WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2009

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Fix called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders were present. Mr. Wisniewski arrived at 7:15 P.M. No members were absent. Others present were Mayor O’Brien, Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Ed Drobina, Greg Bachman, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 3, 2009, Regular Meeting. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

Mr. Fix stated prior to getting into the agenda Mr. Hansley and Mr. Bachman have requested an opportunity to address the Committee on a couple of items. He stated Mr. Bachman has an idea that is worthy of discussion and it is a matter of if we have the money, and if we do, is this how we want to spend it.

Mr. Bachman stated when he started working for the City last week he started looking at our construction projects. He stated as he was reviewing the storm sewer project in the old village that will be starting shortly. Mr. Bachman stated this project involves a storm sewer line that is about ten feet down and the contractor will have a wide excavation there right about where the future proposed alignment of that road is. He stated the contractor will have the equipment on site, he will be putting backfill in, he has stone out there, and it would not be a lot more work for him to build the road that connects Town Square Drive to Center Street. Mr. Bachman stated that is about 700 feet of road, and since the contractor is already on site he felt this would be about the lowest price we could get to get that road connection and it could be done yet this year. He stated he just wanted to bring this idea to Council for consideration as he felt is was worth pursuing. Mr. Bachman stated there were two options, first to continue the cross section of the road that is already there and has a through lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and five foot bike shoulders with curb and gutter, and he would estimate that to be about $300,000. Mr. Bachman stated the second option is to do a minimal road that is 24 feet wide without curb and gutter, he would estimate that to cost about $125,000. Mr. Bachman stated he would have to get an actual price from the contractor and he hoped it would be less than the estimates he had just given. He continued that if Council would like him to pursue that he would contact the contractor and discuss what the cost of this change order to his contract might be. Mr. Bachman stated it seemed to make sense to make this connection and he would tie it into East Church Street. Mr. Fix clarified that we eventually want to finish this road, and if we did it a couple of years from now it would cost more. Mr. Fix further stated most of this area is property owned by the City and questioned if there were any right-of-way issues. Mr. Hansley stated later in the agenda this Committee would discuss the land exchange, which is the actual dead end of that cul de sac. He stated there is a sliver of a piece that is owned by the Ellis family and Mr. Schultz and Mrs. Fersch have scheduled a meeting to sit down with Ann Ellis to discuss the possibility of them wanting to donate that because they did not want to continue to be concerned about what might be underneath that due to petroleum storage. He stated we have been told the minimum we would do if we got that donation would be a Phase I environmental review. He stated most people believe there is not that much underneath there and that a road cover is an acceptable way to deal with that. Mr. Hansley stated that one small piece is the only part not owned by the City. Mr. Sabatino questioned if the City would decide to act on this with the minimal road, would we be able to go back in later and make it the wider road with curb and gutter and Mr. Bachman stated that would be possible. Mrs. Fersch stated we borrowed $150,000 for the Hill Road culvert replacement and since we received a grant we are only going to be using $30,000 of that money. She stated, however, because it is referred to in our borrowing for the culvert, we cannot divert it to this project. She stated we could, however, have the General Fund pay the amount and have legislation stating that this money would then be repaid to the General Fund, if we so desire, in January when we borrow the big issue again. She continued that when we borrow the big issue we would be paying back the $150,000 so that will be off the books. Mrs. Fersch stated we would be decreasing our borrowing by $25,000 from what we did this year, so it is not like we would be adding additional debt. She stated we would be paying off one debt and then borrowing for this one. Mr. Smith stated the whole idea for the by-pass was to try and give some relief to some of the big truck traffic that have problems making that hard turn off of Hill Road onto Columbus and he questioned if this road would handle truck traffic. Mr. Bachman stated he did not see this smaller road giving a lot of relief for the trucks such as the big by-pass would. Mr. Hansley stated from staff’s perspective he would view the impact being especially for emergency activity or special events when we have the road closed down for festivals, etc. He stated this would give secondary relief where you could at least by-pass the old downtown area. Mrs. Hammond stated she would like to see the road continue for several reasons, and clarified the new construction would stop at Center Street, but you could continue on East Church Street or go left or right onto Center Street. Mrs. Fersch stated the contract with Beheler has a five percent contingency and if we did this as a change order we would not have enough, so we would need to increase the contract with Beheler in order to cover it. She stated the appropriation is not a problem, we would need the legislation stating that the money would be repaid to General Fund after our borrowing in January, and legislation to increase the contract, so three pieces of legislation would be necessary. Mayor O’Brien stated a lot of this would involve Service Committee and he was curious on the alignment of the road as far as where it leaves the cul de sac and how it gets to where it is going. He stated he was concerned about the comments about economic development opportunities because for the past five years there has been a lot of talk about that area, definition of who owns what, definition of use, and things like that that he would like to discuss further. He stated he was not saying we should stop the process, but he would like to take everything into consideration prior to leaping forward with this like it seems we are ready to do. Mayor O’Brien stated there is more detail than this much asphalt and this much gravel. He stated instead of looking at the cheapest way to get pavement down we need to look at the best investment to get pavement down. Mr. Fix questioned if a decision had to be made in the next week, would there be enough time to get these questions answered. Mayor O’Brien stated he would go to the Service Committee meeting to discuss it there and he would like to see some sketches on the project. Mr. Fix stated the question was at what point we needed to let the contractor know our intentions so we could get it done while he was still there, otherwise the cost would go back up. Mr. Bachman stated the contractor would probably not be in that area until September. Mr. Hansley stated the economic development issue that he and Mr. Schultz have been meeting with people on is on the currently paved road close to S.R. 256, but that site suffers from the fact that the road doesn’t go anywhere. He stated the discussions have been if that road would ever open up and then the project we have been looking at might move ahead much quicker. He stated it is not on the bus site that we are looking at immediately; it is on the other end. Mr. Fix stated he understood Mr. Bachman had spoken to Mr. Wisniewski earlier and Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to see that connector go through there and he would like to know everyone else’s thoughts on it. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt this would offer the opportunity to open up those lots for something commercial in that area, and right now we are getting nothing on that TIF so anything we got down there to help alleviate some of our debt he would definitely be in favor of. Mrs. Hammond stated she agreed with Mayor O’Brien, and obviously she would like to see the road go through even if the only way we can do it is to do the narrow one. She questioned if we would be saving money now, but then in a couple of years have to spend a lot more if we don’t put in sidewalks and curbs now because that is downtown and we may have foot traffic and bicycle traffic. Mr. Fix stated he had asked that question earlier, and Mr. Bachman stated curiously, as wide as it is, the existing road does not have sidewalks. Mr. Smith stated he agreed with Mrs. Hammond, and that is his major concern, because we do not have a good history of going back and putting in sidewalks. He stated if we don’t do it when we build the road, something else will probably come up and we won’t do it later. Mr. Hansley clarified that putting in the curbs and gutters, and bike lane almost doubles the cost. Mr. Hansley stated then, could Mrs. Fersch make the numbers work if we did the $300,000 option, and Mrs. Fersch stated we would have to borrow some additional monies. Mrs. Fersch stated we would still have the option at the end of the year when we see how our income tax comes in. She stated we would not have to commit ourselves until October or November on what we are going to do with our borrowings. Mr. Fix stated he would think there would be other ways we could spend another $150,000 other than on a road to nowhere, even though it would be completed it would still be a road to nowhere for a couple of years until someone puts some money into developing on that land. Mr. Hansley stated he would argue it would become at least a road to somewhere because you could by pass old Pickerington for the first time. Mr. Sauer stated with regard to the sidewalks, we have sidewalks that we have been needing all over the City. He stated he knew the importance of this road, but his concern was that we have streets that need paved, and in terms of priorities, he felt it would seem this would be a higher priority than building a road that may develop in ten years. Mr. Fix stated if it were just for development sake he would agree with Mr. Sauer, but the fact is that it is an east/west connector that we just don’t have. Mr. Hansley stated the reason this is before you tonight is that Mr. Bachman felt obligated professionally to bring it to you because you can get more bang for your buck since the contractor is still there. He stated that is the only reason it is being discussed tonight on a fast track, is because you can save 30 to 40 percent of the actual cost if you would wait four or five years. Mr. Hansley stated it is a tough choice because it is not your number one priority. Mr. Sauer stated he was not saying it was a bad suggestion; he was just going through some of the other priorities that are in front of the city that perhaps this money can be better used for. Mr. Smith stated $125,000 would make a nice matching or city funding portion to a potential grant in the future as well because we always have trouble finding matching funds and city contribution portions to grants. Mr. Sabatino stated the reason that road did not get done was for political reasons and he’s glad the climate has changed on that. Mr. Sabatino stated the City spent $450,000 to buy that property and this would be spending a small amount of money to actually create some added value to money we have already spent. He further stated he understood the concerns about sidewalks, but for the cost of $125,000 it would give us connectivity, it would give us options when we have downtown events, it would give us options when there are things that we have to do in the downtown and we need to divert traffic. He stated the reason it is timely now is because of the fact that they are already going to be doing work in the area and the incremental cost to complete it isn’t as much as if we waited. Mr. Smith stated he just felt this should be looked at this and make sure we are not blindly looking at this one single thing all on its own. He stated he is not anti the project; he just wanted to make sure we have it in perspective. Mr. Fix stated the appropriate was to do this is to refer it to Service and have Service do their due diligence. Mr. Wisniewski stated we need to have it ready for Service, not just start the process at Service. Mr. Wisniewski requested this issue be added to the Service Committee agenda for their next meeting. He further stated for Service Committee he would like to know how many acres we own there, how much would be consumed by the road on each of the options, what is the zoning in that area from what is completed right now plus where the road would go, how many lots would potentially be opened up for commercial development, and how much of the property would the City have left for commercial development there.

Mr. Hansley stated Service Committee is aware of the issue regarding the TDS, and in trying to buy some time on possibly spending a couple of million dollars, we decided to do an environmental study, and that may provide a solution. Mr. Hansley further stated our EPA attorney at Schottenstein would like to get involved to protect the study as a work product and also to monitor that so it is done in a way he could defend later in court or through an EPA hearing process. Mr. Hansley stated he would need a motion to engage Schottenstein’s environmental attorney for not to exceed $5,000 and takes a motion of Finance per the law director’s contract. Mr. Sabatino clarified the not exceed amount is $5,000. Mr. Wisniewski stated Service is aware of this and would rather spend $5,000 in trying to save $2 million. Mr. Fix moved to authorize the City Manager to engage Schottenstein, Zox, & Dunn for not to exceed $5,000 for the purpose of working on the TDS project; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

Mr. Fix stated as requested at Council, this Committee would review the Charter issue and if there were no objections, he would like to do that at the end of this meeting.

3. FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

A. Finance Director’s Report. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a written report to the Committee and she would answer any questions.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending the 2009 appropriation, Ordinance 2008-92. Mrs. Fersch stated the Committee had received a draft appropriation ordinance and she would answer any questions anyone might have on it. Mr. Fix moved to approve the draft ordinance and forward it to Council; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

C. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinances providing for the issuance of not to exceed $1,950,000 of revenue notes (street improvements in the Windmiller/Diley area), $175,000 of revenue notes (street improvements in the Cycle Way area), $371,000 of revenue notes (street improvements on Hill Road and Blacklick-Eastern Road and installing traffic control devices, and street improvements known as the Hill Road Connector), and $131,250 of revenue notes (street and traffic signal improvements in the S.R. 256/Stonecreek Drive area). Mrs. Fersch stated as she had reported when she called U.S. Bank in getting this legislation ready she was informed that they no longer want to take our TIF issues. She stated she had called Park National Bank and she was notified this morning that they would be interested in getting them. Mrs. Fersch stated the interest rate is not that great, but it is better than having it go on as general obligation and taking part of our debt capacity. Mrs. Fersch stated this is backed by the revenues the TIFs generate and our income tax. Mr. Fix clarified this is a one year note, and the Cover and the Cycle Way TIF will be paid off by the time the TIF issues are done. Mrs. Fersch stated there is a good sum coming in on the Windmiller TIF but not enough to pay it off. Mrs. Fersch stated she felt it would be a priority next year to look at how to renew the TIF issues so they do not become a liability on the General Fund. Mrs. Fersch stated coming forth the interest rate is 3.21 percent and Park National will be put in as the lender. Mrs. Fersch stated the notes are due on September 4^th, and if possible she would like to have two readings at the July 21^st meeting and the final reading at the first meeting in August, if all three readings could not be done at the July 21^st meeting. Mr. Fix clarified our current interest rate is 2.91 percent. Mr. Fix moved to forward the draft ordinances to Council; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

4. PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT.

A. Personnel Director’s Report. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a report to the Committee and she would answer any questions. Mrs. Fersch stated because we have less than 100 employees covered by our health insurance all employees will be asked to fill in a survey, and in August or September she will try to provide legislation without the name of the company we will renew with and without the rates because she will not know that at that time. She stated she was just letting the Committee know that this will be coming forward. Mrs. Fersch stated she would also request an executive session at the August meeting with regard to the upcoming union negotiations.

5. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fix stated he had nothing to bring forward.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Pickerington Local School District Board Meeting – Update. Mrs. Sanders stated she and Mr. Fix had attended a meeting with school representatives today with regard to the DARE grant. She stated it was a very productive meeting and the Chief would be applying for a little more than the grant has normally brought in hoping to be able to disburse it among all three schools so that all fifth graders will benefit from that program for at least this year. Mr. Sabatino clarified that an amended contract for the Extraordinary Police Services with the School District that is on Council floor will be provided. Mr. Fix stated there is a question as to whether or not the school board will need to do a different contract since they had already approved the one on Council floor or whether they will be able to sign off on the amended contract.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a land donation agreement with BGM Development Corp., and Rockford Homes, Inc., said property being approximately 16.096 acres located at 749 Windmiller Drive. Mr. Hansley stated this is the legislation he was requesting be forwarded to Council to accomplish the land swap we have been discussing for over a year. He stated staff was recommending both this and the next piece of legislation be forwarded to council. Mr. Fix moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

C. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a land exchange agreement with Village Properties. Mr. Fix moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

7. MOTIONS:

A. Motion for Executive Session under Section 121.22(G)(1)b, Matters involving an employee’s or public official’s employment, Section 121.22(G)(2), Purchase or sale of public property, Section 121.22(G)(3), Conference with law director regarding pending or imminent court action, and Section 121.22(G)(4), Matters involving bargaining sessions with public employees. Mr. Fix stated an executive session was not required this evening.

Mr. Fix stated after debate at Council last evening it was suggested that the review of the suggested housekeeping changes to the Charter be reviewed at this meeting and hopefully an agreement could be reached on what those housekeeping changes are, how to deal with the changes that are not housekeeping, and how to move this forward to some type of Charter Review Board.

Mr. Fix stated Mr. Hartmann had prepared documents for everyone to review and requested Mr. Hartmann explain what he had provided.

Mr. Hartmann stated he had taken what Rules had already done and then went back through it and took out what he thought were substantive changes to the type of government you have; voting issues and things like that. He stated you have one copy that is a clean copy of the Charter with what he felt were the non-substantive changes. He stated there were also two red-lined copies, one being the changes he had put in this morning versus what the current Charter is, and the other red-lined document is basically the Rules Committee version with substantive changes in it.

Mr. Smith stated before this discussion gets started he just wanted to make the general comment that he would not participate in the discussion. He stated this is already in Committee and it shouldn’t be brought out of committee and accomplished in Finance, there is no councilmanic action, no committee action to do that, and he has philosophical problems with it and he felt there was already a council approved process. Mr. Smith stated he would have more to say about this during a future council meeting. Mr. Smith stated the comment was made at Council that this should not be done in Rules Committee because there are only three votes in Rules. Mr. Fix stated he didn’t know if there would be a vote on this, and Mr. Sabatino stated that was what they were supposed to do and that’s why it was sent to this meeting. Mr. Wisniewski stated if it was discussed this evening, then couldn’t it be referred to Rules Committee for discussion and have them vote it out of committee. Mr. Fix stated he did not want to vote on every single housekeeping item. Mr. Wisniewski stated if everyone could agreed this version was housekeeping only then they could either move it forward to Council or refer it to Rules for them to vote on. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the discussion at Council was to treat the housekeeping changes as a consent agenda procedure and look at it as a complete package, and if someone wanted to remove something they could do that.

Mr. Hartmann reviewed the housekeeping changes Article by Article. Mr. Wisniewski questioned the wording “…affirmative vote of four (4) Council Members…” in Section 2.07. He stated he felt that should read “…affirmative vote of at least four (4) Council Members….” Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct and he would make that change in both places in that paragraph as well as anywhere else that wording should be changed. Mr. Sabatino clarified the requirements of the citizens initiative regarding emergency legislation was not changed. Mr. Hartmann stated Section 2.09 is not a new section; it was located in another section of the Charter and has been moved. Mr. Sabatino stated there was new language in Section 2.09 that deals with council discussing their views fully and freely with the City Manager. Mr. Hansley stated Mr. Sabatino was correct, that language is not in the current charter. Mr. Hartmann clarified that all Council Members felt this language was housekeeping and should remain in the proposed revisions. Mr. Wisniewski stated in Section 4.02, City Manger’s Qualifications, he felt the requirement that the City Manager be a resident of the City should be removed based on the recent Supreme Court ruling that this is an unconstitutional requirement. Mr. Hartmann stated since this is an at will position it may be different, however, he would look into this and if necessary remove that language. Mrs. Yartin pointed out that Section 5.02 reflects the Clerk being appointed by Council and it should read appointed by the City Manager. Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct, and he would make that change.

Mayor O’Brien stated he felt the section regarding Fire Department should not be removed as he felt we should retain the right to establish a fire department and he felt that removing that section would be a substantive change. Mr. Hartmann stated he would leave the section regarding the Fire Department in but number it as Section 5.08.

Mr. Fix stated he would like to clarify that when this review is completed and everyone is okay with the housekeeping changes, those would be provided to the Charter Review Board that is seated. He further stated he wanted to make sure he understood that it was the will of Council to show them nothing of the substantive changes. Mr. Wisniewski stated how he understood it was that the housekeeping changes would be passed on to the Charter Review Board, with Council’s stamp of approval and then whoever wanted to go and make their case to the Charter Review Board could do so. Mr. Fix stated he just wanted to make sure that it is the will of the majority of Council that that is all we do. Mr. Fix further stated he understood there were two members of Council who were passionate about not providing anything else, and that at Council there was a compromise and the process tonight is a result of that compromise. He stated, however, it was never stated if there were four, five, or six people that want to do it that way or did everyone just compromise because they were tired. Mr. Wisniewski stated he thought Mr. Fix was asking whether or not the majority of the members of Council would be willing to pass on the non-substantive changes or did the majority want to pass it on in the form that everyone couldn’t agree on at Council. Mr. Fix stated that is correct. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to see the non-substantive changes go forward with the stamp of approval from the majority of members of Council. He stated he did not agree with some of the other changes and would not want to have his name associated with them and, therefore, would not vote for the other version. Mr. Fix stated then the non-substantive changes would be voted on tonight, and there were varying opinions on substantive changes. He stated it had been suggested in the past that council provide opinions on the substantive changes and provide those with the non-substantive changes to the Review Board. Mr. Wisniewski stated that had been discussed. Mr. Fix stated rather than throwing away the $12,000 to $15,000 spent over the last two years on Schottenstein going through the Charter, and not wanting to throw away the hours that Rules Committee put into this over the past two years, he wanted to make sure that Council wanted to set aside everything, controversial or not, agreed upon or not, that is of any substance that has been gone through in the past two years. Mayor O’Brien stated this spanned two, soon to be three, elected body make-ups. He stated it started with an elected body that no longer exists, we are in the current phase, and the potential exists that before this goes anywhere else some of these people could drop off and new people come in. Mayor O’Brien further stated in all likelihood if this is debated beyond this calendar year we may have to start over again based on a new make up of council. Mr. Fix stated his frustration is that we put so much time and money into this, and now we are putting it all aside. Mr. Wisniewski stated it wasn’t being put aside because the majority of the changes were housekeeping changes. Mr. Fix stated he just wanted to make sure if that was the will of the majority, and if it was he would find a way to testify before the Charter Review Board about the things that he is passionate about that are substantive. Mrs. Hammond stated she agreed with Mr. Wisniewski and Mr. Fix clarified Mr. Sabatino and Mr. Sauer also agreed with Mr. Wisniewski. Mrs. Sanders stated she felt the Charter Review Board should be provided with all the recommended changes. Mayor O’Brien stated he had questions regarding the substantive changes and those questions were not answered and also the input he provided was not considered. Mrs. Sanders stated she looked at this as being suggestions, and Mayor O’Brien stated they were very strong suggestions. Mrs. Sanders stated she felt at this point the compromise of providing the housekeeping changes was the way to go.

Mr. Hartmann stated in Section 9.07 the only change he had left in was that instead of serving an initiative or referendum on the Finance Director it would be served upon the City Clerk, which seemed to make more sense. Mrs. Sanders stated perhaps in Section 12.02 regarding Charter Review, since we have had such an issue with it, the process could be clarified somehow. Mr. Hartmann stated that would be more than a housekeeping change, but he was sure the Charter Review Board would discuss it because it is an area that needs to be cleaned up and clarified. Mr. Hartmann stated that concluded the review of the Charter with the non-substantive changes recommended by Rules Committee.

Mr. Sabatino moved to forward the proposed housekeeping changes to the Charter that were agreed upon this evening to Council for submission to the Charter Review Board for consideration; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Mr. Hansley clarified that the document with all of the changes agreed upon tonight would be provided to everyone for their review. Mayor O’Brien inquired if every member present was required to vote and Mr. Hartmann stated the vote would have to be by “Yea,” “Nay,” or the minutes would reflect an “Abstention.” Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix and Mr. Smith abstaining, and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

8. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Wisniewski moved to adjourn; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Wisniewski voted "Aye." Motion carried, 7-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 9:15 P.M., July 8, 2009.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk