Chairman Glennon explained the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to provide an opportunity for PSNH representatives to explain why the costs have escalated from the original quote of $597,000. In the January session the Town Council had during the budget process, there had been a discussion about the TIF District. During this conversation, Project Coordinator Julie Glover had announced the PSNH costs for the project had increased by approximately $200,000. He understood that price has dropped by $40,000, but expressed his concern with the increase. He explained there had been discussions earlier today with legal counsel; the intent of tonight’s meeting is to ask about the increased costs.
Project Coordinator Julie Glover referenced a letter dated March 5, 2009, which provides a summary of communication between PSNH and the Town from 2007 moving forward. The history begins in 2007 because that is when full construction documents were available; estimated costs prior to that are irrelevant.
Kathleen Lewis, Community Relations Manager of PSNH noted Mary Jo Peterson, PSNH’s Field Supervisor for Design Build was also present. She thanked the Council for the opportunity to be here tonight to discuss the project. She noted PSNH had received and reviewed the letter from Project Coordinator Julie Glover. She noted she is prepared to explain what the estimates are and answer any questions the Town Council may have.
Chairman Glennon noted most of the communication indicates Jim Osburn as the contact person. He asked why he was not present tonight.
Kathleen Lewis explained Mary Jo Peterson is Jim Osburn’s supervisor and would be able to represent Jim Osburn during tonight’s discussion. She read a prepared statement as follows:
“Mr. Chairman and members of the Council,
PSNH conducted an independent analysis of the project history and, most importantly, concentrated on the cost estimates referenced in Ms. Glover’s March 5th letter. PSNH concluded that while the PSNH letters to the Town’s project coordinator, Ms. Glover, could have been more detailed and may have caused some confusion, the estimates provided were accurate. PSNH does not agree with the figures Ms. Glover used to budget for Main Street and ‘The Bowl.’ Furthermore, our estimates did not include allowances for the costs associated with electrical service connections to homes and businesses and therefore, this cost was never factored into the total project cost.
As a consequence of Ms. Glover having overlooked significant costs related to the scope of the PSNH portion of the underground electric utility project, PSNH is aware that the installment of electric utilities underground may be in jeopardy. Since the success of this project is important to the Town of Newmarket’s downtown economic development and to the downtown residents and businesses, PSNH wishes to continue our discussions with Ms. Glover, the Town Administrator and the Town Council so the differences can be resolved to allow the project to move forward as planned.
As a regulated utility, PSNH’s responsibility to its customers is to build and maintain a safe, reliable and cost-effective energy delivery system, which is normally accomplished by the construction of an overhead system. The cost of an overhead distribution system is built into the PSNH rate base, paid for by its customers. If a customer or municipality desires to replace adequate existing PSNH overhead facilities with an underground system, the actual costs of replacing the existing overhead system with the new underground system are entirely the responsibility of the customer or municipality. PSNH receives advance payment for such a project based on its cost estimates. At the conclusion of the project, PSNH is required to reconcile the actual costs against prepared estimates. Any actual costs above the original cost estimates are not absorbed by PSNH or built into the rates, they are paid for by the customer or municipality. If the original estimates were not fully understood, the obligation to pay the actual costs of the project nevertheless remains.
Therefore, if the Town’s Project Coordinator did not include all of the costs associated with this project in the Town’s budget, PSNH is limited as far as what can be done to reduce the cost. PSNH can look for opportunities to redesign the project to reduce the scope of the work as long as the electrical safety or reliability standards are not compromised. In addition, there may be some cost efficiencies which can be achieved by using contract line crews, instead of PSNH line crews.
In Ms. Glover’s March 5th letter, she attached four letters, all cost estimates from PSNH. PSNH would like to go through the chronology of these letters and explain what each letter represented. PSNH wants their position to be very clear on the cost of the project as they relate to the estimates.
In addition, Ms. Glover’s letter also referenced two documents PSNH provided at our February 20, 2009 meeting. The first document included in Ms. Glover’s March 5th letter entitled “Newmarket Downtown Underground Project Summary”, was intended to provide a comprehensive summary of the project costs and the scope of work for discussion purposes.
The second document attached to Ms. Glover’s March 5th letter titled “PSNH Conversion Projects Agreements Terms and Conditions” provided at the February 20th meeting is a summary of the standard terms and conditions allowed for all PSNH underground projects. It was also intended for discussion purposes to ensure full understanding of PSNH policies. Most of these terms and conditions were stated in the four letters attached to the March 5th letter and should have been discussed. PSNH expects its customers to fully understand the terms and conditions before any work takes place. If, as Ms. Glover states, these terms are not acceptable to the Town, it is unlikely that PSNH can go forward with any additional work.”
Chairman Glennon asked Kathleen Lewis if the Council members could have a copy of this statement so Councilors can follow along. He added the Council does not like getting information at the last minute. Had the Council had this prior to the meeting, Councilors would have had an opportunity to review the information and be better prepared for questions and discussion. He noted Project Coordinator Julie Glover had provided the Town Council with her supporting information.
Kathleen Lewis noted she had known about the meeting and had responded directly to Ms. Glover. She continued reading the prepared statement:
“At this time, our Design Build Supervisor, Ms. Mary Jo Peterson and I are committed to work with the Town’s Project Coordinator, Ms. Glover, to answer any questions so that this project can move forward. We have the full support of PSNH’s senior management to work towards a resolution. We acknowledge that the conversations and correspondence specific to this project were almost exclusively between Ms. Glover as project coordinator for the Town, and PSNH’s Design Build Project Coordinator, Mr. Jim Osburn. We have complete confidence in Mr. Osburn’s experience and his ability to design projects to meet the technical and financial expectations of our customers. That is why we assigned him to this complex project involving multiple utilities.
In summary, we thoroughly regret that at this stage of the project there are many issues raised in Ms. Glover’s letter that require further clarification. The fact that her questions specific to PSNH costs, work scope, terms and conditions remain unanswered is a serious concern to us considering how long we have been working with Ms. Glover on this project. Therefore, we are dedicated to work through each item to fully clarify the cost of the PSNH portion of the project and what those costs represent. We believe it is important to work toward a mutual understanding of the actual cost to place the Town’s electric utilities underground and arrive at a resolution so the project can move forward.”
Kathleen Lewis showed a visual of a map provided to PSNH in 2001 showing the area that would be involved in the project. PSNH had separated the project into three phases as referenced in the letter provided.
Chairman Glennon asked how it was arrived to this point, where there are PSNH representatives stating their desire to work with the Town and the Project Coordinator, yet having to involve the Town Council. He asked why arriving at a resolution between PSNH and the Project Coordinator had been unsuccessful up to this point.
Kathleen Lewis stated PSNH has responded to an invitation from the Town Administrator to be here tonight. She regrets it has come to this point. PSNH is committed to working together. She felt it was important for the Town Council to understand what the numbers represent, so the project can move forward.
Chairman Glennon questioned why PSNH felt the Town Council would view the situation any differently than the Project Coordinator or Town Administrator did. The Town Council trusts the people that have been hired for the job.
Mary Jo Peterson noted she is the Field Supervisor for Design Build responsible for this project. She expressed her desire to walk through the letters received and the cost estimates those letters represent. She referenced the map that was provided by the Town in 2001, during the early stages of development of the project. She read a prepared statement as follows:
“The project was originally designed in three phases: phase 1 is the Exeter Road portion, phase 2 is the Main Street area and phase 3 is the “bowl” area. She understood the Town did proceed with improvements within the phase 1 area, but there had been little PSNH involvement. In March 2007, PSNH provided a letter (identified as ‘Letter 1’) identifying the costs associated with placing the utilities underground along Main Street. At this time, the project was starting to gear up, and some offsite work was required. In August 2007, PSNH sent another letter (identified as ‘Letter 2’) again reiterating the costs associated with the Main Street portion of the project. At that time, PSNH requested a prepayment of approximately $133, 000 to complete the offsite work. PSNH received a check from the Town and completed that work.
In the interim, the Town’s contractor was working to install the infrastructure needed to place the facilities underground in ‘the Bowl.’ In March 2008 another letter (identified as ‘Letter 3’) was sent to the Town identifying the costs for the work in ‘the Bowl’ and requesting a prepayment. A check was received for approximately $152,000 for the installation for the underground facilities in ‘the Bowl’ and the work was completed. The letter at that time also referenced the $12,000 prepayment required for removal of the overhead facilities once everything went to underground.
By late 2008/early 2009, the Town’s contractor had installed the infrastructure needed along Main Street. In January 2009 a fourth letter (identified as ‘Letter 4’). While recognizing there were errors in that letter, the intent was to provide updated figures for work along Main Street and request the necessary prepayment. At that time, the Town’s Project Coordinator contacted Kathleen Lewis with concerns over the figures. In addition, each of the four letters specified the estimate does not include changing the overhead services to underground. These costs would be tracked using separate orders, billed by your electrician when each one is ready to do. This cost will be billed to the Town when the service work has been completed. The cost of PSNH work on these services is independent of any work an electrician needs to perform and should have been included in the project cost.”
Councilor Kwaks asked if the difference in the amount being disputed was primarily for the connection for each resident and business or if it was for installing the underground components.
Kathleen Lewis stated PSNH believes the Town’s Project Coordinator overlooked two significant costs of this project: the total cost for the ‘Bowl’ area at a cost of $164,000 and the cost of service connections each letter stated was not included. Those costs are not included in any estimate provided to the Town.
Mary Jo Peterson explained when an underground project is completed there is overhead service that needs to be changed over. The meter box on the side of the house needs to be changed out, the aerial wires removed and new wires pulled through conduit underground. An electrician would be responsible for mounting the new meter socket on the side of the building as well as wiring from the meter socket into the customer’s main panel. PSNH would then be responsible for bringing new conductor through the pipe from the street area up to the meter to make the connections. The cost for these connections varies widely and was never included in the costs provided to the Town.
Chairman Glennon asked how PSNH could provide an estimate to the Town knowing the Town is undertaking a $6.5 million project, which includes primarily the relocation of all utilities underground without knowing eventually there would need to be connections made. He explained he was on the Town Council in 2007 when Administrator Wojnowski first arrived. One of the first major tasks was to determine whether to initiate the first check in the amount of $133,351. He recalled asking if this payment was part of the $597,390 and was told it was. He felt PSNH should have made it clear connection costs were not included. He asked why it was difficult to provide a cost estimate for the connections. He agreed PSNH clearly stated cost estimates did not include changing overhead service to underground, but there is no indication of what that cost might be. He felt it was PSNH’s responsibility to provide those estimates.
Kathleen Lewis acknowledged this is a project that has been going on for a number of years. There has been a lot of correspondence and dialogue between Project Coordinator Julie Glover and Jim Osburn. The estimates are intended to be a tool to use when billing the Town. She agreed the estimates were not detailed. There have been a lot of discussions regarding terms and conditions, the sequence of how the progress was going and when it was anticipated PSNH would do their work. She agreed the estimates were not detailed in making a full reference to what the services would include and specific estimates. It was intended to bill the Town to receive first payment so PSNH could do their work because the Town’s project was at that point. She felt tonight further clarification can be provided on services.
Mary Jo Peterson noted individual services going to the homes and businesses are specific. Infrastructure needs to be laid out first to determine how far the wire will be run. Once everything was built in the ‘Bowl’ a technician did come out and site by site and very definitively drew out the specifications for each location. Then a specific cost estimate could be provided.
Chairman Glennon noted that had been done after the initial work had been completed. He asked why that could not have been done, at least in estimating, prior to the beginning of the project so the Town would have a better understanding of what the total cost would be.
Mary Jo Peterson noted that could have been provided. No one had ever questioned it. A technician would have needed to come back a second time to review the measurement.
Chairman Glennon disagreed stating no one should have had to ask for that specific cost; it should have been provided up front. He felt that cost had been hidden.
Mary Jo Peterson agreed communication could have been better. She regrets that it was not.
Chairman Glennon noted prior to Project Coordinator Julie Glover and Administrator Wojnowski’s arrival, he had been involved in the beginning of the project and had been involved in hiring the engineer. He recalled the frustration of the former Town Administrator in getting hard numbers from PSNH. He noted there had been reluctance from PSNH in providing those figures.
Kathleen Lewis expressed her surprise with that comment noting there is a PSNH office in Epping and there are employees that work in town. She noted she had heard that comment before. PSNH is a regulated company; everything is transparent. There are employees that are assigned to be the point of contact for the Town whether it is an underground project or an energy efficiency project. She noted PSNH representatives do expect to hear from the town if there were problems. She recognized the letters sent to the Town were just a snap shot providing the background information to bill the Town. She heard the Town had been looking for a comprehensive project cost. She agreed a general scope of how many services could have been included as well as what the scope of those services would be. She questioned why they were here tonight being asked those questions. PSNH were under the impression the Town understood these costs and the Town had prepaid PSNH for a couple areas of the project. She noted PSNH is asking the same questions. She noted PSNH has an equal stake in working this out as the project is paid for by the taxpayers of Newmarket and Newmarket residents are PSNH customers as well.
Chairman Glennon noted PSNH is very conscientious of satisfying their customers. He noted this is a golden opportunity to show that.
Councilor LaBranche referenced Letter 3 and Letter 4 noting the bolded information. He noted there were statements made indicating “This also includes removal of our overhead facilities.” He felt that indicates the prices quoted were inclusive of the total project cost.
Kathleen Lewis noted Letter 3 is specific to the ‘Bowl’ and Letter 4 has some mistakes in it. She noted Letter 4 prompted Project Coordinator Julie Glover to contact her. She recognized immediately the date had been incorrect and the ‘Bowl’ should not have been referenced. This letter was intended to be an update from the August letter (Letter 3).
Mary Jo Peterson noted the letter should have been written stating the letter also includes a request for prepayment of the removal of overhead facilities.
Councilor Kwaks asked what work PSNH has done. She asked what the additional $200,000 encompasses.
Mary Jo Peterson noted the Town hires a contractor to lay the conduit and lay the foundations. Once these are in place PSNH pulls the wire through, makes the connections safely and reliably.
Kathleen Lewis believed the entire cost of Letter 3 relating to the ‘Bowl’ area had not been included when budgeting for the project. PSNH also believes the cost for individual connections in both the ‘Bowl’ area and along Main Street were not included.
Councilor Kwaks read from Letter 3 noting: “. . . a brief summary of the estimated costs required to bury our overhead facilities underground along Exeter Road” and further in that letter it states: “This estimate does not include changing the overhead services to underground.”
Kathleen Lewis feels the letter could have been clearer because PSNH was not billing for those services, they were referencing that work.
Mary Jo Peterson explained the part of the project that was being paid for through these letters was the main line that goes down the road. The services not included were from the street to the corner of the buildings.
Chairman Glennon explained it had been his understanding as a Councilor the $597,000 was the total cost of the project. He discussed his frustration during the January budget session when Project Coordinator Julie Glover stated there was an additional cost associated with the project. Since that budget work session, it has been indicated PSNH has identified a possible $40,000 cost savings. He asked how this figure was arrived at. He felt there was a consistent pattern of inaccuracy, misinformation, incomplete information and omission of information.
Kathleen Lewis appreciated the seriousness of this situation since the Town had approved a budget that does not include the comprehensive costs of the project. PSNH was not aware there was a misunderstanding; cost estimates had been provided to the Town that were accurate. Those estimates had been misinterpreted. She noted PSNH cannot suggest they can find ways to close that entire gap, but there are areas that could be reviewed for cost reductions. She noted PSNH is willing to work with the Town and would not charge the Town for coming up with a solution.
Chairman Glennon asked why that resolution has not been able to happen already.
Kathleen Lewis noted the communication between the Town and PSNH was almost exclusively through Jim Osburn and Project Coordinator Julie Glover.
Chairman Glennon noted the Town Council created this position and hired Julie Glover as Project Coordinator and has total confidence in her ability to do the job. The Council had been shocked to hear of this issue. He asked for a total cost estimate.
Kathleen Lewis noted there is only so far PSNH can go to reduce the cost of the project without redesigning the project. She added safety and reliability of the system is important. She referenced the “Newmarket Downtown Underground Project Summary” noting Ms. Glover had indicated she had requested a comprehensive summary, which PSNH had not provided. This summary was provided to clearly spell out the costs associated with the project by area. The total cost estimate provided to the Town is $773,821. She noted the service connection cost has not been provided.
Chairman Glennon noted the Town Council has had discussions on whether each resident or business owner would incur the cost of the connection or whether the Town would. The Town Council had determined the Town would cover the cost of connections. He expressed his frustration with PSNH not being able to provide a cost estimate for this service.
Kathleen Lewis suggested soft cost estimates could be provided tonight.
Mary Jo Peterson explained PSNH is actively working on service connections for 13 locations within the ‘Bowl.’ Eleven of those connections have been made at an average cost of $1,000 per location. She believed there are 28 to 30 locations along Main Street.
Administrator Wojnowski noted the Town signed a document in August 2007 indicating project costs to be $597,000. PSNH never brought forward that costs were escalating. He noted the Town is unable to build in a cost to the project budget they are not made aware of.
Chairman Glennon agreed noting the frustration in trying to nail down an accurate estimate. He noted no one on the Council or within the Town would ask PSNH to take shortcuts and jeopardize safety. The job needs to be done right.
Kathleen Lewis noted the issue is not revolving around costs that have escalated. These costs were provided. PSNH stands behind the estimates provided. There was a portion of the project that did not include the bowl or the service connection.
Administrator Wojnowski noted when PSNH knew those costs had not been included in the project budget, PSNH should have written the Town a letter noting a mistake had been made and the Town would need to budget an additional amount in order to cover costs PSNH failed to provide. The issue is not that Project Coordinator Julie Glover or the Town Council did not understand to include those costs, it is that those costs were not provided to be included within the budget.
Kathleen Lewis disagreed stating PSNH provided estimates for the cost of the project. The only information and estimates the Town Council did not have was the service connections.
Chairman Glennon asked if the $200,000 discussed during the budget process was the cost for service within the ‘Bowl’ area and service connections.
Kathleen Lewis noted that estimate was provided to the Town. She referenced Letter 3.
Chairman Glennon read from Letter 3: “Project description and location: Installation of three phase and single phase primary underground with all the equipment necessary for an underground duct system along “The Bowl” ($151,955.27). This also includes removal of our overhead facilities ($12,071.46).
Project Coordinator Julie Glover noted in March 2007 the Town was provided an estimate as stated in Letter 1 of $597,000. Prior to the March 2007 letter were some letters and phone calls between former Town Administrator Al Dixon and PSNH requesting the cost of PSNH’s portion of the entire project. The cost was identified to the Town in March 2007 and August 2007. PSNH has never been requested to provide a cost estimate for portions of the project. The estimates requested should have been inclusive of the entire project. She clarified most of the communication was not simply between herself and Mr. Osburn; there had been a lot of people involved in this project. Prior to Administrator Wojnowski’s arrival, most of the communication between the Town and PSNH had been handled by former Town Administrator Al Dixon. She believed the cost to do the underground system along Main Street and take down the aerial lines and poles is $449,000. Prior to the letter received January 22, 2009, she believed the Town still owed PSNH a balance of $312,000. The difference now being $137,000; this does not include the cost to do the service connections, which PSNH has now identified as being approximately $1,000 per property. She noted PSNH believes there may be cost savings by hiring a private contractor.
Kathleen Lewis noted PSNH typically uses contract crews if scheduled work can not happen with existing PSNH crews.
Chairman Glennon asked how a subcontractor could perform this work cheaper than PSNH could do it as part of the project.
Kathleen Lewis noted she was unsure whether there could be cost savings there. Estimates would have to be received. This would include labor only as material used would need to meet PSNH standards.
Chairman Glennon asked how this would affect the schedule.
Project Coordinator Julie Glover felt the issue at hand could be resolved somewhat quickly. She did not anticipate a disruption in the schedule.
Councilor Kwaks felt the issue being disputed is the cost of the ‘Bowl’ area. She noted when the plans were submitted they included the ‘Bowl’ area. She asked how that cost estimate could have been left out. She equated that thinking with building a three-story house and not estimating the cost for building the second floor. She felt Mr. Osburn made a large mistake. This information had been submitted in full to PSNH; PSNH quoted an estimate without including all areas.
Councilor LaBranche asked how soon a final number can be presented to the Council for final debate. He noted the Council needed this information as soon as possible for budgeting purposes.
Kathleen Lewis noted PSNH’s purpose for being here tonight was to state their position. She noted both she and Mary Jo Peterson are available to meet with Administrator Wojnowski and Project Coordinator Julie Glover recognizing expedition of a resolution is important to both parties. She suggested this would probably need to occur in stages. She could have something prepared in writing for a meeting next week if that is what the Council wishes.
Chairman Glennon noted the Town Council and Budget Committee are meeting on Tuesday for a Public Hearing on the budget. The Council needs to know what the hard number will be for budgeting processes.
Kathleen Lewis noted she could provide some figures for next week. She made it clear that PSNH did not become aware the Town did not understand the numbers. PSNH at no point tried to mislead the Town with the figures provided.
Chairman Glennon scheduled a special Town Council meeting for Wednesday, March 25, 2009.
Councilor Kwaks asked if Mr. Osburn could be present.
Chairman Glennon did not see the purpose of requiring Mr. Osburn to be present.
Kathleen Lewis noted PSNH stands behind Mr. Osburn’s numbers.
The Town Council recessed from 8:35pm until 8:45pm.
Councilor Kwaks left the meeting at 8:35pm.
PUBLIC HEARING – Warrant Article 2
Bond for New Village Water, Sewer and Drainage Improvements and for improvements to sewer manholes, acquisition of a step screen and water meters.
RSA 33:8-a, I, RSA 40:13, II-cc(c)
Water Superintendent Sean Greig explained the problems occurring at the Waste Water Treatment Facility including water plant discharge, bearing on the trickling filter. Instead of waiting for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue orders, he had met with the EPA, former Water Superintendent George Laney, former Town Administrator Al Dixon and Underwood Engineers to take a proactive approach and negotiate a tentative short-term schedule. The EPA issued an Administrative Order in March 2008 requiring short-term fixes. The Town worked hard to get back in compliance. Design for the upgrading of the plant would begin in 2011 with the expectation the plant construction would be complete in 2014. Underwood Engineers has moved forward with the sewer system evaluation survey. After flow testing the hydrants and evaluating the mains it was determined the unlined cast iron pipe is down to approximately 26% usability. He noted house-to-house surveys would be done to determine water, sewer and drainage needs. Sewer mains from private property would be moved into the public right-of-way. Sump pumps would be removed from the sewer and tied into the drainage system. New water lines would be installed. He felt it was very important to move forward on this project. He added in 2005 the Water Department had begun installing new water meters, which have radio control technology to decrease the time spent reading meters, increasing efficiency. If stimulus funding is received, this would be an opportunity to finish changing out all the remaining water meters at once. The Creighton Street Step Screen will include replacement of high maintenance and energy grinders and improvement to the wastewater treatment plant performance. He explained the process and clogging problems.
Chairman Glennon asked when the Town would know whether stimulus funding has been allocated.
Water Superintendent SeanGreig hoped he would hear something by the end of the month.
Administrator Wojnowski explained the Governor is still working on how the funds will be allocated.
Councilor LaBranche asked if the bond would be floated if Warrant Article 2 passes, but stimulus funds are not received.
Chairman Glennon noted the Council has that information.
Administrator Wojnowski explained if the bond passes and stimulus funding is not received the Town Council could still decide to float the bond but there would be no financial forgiveness.
Administrator Wojnowski noted the Town Council and Budget Committee would need to determine whether or not to recommend this article.
Chairman Glennon noted this article would require a 3/5 vote to pass.
Chairman Glennon opened the public hearing at 9:09pm.
There were no comments.
Chairman Glennon closed the public hearing at 9:09pm.
Motion: To recommend Warrant Article 2, Bond for New Village Water, Sewer and Drainage Improvements and for improvements to sewer manholes, acquisition of a step screen and water meters.
Motioned: Councilor LaBranche
Seconded: Councilor Bergeron
Vote: 5-0 Motion carries
Councilor Kwaks Absent
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Aye
Councilor Minutelli Aye
Vice-Chairman Carr Absent
Chairman Glennon Aye
Chairman Glennon referenced a memorandum from Administrative Assistant Kathy Castle reminding Councilors they are required to attend the Budget Committee Public Hearing on March 17, 2009.
Non-Public Session: RSA 91-A:3 II(d) Lease of Property
Motion: To enter into Non-Public Session RSA 91-A:3 II (d) at 9:11pm.
Motioned: Councilor LaBranche
Seconded: Councilor Ploski
Vote: 5-0 Motion carries
Councilor Kwaks Absent
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Aye
Councilor Minutelli Aye
Vice-Chairman Carr Absent
Chairman Glennon Aye
Motion: To leave Non-Public RSA 91-A:3 II (d) at 10:20pm.
Motioned: Councilor Ploski
Seconded: Councilor Minutelli
Vote: 5-0 Motion carries
Councilor Kwaks Absent
Councilor Bergeron Aye
Councilor LaBranche Aye
Councilor Ploski Aye
Councilor Minutelli Aye
Vice-Chairman Carr Absent
Chairman Glennon Aye
Motion: To seal the non-public minutes because the divulgence of the information would render the proposed action ineffective.
