WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

REGULAR MEETING

7:10 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Sabatino called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sabatino were present. No members were absent. Others present were Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Chief Mike Taylor, Jeff Fix, Brian Wisniewski, Cristie Hammond, Steve Carr, Don Phillips, Paul Lane, Lance Schultz, Greg Bachman, Pat McGinn, Katie Stickel, Gary Tague, James Reed, Doug Blake, Rachel Blake, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF August 19, 2009, Regular Meeting. Mr. Sauer moved to approve; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS:

A. Katie Stickel. Ms Stickel stated she would like to address an issue that has been on-going for the past two years concerning a property that backs up to her home. She stated she has complained on-going since probably 2007 by submitting the on-line code enforcement property record. She stated she did that for a year and a half and never received a response even though she left her name and phone number and requested a response. She stated she never got anything. Ms Stickel stated in the spring of 2009 she got the name of Danny Mahaffey to contact and she started e-mailing him, sent him photos, and he basically ignored all of her requests. She stated she might have received a couple of responses from him, but she is tired of it. She wants the property cleaned up. She stated the property has broken windows, it is missing half the roof, they never mow the lawn, they have cars and trash there, and she wants something done about it.

Mr. Wisniewski inquired when Ms Stickel finally received a response back, and Ms Stickel stated her computer crashed so she does not have the record, but she knows it was in March of 2009. Ms Stickel stated in March, Mr. Mahaffey informed her he had sent a note to the property owner and they had until mid-May to comply with that. She stated in mid-May when they didn’t, she started e-mailing him again and that is when she received the response on April 27^th. She stated that correspondence stated he had tried to deliver a certified letter, and since he couldn’t, the police were requested to make the delivery. She after that she continued to e-mail him probably weekly and in July she had e-mailed him requesting to know what the code required to build a fence because he was obviously not going to help her. She stated he was quick to submit the building permits so she could pay $6,000 to build a fence. She stated when she got the estimate and told him she could not afford the fence and wanted to know what th4e situation was, he ignored her again until her neighbor e-mailed him and Mr. Wisniewski in September. She stated Mr. Mahaffey still has done nothing and provided two photos (Attachment 1) to show the conditions.

Ms Stickel stated there are broken down cars, broken windows, and trash. She stated further there are four dogs that are out 24/7 rain, sleet or snow that bark constantly and are not fed or watered. She stated there are also children that live there and that should be a major concern because they have major safety and health issues in that house. She stated the screened in porch is filled top to bottom with trash, and a neighbor has been to the front door and noticed they did not have dry wall in the house. She stated there must be mold in there and the house should probably be condemned.

Mr. Wisniewski stated when he spoke to Ms Stickel on Monday she stated the house was worse than when it was in foreclosure for about two years; it has gotten worse since someone moved in.

Mr. Sabatino stated his intent was to deal with this specific issue during the property maintenance section of the agenda.

Gary Tague stated he lived next to Ms Stickel so he also sees the backyard of this property. He stated there have been a couple of occasions when they have had to call the fire department because the residents burn trash in their backyard, and not just regular trash, but countertops and drywall. He stated at one point several neighbors were awakened during the night smelling smoke and at that time the flames were as high as his two-story house that sits on a high knoll. He stated there is just a blatant disregard for the neighbors and the trash keeps continuing to pile up. He stated he just wanted to enforce the fact that it is not just one neighbor that is having problems.

4. COMMUNITY SAFETY CONCERNS: There were no safety concerns.

5. POLICE:

A. Chief’s Report. Chief Taylor stated he had provided a written report and he would answer any questions. Chief Taylor stated in addition to his written report he had provided information regarding a grant from the National Rifle Association. He stated he was requesting authorization to apply for a grant in the amount of $10,000 to help finance the canine program. Mr. Sabatino clarified that legislation was necessary to authorize the City Manager to apply for and accept the funds if the grant is awarded. Chief Taylor stated this is a one time grant with no matching funds necessary. Mrs. Sanders moved to forward legislation to Council authorizing the City Manager to apply for a grant with the NRA and to accept those funds if it is awarded; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

6. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:

A. Parks and Recreation:

(1) Director’s Report. Mr. Carr stated he had provided a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Carr stated in addition, the community pool’s revenues outpaced the expenses again this year, and he hoped to have the final financial report at the next meeting. Mr. Carr further stated some progress has taken place on the disc golf course and if any council member would like a tour of the course, just call him and he will get that scheduled.

B. Code Enforcement:

(1) Code Enforcement Officer’s Report. Mr. Sabatino stated the Committee had received a report from the Code Enforcement Officer. He stated he would like to note for the record that he had requested the Code Enforcement Officer attend this meeting, but that request was rejected by Mr. Hansley. Mr. Sabatino requested the e-mails on this issue that he provided the Clerk be attached as part of these minutes. (Attachment 2)

a. Code Enforcement Technology Update. Mr. Sauer stated with regards to the software, specifically, would the software system include an automatic notification so that it would periodically notify to check back. He stated what he was looking for was an automated process that, say, a call comes in today, a week later you get a notice on your screen that you need to follow up and see if it has been resolved, where it is in the process or what we are doing with it? Also, is there a tracking report that can be printed out from it? Mr. Schultz stated his first assignment was to discover if we can make a connection between the building department and city hall. He stated he had provided to the Committee a quote that he received late this afternoon for approximately $1800 to make that connection. He stated he next portion deals with computers and we just purchased new computers for the planner and code enforcement officer last week. He stated his computer is being upgraded now and the secretary’s computer will be upgraded shortly. He stated the next portion deals with training options and that is detailed in the Code Enforcement report provided to the Committee. He stated during that training he could find out if there was an automated alert and he did believe it would print out reports. Mr. Schultz stated he felt a combination of the two training options would be sufficient. Mr. Sabatino inquired if Mr. Phillips was familiar with the operation of the software or the set up of the software. Mr. Phillips stated he was familiar with the set up of the software for tracking purposes, which would include follow up, reports, etc. Mr. Sauer stated with regard to the connection between the building department and city hall, would it not be possible to have the code enforcement officer in the building department’s building to alleviate that expense? Mr. Schultz stated that would be an option, however, he felt it would be more efficient for the code enforcement officer to remain in city hall because the secretary was here, issues can be discussed more quickly as they arise, and the code enforcement officer also does residential reviews of all the residential houses in town and final zoning inspections. Mr. Sabatino inquired if there would be any secondary benefits of enhancing the connectivity between buildings, would there be any other use other than this specific one. Mr. Schultz stated it was his understanding we would need to buy a license for each computer to have this connection and the quote provided was for five connections for the BDS software. Mr. Sauer clarified the licenses would be for the Director of Planning & Zoning, the secretary, the Planner, and the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Hansley stated the only thing he would offer, in addition to this proposal, is kind of a local adaptation of some software that we already have that would produce reports that might be a little more useful to this Committee and Council, however, the cost of that is pretty high compared to this. He stated in his view this was probably the best option because the other version requires an annual fee and then a monthly maintenance fee. Mr. Sauer stated he would like to see something move forward with this so we can find a way to become more efficient and keeping better track of the cases coming into the City. Mr. Hansley stated he would request a motion from this Committee authorizing him to proceed with the connection of the building department and city hall and some of the training costs. Mr. Sauer moved to authorize the City Manager to proceed as stated; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Mr. Hansley stated he would see if the funds are appropriated, however, if he finds we do not have the funds in the right places he may have to come back to Committee or Council. Mr. Sauer stated he would like to know if the training is going to be adequate and if not, follow-up and let this Committee know. Mr. Schultz stated he thought the training would be adequate to get them started. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

Mr. Sauer stated he would like to see in the Code Enforcement Report that comes to Safety Committee each month is a list of the ten oldest cases that the City has currently. Then, if one gets resolved, it will drop off, and the next one would be added. He stated that way each month this Committee would have a list of the ten oldest cases or the ten most high profile cases, the ones causing the most issues. He stated they would then have something specific to look at when Safety Committee convenes and it would help them keep tabs on what is going on. He stated if they know these issues, when they are contacted by residents they would be up to date on the cases so it wouldn’t be coming out of nowhere from their perspective. Mr. Sabatino stated from having gone through the start up of a new computer program, this is going to be something that is going to activity built going forward into the future, correct? Mr. Schultz stated once we initiate utilizing this program it would from that point forward, they would not go back and put the old cases in, so there would be a gap. Mr. Sabatino questioned if at the time this is implemented if you have 50 active cases, would you have the ability to log those in? Mr. Schultz stated it would depend on when they get the training to see how user friendly it is and how far they can go back. He stated that was his concern, when we start this it will be the cases from that point forward. He stated he could go through the case files and determine what the oldest cases are; the ones they are have the most difficulty trying to resolve. Mr. Sauer stated he would like to see the ten oldest cases that we have right now, and he felt the individuals handling these cases right now would probably know pretty quickly what the ten oldest cases are. He stated further he thought this would prompt Council to ask the questions if anything needed to be done legislatively to give staff the ability to correct the issue, etc. He stated without that information it was extremely difficult for council to proactively look at those issues and find ways legislatively to address them. Mr. Hansley stated clearly the system provided will be complaint based, not violation based, because the majority of the complaints do not equal a violation. Mr. Schultz inquired if the Committee wanted the ten oldest violations or complaints, and Mr. Hansley stated he thought they wanted the ten oldest complaints. Mr. Sauer stated when a complaint comes into the City, that is the date it is recorded and the case is opened. He stated then once it is resolved there would be a closure date. Mr. Sauer stated what he is asking for are the ten oldest complaints that came in that are still active, and he is not looking for every single line item of what has taken place in the process. Mr. Schultz stated he would do his best to get that report for the next meeting.

Mr. Wisniewski questioned if we could proactive on problem properties instead of waiting for a complaint on every property. He stated if we’ve got this issue that’s being dealt with tonight; did we need to be complaint driven on properties where there are continual violations? Mrs. Sanders stated she agreed with Mr. Wisniewski and questioned at what point we have the right to bring in not just the code enforcement officer, but police enforcement, so we are proactive not just reactive. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if fines increase after a number of violations or something. Mr. Schultz stated to get fined it must go to court, it has to be prosecuted and the Magistrate has to determine they are guilty. Mr. Schultz stated the process would begin again if they do it again. Mr. Wisniewski stated that is what he meant; if they have repeat violations don’t we have anything on the books to raise the bar on this. Mr. Schultz stated to his knowledge we do not. Mr. Hansley typically on a second offense the Magistrate would say something like if they had another violation within six months the fine or penalty would be doubled, but that is when the court gets involved. At staff level we have no ability to do that right now. Mr. Sabatino stated we have plans for things going forward, and doing so in a very efficient way, but we need to look at dealing with things when they don’t go the right way or we have complaints about specific issues. He stated he was surprised by the neighbors of an on-going situation and that predicated his request of Mr. Hansley for Mr. Mahaffey being here, but Mr. Hansley has assured him he will deal with any specific questions anyone might have relative to this situation.

Mr. Schultz stated with regard to the property at 671 Long Road, he had provided a packet of information to the Committee. He stated the first page identifies the seven steps that have occurred since March 2009, and this went to Mayor’s Court on August 3, 2009, and the prosecutor surrendered their bond on this case and they had to pay $120 prior to October 5, 2009. He stated that is where the case currently stands. Mr. Fix clarified if they do not pay by October 5^th a warrant will be issued. Mr. Schultz stated since he received e-mails late last week on this issue he has gone out there and he feels they agree this is not the best situation. He further stated when they found out there are potentially children involved, broken glass and the like, they will send another letter out and also try to get Children’s Services and other appropriate agencies involved. Mr. Sauer stated his question was if we had gotten the Health Department involved, and Mr. Fix stated we could call Children’s Services tomorrow. Mrs. Sanders stated she understood State law required Children’s Services be notified immediately if the City knows there is a situation there, and if they have not been called that is not good. Mr. Schultz stated Children’s Services would be notified tomorrow. Mr. Wisniewski stated he was a little confused. He stated we have a timeline that starts in March 2009, yet we have documentation of complaints on July 24, 2007, August 10, 2007, May 27, 2008, September 15, 2008, and then finally it appears contact was made on October 7, 2008, regarding that. Mr. Schultz stated he had six complaints between July 2007 and October 2008, that were grass related and after Mr. Mahaffey went out there, the resident complied by cutting the grass or cleaning it up so it met our requirements. Mr. Schultz stated each complaint before March 2009, was corrected to conform with our code. Mr. Wisniewski stated it appeared it was more than just grass because the complaint is weeds, branches, and trash in the yard, and in March of 2008, the complaint is about jet skis and vehicles, grass and weeds again, and in September 2008, trash sitting out on the road for two weeks because they didn’t pay their bill. Mr. Wisniewski continued that in October 2007, it appeared Ms Stickle finally spoke with Mr. Mahaffey regarding this, and Mr. Schultz stated the resident complied with that complaint. Ms Stickle stated she disagreed because they may have mowed, but the grass is not her issue. She stated her issue is the tarps all over the house, the roof that is missing, the windows that are missing, and the trash that is everywhere. Mr. Schultz stated this is an interpretation of our code and the code enforcement officer made the interpretation it was complied with. Mr. Schultz stated it is likely that Mr. Mahaffey gave the resident some time to clean it up after the big storm in September, and in March when we found out it wasn’t, we took them to court. He stated once it goes to the prosecutor it is out of our hands, and they made the decision to forfeit the bond. Ms Stickle stated then she will have to keep complaining and nothing is ever going to be done. Mr. Schultz stated he could take the next complaint to the prosecutor again. Ms Stickle inquired if it were possible for her to go to court when the prosecutor hears it and Mr. Hansley stated that was possible. Ms Stickle stated she had requested that information from Mr. Mahaffey and had never received a response. Mr. Hansley stated that was because there was never a court date, they adjudicated it at the arraignment, and Mr. Mahaffey was never called to testify either. Mr. Hansley stated the resident had pictures at the arraignment and they adjudicated it, so a trial date was never set. Mr. Hansley stated that was not something we could control, that is the prosecutor. Ms Sickle stated she would like to be notified the next time this property is going before the court and Mr. Hansley stated she should file a notice with the Clerk of Court for notification. Mr. Wisniewski stated it is evident there have been repeated problems with this property and the only record we have is that the code enforcement officer went out once, there is no record that he took care of anything other than him stating that he took care of it. Mr. Schultz stated prior to last month, the policy was to go out to the site, notify the resident of a violation, and if they complied with it, the policy was not to notify the individual complaining that it was cleaned up or whatever. Mr. Hansley stated this property is a little unique because it has a fairly narrow view from the public right-of-way and a pretty expansive view from the neighbor’s houses. Ms Stickle stated she felt you could see everything from the front. Mr. Hansley stated the case law of Ohio is that it must be viewed from the public right-of-way; the people are allowed to store things in the rear yard and if it is offensive at that point, if it is not a health hazard, it becomes a civil matter between the neighbors. Mr. Hansley stated the prosecutor viewed the photos the resident had brought in and did not take it to trial, she made her forfeit the bond and that was it. Mr. Hansley stated the only thing we can do is start all over again with a new complaint. Mr. Hansley stated the issues with the children’s safety, the health department, and the pets being left out, etc., will be referred to the proper agencies tomorrow. Mr. Tague stated it just seems like these people are habitual offenders of the Code and of safety. He stated he has been to the front door of the house and from what he could see there was not much drywall in the house, it has been ripped out up to about waist level. Mr. Tague stated this is really a dangerous looking place and they were just looking for guidance. He stated if it helped for them to complain all the time they would continue to do that, but it seems like a waste of everyone’s resources to do that. Mr. Hansley stated the worst complaint he has heard recently is the issue of the children living there, and he agreed with Mrs. Sanders that children’s services should be contacted. Mr. Wisniewski stated there seems to be an issue with basic communication. He stated in looking through the file presented there are many times Ms Stickle directly contacted Mr. Mahaffey by e-mail and she did not get any response whatsoever from that. Mr. Fix stated there is a high level of frustration from the neighbors and from staff that we can’t get this resolved. He further stated the second part of this is the communication issue, and he believes that has been addressed going forward that we will respond to e-mails, phone calls, and we will tell people what is going on. Mr. Fix stated while the perception of the neighbors is that nothing is being done, when on our end we know we are doing everything we can. He stated it is the gap in communication of us telling them what we are doing so they understand we are not avoiding it or ignoring them. He stated while that does not fix the situation, it goes a long way toward helping them understand what we are doing to try to alleviate the situation. Mr. Sabatino stated he concurred because the lack of feedback or communication creates the perception that nothing is being done. Mr. Hansley stated everything talked about tonight is a new complaint, and he will refer this to the Dog Warden, Police Department, Children’s Services, and the Health Department. He stated further we will look at the code one more time and cite them and either get cooperation from them to clean it up or we will cite them into Mayor’s Court. He stated he would promise this would be an immediate action and he hoped we got better results than we got last time. Mr. Hansley stated we will make every effort we can to get this resolved and we will keep the neighbors informed of what is happening.

Doug Blake clarified that the City already owns the software to track code and zoning issues and the City is trying to get connection between the building department’s building and City Hall so that software can be utilized. Mr. Blake further stated he knew Mr. Schultz had some photos of violations that Mr. Mahaffey took in his neighborhood a year ago. He stated he felt in his response to one of the violations, he felt Mr. Schultz had incorrectly quoted the code regarding motorized vehicles when the violation actually dealt with a boat parked beside the house on an unimproved surface. Mr. Blake stated the violations that were photographed a year ago and they are still there. Mrs. Blake stated Mr. Mahaffey had indicated in a letter sent to her neighborhood last year that these were violations, and nothing has been done. She stated now she is being told that these might not be violations. Mrs. Blake stated in her opinion, for a year nothing has been done. She stated if Mr. Mahaffey is contacting them, they don’t know that, and nothing ever changes, they feel that nothing is being done. Mrs. Blake stated her concern is that there have been issues in the past with not being able to enforce violations, so she felt we should be able to write something in the code so that people can’t avoid enforcement. She stated she further does not understand how a photo Mr. Mahaffey took last year of something that was a violation, and nothing has changed, and she is now told it is not a violation. Mrs. Blake stated there is one yard where bricks were in the driveway have been moved to the side of the house, but everything else that was a violation is still there. She stated all around the yard there are broken trampolines, tires, ladders, broken tables, and there is no fence. She stated from her house you can see everyone’s backyard and you can see all the stuff. Mrs. Blake continued that if you looked at the pictures taken last year, everything is still there; it is just moved a little bit. Mrs. Blake stated this is obviously a game for some people and she felt council would want to find a way to beat them at their own game. Mr. Sabatino stated as he understood it, Mrs. Blake was saying the code enforcement officer identified a specific situation as a violation a year ago, and the same situation exists today. Mr. Schultz stated last year he met with Mrs. Blake and a letter was sent to let everyone in the neighborhood know there were some issues out there. He stated this is the first time the city has done that for an entire neighborhood. Mr. Sabatino clarified that photos were attached to that letter that were identified as violations. Mr. Blake referred to Section 1290.10, parking and storage requirements, from the codified ordinances. Mr. Blake stated this section refers specifically to a boat or boat trailer, either mounted or unmounted. Mr. Schultz stated parking spaces must be asphalt or cement, and the definition of a parking space is one space for a motorized vehicle. Mr. Blake stated a boat is a motorized vehicle, and Mr. Schultz stated not on a trailer, on the water it is a motorized vehicle. Mrs. Blake stated the city sent out a letter, on the city’s letterhead, to over 100 houses, listing these violations. She stated further for a year and two months those violations are the same. She questioned if that gave any incentive for anyone in that neighborhood to either complain or comply. Mr. Fix questioned if we could just get a little more aggressive in pursuing these issues in this neighborhood and get them resolved. Mr. Schultz stated he respectfully disagreed with Mrs. Blake because he has been out to the neighborhood and most of those violations have been moved and then started over. Mr. Fix questioned if we were to get more aggressive in this neighborhood on this issue if we would see better results. Mr. Hansley stated he has already requested Mr. Schultz and Mr. Mahaffey patrol that neighborhood and enforce the code more aggressively and he had notified Mrs. Blake of this be e-mail approximately two weeks ago. Mrs. Blake stated she had sent an e-mail to Mr. Mahaffey about the status on the boat and she got a response yesterday. Mr. Sabatino inquired if Safety Committee could be notified of any situations that staff has tried to pursue what they feel is a legitimate claim and the code is defective in some way or another to allow getting it resolved. He stated Safety Committee would then work on getting changes made to the code. Mr. Hansley stated he would do that, but RV and boat parking situations is a problem in almost every community. Mr. Sabatino stated if we can take this track, then we have something in place to deal with our relationship with the complainants, that will give us a way to address situations where staff has tried but there are complications. Mr. Hansley stated he will be meeting with our new prosecutor in the next few days and he will specifically get an opinion from her as to how she is going to interpret the issue of boats and parking spaces, and he would let Mr. Blake know what that answer is.

Mr. Fix stated he felt we had a City Manager who worked hard for the city and for the past couple of months council has heard, legitimately, from people who are dissatisfied with the work that Mr. Schultz’ department is doing and he would like that fixed. Mr. Schultz stated he would do the best he could, and Mr. Fix stated no, fix it. Mr. Hansley stated he had no problem with that feedback, and we would either fix it or let council know what couldn’t be fixed. Mr. Fix stated he would like staff to help council help them.

Ms Stickel clarified with Mr. Hansley that she does not need to submit another complaint on 671 Long Road. Mr. Hansley stated this situation has risen to a level in this public meeting where we will investigate that and take it as far as we can. He stated further he would notify Ms Stickel of what we can do and what we can’t do. He also stated we will also go as far as we can in involving other agencies if that is what has to happen and he will personally call Ms Stickel and let her know what is going on. Ms Stickel inquired if there was a timeframe for this and Mr. Hansley stated it would be as soon as possible.

C. Building Regulations Department:

(1) Building Department Report (Mr. Lane) Mr. Lane stated he had provided a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions. There were no questions.

(2) Chief Building Official’s Report (Mr. Phillips) Mr. Phillips stated he had provided a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions. There were no questions.

D. Service Department:

(1) Review and discussion regarding parking on Center Street. Mr. Bachman stated Center Street is classified as a minor collector in our code with parking on only one side of the street. He stated he was recommending parking on both sides of Center Street for the section between E. Columbus Street up to W. Church Street, with parking spaces striped. He stated he would also recommend striping a small dedicated left turn lane and right turn lane southbound on Center Street at E. Columbus Street to allow more vehicles to go through that traffic signal. Mr. Bachman stated legislation would be prepared to forward to Council. Mrs. Yartin stated she would check with the law director to see if a public hearing was required due to this being a change to the code. Mrs. Sanders moved to approve and forward legislation to Council; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

Mr. Bachman stated he has received requests from residents in Sycamore Creek to put in four-way stops at Sycamore and Carver and Sycamore and Flat River. Mr. Bachman stated these intersections are currently two-way stops, and stop signs should not be used for traffic calming purposes. Mr. Bachman stated he does not recommend making these intersections four-way stops. Mr. Sabatino inquired if we could put in pavement markings in lieu of these stop signs and Mr. Hansley stated he would check into getting this done. Mr. Hansley stated also our police have been going to the school and tracking any problems during these first few weeks of school.

7. CHAIRMAN:

A. Mr. Sabatino stated he had nothing to bring forward.

8. OTHER BUSINESS.

A. Review and discussion regarding noise at Doolin’s Pub. Mr. Sabatino stated this issue will be at Mayor’s Court on September 19^th. Mr. Hansley clarified two different people were cited so there are two separate cases, but they are both to be heard on the same night.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Sauer moved to adjourn; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voted "Aye." Motion carried, 3-0. The Safety Committee adjourned at 9:45 P.M., September 16, 2009.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk