SERVICE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2006

 

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

 

1.         ROLL CALL.  Mr. Hackworth called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Riggs present.  No members were absent.  Others present were: Brian Wisniewski, Mike Sabatino, Keith Smith, Jeff Fix, Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Ed Drobina, Lance Schultz, Paul Lane, Tim Hansley, Phil Hartmann, Brenda VanCleave, Jennifer Frommer, Carol Carter, Jeff Moneybrake, Rick Palsgrove, Dan Horne, Joe DiCesare, Craig Vandervort, Kevin Strait, Dough McFarland, and others.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 12, 2006, Regular Meeting.  Mrs. Riggs moved to approve; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

3.         COMMUNITY COMMENTS:  There were no community comments.   

 

4.         PLANNING AND ZONING

 

A.        REPORTS:

 

                       (1)         BZA Report.  Mr. Schultz stated the Board heard two cases last month and there are two on the agenda for the November agenda. 

           

                        (2)        Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mrs. Hammond) Mrs. Hammond stated Planning and Zoning will meet next week, so she has no report this evening. 

 

Mr. Hackworth stated if there were no objections from the Committee, as we have several individuals present to address the Economic Development Agreement that is on tonight’s agenda under Other Business, he would like to move that item up for discussion as the last item under this section of the agenda.  There were no objections from the Committee. 

 

B.                 ACTION ITEMS:   

 

            (1)        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance rezoning 11.023 acres, more or less, located on the northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Diley Road from R-4 (Residential) and C-3 (Community Commercial) to PC-3 (Planned Community Commercial) and accepting the Final Development Plan for a retail center, and to schedule a public hearing before Council for 7:10 P.M. on December 19, 2006.  Mr. Schultz the applicant is proposing to rezone the site for a strip center.  He stated there would be two buildings, one of approximately 38,000 square feet and the second approximately 12,000 square feet.  He stated there would be three out lots fronting S.R. 256, and the access points would be a right-in only on S.R. 256; a full movement on Old Diley Road; and, a right-in/right-out with a median on Windmiller Drive.  He stated there would be no access on Diley Road.  Mr. Schultz stated the Planning and Zoning Commission approved this application with 15 conditions, and those conditions are incorporated into the draft ordinance as Exhibit A.  Mr. Schultz stated he would be happy to answer any questions.  Mr. Fix clarified the proposed accesses are in line with our Access Management Plan.  Mr. Joe DiCesare stated he was present representing the applicant, and he did have some questions regarding one condition.  Mr. Schultz stated Mr. DiCesare’s concern was not actually regarding one of the conditions, it is a technical requirement from the traffic impact study that requires two left-hand turn lanes from Windmiller Drive to Diley Road.  Mr. DiCesare stated with regard to the two left hand turn lanes from Windmiller, after the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting they did perform, as asked, another traffic study.  He stated the traffic study was turned in to the City for review and he was then informed that the traffic study was inconclusive as to whether the two left turn lanes were needed, but staff was, at this point, not willing to remove the condition.  Mr. DiCesare stated he would like to address why he felt two left turn lanes were not necessary.  He stated they will be submitting a comprehensive sign plan, and part of that signage would direct traffic toward S.R. 256 or Diley Road and Windmiller Drive.  He stated his thought was that he did not feel they should incur the cost of doing something that just did not make sense.  Ms Frommer stated her office has reviewed the traffic study submitted and their analysis does state that the study is inconclusive.  She stated the original study submitted for this site did not analyze it with the current proposed accesses, but with a different set of accesses.  She stated when it was updated with the current accesses and resubmitted, the dual left hand turn lane was the only item that remains with a question.  Ms Frommer stated the study is inconclusive because there was no capacity analysis or operational analysis done.  Ms Frommer stated without that information they need to assume that there is going to be enough traffic on the Windmiller Drive location to require the two left hand turn lanes.  She stated with that additional information her office could either confirm the lanes were not necessary or determine that due to the impact on the intersection it require the dual left hand turn lanes.  Ms Gilleland stated she would prefer not to get into engineering during this meeting and this has been a very difficult parcel to figure out access and design.  She stated perhaps staff needs a little more time to look into this issue.  Mr. DiCesare stated he did not know if they could provide any further information and his concern was that he found it hard to believe that their traffic would cause the need for a second left-hand turn lane.  He stated further they were paying for a deceleration lane from S.R. 256, they were deeding over the land for a second future decel, lane, and they were incurring one-third of the cost to improve what is left of Old Diley Road.  He stated he did not feel that to bear the burden of an entire left-hand turn lane for traffic that is not all theirs made sense, let alone building it as a condition of the property.  Ms Frommer stated she understood their concerns and they were going to try and address that in some manner.  She stated when the traffic comes we are going to have to deal with it, however, she needs to do her job and be able to say that she has checked and their roadway can or cannot handle the traffic without that additional turn lane.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would request staff work with the developer and see if we can get a good traffic count and figure out where the traffic is going to go.  Mr. DiCesare stated he would like to move forward with the project and did not want to be held up another month.  Mr. Schultz stated the public hearing will be scheduled for December 19th, and Service Committee meets on December 14th.  He stated if this can be worked out and approved at the Service Committee, it will stay on schedule and be at Council on December 19th.  Mr. Hackworth stated we worked for quite a time to get our Access Management Plan in place, and he would like to be sure the access is in accordance with the Plan.  Mrs. Riggs clarified that by bringing it to Service next month, that will not add any time to the developer’s schedule.  Mr. Schultz stated it will not, because by our Code the earliest we can hold the public hearing is December 19th.  Mr. Hackworth clarified that the applicant was in agreement with all of the other conditions set by Planning and Zoning Commission.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have this remain on the agenda for the next meeting, and he would continue with scheduling the public hearing.  Mr. Hackworth moved to schedule the public hearing for the rezoning of 11.023 acres, more or less, located on the northwest corner of S.R. 256 and Diley Road from R-4 and C-3 to PC-3 for December 19, 2006, at 7:10 P.M.; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Hammond, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

            (2)        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance accepting the final plat for Stonecreek Station Commercial Subdivision.  Mr. Schulz stated this is the area in the TIF Council approved a few months ago.  He stated the approximate 18 acres is being developed into two parcels fronting S.R. 256 and two that will front the extended Stonecreek Drive.  He stated north of Stonecreek Drive will approximately 24,000 square feet of retail, and south will be five office buildings that encompass approximately 40,000 square feet of retail.  He stated the access will be from three curb cuts north of Stonecreek Drive into the retail and two curb cuts into the office development south of Stonecreek Drive.  Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning Commission approved the final plat with the 12 conditions that are incorporated into the draft ordinance.  Mr. Dan Horne stated he was present representing the applicant and would answer any questions the Committee may have.  Mr. Hackworth stated he felt this was a very good development and determined there were no questions.  Mrs. Hammond moved to approve the draft ordinance accepting the final plat with the 12 conditions; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

            (3)        Review and request for motion to approve a Preliminary Plat for 11.62 acres, more or less, of the Zane Property located just north of the Pickerington Medical complex for Fairfield Realty Investment.  Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is proposing to split the site into seven out lots ranging in size from one acre to 1.4 acres.  He stated three parcels would front S.R. 256 while the remaining while the remaining four would front to proposed extended road per the City’s Thoroughfare Plan.  He stated a traffic signal is proposed on S.R. 256 at the intersection of the proposed road.  Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary plat with 17 conditions, and if it is approved by Service Committee this evening, it will go on to the final plat process at the Planning and Zoning Commission.  He stated this would require construction drawing review by the engineer prior to the submission of the final plat.  Mr. Craig Vandervort stated he was present this evening representing the applicant.  He stated the infrastructure was designed with significant input from City staff and when it is completed it will represent the first phase of Hill/Diley connector.  Mr. Vandervort stated the Humbert/Luse development had been requesting to construct an extension to Black Cherry Drive so they can improve the access for their office complex.  He stated there was an agreement in 1992, with the City to do that.  Mr. Vandervort stated they will soon be held up in doing the rest of their project because they need to resolve the access to the property before they put up the rest of their office complex.  He stated the roadway design they are proposing for their property will efficiently provide the access to not only their property, but improved access to Rutherford Auto Body and allows for the upgrade of the access to the Humbert/Luse property while eliminating the problem of the request to extend Black Cherry Drive.  He stated it will also, in the long term, provide the intersection that will hopefully relieve the traffic to the athletic complexes and will eventually serve as another connection over to Diley Road.   Mr. Vandervort stated in October, at the Planning and Zoning meeting, they addressed three issues.  The first was that they were proposing to dedicate a 60 foot right-of-way through their property extending to the westerly side.  He stated they have agreed to staff’s recommendation that all three lanes be paved.  Mr. Vandervort stated staff was requesting that six foot sidewalks be installed in lieu of the four foot sidewalks required by Code, and the plan before the Committee is for four-foot sidewalks.  He stated the final item concerns the logistics for providing the connection to the new roadway for the Rutherford Auto Body site.  He stated Rutherford currently utilizes the existing Old Rt. 256 curb cut to Hill Road, and when the new lane is built, in order to close that curb cut, Rutherford will need to cross a number of feet to be able to tie in to the new road that will be paved back to their property line.  Mr. Vandervort stated this small amount of property is owned by Don McAuliffe and they have offered to purchase that property from him.  He stated they have also offered to pay to have the property surveyed to delineate the borders of his property and to show the extent of the Rt. 256 right-of-way, however, he has not responded to that offer.  Mr. Vandervort stated the resolution of this access issue for getting Rutherford tied in is an issue that the City will need to utilize their powers in order to proceed.  Mr. Hackworth stated as he understood, they were asking the City to exercise eminent domain for this 15 foot section of property.  Mr. Vandervort stated they are not able to give Rutherford’s the right to cross from the edge of Rt. 256 over the short distance to the new road, and they have requested permission or cooperation from Mr. McAuliffe on multiple times to join the project or let them purchase the property.  Mr. Vandervort stated they have been told, for safety purposes, the City would like to close that access before the new one is opened.  He stated he felt it is now necessary for the City to either negotiate or under the power of eminent domain acquire the right for Rutherford to cross that short strip.  Mr. Hartmann stated this is what is called a Devil’s Strip and inquired if Mr. Vandervort knew how many feet were involved.  Mr. Vandervort stated they do not have the right to go on the property to survey and although they offered to pay for a survey that was not accepted.  He stated according to the photograph that the GIS department has, the entire strip is 90 feet wide with a 60 foot right-of-way, so it is just a matter of feet.  Ms Gilleland stated the question was if the City was interested in using the power of eminent domain to cause this to happen, and also expending the funds to pay Mr. McAuliffe and the attorney’s fees.  Ms Gilleland stated it was her impression this property was going to be developed retail and we have an informal policy that we are not going to incentivize retail.  She stated to the extent we are going to stay with that policy, is what we need to discuss as there are costs involved for the City.  Ms Hammond stated one of the reasons we are requesting the developer make the road three lanes as opposed to two lanes, is because we hope at some point to take it over to Diley Road.  She stated, that being the case, in the future we would still have this problem to deal with.  Mr. Sabatino stated it appeared to him the developer was adding a lot of value added things above and beyond what is required for the project, and it seemed a rather minimal cost for the City to acquire this land.  Mr. Hackworth stated, to summarize, they were dealing with three issues.  First the approval of the preliminary plat, and the City using its eminent domain powers to acquire the property between their property line over to the current right-of-way on Old St. Rt. 256.  Mr. Schultz stated further the U-Haul business has an access off of both new 256 and old 256.  Mr. Wisniewski questioned if semi’s entering the U-Haul access had been accounted for, and Mr. Schultz stated we have not looked at the design yet.  Mr. Hackworth stated then he understood the developer would like some indication of how the City stood on the eminent domain issue, and Mr. Vandervort stated that was correct.  Mr. Hackworth stated this is the preliminary plat and it will have to go back to Planning and Zoning and Service for a final plat approval.  He stated he did not see a problem with the eminent domain issue, however, he would like to see something from staff on the costs before considering that action.  Mrs. Hammond stated she would assume if we started the eminent domain action we would be allowed to send a surveyor to the property to get the measurements and everything.  Mrs. Hammond stated with regard to the sidewalk issue, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed this issue and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission was for four feet rather than six feet for sidewalks in the City.  Mr. Hackworth moved to approve the preliminary plat for the Zane property and to explore the option of initiating eminent domain proceedings for the portion of property needed from Mr. McAuliffe; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0.   

 

Mr. Hackworth stated prior to continuing with the agenda, he would like to move to the discussion regarding the Economic Development Agreement that is listed under Other Business.  Mr. Hackworth stated as a result of the last work session, the law director had put together some modifications to the agreement and that has been distributed for everyone to review.  Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood the agreement before Service Committee is the original agreement, not the amended agreement.  Mr. Hartmann stated he had distributed a copy of the agreement reflecting the changes that came out of the last Council work session where there was a general consensus of opinion.  He stated he had also distributed a proposal sheet containing alternatives that people raised, but there was no consensus on.  Mr. Hackworth stated with regard to annexations, he does not like the idea of the City providing all the services to an annexed piece of property and then dividing the profits from it with the Township.  He stated further he did not have a good idea of how we would account for all of our expenses.  Mr. Wisniewski stated this appeared that we would almost have a CEDA agreement for any commercial annexations, and Mr. Fix stated we would have some type of an annexation agreement.  Mr. Wisniewski stated there would have to be a very lengthy process to negotiate all of the terms of the annexation.  Mr. Fix stated the general terms were provided in this agreement.  Mr. Hartmann stated the funding issue is the key component and the only other issues would be who services it, how it is serviced and things like that.  Mr. Hartmann stated he did not view the annexation agreement being a big document like a JEDD would be.  He stated a JEDD would be large because it sets up a separate Board and all of that, whereas an annexation agreement would basically be an agreement with the developer on what he would be doing.  Mr. Wisniewski clarified Ms Gilleland’s recommendation was five percent plus the road and bridge levy, valued at the present year and increasing each year.  She stated that was not necessarily staff’s recommendation, but a moderate agreement she was offering as a baseline.  Mr. Hackworth clarified that the way the agreement is written now it would apply to both commercial and non-commercial annexations.  Mr. Wisniewski stated it appeared this agreement allows the Township to continue to grow unabated and the City stops growing residentially.  Mr. Fix stated that was what the agreement said.  Mr. Wisniewski stated the City is the one who put in the impact fees, put in residential design guidelines, who has started to try to slow down residential growth.  He stated every time the Township has been questioned about doing that, they say they cannot do that.  Mr. Fix stated their response has been that they have never had nearly the issues the City has had with residential growth.  Mr. Wisniewski stated if the City builds the infrastructure then they deserve to recoup some of those costs, so if it is going to be developed residentially, either in the Township or in the City, and our infrastructure is going to be used, then we should be able to recoup some of those costs.  Mr. Hansley stated if we do not want to provide water and sewer services to a development, we can just say no.  Mr. Wisniewski stated his concern was that this involves two governmental entities and one is being constrained and the other is not as far as residential growth goes.  He continued the one being constrained is the one that has put forth the effort to try and slow the residential growth and put controls in place to try and do more about it.  Mr. Hackworth stated we have put a lot of money into Diley Road and we have control of the access on that road.  He stated the problem he sees is that if we allow the Township to put houses or whatever in along that road, we will have to deal with the effects that will have on Diley Road.  Mr. Fix stated we could just say no to providing services to a development along Diley road.  Mr. Sabatino stated if residential was such a loser, why did the Township want residential growth and not want us to have it.  Mr. Fix stated he has not heard the Township say they want to grow residentially.  Mrs. Hammond stated the entire point is we need to try to work together to try and bring in the kind of development that everyone is seeking.  Mr. Fix stated this agreement is very simple.  With this agreement we are giving up our rights to annex residential properties in exchange for being included as an equal partner in everything the do commercially.  He stated we are giving up something in return for something, and they are giving up something in return for something.  Mr. Hackworth stated he did not see what the Township was giving up.  Mr. Fix stated they could go to any other entity that has a higher tax rate, do a JEDD, and not include us at all.  Mr. Smith stated everyone had to bear in mind that we have the option of declining to participate in any development that is offered.  Mrs. Riggs questioned what commercial growth we would have if we do not work with the Township because we are running out of land.  Mr. Wisniewski stated there is plenty of land available that is in our water and sewer district that we could annex to if we choose to.  Mr. Wisniewski stated any commercial development has to occur in our school district and not one of the studies around the Route 33 area showed any commercial development occurring within the Pickerington Local School District.  Mr. Sabatino stated we have other options if we just look for them.  Mrs. Hammond moved to approve the draft ordinance and economic development agreement with the addition of the word “commercial” in paragraph 2.2, the phrase “which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld” to the last sentence in paragraph 2.4, and forward it to Council; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 2-1. 

 

            (4)        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending Section 1270.11(48) of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances defining Day Care Centers and to schedule a public hearing before Council for 7:20 P.M. on December 19, 2006.  Mrs. Riggs moved to approve and to set a public hearing before Council for 7:20 P.M., December 19, 2006; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Hammond, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

5.         BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

 

A.        Review and request for motion to approve Contract Registration Fee increase.  Mr. Lane stated the Building Department was currently reviewing their fees, and the Contractor Registration Fee requires Service Committee approve any amendments.  He stated the fee is currently $50 per year and staff is proposing this be increased to $75 per year.  Mr. Hackworth moved to increase the Contract Registration Fee to $75 per year; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

6.         SERVICE DEPARTMENT

 

A.        REPORTS:

 

            (1)        Utility Fees Review Committee Representative Report (Mr. Hackworth).  Mr. Hackworth stated he had no report.   

 

B.         ACTION ITEMS: 

 

            (1)        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance approving the Violet Township Maintenance Building use of Fairfield County water.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have this remain on the agenda. 

 

C.        WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE:  Mr. Drobina stated the new well drilling was completed today and we will now clean the well and do pump testing. 

 

D.        WASTEWATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE:   No report.   

 

E.         STREET MAINTENANCE.  No Report. 

 

F.         STORM WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE.  Mr. Drobina stated we have done some work on Long Road and Florence Drive.     

 

G.        TREE COMMISSION.  Update.  Mr. Drobina stated the Commission will begin a review of the tree preservation ordinance and also to research the ability to require property owners to cut down trees on private property that are dead or dying because of the Emerald Ash Borer problem that is being  encountered in some areas.     

 

6.         ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS

 

A.        WASTEWATER

 

            (1)        Wastewater Plant Expansion - Update.  Ms Gilleland stated she hoped to have more information for the Committee in the next few weeks.  Mr. Drobina stated we did receive the draft NPDES permit today for the permit modification to bring it up to a 1.6 MGD. 

 

B.         TRANSPORTATION: 

 

(1)        Diley Road Improvements Project:

 

                        a.         MORPC/ODOT Project – Update.                   

 

                        b.         Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance vacating 0.341 acres, more or less, of Old Diley Road located southwest of S.R. 256, and 0.685 acres, more or less, of Old Diley road located south of Windmiller Drive, City of Pickerington, County of Fairfield, State of Ohio.  Mr. Hackworth stated this item will be continued on the agenda.   

 

                        c.         Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinances regarding Diley Road widening property acquisitions.  Mr. Drobina stated the ordinances were grouped into two categories, the first deals with property owners who have agreed to a settlement and the second deals with property where we need to begin eminent domain action.  Mr. Drobina stated we will continue negotiations and hopefully reach settlements with the majority of the landowners.  Mr. Hackworth moved to forward the ordinances to Council for the potential eminent domain properties; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0.  Mr. Drobina stated the property owners included in the agreed settlement group are Givens, Banton, Ennis, Zell, Kevelder, Hardin, Collins, Stenson, Adkins, Pyle, and Countrytyme.  Mr. Hackworth moved to approve and forward to Council; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0.                       

            (2)        Cover/Ebright Connector

 

                        a.         Pickerington Health Care Access Road – Update.  Ms VanCleave stated it does appear that Dr. Bouni owns the entire road, although he said he didn’t, and she will be meeting with the law director to discuss our options.    

      

            (3)        Traffic Signal Update.  Mr. Drobina stated the video detectors were installed at Columbus and Hill Road last Friday and seem to be working well. 

 

            (4)        Review and discussion regarding PYAA/PASA site access.  Ms VanCleave stated she and Mr. Hansley met with PASA and the Church and everyone agreed that a solution needs to be found and we will continue to talk.   

 

Ms VanCleave stated with regard to the preemption devices for the traffic signals that the fire department has been discussing.  She stated by the end of the year 3M will conclude their half-price deal.  She stated we are in the bidding process and with our legislative process that will take us past the end of the year.  Ms VanCleave stated the bid opening is November 20th, and she would request the Committee consider signing a waiver of committee action so the legislation can be voted on at the November 21st Council meeting.  Ms VanCleave stated the cost will be approximately $66,000 and the Township will reimburse us that amount.  Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, and Mrs. Hammond all stated they would request it be placed on Council agenda and they would sign the waiver of committee action. 

 

C.        WATER:  No Report. 

 

D.        STORMWATER. No Report.    

 

7.         CHAIRMAN.    Mr. Hackworth stated he has read where the County is looking at an access management plan and they are promoting using raised medians to cut off left hand turns.  He stated a detailed report on this is in the Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission minutes. 

 

Ms Gilleland stated we have two projects that we are working through and she would like to add them to the Service Committee agenda so you can be updated each month.  She stated the first is the Diley Road Corridor Plan and the second is the Commercial Design Guidelines.  She stated these will be listed as regular agenda items under the Planning and Zoning Department. 

 

8.         OTHER BUSINESS. 

A.        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance adopting an Economic Development Agreement with Violet Township.  Mr. Hackworth stated this had been dealt with earlier in the meeting. 

 

9.         ADJOURNMENT.  There being nothing further, Mrs. Hammond moved to adjourn; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, and Mrs. Hammond voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 3-0.  The Service Committee adjourned at 9:55 P.M., November 9, 2006.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk