Meeting Minutes
Note: Minutes are prepared by the Borough Secretary and approved at the following regular meeting. Draft minutes are posted within 10 business days of the meeting. For complete audio recordings, contact the Borough Office at (724) 462-0173 or visit Borough Hall during regular office hours. Minutes presented below are select excerpts; complete minutes are available in hard copy at the Borough Office or by written request.
Regular Meeting — October 17, 2023
Select excerpts from approved minutes. Complete minutes available at Borough Office.
I. Call to Order & Roll Call
Mayor Hendricks: I'd like to call this regular meeting of the Tenley Falls Borough Council to order. The time is 7:02 PM. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll.
Secretary Pascarella: Council President Kovacs.
Mr. Kovacs: Present.
Secretary Pascarella: Vice President Plott.
Mrs. Plott: Present.
Secretary Pascarella: Mr. Morin.
Mr. Morin: Present.
Secretary Pascarella: Mrs. Wodzicki.
Mrs. Wodzicki: Present.
Secretary Pascarella: Mr. Callahan.
Mr. Callahan: Present.
Secretary Pascarella: Mrs. Mayer-Graham.
Mrs. Mayer-Graham: Present.
Secretary Pascarella: All seven members present. We have a quorum.
Mayor Hendricks: Thank you, Linda. Also present this evening are Borough Manager Dennis Kehoe and Borough Solicitor Martin Creevy. We have a full agenda tonight, so I'd ask everyone to be mindful of time.
[Minutes for agenda items II through V (Approval of Prior Minutes, Treasurer's Report, Manager's Report, Committee Reports) omitted from these excerpts. See complete minutes for full record.]
VI. Old Business — Ordinance 1053: Traffic Calming — Mandatory Roundabout Installation
Mayor Hendricks: We now move to item VI on the agenda. This is the second reading of Ordinance 1053, an ordinance mandating the installation of modern roundabout intersections at designated locations within the borough. Mr. Kovacs, this is your item.
Mr. Kovacs: Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to begin by saying a few words before I move for adoption, if that's all right.
Mayor Hendricks: Go ahead.
Mr. Kovacs: Thank you. I've spent thirty-one years in traffic engineering with PennDOT, and I've watched communities across this commonwealth and across this country struggle with the same fundamental problem: outdated intersection design that kills people. Now, I know that sounds dramatic. But it's not. The data is unambiguous. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has published study after study demonstrating that modern roundabouts reduce fatal and incapacitating injury crashes by approximately ninety percent compared to traditional signalized intersections. Ninety percent. The Federal Highway Administration has classified roundabouts as a proven safety countermeasure. This is not experimental. This is not controversial in the engineering community. It's only controversial here because it's new.
Mr. Kovacs: Now, Tenley Falls is a small borough, but we have had three serious-injury accidents at the Elm and Spruce intersection in the past five years and one fatality at Oak and Main in 2019. Mrs. Deluca. Sixty-seven years old. Walking to church. I think about that every time I drive through that intersection, and I think we owe it to this community to do what the evidence tells us works.
Mr. Kovacs: Ordinance 1053 is a phased approach. Phase I addresses Elm and Spruce. Phase II addresses Oak and Main. The engineering estimates we've received from Pennridge Associates put the combined cost at approximately $2.8 million, which is eligible for up to sixty percent PennDOT Multimodal Transportation Fund reimbursement. We have done the work. We have done the homework. I move for adoption of Ordinance 1053 as presented at first reading.
Mr. Morin: Second.
Mayor Hendricks: We have a motion and a second. Discussion?
Mrs. Plott: Yes, I have several concerns. First of all, I want to acknowledge that nobody on this Council is indifferent to traffic safety. Nobody. But I have serious questions about the process and the cost.
Mrs. Plott: Mr. Kovacs cites a $2.8 million estimate. But the backup documentation provided to Council shows that estimate was prepared over a year ago, and it does not include utility relocation costs. It does not include right-of-way acquisition if needed. And the sixty percent PennDOT reimbursement is not guaranteed. It is competitive. We might get sixty percent. We might get forty. We might get nothing. So I would like to know what the borough's actual maximum exposure is, and I don't think anyone at this table can give me that number tonight.
Mrs. Plott: Second, and more fundamentally, I question whether this Council should be imposing this kind of infrastructure change without putting it to the voters. This is a significant use of public funds. This will permanently alter the character of our streets. I believe the residents deserve a voice.
Mayor Hendricks: Mr. Creevy, can you speak to the referendum question?
Solicitor Creevy: Yes. Under the Borough Code, traffic regulation ordinances are within the legislative authority of the Borough Council and are not subject to mandatory referendum. The Council may, of course, choose to submit any matter to the voters through a non-binding referendum, but there is no legal requirement to do so for an ordinance of this type.
Mrs. Plott: I understand it's not required. I'm suggesting it would be the right thing to do.
Mr. Kovacs: With all due respect to Mrs. Plott, we were elected to make decisions on behalf of the residents. That's representative government. If we put every infrastructure project to referendum, we'd never pave a road.
Mrs. Plott: This is not paving a road, Gerald.
Mayor Hendricks: Let's keep this to the substance. Mrs. Wodzicki, you had a question?
Mrs. Wodzicki: Thank you. I do. I've been on this Council for twenty-two years, and I've seen a lot of projects come through. My concern is the historic streetscape. The Elm and Spruce intersection sits within the area that was surveyed for the 2016 historic district feasibility study. It never went anywhere, but the point is that this is a part of town that has a certain character. I'd like to know what the visual impact is going to be. Have we seen renderings? Have we consulted with anyone about the aesthetic compatibility?
Mr. Kovacs: Modern roundabouts include a central island that is typically landscaped. We can absolutely address aesthetic concerns during the design phase. Many communities use their roundabout islands for public art, plantings, even small monuments.
Mrs. Wodzicki: I appreciate that, but I'd like to see specifics before we approve something, not after.
Mr. Morin: If I may. I've been looking at the accident data for the past several weeks. I actually pulled the PennDOT crash records for our borough for the last ten years. In that period, the borough had seventeen reported crashes at signalized or stop-controlled intersections, four of which resulted in serious injury and one in a fatality. When you weight that against our traffic volumes, we have a disproportionately high crash rate compared to boroughs of similar size. I have this in a spreadsheet if anyone wants to see the numbers.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Mayer-Graham: I just want to put on the record that I've heard from a number of residents and property owners who are very concerned about the impact this is going to have on property values, particularly along Elm Street. I think those concerns are legitimate and I don't think they've been adequately addressed.
Mayor Hendricks: Any further discussion from Council? Hearing none, I'd like to open the floor to public comment on this item before we vote. As a reminder, speakers will have three minutes. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Three residents addressed Council. The following is an excerpt from the remarks of the final speaker.]
Mr. Barfield (Tom Barfield, 42 Hemlock Drive): Good evening. Thank you, Mayor, members of Council. I'll be brief. I have two questions. First, if the ordinance passes tonight, what is the projected timeline for design and construction of Phase I? And second, will there be a public comment period during the design phase where residents can provide input on the specifics?
Mr. Kovacs: I can speak to that. Assuming approval tonight, we would anticipate issuing the engineering design RFP within sixty days. Design phase would be approximately six months. Construction would likely begin in late spring or early summer of 2024, with completion by fall. And yes, there would be at least one public information session during the design phase.
Mr. Barfield: Thank you. I appreciate the specifics.
Mayor Hendricks: Thank you, Mr. Barfield. Is there any additional public comment? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment period on this item and we'll proceed to a vote. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Secretary Pascarella: On the motion to adopt Ordinance 1053, Traffic Calming — Mandatory Roundabout Installation. Council President Kovacs.
Mr. Kovacs: Aye.
Secretary Pascarella: Vice President Plott.
Mrs. Plott: No.
Secretary Pascarella: Mr. Morin.
Mr. Morin: Aye.
Secretary Pascarella: Mrs. Wodzicki.
Mrs. Wodzicki: No.
Secretary Pascarella: Mr. Callahan.
Mr. Callahan: Aye.
Secretary Pascarella: Mrs. Mayer-Graham.
Mrs. Mayer-Graham: No.
Secretary Pascarella: Mayor Hendricks.
Mayor Hendricks: Aye.
Secretary Pascarella: The vote is four in favor, three opposed. Ordinance 1053 is adopted.
Mrs. Plott: Mayor, I would like the record to reflect my dissent and my objection to the process by which this ordinance was advanced. I believe this Council has acted without adequate public input and without a complete understanding of the financial obligations it is imposing on this borough.
Mayor Hendricks: So noted. The Secretary will include your statement in the minutes.
[Minutes for agenda items VII through IX (New Business, Correspondence, Adjournment) omitted from these excerpts. Meeting adjourned at 8:34 PM.]
Regular Meeting — June 4, 2024
Select excerpts from approved minutes. Complete minutes available at Borough Office.
[Roll call: all seven members present. Also present: Borough Manager Dennis Kehoe, Borough Solicitor Martin J. Creevy.]
[Agenda items I through III omitted from these excerpts.]
IV. Manager’s Report — Phase I Construction Update
Borough Manager Kehoe: Thank you, Mayor. I'm pleased to report that the Phase I roundabout installation at Elm Street and Spruce Avenue is approximately eighty-five percent complete as of last Friday. Kensington Paving has been ahead of schedule, which I think is something we can all appreciate. The concrete apron work was finished two weeks early, and the landscaping subcontractor is scheduled to begin work on the center island this Thursday, weather permitting.
Borough Manager Kehoe: In terms of budget, we are currently running approximately seven percent under the Phase I budget, which translates to roughly $68,000 in savings. That number is preliminary and subject to final reconciliation once the punch list is complete. I'll have a final accounting for Council at the next meeting or the one after.
Borough Manager Kehoe: I do want to note that we received the executed PennDOT Multimodal Fund agreement for Phase I last month. The reimbursement rate is fifty-two percent, which is slightly below the sixty percent we had projected but still represents a significant offset. We've submitted the first two draw requests and are awaiting payment.
Mrs. Plott: Mr. Kehoe, just to be clear, the reimbursement came in eight percentage points below the number that was cited to this Council when we voted on the ordinance. Is that correct?
Borough Manager Kehoe: The sixty percent figure was always described as a maximum, but yes, the actual award was fifty-two percent.
Mrs. Plott: Thank you. I just want to make sure the record is clear on that point.
[Additional discussion regarding construction timeline omitted.]
VI. Old Business — Phase II Engineering Study
Mr. Kovacs: Mayor, under old business, I'd like to move that the Borough authorize the Borough Manager to issue a request for proposals for the Phase II engineering and design study for the Oak Street and Main Avenue roundabout, consistent with Section 4 of Ordinance 1053.
Mr. Morin: Second.
Mayor Hendricks: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mrs. Plott: Yes, I have quite a bit of discussion. First, we are now seven months into Phase I construction. I have received, and I know other members of this Council have received, a significant volume of correspondence from residents expressing frustration, confusion, and in some cases real hardship related to the Phase I construction. I have a stack of emails here. I'm not going to read them all, but the themes are consistent: traffic detours, lost business for the shops on lower Elm, difficulty for elderly residents trying to navigate the construction zone. And now we're talking about starting the process all over again at Oak and Main before Phase I is even finished?
Mrs. Plott: I would ask this Council to consider whether it is appropriate to proceed with Phase II before we have completed Phase I, before we have seen the final costs, before we have gathered any data on whether Phase I is actually achieving the safety outcomes that were promised, and before we have gone back to the community for meaningful input. I think the responsible course of action is to wait.
Mr. Kovacs: The ordinance establishes a phased implementation timeline. Phase II was always intended to begin engineering while Phase I was in the construction phase. That's not an acceleration. That's the plan as adopted.
Mrs. Plott: The plan as adopted by a 4-3 vote, Gerald, over the objections of nearly half this Council and, I would argue, a significant portion of this community.
Mr. Kovacs: It was adopted by a majority vote of this Council, which is how legislation works.
Mrs. Plott: I'm well aware of how legislation works.
[Gavel.]
Mayor Hendricks: I'm going to ask both of you to direct your remarks through the chair. Mrs. Mayer-Graham, you had your hand up.
Mrs. Mayer-Graham: Thank you. I want to echo some of what Mrs. Plott said, and I want to add something specific. I've spoken with several real estate professionals who work in this area, and the consistent feedback is that the Phase I construction has had a measurable negative impact on property interest along Elm Street. Now, I understand that construction is temporary. But we are now talking about extending that disruption to one of the most heavily trafficked intersections in the borough. Oak and Main is the heart of the commercial district. I would like to understand what economic analysis, if any, has been done on the impact of Phase II construction on the businesses in that corridor.
Mr. Kovacs: The motion before us is to authorize an engineering study. It's a study. It's not construction. The study itself is not going to displace any businesses.
Mrs. Mayer-Graham: The study is the first step toward construction. I think we all understand that.
Mr. Morin: Can I add something? I've been tracking the engagement metrics on the borough website since we added the Ordinance 1053 information page last November. We've had over 4,200 unique page views on that page, which makes it by far the most visited page on the site. We've also received 847 public comment submissions through the online form. I've done a basic sentiment analysis and the breakdown is approximately fifty-three percent opposed, thirty-one percent in favor, and sixteen percent neutral or asking questions. I have charts if anyone—
Mayor Hendricks: Thank you, Mr. Morin. I think we can review those offline.
Mr. Morin: Sure. I just think data-driven decision-making is important. I'll email the charts to everyone.
[Mayor Hendricks opened the floor to public comment.]
Public Comment
Mr. Barfield (Tom Barfield, 42 Hemlock Drive): Good evening again. I've been attending these meetings since October and I have to say this has been a real education in municipal government. I have several points tonight, so I'll try to be efficient.
Mr. Barfield: First, I've been studying the Phase I design, and I want to commend the engineering team. The inscribed circle diameter at Elm and Spruce appears to be approximately 100 feet, which is consistent with NCHRP Report 672 recommendations for single-lane roundabouts in urban environments. I would note, however, that the entry width on the southbound Spruce approach looks tight. I measured it informally at approximately fifteen feet. The FHWA guidelines suggest a minimum of sixteen to eighteen feet for that type of approach geometry, depending on the design vehicle. I understand the constraints were driven by the existing right-of-way, but I'd encourage the design team for Phase II, if it moves forward, to pay particular attention to entry path radius and fastest-path analysis, especially at Oak and Main where the truck traffic is heavier.
[Several Council members exchanged glances.]
Mr. Barfield: Second, I've prepared a map showing the turning radii for a standard WB-50 design vehicle at the Elm and Spruce roundabout, overlaid with the as-built geometry. I have copies for each Council member and one for the record.
[Mr. Barfield distributed printed copies to Council and the Secretary.]
Mr. Barfield: I think you'll find that the truck apron is going to need to be wider than what's currently installed if you want to accommodate anything larger than an SU-30. That's my main concern. Thank you.
Mayor Hendricks: Thank you, Mr. Barfield. Next speaker, please.
Ms. Olecheck (Karen Olecheck, 118 Birch Lane): Hi. I don't have maps or engineering studies. I just want to say that I tried to get through the Elm and Spruce roundabout last Saturday pulling my boat trailer and it was a nightmare. I couldn't make the turn. I had to back up and try twice. There were cars behind me honking. It was embarrassing and frankly dangerous. My husband and I go up to Youghiogheny Lake almost every weekend in the summer and that roundabout is directly on our route. Nobody thought about people pulling trailers. I'm sorry, but I just don't think this was thought through.
Mr. Kovacs: Ms. Olecheck, the mountable truck apron on the roundabout is specifically designed to accommodate larger vehicles including those pulling trailers. It may take a little practice to—
Ms. Olecheck: I shouldn't need practice to drive through an intersection in my own town.
[Applause from gallery.]
Mayor Hendricks: Please, let's keep order. Thank you, Ms. Olecheck. Any additional public comment?
[Two additional speakers addressed Council. Remarks omitted from these excerpts.]
Mayor Hendricks: Public comment is closed. We have a motion on the floor to authorize the RFP for Phase II engineering. Any further Council discussion? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
[Roll call vote.]
Secretary Pascarella: The vote is four in favor — Kovacs, Morin, Callahan, Hendricks — three opposed — Plott, Wodzicki, Mayer-Graham. The motion carries.
Mrs. Plott: I want the record to reflect that this Council is proceeding over the objections of a significant portion of the community. I also want to note that the vote to begin Phase II engineering is occurring before Phase I construction is complete, before final costs are known, and before any post-installation safety data has been collected. I believe future Councils will look back on this decision with regret.
Mayor Hendricks: Noted for the record. We'll move on to new business.
[Remainder of meeting omitted from these excerpts. Meeting adjourned at 9:12 PM.]
Regular Meeting — November 18, 2025
Select excerpts from approved minutes. Complete minutes available at Borough Office.
[Roll call: all seven members present. Also present: Borough Manager Dennis Kehoe, Borough Solicitor Martin J. Creevy. Secretary Pascarella noted approximately 45 members of the public in attendance, the largest gallery since the October 2023 adoption vote.]
[Agenda items I through III omitted from these excerpts.]
IV. Solicitor’s Report — Pending Litigation
Solicitor Creevy: Thank you, Mayor. I need to advise Council that the Borough was served on November 8 with a complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Garrett County, docketed at Case Number 2024-CV-03821. The plaintiff is a group of residents and property owners organized as the Tenley Falls Neighborhood Preservation Alliance. The complaint challenges certain aspects of the Phase II implementation of Ordinance 1053 on various grounds, including procedural, environmental, and constitutional claims. I have reviewed the complaint with the Borough's insurance carrier and outside litigation counsel. Due to the pending nature of this matter, I am not in a position to discuss the specifics of the claims or the Borough's litigation strategy in public session. I would recommend that Council schedule an executive session for that purpose at the appropriate time.
Mrs. Plott: Mr. Creevy, without getting into the substance, can you tell us whether the complaint seeks an injunction to halt Phase II construction?
Solicitor Creevy: I'd prefer not to characterize the specific relief sought in this setting. The complaint is a public record and any resident can obtain a copy from the Prothonotary's Office.
Mrs. Plott: Fair enough.
VI. Old Business — Phase II Construction Timeline
Mr. Kovacs: Mayor, under old business, I'd like to introduce a motion to direct the Borough Manager to proceed with issuing the Phase II construction bid package, consistent with the approved engineering design and the timeline established under Ordinance 1053.
Mr. Morin: Second.
Mrs. Plott: Point of order.
Mayor Hendricks: State your point.
Mrs. Plott: Mayor, with all due respect to Mr. Kovacs, I believe this motion is inappropriate given the pending litigation that Mr. Creevy just described. We have a lawsuit challenging Phase II. The Solicitor has told us he can't discuss the specifics publicly. I think it is imprudent, at a minimum, for this Council to be voting on Phase II construction timelines while we are actively being sued over Phase II. I would ask for a ruling from the chair or guidance from the Solicitor.
Mayor Hendricks: Mr. Creevy?
Solicitor Creevy: The existence of pending litigation does not, as a legal matter, prevent the Council from taking legislative or administrative action. Council has the authority to proceed with its ordinary business. That said, I would encourage Council to be mindful of the litigation posture and to consider whether certain actions might be more prudently deferred until the legal landscape is clearer. That's a judgment call for Council, not a legal prohibition.
[Pause.]
Mr. Kovacs: I appreciate Mr. Creevy's guidance. But I want to be clear: if we allow a lawsuit to dictate the pace of our infrastructure program, we are setting a very dangerous precedent. Anyone can file a lawsuit. That doesn't mean we stop governing.
Mrs. Plott: Nobody is suggesting we stop governing, Gerald. I am suggesting we stop ramming this through.
[Gavel.]
Mayor Hendricks: Mrs. Plott, Mr. Kovacs, please. Let's keep this professional.
Mrs. Wodzicki: Mayor, if I may. I share Mrs. Plott's concerns. I think the prudent course is to table this motion until Council has had the opportunity to receive legal advice in executive session. I don't think we're giving anything up by waiting two weeks.
Mrs. Wodzicki: I move to table the motion.
Mrs. Mayer-Graham: Second.
Mayor Hendricks: We have a motion to table. Under Robert's Rules, a motion to table is not debatable and requires a simple majority. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Secretary Pascarella: On the motion to table. Council President Kovacs.
Mr. Kovacs: No.
Secretary Pascarella: Vice President Plott.
Mrs. Plott: Aye.
Secretary Pascarella: Mr. Morin.
Mr. Morin: No.
Secretary Pascarella: Mrs. Wodzicki.
Mrs. Wodzicki: Aye.
Secretary Pascarella: Mr. Callahan.
[Pause.]
Mr. Callahan: Aye.
[Murmur from gallery.]
Secretary Pascarella: Mrs. Mayer-Graham.
Mrs. Mayer-Graham: Aye.
Secretary Pascarella: Mayor Hendricks.
Mayor Hendricks: No.
Secretary Pascarella: The vote is four in favor of tabling — Plott, Wodzicki, Callahan, Mayer-Graham — three opposed — Kovacs, Morin, Hendricks. The motion to table carries.
[Mr. Kovacs leaned back in his chair but did not speak. Several audience members began talking amongst themselves.]
Mayor Hendricks: Order, please. The motion has been tabled. We will schedule an executive session to discuss the litigation with Mr. Creevy. Let's move on to new business.
[Agenda items VII (New Business) and VIII (Correspondence) omitted from these excerpts.]
IX. Public Comment — General
Mayor Hendricks: We'll now open the floor for general public comment. Three minutes per speaker, please. And I would ask that speakers refrain from comments on the pending litigation, as the Borough Solicitor has advised that this matter should be discussed in executive session.
Mr. Barfield (Tom Barfield, 42 Hemlock Drive): Thank you, Mayor. I have a prepared statement this evening and I'll do my best to keep it within the time limit, though I may run slightly over and I'd ask for the chair's indulgence.
Mr. Barfield: I have been attending these meetings for two years now. I was here when the ordinance was voted on. I was here when Phase I construction started. I was here when Council authorized the Phase II study. I have watched this process unfold with great interest and, I'll be honest, growing concern. Not because I oppose roundabouts. I want to be clear about that. The safety data is real. Mr. Kovacs is right about the IIHS research and the FHWA classifications. I've read the studies myself. I've read the NCHRP reports. I've driven roundabouts in Carmel, Indiana, where they have over 140 of them.
Mr. Barfield: My concern is that the implementation in Tenley Falls has become disconnected from the community it's supposed to serve. I've compiled data from my own observations over the past eleven months. I've personally observed the Elm and Spruce roundabout during twenty-two separate one-hour observation sessions at varying times of day. I've documented 341 vehicle-vehicle conflicts, which I'm defining using the Swedish Traffic Conflict Technique methodology. Sixty-three of those I would classify as serious conflicts. That's a serious conflict rate of approximately 2.86 per observation hour, which is above the threshold that Hydén established in 1987 for—
Mayor Hendricks: Mr. Barfield, I appreciate the thoroughness, but I do need to be mindful of time.
Mr. Barfield: Of course. I have the rest of my statement in writing and I'd like to submit it for the record if I may. It includes my full observation data, methodology notes, and several recommendations regarding signage improvements and geometric modifications that I believe could address some of the operational issues at Elm and Spruce before Phase II proceeds. There are also three appendices with photographs.
Mayor Hendricks: You may submit your statement to the Secretary and it will be appended to the minutes. Thank you, Mr. Barfield.
Mr. Barfield: Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate the Council's time.
[Mr. Barfield's full statement is appended to these minutes as Exhibit A (14 pages). Copies are available at the Borough Office.]
Mr. Whitmore (Dale Whitmore, 305 Oak Street): Quick question. Is it true that there's a recall petition going around for certain members of Council? And if so, has it gotten enough signatures?
Mayor Hendricks: Mr. Whitmore, the question of recall petitions is not a matter that falls within the business of this Council meeting. If you have questions about the recall process, I'd direct you to the Garrett County Board of Elections.
Mr. Whitmore: So you can't say one way or the other?
Mayor Hendricks: That's correct. It's not an item before this Council. Next speaker.
[Two additional speakers addressed Council regarding the litigation and Phase II. Remarks omitted from these excerpts at the advice of the Solicitor.]
Mrs. Fenton (Judith Fenton, 88 Maple Court): Good evening. This has nothing to do with roundabouts. I promise. I'm here about the community garden on Borough-owned land behind the fire station. The plots were supposed to be assigned for next season by November 1 and nobody has heard anything. Is there an update? My husband and I have been on the waiting list for two years.
Borough Manager Kehoe: Mrs. Fenton, I apologize for the delay. The Parks and Recreation Committee was scheduled to meet in October to finalize the plot assignments, but the meeting was postponed due to a scheduling conflict. I expect the assignments to go out by early December. You're on the list and I don't anticipate any issues.
Mrs. Fenton: Wonderful. Thank you. And I just want to say, the tomatoes from last season's plot holders were absolutely beautiful. I saw them at the farmer's market. I can't wait.
Mayor Hendricks: Thank you, Mrs. Fenton. Is there any additional public comment?
[No additional speakers.]
X. Adjournment
Mayor Hendricks: Hearing none, I'll close public comment. Is there a motion to adjourn?
Mrs. Wodzicki: So moved.
Mr. Morin: Second.
Mayor Hendricks: All in favor?
[Unanimous.]
Mayor Hendricks: We are adjourned. The time is 9:47 PM. Thank you all for coming.
[Meeting adjourned at 9:47 PM. The next regular meeting of the Tenley Falls Borough Council is scheduled for Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 7:00 PM.]
Archive: Minutes from prior meetings (2018–present) are available in hard copy at the Borough Office during regular business hours. Minutes from 2020 forward are also available in PDF format by emailing the Borough Secretary at lpascarella@tenleyfalls.gov. Please allow 3–5 business days for electronic requests.