THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 2008

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Wisniewski called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sauer present. No members were absent. Others present were: Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Ed Drobina, Jennifer Frommer, Brenda VanCleave, Wilbur Lemon, Jerry Dailey, Roger Epperson, Nick LaTore, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 17, 2007, Regular Meeting. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS: Mr. Drobina stated Pastor Epperson of the First Baptist Church of Pickerington was present this evening to request approval for his Church to connect to Fairfield County for water service.

Pastor Epperson stated they are trying to open a day care center and preschool at the Church. He stated they have completed the building renovations and then were notified by the EPA that their well water contained more arsenic than they would approve. He stated they were requesting approval to hook up to Fairfield County for water supply since the City does not have water lines in that area. Mr. Drobina stated the City does not have lines in that area as yet and last year we approved Violet Township connecting to County water lines for their maintenance building until we do have lines in the area. Mr. Drobina stated he would have a written agreement for the Church to complete. Mrs. Hammond stated as we keep coming into more and more places out that way that need water, would it be wise for us to check into running our water lines out there. Mr. Drobina stated he could get an estimate on the cost for putting the lines in, and Mr. Wisniewski stated if possible that would be a good idea. Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve the request of the First Baptist Church of Pickerington to connect to Fairfield County water lines until such time as the City has lines in that area; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

Mr. Wisniewski stated prior to moving into the rest of the agenda, he would like to have discussion regarding the wastewater treatment plant expansion project. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had some issues with the number of overseerers involved, and he would like to get some clarification on this. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to get some kind of timeline and how we got to where we are now. Ms Frommer distributed a chronology of the professional services on the wastewater treatment plant beginning in 2003 when the design for the expansion was completed by RD Zande. She stated in November 2003 a contract with Stilson was approved for contract administration and inspection services. She continued that since that time the project went to bid twice, first in late 2003 and then in early 2004. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that in the 2003 bids, all bids received were higher than ten percent over the engineer’s estimate. Ms Frommer stated then in January 2004 value engineering was done on that set of plans which reduced the cost by roughly $2 to $2.5 million. She stated in March 2004 the project was rebid and the results were such that it could have been awarded, but concerns were addressed by Council at that time and the project was not awarded. Ms Frommer stated from the spring of 2004 until 2006 the project lay dormant, but in March 2006 the City contracted with Malcolm Pirne to complete a technical memorandum that gave a summary of the treatment technology that was available to the city at this time. She stated the technical memorandum was complete in November 2006. Ms Frommer continued events that took place in-house were addressed in a memo from the city’s staff engineer in August 2007.

Ms VanCleave stated the City took Statements of Qualifications on the wastewater treatment plant and the top three most qualified were selected by staff and Council’s Representative, Ted Hackworth. She stated these firms gave presentations to the Service Committee and staff, and DLZ and Brown and Caldwell were selected as the top firm. She stated it was then decided to hire another firm for administration and inspection services. Mr. Wisniewski stated this firm would then review what DLZ did. Mr. Drobina stated we did contract with URS for $6,500 for plans review. Mr. Wisniewski stated the estimated cost of the design is approximately $800,000, and we are paying $6,500 for someone to review that for what? He stated he did not understand what the $6,500 was for because if we are paying $800,000 for the design it should be right. Ms Frommer stated there is a certain number of hours they suggested they would review for design standards common to the industry, but as far as giving detailed accountability review of the detailed calculations and every detail on the sheets, she doubted you would get intensive oversight. She stated that type of plan review is much more costly.

Mr. Wisniewski stated we had Zande come in and give us a plan, we had someone value engineer that plan, we had someone come in to give us other recommendations, we came up with a plan and we spent $800,000 on it, and now we are spending another $6,500 to review that. He stated he was seeing about seven engineers involved in this so far and questioned if he was mistaken in that. Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not see the value in spending the $6,500. Mr. Drobina stated for the $6,500, they would basically go through the plans and make sure the process of the drawings work, to make sure the elevations are correct and the flow will go from this tank to that tank without any problems, etc. Mr. Wisniewski stated we spent $800,000 for someone to do this and where was their accountability in the process? Mr. Hansley clarified the plan review was the desire of the then City Manager to ensure everything was done properly and the direction for that contract came from the Service Committee. Mr. Hansley stated the $6,500 plan review contract was separated from the larger contract for construction management and although the work has not begun, the contract has been signed. Mr. Wisniewski stated his point was that he did not see where anyone was driving this project with thoughts of finances in mind; from Zande to re-engineering, to value engineering, to Malcolm Pirne, to DLZ, all of these extra steps that have been accomplished along the way. Mr. Hansley stated, being new to the process, it appeared that this slow, methodical method of selection and oversight was being done so we would not end up with a project we are not happy with. Mrs. Hammond stated the past Service Committee did go through a long process regarding why we didn’t use the design that we had and the problem with certain aspects of that design is that when they were done in 2003, the methods were somewhat outdated and the EPA would not recommend that we use them. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if there was documentation from EPA on that, and Ms Frommer stated that between 2003 and the two bids, there were concerns over the expandability of the plant, it’s size, and the technology that is your current technology. Mr. Wisniewski stated, however, we are using the same technology that we currently have. Ms Frommer stated that was correct. Ms Frommer stated the plan review and the level of involvement they have on projects is not something that is contained in their retainer agreement. She stated the retainer agreement provides that the details of capital improvements projects are managed primarily by staff and then outwardly. She stated the City Engineer’s signature on a set of plans is based on their familiarity with it, and that it meets the general intent of your planning documents. Mr. Wisniewski stated if URS was going to do this part, and Stilson is already going through the plans for the City part, wouldn’t it make sense to tack on for them to do this also. Ms Frommer stated she had spoken to staff about the fact that they could provide that service when they put together the contract for having a separate firm do the construction administration observation, but you ended up with plan review being done by the same people who were to obtain that contract to create some overlap. Mr. Hansley stated another opinion is that if we were spending almost $1 million for the design, then to make sure it is right, it would be beneficial to spend a few thousand dollars to look it over and make sure it meets all the codes. He stated he felt that is where this came from because we did have a couple of false starts; we wanted to make sure we had it right this time. He further stated we have had EPA breathing down our neck with a timeline we have to meet. He stated there were two or three things going on at the same time. Mr. Wisniewski stated if we have an issue that comes back, after the fact, with this design, who would we go to? Would we go to the ones who designed it, do we go to the guys who reviewed it, or do we go to someone else? Mr. Hansley stated it was hoped that any flaw would be caught early in the process, and these levels of checks and balances were trying to minimize that. He stated the goal is that anything major would be caught in these review processes, be it by staff, the design engineer, City Engineer, or consulting engineer. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if there was any value engineering done on this project along the way and Ms Frommer stated there was not. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if there should have been, and Ms Frommer stated it would be reasonable to do value engineering when you are spending this amount of money. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood the work was almost complete and Ms Frommer further stated she had received word from the design engineer that their submittal for 90 percent will be in the first week of February.

Mr. Wisniewski stated we are now at the point where we are contracting for construction service manager for somewhere between two and seven percent, and that is the URS contract on tonight’s agenda. Ms Frommer stated that was correct and that contract price is $699,407. She stated that contract that was presented to Service in December 2007 was roughly $712,000, but Service Committee requested that prevailing wage review be removed from the contract, as well as, plan review, which were contracted separately with URS. She stated those two items have been taken out of the original contract, which brings it to the $699,407 contract price. Mr. Wisniewski then stated Stilson was also awarded a contract for project management of the entire project, and Ms Frommer stated that was correct and Stilson is essentially managing the rest of the consultants. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that Stilson did not submit a bid for the construction inspection services contract because the City Manager requested they not do so. Mr. Hansley stated he felt Ms Gilleland felt strongly that she wanted the ability of the City Engineer to oversee the big project and to avoid a conflict with our City Engineer’s firm.

Mr. Wisniewski questioned that since we have a proposal from URS would we be allowed to get a proposal from someone else. Mr. Hansley stated the law director would have to answer that question but he felt we could reject the proposal for a valid reason and start over again. Mr. Dailey stated this is not a bid, but a proposal. He stated the City does have the ability to have an institutional memory, and if you take advantage of that, that it is fine. Mr. Drobina inquired if Mr. Dailey had ever been in the position where he had provided a proposal and then the Committee decided to use someone else, and Ms Frommer stated that has occurred. She stated in the instances where it has happened to their company, it has not been an issue. Mr. Dailey stated that was correct, that happens. Mr. Wisniewski stated in 2003 we had a bid for the plant and then Council pulled it. Mr. Drobina stated, in his mind, we did not need the construction inspection until we bid the project. Ms Frommer stated that is correct. Mr. Drobina stated then we have approximately five months before a contract with a construction inspector, be it URS or anyone, before we actually have to sign that contract. Ms Frommer stated that was correct. Mrs. Hammond stated at one point this Committee discussed that it would be a good idea to have the construction inspection contract completed so they would be on board while the design was going on. She stated then, when we got past that point there didn’t seem to be as much urgency. Mr. Drobina stated that with the $6,500 contract with URS, while it is not a true value engineering, but they are going to look at cost saving measures. He stated in a sense of the word that is value engineering. Mr. Dailey questioned if they would do that for $6,500 and Mr. Drobina stated that is what it says in the contract, that they will also review the plans and contract documents to identify potential cost-saving measures. Mr. Wisniewski stated the contract also states the review does not include a formal value engineering review or detailed process, structural, electrical, or design calculation, since such responsibility remains with the design professional. Mr. Wisniewski stated part of his concern was we are getting down to something very serious with the construction of the plant, and he knew the last one didn’t work right and he knew who fixed it, so when it came down to it asking the people who knew the most about our sewer plant to not be involved or even bid on it because of a potential conflict of interest, really bothered him. He stated Stilson has been involved with the City, they know the process, and they have a lot of history with this City, and that meant a lot to him. Mr. Hansley stated if Ms Gilleland were here he felt she would say she wanted Stilson to be the City Engineer and have the ability to make sure this project got done on time and on budget and meets all the engineering standards. Mr. Hansley stated if this Committee or the majority of Council wants to change, we need to do it as soon as possible to keep the project on track. Mr. Drobina stated we do have a contract with Stilson to oversee the project, and Mr. Hansley stated that was Ms Gilleland’s goal, to enter into that type of contract over and above design or being directly involved in the project. Ms Frommer stated their contract has a very specific scope; they are managing the consultants. She further stated she was very specific to make sure that the responsibility for design is with the designer and the responsibility for the construction budget is with the construction manager. Ms Frommer stated everyone has said at one time or another that it seems there are a lot of consultants here. Mr. Drobina stated staff is neutral on this; they do not have a preference on who does the inspection on the project. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood what Mr. Hansley was saying about a conflict of interest, but that logic still did not feel it made any sense to him. Ms Frommer stated she had Ms Gilleland address the fact that Stilson does not have a conflict of interest.

Mr. Wisniewski stated further Ms VanCleave’s memo refers to extending a retainer with the design engineer for them to review shop drawings, answer plan interpretations, and attend progress meetings at a cost of $15,000 to $20,000. He questioned if this is typical, to have a retainer after the fact? Shouldn’t they have done it right the first time or shouldn’t this have been put in the original contract. He stated he just didn’t understand where people were held accountable for what they have done. Mr. Drobina clarified we do not have a proposal from DLZ/Brown Caldwell to review the shop drawings at this time. Ms VanCleave stated she had just put in a ballpark range; no negotiations have been done as yet. Mr. Dailey stated the cost for reviewing shop drawings should be about $300,000, and Ms Frommer stated she has requested a proposal from DLZ for this, but she had not received one as yet. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if it was planned that DLZ would be doing the review of the shop drawings. Mr. Drobina stated that was the way it was originally started, the first contract was for design only. Then, after the project was bid they were going to find someone to do the inspection, and it was the intent they would do another contract with DLZ to do the shop drawings to make sure they met what was designed. Ms VanCleave stated that $15,000 to $20,000 was just a guess on her part and may be way off. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if it was typical for the construction manager to review the shop drawings or is it typically the design engineer? Mr. Dailey stated it would typically be whoever you have assigned the responsibility for construction services. He further stated construction services would be two parts; it would be a person on site to watch and an engineer or someone similar to that in that firm’s office to review the shop drawings. Mr. Dailey stated quite often it is the design engineer. Mr. Wisniewski stated then we are looking at possibly another $300,000 and Mr. Dailey stated it is not unusual for the cost to be five to seven percent of a project of this size. Mr. Wisniewski stated he was not ready to move on the URS contract this evening as he still has several questions on it. Mr. Wisniewski stated with the large discrepancy between the figure Ms VanCleave has given and the figure Mr. Dailey was estimating, he would like a closer estimate on what it will cost to review the shop drawings so we know what is coming. Mr. Drobina stated he would contact DLZ tomorrow and ask them to rush that proposal for review of shop drawings. Mr. Wisniewski stated he wanted to know if review of shop drawings was typically a part of the engineering contract that URS is proposing, and Ms Frommer stated it is not included in the contract, they will not be responsible for reviewing shop drawings. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if we could find another city that built a sewer plant and get a couple of breakdowns from them showing what has been done on this issue. Mr. Hansley stated as he understood it, what the Committee would like to know is if they included the review of shop drawings in the base contract, was it an add-on contract to the original design firm, did they hire someone else or was it done in-house. Further, what is the cost; was it included in the base bid or whatever. Mr. Wisniewski stated that was correct. Mr. Hansley stated if Council wants to go in a totally different direction; that was fine. Mr. Wisniewski stated the first thing we need to do is to get that proposal from DLZ and then we will know more. Mr. Hansley stated staff would provide this committee with the information requested tonight, but the clock is ticking. He stated if we are going to go in a totally different direction, the sooner the decision is made the better.

4. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT:

A. Planning and Zoning Director’s Report. Mr. Schultz stated he had provided a written report to the Committee and he would be happy to answer any questions.

(1) Planning and Zoning Representative Report. No report.

(2) Review and discussion of development process. Mr. Schultz stated he is still receiving information from other communities and he hoped to have something for the Committee at the next meeting.

B. ACTION ITEMS: Mr. Schultz stated he had no action items tonight, but would like to address the process for providing information to this Committee from Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated with the change in the Service meeting date, it is almost impossible for him to get the information regarding the recommendation from Planning and Zoning into the Service packets. He stated he just wanted to make the Committee aware that it may or may not slow the process down if the Committee is not comfortable reviewing items two days after Planning and Zoning met. Mr. Hansley stated Mr. Schultz could give a verbal report at Service Committee on the action of Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Wisniewski clarified the Service Committee makes recommendations to Council on rezonings, development plans, and plats. Mr. Schultz stated Service Committee will look at infrastructure issues, whereas Planning and Zoning looks more at use. Mrs. Yartin stated the Service Committee packets could contain the information provided to Planning and Zoning Commission, and Mrs. Hammond stated she felt that would work for the Committee. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to try that and if it does not work, then they could look at changing the Service Committee meeting date. Mr. Wisniewski further stated Mr. Sauer is Council’s representative at Planning and Zoning Commission and he would be able to brief the Committee on issues as well. Mr. Wisniewski further stated he did not feel Service Committee would have a problem scheduling a special meeting if necessary.

5. SERVICE DEPARTMENT

A. REPORTS:

(1) Service Manager’s Report. Mr. Drobina stated he had provided a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions.

B. ACTION ITEMS: Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to know what benefit it would be for the City to do the sewer billing for Canal Winchester. Mr. Drobina stated this started with a pre-annexation agreement where we agreed to provide sewer service to some homes. He stated we bid the project and when it got to this Committee, members at that time did not want to move forward because we have to pay Canal Winchester the capacity fees. He stated he was asked to work with Canal Winchester to waive those capacity fees. He continued that Canal Winchester said they would consider that if we would consider doing the billing for City of Pickerington residents who are on Canal sewer. He stated they want that because Canal has no way to shut the sewer off if they do not pay their bill. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if City residents who have Canal sewer pay the same as Canal residents and Mr. Drobina stated they do. Mr. Drobina further stated we read the meters and we send the readings to Canal Winchester and they do the billing. Mr. Drobina stated we have to read the meter anyway and this causes very little work for our billing personnel. Mr. Drobina continued that Canal Winchester agreed to waive the capacity fees if we will do the billing. He stated, however, they will not actually call it a waiver of capacity fees; they still want us to pay the capacity fees, we will take over the billing, and they will pay us back $21,000 as a billing charge. He stated we would read the meters, bill the customers, collect the money, and send Canal a check for what we billed for at their rate. Mr. Hansley stated we will make a profit off of the effort, and the reason they want us to do it is because we have the ability to shut off water for nonpayment and they do not. Mr. Wisniewski asked what happened if Canal Winchester’s rate goes up past ours and Mr. Drobina stated we would then have to look at it. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if something to cover that could be built into the contract. Mr. Wisniewski further clarified that the capacity fees we would have to pay equal $21,000 and they cannot waive capacity fees, so they would pay us a one time billing charge of $21,000. Mr. Hansley stated to address Mr. Wisniewski’s concern should Canal Winchester’s rates increases over ours, the ordinance could be prepared to state the administration reserves the right to have a billing rate to match that. Mr. Wisniewski stated his concern was that the City should not lose money in the deal and that our residents in that area would not pay more than other residents. Mr. Wisniewski further stated it appeared that the City would be assuming all of the responsibilities of billing, turning on and off water, etc., so where would that be a benefit to the City. Mr. Hansley stated we would be getting the $21,000 to cover the pre-annexation agreement capacity fees. Mr. Drobina stated he agreed with Mr. Wisniewski that after the fees reach even, we need a ten percent billing rate or subsidy from Canal. Mr. Sauer clarified that this would create approximately one hour’s additional work for the monthly billing process. Mr. Drobina stated our law director is working on a draft agreement. Mr. Wisniewski stated he is not looking to make money off of this; he just wants to make sure we are not putting an additional burden on our staff or residents. Mr. Wisniewski stated City residents should pay the same rate for sewer across the board no matter what, and as long as we are not losing money it was fine with him. Mr. Sauer summarized that right now we would be making a profit, and as long as that was the case, he did not see adding an additional billing charge. He stated he would like to see something in the contract so that if it did reach the point it was costing us money, then we would renegotiate at that point. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would rather build it in for the long haul to begin with, and as long as we are not losing money he was fine with it, but if their rates ever exceed ours then a five percent billing rate would go into effect. Mr. Sauer stated he was fine with that being built into the contract.

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with G&G Enterprises for the Hill Road South sanitary sewer extension. (TABLED, 11/19/07)

6. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS.

A. WASTEWATER

(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion - Update. Mr. Wisniewski stated this had been discussed extensively earlier in the meeting.

(2) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with URS Corporation for construction management of the City of Pickerington Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion project. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like this item continued on the agenda.

B. TRANSPORTATION:

(1) Diley Road Improvements Project:

a. MORPC/ODOT Project – Update. Ms Frommer stated the construction bids were received by ODOT on December 19^th, and they came in significantly under the State’s estimate. She stated the pre-construction conference for the project would occur yet this month. Ms Frommer stated she had distributed a memorandum summarizing of what the Diley Road project is, and she had also provided a snapshot of the budget for the project.

Mr. Wisniewski stated the one area of this project that still concerns him are the sound walls, what those are going to look like and what the residents will think after there is a ten foot wall in their backyard. Ms Frommer stated to summarize the history of the noise walls, there was a mailing and a public information meeting that was held with residents. She stated we provided copies of information from ODOT on what the materials would look like and talked to them about what they could expect. She stated there was then voting on if they wanted the wall, and if so, what they wanted it to look like. Ms Frommer stated Council then elected to treat the backside of the wall rather than to leave it plain concrete, and the residents picked what treatment they wanted. Ms Frommer stated it would do nothing but save money if you feel there is a consensus among the residents to take these walls out. She stated if they were taken out, then trees would be added. Mr. Wisniewski stated when residents initially chose the walls, the speed limit on the road was to be 45 MPH, and it is now engineered for 35 MPH. Mr. Wisniewski stated if the residents want the noise walls, that is fine, but he has never seen noise walls in a residential area that has not been next to a major highway. Ms Frommer stated ODOT has stated this is the first time ODOT has been asked to put noise walls in a residential corridor. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if we could prepare something to show each subdivision what it would look like with the noise wall, what it would look like with trees, and see if the wall is what they want. He stated the City would do what they wanted, but he was concerned that once the walls were in they wouldn’t be what they expected. Mrs. Hammond clarified that three subdivisions are scheduled for the noise walls; Sheffield, Manchester, and Cherry Hill. Mr. Wisniewski further stated that this was discussed four years ago and there have been a lot of property changes in that time, so before we start this project he wanted to make sure that the residents have as much information as possible about the noise walls. Ms Frommer stated if she prepared that kind of mailer to send out, would she want to let them know that if the majority responded they did not want the wall, it would be deleted. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt a letter stating we are in the final phases prior to construction, and we want to make sure that as many residents as possible are informed about the walls, that they still have the opportunity to vote against the wall or vote to continue with putting in the wall. He stated he just wanted to make sure they knew what their subdivision would look like once the walls were in. Mr. Hansley stated he would want a motion from the Service Committee to send out this mailing. Mr. Sauer stated he agreed with Mr. Wisniewski that this would be a good way to go so people would have a chance to let us know again what they wanted. Mr. Wisniewski moved to authorize the City Manager to send a letter to residents of the affected subdivisions on the Diley Road project regarding the noise walls; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0. Ms Frommer clarified that letter would be sent to all residents in each subdivision that received the original mailing and had the ability to vote on the noise wall, and would include a rendering of what the subdivision would look like with the noise wall and also what it would look like with trees and plantings in lieu of the noise wall.

C. WATER: No Report.

D. STORMWATER. No Report.

7. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had nothing to bring forward.

8. OTHER BUSINESS:

Mr. Wisniewski stated all Committee members had received a draft ordinance authorizing the purchase of a 0.569 acre, more or less, fee simple interest, present road occupying 0.290 of the interest, from William M. Lane and Sarah Crabtree Lane, Trustees. Ms Frommer stated this was property on the Diley Road project that negotiations have been completed on. Mr. Sauer moved to approve and forward to Council the ordinance authorizing the purchase of a 0.569 acre, more or less, fee simple interest, present road occupying 0.290 of the interest, from William M. lane and Sarah Crabtree Lane, Trustees, locate din the City of Pickerington, County of Fairfield, State of Ohio; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Wisniewski moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Wisniewski voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 10:10 P.M., January 10, 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk