably not, just what fluids might leak from vehicles. Suggest we be proactive and study to see what we have currently and what we may have moving forward, so you don t have to plan for everything. Resident Owen Klatte, 2210 E Menlo commented that snow in one area is just as toxic as snow in another area. Parking lots with No snow in neighborhood. President Rozek closed public comment at 7:10 p.m. 2. Discuss service level options for Planning and Development Department Mr. Griepentrog introduced this topic. In June 2018, lead building inspector resigned. Staff has been maintaining service but can no longer keep up this pace and it has resulted in changing levels in customer service. Need a more sustainable solution. Looking for direction from the Board regarding the level of service. Possible options to consider: 1. Maintain service level- requires filling the vacant position 2. Contract out for additional inspection services when needed - which means someone less vested in the community and still a cost involved. 3. Reduce enforcement requires making it complaint-based only and need to educate residents about the revised service levels. Code enforcer would transition in to cover some inspection duties. Would still need to contract out for commercial inspection work. This option provides for ½ of the code enforcement time for to be used for scheduled inspections and plan review which would allow for less use of contracted services. There would be the equivalent of 1-1/2 building inspectors. President Rozek requested that they go around the room and each trustee ask questions and/or comment on their preferred option.

4 Tr. Amenta commented that Options 2 and 3 both require another full time equivalent and wanted to know the difference. Mr. Griepentrog responded that Option 2 keeps a full time enforcement/complaint and pro-active enforcement maintained; Option 3 that same inspector would shift to inspection and plan review. Both options require contracting out for commercial electrical, for example, but Option 3 would have less contracting because we would have 1-1/2 building inspectors vs. Option 2 would have 1 building inspector and contracting out, but no in-house assistance with phones and in-person. President Rozek preferred Option 3 because of less enforcement. Whitefish Bay s (WFB) code enforcement efforts resulted in 44 citations vs. Shorewood s 657; feels we are overregulated. Further commented that all surrounding communities enforcement efforts are complaint-based and that we don t want to inadvertently displace our older residents. Asked can we tag on to some of WFBs contracts for inspection services. Mr. Griepentrog, yes we can possibly; we currently contract with KWK. With regard to the Lead Building Inspector position vs. Building Inspector 1 and 2. Building Inspector 2 is not a current classification; there were slight differences in responsibility between the Lead and Building Inspector 1, but would not recommend that going forward. Any future actions would mean creating a new position and better defining job descriptions. Supports creating a different position to have a lead or building inspector 2 position on staff and equitable pay. Tr. Bockhorst is in favor of Option 1, maintaining the service levels, not for privatizing public services. Contractors are difficult to manage. We have an old housing stock (pre-1930) and there is a need to do things timely to maintain our housing stock. Be proactive in helping people age in place is important. Tr. Warren asked about the hit Option 3 would have on enforcement and customer service. Mr. Griepentrog felt that both would take a hit. Staff would have to consider what program we would reduce and how we would educate the community to the level of service expected. Customer service would take the biggest hit, in particular, those who drop in and there is no one available to assist. President Rozek interjected to ask if the Board needs to decide on this before budget because we still have a $700,000 budget gap to fill. Mr. Griepentrog was hoping for a decision in September. Ms. Ewald agreed that we are looking for some input from the board now as Planning and Development prepares their budget. The Board can address the options during the budget review process along with other options to reduce the budget that will be presented. Tr. Warren would like more information on Options 2 and 3 and has not ruled out any of the options. Tr. McKaig supports maintaining levels. Customer service is important, being responsive to homeowners about their investment is important. Proactive enforcement is ultimately less expensive than deferred maintenance. The Board s directives for the Planning and Development Department will take up much of Mr. Griepentrog s time, so a full staff is important. Tr. Maher supports maintaining the level of services and maintaining the assessed values of our homes which have been on the increase. Our efforts protect our housing stock. Very concerned about backing off of enforcement efforts. President Rozek asked if we could get the assessed values over the last few years for our properties (duplexes) on that side of the village. Tr. Amenta has no problem with residents making appointments in advance; immediate same day response is not necessary. Asked about alley inspection relates to refuse left in the alley; allows staff to see the rear of the home to observe unpermitted work, etc. wrong to compare Milwaukee and Shorewood; vast difference in people who can afford to move to Shorewood and those who cannot; has not seen large increase in equalized values overall. In favor of Option 3. Tr. Warren is leaning towards Option 2 because it would keep some enforcement and reduce contracting costs. Still wants to get the additional information requested on the other options.

5 Tr. McKaig asked about the role of the Administrative Clerk in the Planning and Development Department, is there capacity for additional scheduling work. Mr. Griepentrog responded that the administrative clerk currently does the scheduling and maintains the permit database. She has taken on some additional work to serve as liaison between the contractors and inspectors to maintain some order. Can the position absorb additional? Not inspection related, because she cannot give a qualified technical answer nor can Mr. Griepentrog because we are not inspectors. If service levels are going to change, staff will need to educate homeowners and will require support from the Board. President Rozek requested that included in the additional data requested by Tr. Warren that some estimate of how service levels will change an additional day, week, etc. Tr. McKaig noted that the higher stock of duplex and multi-unit properties in Shorewood vs. Whitefish Bay requires a higher level of enforcement. Discussion on this topic concluded. 3. Discuss revised performance management program. President Rozek noted that it was pass 7:30 p.m. and asked Ms. Ewald s suggestion for discussion of the last item on the agenda. Asst. Village Manager Burkart responded that this item was originally set for the 9/17 meeting for consideration so it can be moved and that if Trustees had any questions prior to the 9/17 meeting to contact him directly. Trustees were okay with this suggestion. President Rozek stated that the Board will defer consideration and discussion of this last agenda item, performance management program, to the 9/17 Village Board meeting. Tr. McKaig moved, seconded by Tr. Maher to adjourn the meeting. The Committee of the Whole adjourned at 7:43 p.m. MINUTES - SHOREWOOD BOARD OF TRUSTEES Village Board Meeting September 4, Call to Order President Rozek called the meeting of the Village Board to order at 7:55 p.m. in the Court Room. 2. Roll Call President Rozek called the roll. Present: Trustees Davida Amenta, Tammy Bockhorst, Michael Maher, Ann McKaig, Wesley Warren. Trustee Carpenter was excused Others Present: Village Attorney Nathan Bayer, Village Manager Rebecca Ewald, Assistant Village Manger Tyler Burkart, Finance Director/Treasurer Mark Emanuelson, Department of Public Works Director Leeann Butschlick, Deputy Clerk/Customer Service Director Diane DeWindt-Hall, Police Chief Peter Nimmer 3. State of Public Notice Clerk Bruckman stated that the meeting had been posted and noticed according to law. 4. Special Order of Business - None

6 5. Consent Agenda Items a. Special Event Permit, Parade, Badgerland Striders, Milwaukee Lakefront Marathon, Sunday, October 7, :30 a.m. 12 noon. b. Consider Resolution authorizing staff submission of urban forestry grant application. c. Consider amendment to North Shore Health Department and Public Safety Communications Agreement. d. Consider BID Board appointments: Adrienne Shea and Dr. Ned Brookes. President Rozek requested item 5d be removed from the consent agenda. President Rozek requested item 5b be removed from the consent agenda as it needs a roll call vote. Tr. Maher moved, seconded by Tr. Bockhorst to approve the consent agenda with items 5b, & 5d be removed. Motion carried Items Removed from the Consent Agenda Item 5b; Consider Resolution authorizing staff submission of urban forestry grant application. Tr. Amenta moved, seconded by Tr. Bockhorst to approve Resolution authorizing staff submission of urban forestry grant application, update the Village tree inventory and review the Village s Emerald Ash Borer program in an amount not to exceed $35,000. Tr. Amenta withdrew the motion with consent of the Village Board. Tr. Bockhorst moved to approve Resolution authorizing staff submission of the urban forestry grant application as written. Motion fails for lack of a second. Tr. Maher moved, seconded by President Rozek to approve Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to submit a 2019 Urban Forestry grant application, update the Village tree inventory and review the Village s Emerald Ash Boer program. Motion carried 6 0 by a roll call vote. Item 5d: Consider BID Board appointments: Adrienne Shea and Dr. Ned Brookes President Rozek noted resumes for the appointments were not included in the packet. President Rozek moved, seconded by Tr. McKaig to approve BID Board appointments: Adrienne Shea and Dr. Ned Brookes. Motion carried Public Hearing(s) None 8. Citizens to be heard This item is for matters not on the agenda. Discussion may follow comment on non-agenda items or discussion and action may come at future meetings. 9. New Business a. Consider RFP on Organics Collection Program. Mr. Burkart reviewed his memo included in the September 4, 2018 Village Board packet. Early in April 2017, the Village Board initiated a pilot program for organics collection. This request is to authorize staff to start the RFP process to get proposals for future consideration to establish a permanent program in the Village of Shorewood. The Village Board requested a report of total waste that composting is removing from the garbage and the savings of garbage transport and tipping fees at the time of considering the subsidy. Mr. Burkart clarified the size of the cart is 35 gallons. Some Village Board members inquired if the containers are consistently full? Mr. Burkart explained, it s hard to tell because people can put yard waste in the containers as well. The Village Board inquired if the organics collection and yard waste services could be combined. Mr. Liberatore explained the Village s processing

7 vendor does not except food scraps. Linda Frank, 4321 N. Prospect Ave, Shorewood, WI is a part of the Conservation Committee and a participant in the pilot program, her experience is that it is adequate for the yard waste she currently generates. Some Village Board members requested to include quotes for the 35 and the 65 gallon containers. Mr. Liberatore explained, it s the route and number of tips the contractor cares about not the size of the containers. Mr. Burkart explained the compost program is based on a participant basis, yard waste collection is for every resident. With that type of change, he would like to take the RFP and bring it back before issuing it. Ms. Butschlick explained, the Public Works Department services over 4,100 residents for yard waste, Compost Crusaders is not at a level they could combine the yard waste and food scraps and service all 4,100 residents. It is a great idea, but would take a considerable amount of time to investigate. Mr. Burkart suggested a shorter contract period for this time if the Village Board wanted to consider exploring that option. The question was clarified, what is the cost if a larger container is picked up? Mr. Liberatore explained, there isn t a difference, it s cost per tip. Tr. Bockhorst called to question, Tr. Amenta seconded the call to question. Motion carried 5 1 with President Rozek voting nay. Tr. Bockhorst moved, seconded by Tr. Maher to authorize staff to issue the request for proposals for organics curbside collection services. Motion carried 5 1 with President Rozek voting nay. b. Consider RFP for Village Hall digital printers/copiers. Ms. DeWindt-Hall explained her memo included in the September 4, 2018 Village Board packet. Village Board members questioned if the Village has considered purchasing instead of leasing? Ms. DeWindt-Hall explained the Village would then be responsible for the maintenance and toner cost, the contract includes that with leasing. Some of the Village Board members inquired if it would lower the cost if refurbished parts could be included in the RFP? Ms. DeWindt-Hall explained this may increase downtime if the copier is down. Some of the Village Board members questioned if the old printers would have wiped clean of information? Ms. DeWindt-Hall explained that was included in the RFP. Tr. Maher moved, seconded by Tr. Bockhorst to approve the Request for Proposal for Copier/Printing Services with suggested changes of including refurbished parts. Motion carried 6-0. c. Consider maintenance agreement with Milwaukee County Parks for Wilson Drive trail extension. Ms. Butschlick explained the memo included in the September 4, 2018 Village Board packet. The Wilson Drive project includes a paved trail connection from the Olive Street intersection of Wilson Drive west to the Oak Leaf Trail, which required County approval which was received early in the planning stage. As part of Milwaukee County s right of entry permit, the Village is required to approve a maintenance agreement as drafted by Milwaukee County. Some Village Board members questioned about the County not being able to get to the snow removed for a day or two? Ms. Butschlick explained when Milwaukee County clears the snow on the trail, Milwaukee County will clear the snow on the path, the Village can clear the snow on the path, but if the trail isn t cleared it wouldn t be as helpful. Some Village Board members questioned if maintenance vehicles would be going onto the trail. Ms. Butschlick explained Milwaukee County uses a pickup truck to plow. Some Village Board members expressed displeasure with the large width of the path. Ms. Butschlick explained a typical sidewalk is six feet and the paths are about eight to ten feet. Some Village Board members commented that eight feet is required to maintain ADA compliance. Tr. McKaig moved and Tr. Bockhorst seconded the approval of the Oak Leaf Trail access path maintenance agreement with Milwaukee County Parks and authorize staff to execute the agreement

8 document. Motion carried 6 0 d. Consider no parking signage request for 4082 Lake Drive. Ms. Ewald explained the memo included in the September 4, 2018 Village Board packet. There was no representation from the petitioner. Chief Nimmer explained the Village Police Department looked at the street both north and south of the property. Chief Nimmer explained DPW and the Police Department physically measured the distances between the driveways at 4082 North Lake Drive, identified as Area #1 on the attached map. A second measurement was also taken from the northern driveway of 4082 to the driveway at 4090 N. Lake Drive, identified as Area #2 on the attached map. A third measurement was taken from the southern driveway to the driveway at 4074 N. Lake Drive, identified as Area #3 on the attached map. The measurements that were taken were compared to the measurements from the Village s GIS map. The results of the measurements are as follows: 1. Between the circle driveway at 4082 North Lake Drive: Physical Measurement was 27 ft. and the GIS Measurement was 26.1 ft. 2. Between the north driveway of 4082 N. Lake Drive and the driveway at 4090 N. Lake Drive: Physical Measurement was 14 ft. and GIS was 13.9 ft. 3. Between the south driveway of 4082 N. Lake Drive and the driveway at 4074 N. Lake Drive: Physical Measurement was 18 ft. and 16.7 ft. per GIS Some Village Board members suggested painting the curb red for no parking. Chief Nimmer explained the challenge will be residents with the same concern will all want their curbs painted red. Some Village Board members expressed the need for the Village to do something to address residents parking concerns; striping the curb until the parking study is done. Tr. Maher moved, seconded by Tr. Bockhorst to direct the Police Department to monitor Area #3 to determine if a sign would be needed at this location. No vote was taken at this time. President Rozek moved to amend, seconded by Tr. Amenta to paint markings on the areas on the east and west side of Lake Drive, within two blocks of Atwater Park, that do not meet the standards of a parking space. Chief Nimmer requested the Village Board to give him what they consider a definition of a legal spot. Amendment withdrawn by President Rozek President Rozek moved to amend, seconded by Tr. Amenta to mark four feet from the driveway two blocks north and south of Atwater park on both the east and west side of Lake Dr. Ms. Ewald questioned Mr. Kolste if this is realistic to include this in the striping scope for this 2018 year and approximate estimation of cost? Mr. Kolste will inquire with the contractor. Some Village Board members inquired on cost and how this would change the aesthetics of Lake Drive. Some Village Board members voiced their support for monitoring the area first and not rushing the decision. Vote on the amendment: President Rozek moved to amend, seconded by Tr. Amenta to mark four feet from the driveway two blocks north and south of Atwater park on both the east and west side of Lake Dr. Motion fails 2 4 with President Rozek and Tr. Amenta voting aye. Vote was taken on the original motion: Tr. Maher moved, seconded by Tr. Bockhorst to direct the Police Department to monitor Area #3 to determine if a sign would be needed at this location. Motion passed 4 2 with President Rozek and Tr. Amenta voting nay.

9 e. Consider Ordinance #2094 Amending Parking regulations for Lake Drive. Mr. Burkart explained the memo included in the September 4, 2018 Village Board packet. The Village Board, earlier in 2018, determined to reduce the amount of lanes from 4 to 2 lanes on Lake Drive during the resurfacing project. The Village was informed by the selected contractor performing the resurfacing that the project will be started September 17 and take up to two weeks to complete pending weather. When the project is completed, the Village will have different parking restrictions on both sides of Lake Drive. The attached ordinance illustrates the proposed revisions to the parking regulations. A resident, during the public engagement process, inquired about restricting parking for a certain length at every intersection to improve visibility of pedestrians using the crosswalks. In , vehicles are currently not allowed to park closer than 15 feet to the near limits of a crosswalk. Village staff recommends keeping this in place and making no revisions. However, staff will work on a plan to better communicate this restriction to the public. The Village Manager s Office will work with Public Works and the Police Department to seek ways to identify this on the curb as well as enforcement. The Village Board questioned if the changes need to be approved before the Village takes a more comprehensive study. Mr. Burkart explained it does need to be approved, this belongs with the approval of narrowing Lake Drive in addition to the new signage and striping. Tr. Maher moved, seconded by Tr. Bockhorst to approve Ordinance #2094, amending parking restrictions for Lake Drive. Motion passed 6 0 by a roll call vote. Tr. McKaig moved, seconded by Tr. Maher to consider item 9g. Motion carried 6 0. f. Evaluate Board processes and committee structure. Each Village Board member shared their opinion on both the current and past structures. The Village Board will revisit this agenda item in December g. Consider deferral date for St. Robert hearing. Tr. McKaig moved, seconded by Tr. Warren to defer the public hearing to a day agreed upon with St. Robert and set the hearing for September 26, Motion passed Reports of Village Officials a. Village President i. North Shore Bank Ribbon cutting 7/31. ii. Update on revised Standing Committee assignments on file. iii. League Chief Elected Officials Conference 8/15 to 8/17. b. Village Trustees i. League of Wisconsin Municipalities Legislative Update Tr. Bockhorst. c. Village Manager - None 11. Items for future consideration - None 12. The meeting will adjourn into closed session pursuant to 19.85(e) to discuss negotiating strategies for the police union agreement. Tr. McKaig moved and Tr. Amenta seconded to adjourn into closed session pursuant to 19.85(e) to discuss negotiating strategies for the police union agreement. Motion carried 6-0 by a roll call vote at 10:13 p.m. The Board reviewed strategies for police union negotiations with Atty. Jim Korom. Tr. Amenta moved and Tr. Maher seconded to reconvene into open session at 11:08 p.m. Motion

10 carried Adjournment Tr. Maher moved and Tr. McKaig seconded to adjourn at 11:08 p.m. Motion carried 6-0. Respectfully submitted, Sara Bruckman