Meeting was held in the Community Room, Hollis Town Hall and was called to order by Chairman, Michael Harris at 7:30 PM.

Members present: Michael Harris, Chairman; Chris Hyde, Vice Chairman; Melinda Willis, Selectmen’s Representative; Bill Beauregard, School Board Representative; Scott Bartis, Tom Jambard, Mark Johnson, Mort Goulder; Deborah Adams, Secretary

Also present: Mellinee Capasso, Business Administrator; Rich Pike, Superintendent; Bob Kelly, Special Education Administrator; Carol Mace, Director of Curriculum; James O’Shea, Venu Rao, Harry Haytayan, School Board Members

Bill presents various hand outs to each BudCom member. He announces that they have met the 3.9% guidance given by the BudCom. The overall increase is 7.16%, yet an allowance was given for an early intervening math position, water system repairs and $50,000 for building maintenance to repair the Primary School roof. This can also be reduced further when considering estimated revenue/credits and the State education grant. Mellinee explains that the adequacy grant is State funded with 4 payments per year. She based her figures on data that has been posted on the State’s website. Chris states that he heard that Hollis will receive $300,000 less than last year. He is concerned that the Coop’s figures and the Hollis School figures doe not reflect this change. He questions why they have not used the newer amounts. Mellinee explains that there has been a reduction from last year. They received $900,342 for the current year and will now be receiving only $733,176. She is using the January 2007 figures. Rich comments that the Governor’s recent budget proposal is recommending that they hold the line with the 2007-2008 state aid, therefore these numbers may actually come in higher than anticipated.

Melinda questions why the numbers are different since the last presentation of this budget. Bill explains that the special education projections have gone up since then.

Mort questions how they get from 7.16% down to the 3.9%. Chris explains that the BudCom allowed a guidance that some items were fixed, while other items were pulled out. Mort does not agree with this guidance. Bill explains that special education is up 2.76%. Additional aids were added after the 2007 budget was approved in March 2006; 3 at the Primary Elementary and 3 at the Upper Elementary). A new position of a full time psychologist is needed, which is driven by the number of evaluations that need to be handled during the year. These are initial and follow-up evaluations. A new para-educator and a certified occupational therapist assistant will also be added. The therapist assistant must be supervised by a therapist. These are both driven by the IEP’s and the services required by these plans. Mike asks if the psychologist is driven by the IEP’s as well. Bill indicates that this is due to the accumulation of all IEP’s.

Bill explains that they are currently using a 2^nd psychologist, yet next year this will not be available to the school. Bob states that this position will primarily handle evaluations. This is very comprehensive. Federal regulations will now require additional information be gathered during evaluations. They previously used a contractor to handle this need until the point where it was more cost effective and efficient to hire for this position. This past year a special education teacher was involved in a graduate program in testing, and her services were utilized for this need. She has now finished this program. Bob further explains that they felt it would be more cost effective to go with the certified occupational therapist assistant. Mort questions why there are so many special education students now. It appears that 16% of the total enrollment are special education. Melinda explains that the laws have changed. Mort feels the school should challenge some of these IEP’s. Tom asks if these figures also include all benefits. Bill indicates that it does.

Bill explains that the english as a second language position was previously in the Coop budget, with all 3 districts using these services. The Coop no longer needs these services and were planning to drop the position. It is hard to find a good person to fill this type of roll. This position will be shared with Brookline Elementary. Hollis will not require the full .5 portion of this position, therefore this may allow the person to fill the needs of a .2 position in another district if needed. They are showing the full cost of the .5 position, but will have revenue for .2 of this.

A special education teacher at the Upper Elementary will be increased from .6 to .8. There will also be additional speech services, extended year programs, teacher for the deaf and vision services. There will be increases in travel expenses to transport special education students to out of district services. Mike comments that $26,000 for travel expense increases seems like a very high number. Bob explains that this increase is mostly due to other increases in the special education budget for 1 specific situation.

Mark asks how many students receive special education services. Bill explains that it is hard to judge special education based on the number of students. Some students only receive 1 service, while other students receive multiple services. Each individual IEP stipulates the number of service hours per student. They do try to integrate the students as much as possible. Bob explains that they do not want the special education students to feel that they are in special education all the time. Some students may have only 1 area that requires extra help. Every student is not in special education 100% of their time. He explains that English As a Second Language program is not part of special education, as this is a different requirement, yet it is a specialized service. Chris asks if the budget for ESL is incorporated in the special education budget, even though it is not part of special education. Bob stresses that ESL is a mandated specialized service. Mike feels there is some justification for listing ESL on the page with special education.

Mark asks if all special education students require the services of the psychologist. Bill indicates that not all students require this service. Mark questions how many do need this. Bob explains that there are many services provided by this position. Not all special education students require psychotherapy, yet all special education students are required to have a certified evaluation each year. One-third of the students will require additional follow-up evaluations. Mark asks if this includes speech or deaf students. Bob states that academics also need to be measured for speech and deaf special education students. Evaluations are more than just for classroom performance.

Melinda asks if they currently have any psychologists on staff. Bill states that they currently have 1 psychologist that splits her time between the 2 schools. They are asking for 1 more full time psychologist so they can have 1 at each school. Bob mentions that this also covers needs at the preschool. Mort stresses that Nashua has more people in trouble than Hollis, especially in the area of ESL, and they can run a school budget including special education with only a 2% increase this year. James points out that Nashua also has 17 unfilled positions.

Bill explains the changes to salaries and benefits. They are adding new positions for the early intervening program for math and for kindergarten. The NECAP (New England Common Assessment Program) has 4 categories. These new positions will assist students that are categorized in groups 1 & 2 and in the bottom of group 3. The intent is to bring the teacher to the students, in small groups. The teacher moves between the classrooms. Carol states that the math portion of early intervening will follow the same model as their reading recovery program. A ratio of 1:1 is ideal, but small groups is also good. Scott asks what percentage of the students will need this help. Bill states that 15% of the students from last year’s NECAP testing required this additional help.

Mort asks if they use students to help other students, such as having students from higher grades help out students in lower grades. Bill states that while they do not have a big brother/big sister type program, they do have an after school program for math Olympiad with high school students helping.

Scott asks if they will offer any support for the math teachers. If there are 15% of the students that need help and these students are removed from the classroom, what will help the existing teachers to do better with the remainder of the class and upcoming students to keep them from falling behind too. He asks if anything will be done to make the existing math instruction more effective. Mike asks if heterogeneous class structuring is becoming less effective with the new laws being enacted. Scott stresses that students are falling behind. The proposed option is one solution to dealing with the problem, yet there may be other solutions that are not as costly. Mike feels as though they are swimming up stream with the new federal laws. The schools are merely adding more and more staff for each new law that comes along.

Rich points out that whether they like the new laws or not and whether they believe there is any long range merit or not, the fact is they have a directive that they must pull these students up before they fall through the crack. The school must help them now, not later. Mike agrees, yet feels there may be other ways to help solve the problem, perhaps changing the classroom structure to help address the needs. Bill states that they have talked with the principals about this situation. The students that require additional help in math will not necessarily be the same students that need help in reading or in another area of study. The early intervening for kindergarten program is a .5 aid to assist the students at an early age to get a head start so they may not need the extra help later. Melinda points out that during the last meeting, the BudCom was told that the kindergarten teacher position was not included in the target, therefore they should have made $50,000 in cuts to allow for this new position. Mort feels that some students should just start school later, at an older age.

Scott asks if the early intervening need is determined solely by the NECAP scores. Bill states that this can also be done on the recommendation of the teacher. Scott feels that teachers are the best source of this knowledge, rather than just a test. Melinda again asks if cuts were made to allow the $50,000 for the kindergarten early intervening teacher. Bill indicates that there has not been a 1:1 tradeoff. James states that no educational programs or teachers were cut. Many smaller items were reduced. Melinda asks if they anticipate more hours for the psychologist for early intervening. Bob indicates that this will not be necessary.

Bill continues discussing changes in salaries and benefits. Both teacher and support staff have negotiated salary increases totaling $316,125. Benefits increased 7.1% with $106,847 included within the proposed budget for this.

Bill mentions that the previous proposal to have computers on a cart has been removed from the budget. They felt that a portion of the classroom could utilize the existing computers within the classrooms and still adequately meet this computer requirement. Transportation costs are up .11%, due to fuel costs and the busing contract. This contract is for the entire SAU. Melinda asks if Hollis pays directly for the buses. Bill explains that while the contract is negotiated through the coop, Hollis does pay their own portion directly.

Maintenance is up 1.34%. There are many items that need to be addressed this year. Roof repairs to the Primary Elementary building will be more than the budgeted $50,000, yet they are in the process of reviewing this with Hutter Construction. All the boilers for both buildings will be under contract for yearly maintenance. The system may not be fully efficient now, but by being proactive with maintenance now, it should help to reduce heating costs in the future. They are not changing any piping, but merely cleaning out the existing. The lighting budget is being increased for this electrical cost. Melinda comments that this seem rather high. Mellinee explains that during the last 2 budget cycles, they didn’t accurately reflect actual rates. This change updates them to the actual usage. This will now be more comparable to where they will be going. An electricity audit will be performed for both schools soon. Mike questions why there seems to be such a big difference in electricity costs between the 2 schools. Mellinee is not sure. They are hoping this will be reviewed during the audit. She mentions that while there are recreation programs held in the gymnasium at the upper elementary, this is not enough to account for the vast difference. The audit will also look at the type of lighting being used and which lights may need to be left on at all times. Chris mentions that with the extended daylight savings that will begin this year, it may help with lighting costs. Bill points out that the lights are on in most classrooms during the day anyway, so the daylight savings is irrelevant.

Melinda questions the snow plowing contract. Bill states that this is not a fixed price for the season, but is expensed per storm. He points out that the plowing required is not just the 2 school parking lots, but also includes the road and the sidewalks. Chris asks how this compares to the coop. Mellinee states that it is the same contract, so it is comparable. Bill adds that the contract allows for a total of 15 storms. Melinda still feels this to be too high, as it calculates out to $2,400 per storm.

Bill presents enrollment figures for 2007-2008. This is based on February 1, 2007 figures. Mike states that the BudCom likes to see the October 1^st enrollment data with projections for future years. This is what they have always used. Bill states that there would only be a difference of 1 student. He feels their figures are very accurate. Mort points out that this data shows a decrease in enrollment. Mike stresses that he would rather see the October enrollment with projections. He feels what is being presented is misleading. The BudCom needs to see the projections and this is not a projection of next year. Bill states that the previous information was not accurate. He feels the data being presented tonight gives a better sense of next year’s population.

Mike stresses that the cohort survival rate is a statistical method used in projections, which should be part of their formula. Rich mentions that there is a problem with the state data, as it has not been updated and some information is not available. They need to being using another data point from now on and into the future. Mike states that what was used in the past was a non-complex formula that did not need any other data than what was already in the schools. They assumed a flat increase for the last 2 years and only used their own enrollment data. Rich comments that he heard that many people were not comfortable with the previous method used, as they felt it was not accurate. Mike argues that he has compared backward and it was proved to be very accurate. They are merely looking to see future projections and using a very simple formula. The data presented tonight is projecting a significant decrease.

Bill presents a supplemental maintenance list with schedule. These items are not included in the budget. The various needs have been prioritized by immediate needs and/or safety issues. A total of $92,390 is needed from the 2007 contingency and the remaining $255,573 would be spread out over 2008 – 2010. Mike questions what has been budgeted for contingency. Mellinee indicates that they have $95,000 in contingency. Mike recalls that this had previously been at $100,000. He questions the $5,000 reduction. Mellinee comments that this was done last year, but she was not involved, therefore she cannot answer why it was done. Mike feels that this should be kept at the $100,000, since the school cannot run if they expend all their money. He points out how contingency is at a lower percentage of the budget than it was in the past.

Mike mentions that the BudCom agreed at the last meeting to allow for some emergency items to be done now and that they would look favorably towards using the contingency funds at the end of this year, if those funds were not needed for an emergency. Bill indicates that they will attempt to get contracts for this work by the end of the year, so these funds can be encumbered with the work being done over the summer. Mike mentions that he likes this schedule. Bill states that they hope to have more definitive estimates by the district meeting. He points out that while the schools have had some renovations, routine maintenance has been lacking.

Presentation of Warrant Articles

1.  Election of Officers – No BudCom action required.

2.  Operating Budget, exclusive of other articles - $10,552,176

3.  Collective Bargaining for Teachers - $143,642. This does not include step increases.

4.  Collective Bargaining for Support Staff - $87,895. This does not include step increases.

5.  Expendable Trust Fund for SAU 41 Maintenance – $ 17,282. The Hollis School District owns this building. In the past payments made by Brookline and Coop were used to pay off the bond for the purchase of this building. This bond is now paid and they would like to have these payments set aside for future maintenance items for this building. An expendable trust would be established for this purpose. Melinda comments that this is great in theory, yet it will reduce the revenue. Mellinee states that the lease payment was $8,000 - $9,000, which was the principal portion of the bond. This is the last year of any bond payments on this. During the last 5 years of the lease contract it has been recommended by the auditor to take these funds that have been accumulating and place them into an expendable trust.

Harry arrives at this time.

Mort questions how much longer is on the lease agreement. Mellinee states that the lease expired this year and they have not yet negotiated a new one. They have agreed to continue with a 1 year renewal to allow time for this to be reviewed. Melinda questions where the $17,000 comes from. Mellinee explains that there is a facilities maintenance account that was established that currently has the $17,000. These funds would be placed into the expendable trust. Bill points out that if any funds were to be expended they would discuss it with the BudCom first. Mike asks why they would be restricting this to just the SAU building. What if the SAU offices move to another facility? Bill states that this article is worded this way, as they felt this would be what the BudCom would prefer. Mike comments that while the RSA does say that this must be for a specific purpose, it does not have to be this specific. Bill mentions that there will also be another article for maintenance for the Hollis schools. Mike would prefer to have this as one.

Rich states that they would prefer not to commingle these expendable trusts. He feels doing it this way will be more transparent to the public. Mike states that if they need significant repairs to this building, they can always go back to the SAU and charge for the repairs. He is not sure this article is a good idea. Melinda comments that they are asking to take rental income and place it into a special account for maintenance. Currently this rental income is matched to the amount of the bond payment, therefore it does not impact the revenue stream. Mike would prefer to have more rent, with a portion of it going towards maintenance.

Bill stresses that this is an old building. They need this in reserve for unforeseen items. Mike states that is why they have a contingency fund. The lease agreement should be increased the next year to help compensate for those needs. Chris states that applying this strictly to this building may not be appropriate. He would prefer if they commingle the funds. Melinda questions whether maintenance and/or repairs should be charged above and beyond the terms of the lease. Hollis School District has an asset in this building. As the landlord they should be duly able to collect rent, independent of the utilities and repairs. Future maintenance should be projected and charged accordingly. Mark comments that if they were charging market rates for the rent, then the responsibility of the maintenance would be on the Hollis School District and a portion of the rent should be set aside for this purpose. He stresses that they need to base their lease on market rates. He does not feel that all the rent should be spent on operational items, when some of this should go towards repairs. If they are getting the full market rent, then Brookline is paying their fair share and the maintenance should not be an issue.

Melinda states that they are not getting fair market rent at this time, therefore they could charge above and beyond for the maintenance. Mike disagrees. The law says they cannot charge extra for maintenance. Rich states that Attorney Drescher did give them some advice on this. He indicated that the School District is not in the same business as being able to receive market value, therefore he recommended placing the entire amount of rent into the expendable trust for maintenance. Chris states that this property is an asset of Hollis and the school has charged little for rent with a portion coming from coop and Brookline. He feels that they do have a valid right to obtain contributions at fair market value. Mike points out that this is a negotiated item. He stresses that it is not a good idea to channel money into a specific account such as this.

Mellinee explains that the development of this fund was on the advice from the auditors. The funding and method was specific for maintenance of this building. The rent was established to fully cover the bond payments, with an additional $3,000 per year for maintenance. This $3,000 has been accumulating over the past several years. They were attempting to do this with no financial impact to Hollis and to keep the payment spread out between all 3 school districts. If the BudCom wishes this to be structured differently, she would prefer to get more advice from the auditors. In an unreserved fund balance, these funds are not channeled back over. The rent to Hollis was paid into the general revenue. Maintenance money was raised through assessments at the SAU level. The auditors want this done through an expendable trust and the SAU cannot do this as it must be done through the property owner, which is the Hollis School District. This is being done purposely for maintenance.

Melinda states that they could establish the fund, yet not have the rent going into it. James would like to start with the $17,000 and then go forward next year with a more fair market value rent. Mike is not as worried about the fair market value rent. Melinda states that this is the same idea as the town’s ambulance fund and would have to be approved by the voters each year. Chris likes the idea of using just the $17,000 to establish the fund.

Rich points out that they have 3 gate keepers; Town Counsel, the auditors and the DRA. Tom asks what they are doing with this $17,000 right now. Mellinee explains that the way this has previously been set up, these funds should be expended by June 30^th. Technically these funds should have been lapsing and returned back to the SAU. This trust fund would create this to be non-lapsing. Tom comments that if they do nothing at this time, the funds could just offset the budget for the SAU.

Rich points out that this building is a Hollis School District asset. It would be a good investment to help fund the small items that may be needed for this building. If they have the boiler go, Hollis school contingency funds would have to be used, even though they are not meant for SAU items. This trust fund would merely make it easier to deal with these items. Mike states that given the explanation that Mellinee just gave regarding the auditor’s recommendations, he has changed his mind and does agree that this would be a good idea. However he would prefer that it was not so specific in the wording. Bill states that he included the address in the wording, since the auditors indicated that it should be for the SAU administrative offices. Mike objects to the wording that this be for this building only. Chris feels the article should say a specific address, yet should not specify for the SAU 41 Administrative building. Mellinee states that the money is raised and intended for 4 Lund Lane.

6.  Expendable Trust Fund for Hollis School District Building Maintenance – Up to $79,600. This is the unanticipated revenue from the State. Melinda points out that these funds are normally put against the tax rate. This would impact the taxes. Bill stresses that these buildings have not been maintained properly over the years. Melinda feels that this is effectively like adding this same amount to the bottom of the budget. It is the same as the capital reserves for the fire truck. Bill disagrees. Tom questions how they would expend any of these funds. Mike states that they would need a hearing to vote on this. Mellinee explains that this is different than the trust fund for Hollis.

Melinda states that the estimated revenue and credits have been presented to the BudCom in the past. She asks if this includes the estimated unreserved fund balance. Mellinee states that while this was not included in the past, they are showing it this time because of the expendable trust. The amount shown was based on the maintenance schedule and not with any specific knowledge of the revenue stream. Mike states that it is better to have a round number to be used as a place holder. Then they can specify not to cap this amount. He asks if this trust fund is intended to cover future maintenance. Melinda does not like using the unreserved fund balance, as this is essentially adding to the budget. This will make $100,000 less in revenue. Mike states that this is similar to using the current use towards the conservation commission. It will not show up in the budget. Melinda cautions that once they approve this, they will never go back. This will reduce revenue and increase the tax rate.

Rich comments that he is proud of the work that has been done on this budget, with goal setting and with the efforts of the school board and administration. They have been given a road map for goals, specific to the overall objectives and a charge and vision. The decisions made are much better than knee jerk decisions. It has been a great collaborative effort. He has great resources in his staff, administration and much that goes on behind the scenes that make the district what it is. They have outstanding people working together in a positive environment.

There being no public comments on the proposed budget, the public hearing was closed.

BudCom entered non-public session at 10:20 pm.

BudCom came out of non-public session at 10:30 pm.

1.  Election of Officers – No BudCom action required.

2.  Operating Budget, exclusive of other articles – Scott moves to recommend this article. Seconded by Melinda.

Melinda points out that the town warrant always places the operating budget as the last article. Therefore if changes are made to any of the other articles, the operating budget could be amended if necessary. Rich states that if the BudCom recommends making this change, they can do so.

Vote on Motion. In Favor – Mike, Tom, Mark, Melinda, Mort, Bill, Scott Opposed – Chris Motion passed 7-1-0

3.  Collective Bargaining for Teachers – Mort moves to recommend this article. Seconded by Scott. Motion unanimously approved 8-0-0

4.  Collective Bargaining for Support Staff – Melinda moves to recommend this article. Seconded by Tom. Motion unanimously approved 8-0-0

5.  Expendable Trust Fund for SAU 41 Maintenance – Chris moves to recommend this article. Seconded by Melinda.

Melinda suggests removing the mention of SAU 41 and only using the address with map/lot distinction.

Melinda moves to amend the wording of the article to state "… to be known as the maintenance fund at 4 Lund Lane (tax map56, lot 2) in Hollis. Seconded by Chris. Vote on amendment unanimously approved 8-0-0.

Vote on amended motion unanimously approved 8-0-0.

6.  Expendable Trust Fund for Hollis School District Building Maintenance – Tom moves to recommend this article. Seconded by Bill.

Bill states that they do have a major paving project that will cost at least $100,000, maybe more. The idea is to budget this item over 2 years. Similar to how the town funds their fire trucks. They do not have a full quote for this yet. It would be a very big hit to do this in one year. He questions how this should be funded if the BudCom is not in favor of this article. Melinda states that the issue is that they are asking for something that is the same as asking for $80,000 as a line item in the budget. She feels what they are attempting to do is excellent, yet they are essentially asking for more money in the budget. The intent is good, with an idea similar to a capital reserve. When asking to use the unexpended fund balance, people will misunderstand that this is free money. She would rather have this money in the budget. Bill argues that doing that would push the budget over target and would then compete with curriculum. Melinda stresses that it has the same results.

Melinda recommends doing this a 2 articles. The theory of opening the account is a good idea. She is not sure if this is the right year to do so. They could have a vote to open the account with future money to go into the account. She is not sure if they should vote for $80,000 over the guideline for this now. She would rather have a straight number and not the unexpended fund balance. Bill stresses that the voters have already approved these funds. Melinda argues that in order to be fiscally responsible the unexpended fund balance should be used to offset taxes. Mike feels that people will be upset to see how this was used.

Rich feels the voters would rather see the money in this account rather than coming out of the operating budget. This allows them to know where it is going. Melinda agrees in theory with the account, yet disagrees with the funding of the account using the unexpended fund balance rather than with an appropriation. This is a confusing topic. She thinks the public will be very confused with this. It would be much clearer as a direct expense.

Harry argues that the money being used is within the current budget and those funds have already been approved for the school to spend. This will not push the budget above what has already been proposed. Historically there has been over $100,000 in unexpended fund balance. This will not bring the budget above the guideline. Melinda states that to the taxpayer it does push this above the guideline. Typically the unexpended fund balance goes against the tax rate. This will have the same impact to taxes whether it is budgeted or if they use the funds and do not return them to offset taxes. Harry agrees this will have the same impact, yet they are still under the guideline. Melinda points out that the guideline was $10,772,740 and they are asking for $10,783,713 so technically they are slightly over the guideline. Bill stresses that the extra is for increases to special education, which they cannot control.

Tom mentions that the BudCom could vote this down and not recommend this article, yet they can still present it to the voters. That would be the fair way to go. Venu reiterates that the $79,000 is from the 2007 budget, not from the 2008 proposed budget. Chris states that the 2007 budget was above the BudCom’s guidance. Venu states that if they have this savings from the 2007 budget, they merely want to put this away into savings for maintenance. He asks if Melinda is saying that the public wants this money back for their taxes. He thinks the public would want these funds to be used as contingency for maintenance items. Mike states that it is always an expectation for these funds to be used to offset taxes. Melinda feels these funds should be included in the estimated revenue.

Rich states that what the BudCom is addressing is really the net affect to the tax payer. Either $80,000 from unreserved fund balance or a new line item in the budget. This is a new idea for Hollis. He stresses that nobody will argue that these items do not need to be done. The voters will appreciate that some money goes back and some money is saved for maintenance. Melinda agrees that they should open the account this year with a minimal amount. Then when the tax rate is presented to the public in March, it does not include this money, therefore the anticipated tax impact will be more accurate. Rich asks that if they keep this article as it is written and give an informed presentation to the public and the article is approved, wouldn’t the BudCom agree that the voters were informed.

Mellinee states that she would prefer not to include these funds in the revenue estimates. This must be reflected properly. To establish this fund, the article is saying that they would use up to this amount, however if there is only $25,000 to use on June 30^th, then that is the maximum that will be used. If they place $80,000 as a budgeted line item, that that full amount of $80,000 would be appropriated. Chris comments that in order to have more funding come back, it does give an incentive to return more each year.

Vote on Motion. In Favor – Tom, Bill, Mike, Mark, Mort, Chris Opposed – Melinda, Scott. Motion passed 6-2-0

Rich points out that he would like to change the wording in Article 2 from "…The Budget Committee recommends this article …" to "… The Budget Committee recommends this appropriation …" Mellinee comments that this wording is within the DRA’s guidelines for full disclosure.

Next Meeting will be held February27, 2007 at 7:00 PM in the Community Room, Hollis Town Hall.

Meeting adjourned at 11:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Deborah Adams, Secretary