SERVICE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2010

REGULAR MEETING

6:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Wisniewski called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M., with Mr. Wisniewski and Mr. Sauer present. Mr. Fix was absent as he was out of town. Others present were: Lynda Yartin, Ed Drobina, Greg Bachman, Lance Schultz, Susan Crotty, Trisha Sanders, Tony Barletta, Luann Cox, Bruni Shreffler, P. J. Connor, Dan Phillips, Hanah Phillips, Steve Janutolo, Becky Janutolo, Brett Price, Ralph Hicks, Terry Potts, Jim Kopp, Larkin Dotson, George Bell, Martha Dillon, Robert Dillon, Brian Benedict, Kerry Hogan, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 19, 2010, Regular Meeting. Mr. Sauer moved to approve; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS: Mr. Wisniewski asked if anyone would like to address Service Committee at this time.

A. Mr. Terry Potts stated he is the secretary of the Fairfield Square Condo Association and he felt most of the people here tonight were present regarding the issue of their request that the City take over Postage Drive. Mr. Potts stated they were requesting the City take over the maintenance and ownership of Postage Drive from S.R. 256 back to the entrance of Fairfield Square. He stated they were not asking the City take over the streets within the condominium complex, only Postage Drive. He stated they would not be requesting this if the road were used only for ingress and egress to their complex. Mr. Potts stated the road looks like a public road, it is used as a public road, it is built to the standard of a public road, and it is their opinion that it is a public road and as such they believe the City should own and maintain it. He stated Postage Drive is used for residential and commercial purposes and it is not a driveway, it is not a back alley, it is not an entrance to some commercial property and, in fact, due to the high volume of public traffic and for safety reasons the City did install a traffic signal at the intersection of S.R. 256 and Postage Drive. Mr. Potts stated from the looks of the private roads that Mr. Drobina provided to him there are approximately eight private roads in Pickerington and all of those service commercial enterprises only except for CrossCreeks Ridge, a gated community, and that road serves residents only. Mr. Potts stated he believed Postage Drive was the only private road that services both commercial and residential interests. He stated he understood CrossCreeks, that served both residential and commercial interests, was a private road, but in 2000 that road was deeded to the City. Mr. Potts stated Fairfield Square is one of the premier condominium associations in the area and it would seem the City would want to do whatever it could to keep this association as a vibrant area and as an asset to the City, and as a result, give some serious consideration to this request. Mr. Potts stated not only does the City receive a portion of property tax income from the residents, they also receive income tax from not only the residents but from every employee that works for the commercial interests along the road such as Kohl’s, Huntington Bank, Key Bank, and when the empty lot is developed from there as well. Mr. Potts stated according to the City’s website in 2009 $735,000 was budgeted for street maintenance and that excluded S.R. 256. He stated as he understood it there were approximately 60-70 miles of streets within Pickerington and they were asking for the City to take over 687 feet. Mr. Potts stated they were asking to be treated like all the other homeowners and residents of the City of Pickerington and have the City own and maintain the road as it is used as a public road. Mr. Potts stated they requested Council consider this request with all necessary and due diligence and he would like to thank Service Committee for listening to their request and hoped they made the proper decision.

Mr. Bachman reviewed the report he had provided to the Committee on Postage Drive and stated the road was 800 feet long and 33 feet wide, and currently is in good to fair condition. Mr. Bachman stated he cannot ascertain if the street was built to City standards as there were two pavement sections shown on the plan, one of which would have met City standards for pavement thickness and the other would not. He stated the City did not do inspection on the road as it was a private road so he cannot say for sure what went in there. Mr. Bachman stated he would estimate the annual cost for maintenance of that section of road would be about $5,700 a year. Mr. Bachman stated if that had been built as a public road instead of a 50-foot right-of-way it would have been a 60-foot right-of-way and would have had sidewalks on both sides versus as it is now with a sidewalk only on the south side. Mr. Bachman stated he would also recommend investigating to see if Kohl’s would grant a cross-access easement at this time to the areas south of their parking lot. Mr. Bachman stated staff could not find a similar situation in the City where a private street served both residential and commercial.

Mr. Sauer inquired if our City code would require us to put in the sidewalk or would that be up to Council and Mr. Bachman stated the City code does require that, but he thought Council could always waive that, but he would defer to the law director on that issue. Mr. Wisniewski clarified the 800 feet is from S.R. 256 to the beginning of the condo complex. Mr. Wisniewski inquired from a legal standpoint what the City would have to do in order to accept this road and Mr. Bachman stated he had briefly discussed this with the law director and a plat would have to be done and signed by the association as they are the property owner. Mr. Wisniewski asked Mr. Bachman to work with the law director to draft legislation for this to have at the next Service Committee meeting. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like it written into the legislation that if the sidewalk is required that it would fall upon the condo association to supply that.

4. DEVELOPMENT:

A. Development Director’s Report. Ms Crotty stated she had provided a written report and she would be glad to answer any questions.

(1) Annexation – Update. Ms Crotty stated with regard to the annexation, she was told the petition for the Eichhorn property would be filed today, however she has not received confirmation that it was done. Ms Crotty stated she had also had conversation with Joy Davis of Violet Township and they are exploring ways to come up with some type of cooperative agreement that may not cost the City. Mr. Sauer stated he appreciated that because he felt the big goal was not to stop the annexation, but just to make sure we are working amicably as we move forward with this annexation. Mr. Sauer stated he felt that was important for the entire community not just the City and Township, but the school district as well so that when we do try to recruit business we are able to do it successfully. Mr. Wisniewski stated he wanted to comment that he is totally against any sharing of income taxes on any of this property up and down Diley Road and he would fight that if it ever came up. Mr. Wisniewski stated if we want to work cooperatively in some other manner that was fine as long as it was not the sharing of income tax. Ms Crotty stated at this point, as far as the City and Township agreement, they were not talking about sharing revenue. She stated she is also working on putting together legislation for the expansion of the CRA, and on any type of CRA or TIF if the project exceeds $1,000,000 in payroll you are required by State law to share income taxes with the school district. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood that.

(2) Development Process – Update. Ms Crotty stated she had no update this evening.

(3) Economic Development Marketing Plan – Update. Ms Crotty stated she has been working on this and making a lot of good progress, however, she did not have it ready for tonight’s meeting. She stated she has been putting together a strategy and talking about some ideas for us to do some outreach to developers, business owners, etc. She stated she would be meeting with a printer next week for some print materials and she would be meeting with our web developer for some enhancements to the web site. Ms Crotty stated she had also met with a company who provides a service where we could link to a property database so people can search and see what properties are available, but there are also a lot of tools that go along with that which would allow us to do some research on what is available in the area and also to reach out to a perspective client. She stated she hoped to have some estimates on these costs by the next Finance Committee.

(4) Business Retention Project – Update. There was no further update.

(5) Long Range Economic Development Plan – Update. There was no further update.

(6) Implementation of the Diley Road Corridor Plan – Update. Ms Crotty stated the annexation of the Eichhorn property is the first step in this plan.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance adopting a Professional Office User Development Policy. Ms Crotty stated the Committee had received a draft ordinance and police for the professional office incentive program. She stated the ordinance would establish the program and set some parameters for it, and a draft policy is attached to the ordinance. Ms Crotty stated she was a bit concerned about the limit on the new business attraction in the targeted industries because there may be some professional offices we would want to work with and bring to the community, but they may not reach that $1,000,000 payroll. Ms Crotty stated this could be left as is but it might be more reasonable to set that limit at $500,000. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt this was something that Ms Crotty have the ability to work with and he agreed the $1,000,000 was probably based off the targets in our impact fee ordinance. Ms Crotty stated that is a target that is used in a lot of programs, but she felt for a lot of the offices we might be targeting it might be a little high for some smaller users while it would be okay for a corporate headquarters or existing business expansion. Ms Crotty stated each agreement would be negotiated with each perspective office user and it would go before Council for approval. She stated this would just set some parameters within which she could work. Mr. Sauer clarified that Ms Crotty felt $500,000 was a reasonable amount as to what we would be able to target and be successful in obtaining for the City. Mr. Wisniewski stated he was a little concerned about sending a mixed message since we have the $1,000,000 target in our impact fees. Ms Crotty stated she was looking at a package of incentives and if they are not reaching the million dollar goal since that was what was determined at the time for the impact fees, you do not necessarily have to lower that but you may want to offer an incentive to a professional office who might be kick starting a new development but is only anticipating a $600,000 payroll for the first couple of years. She stated this would not be a significant amount when you look at it because we have a one percent income tax, so if you were to grant them fifty percent of their payroll for the first couple of years it doesn’t really amount to a whole lot but it gives them something to help them get started. She stated it would also help us be competitive with other communities. Mr. Wisniewski moved to forward to Council with the change in the amount for a new business to $500,000; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

5. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT:

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

(1) Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mr. Sauer) Mr. Sauer stated he had no report.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending Chapters 1276.10 Accessory and Conditional Uses, Chapter 1286.15, Day Care Regulations, and Appendix I; Table 1 Permitted Uses (P), Accessory Uses (A) and Conditional Uses (C) Regulations and to schedule a Public Hearing for Tuesday, July 20, 2010 at 7:10 P.M. Mr. Schultz stated our Code allows day care as a conditional in all residential districts except for R-6. He stated the church on Church street was purchased by a church and they want to put a day care in but it is zoned R-6. Mr. Schultz stated he has done some research and he and the law director feel this was just an oversight. Mr. Schultz stated the two options were to have the applicant go through the rezoning process or have the City revise the Code, and they felt it made sense to revise the Code. Mr. Schultz stated the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed and it was moved forward to Service Committee this evening. Mr. Sauer clarified the property was purchased by the Total Deliverance Ministries. Mr. Schulz stated this is in the old downtown area and Mr. Sauer inquired if all of the residents adjacent to the property must be contacted. Mr. Schultz stated because this is a text amendment not a specific parcel change we are not required to notify all of the adjacent property owners. Mr. Sauer stated his concern was that with a day care you would have children playing outdoors and traffic dropping off kids in the morning and picking them up in the evening. Mr. Schultz stated a Conditional Use Permit would have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Sauer inquired if it would be possible to send a letter to the residents that live around this property so they are aware of this. Mr. Schultz stated the Little Tigers Daycare is also located across the street from this property. Mr. Schultz stated he would ensure notices are sent out to notify the residents of the hearing. Mr. Sauer moved to approve and forward to Council and to schedule the public hearing for July 20, 2010, at 7:10 P.M.; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

(2) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending Chapter 1292.09, Olde Downtown Pickerington Village Area Portable (Sandwich Board) Sign Regulations and to schedule a Public Hearing for Tuesday, July 20, 2010 at 7:20 P.M. Mr. Schultz stated the Olde Pickerington Village Business Association met with Ms Crotty and requested some revisions to our sandwich board sign regulations, and the Planning and Zoning Commission held a work session in April and also suggested some revisions. Mr. Schultz stated the substantive revision is that instead of all the sandwich board signs going before the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval, staff would approve them administratively if they meet the established criteria. Mr. Schultz stated in 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission established criteria for these signs. Mr. Wisniewski clarified this was strictly for the old downtown area and questioned why this would be only for the old downtown versus being city-wide. Mr. Schultz stated in 2004 we had several establishments putting these signs out on the sidewalks and it was getting out of hand; they were putting them at the corner of Columbus and Center Streets and were fighting over that corner each day so Planning and Zoning Commission decided to establish standards. Mr. Wisniewski stated then there were no standards for anywhere else in the City, they can just put them out. Mr. Schultz stated we do not allow those signs anywhere else. Mr. Schultz stated at that time it was determined it made sense to allow these signs in the old downtown area, but only if they met certain criteria. Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not feel this should be limited to the downtown only and if we are going to allow sandwich boards in one area of the City we should allow them in other areas as well. He stated he would like to see the legislation include that language. Mr. Schultz stated we could include that in this legislation or we could amend our sign code to allow it. Mr. Schultz stated this legislation is for the downtown area only and if we are going to allow it throughout the City we would have to revise other portions of the sign code. Mr. Wisniewski stated there is no rush on this and Mr. Schultz could come back later with the appropriate legislation to cover the rest of the City. Mr. Schultz stated to clarify, he understood the Committee was going to move this forward tonight and then consider legislation in the future that would allow these sandwich board signs in other areas of the City. He stated if we allow the signs throughout the City that will be liberalizing the zoning code and it will take some time to research and see what other revisions would be required throughout the Code to allow that. Mr. Wisniewski stated before coming back with legislation for other areas perhaps this should be considered by Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Schultz stated he thought it would make sense to address this at Planning and Zoning because they approved the original standards. Mr. Sauer stated if we approve this we can see how it goes in the downtown area. Mr. Schultz stated most of the businesses outside of the downtown are set back from the road so they really don’t have signs out on the public sidewalks. Mr. Wisniewski stated then that was why this was for the old downtown area only, they don’t have the place for signage that areas have. Mr. Schultz stated that was correct and because of the historic character. Mr. Wisniewski stated after Planning and Zoning reviews this if they determine there should be further legislation Mr. Schultz can bring that back to this Committee. Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve the draft legislation and forward it to Council and to schedule the public hearing for July 20, 2010, at 7:20 P.M.; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

(3) Refugee Road Study – Update. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that the work session for the Refugee Road Study went well.

6. 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. Mr. Wisniewski clarified the tree trimming was contracted out and this year we were doing part of Melrose, all of Simsbury, and hopefully another subdivision as well. Mr. Drobina stated he was trying to get the most complaint driven areas and they did some of Cherry Hill as well. Mr. Drobina stated he was going by what he received from the Post Office.

B. WASTEWATER

(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion – Update. Mr. Drobina stated Kerry Hogan and Brian Benedict of URS are present this evening to address the issue of the $19,000 increase request. Mr. Kerry Hogan stated the original contract completion dates were May 13^th for substantial completion and final completion on June 12^th of this year. He stated the contract has since been or will soon be extended to June 15^th for substantial completion and July 15^th for final completion. He stated at the last progress meeting the contractor stated the substantial completion date will be July 26^th and final completion by August 10^th. Mr. Hogan stated that would be almost a month last on the final completion date. He stated further he would like to point out that the liquidated damages clause in the construction contract is $1,000 per day and that applies only to the final completion date. Mr. Hogan stated he and Mr. Benedict have been working with the contractor to ensure that he stays on this revised schedule and they are a little concerned that he still will not meet the August 10^th date because there is still quite a bit of work that needs to be done to meet that date. Mr. Hogan stated they had made a request to Mr. Drobina for additional budget for construction administration and he had provided a summary of the contract administration hours and costs through the end of May to the Committee. He stated they have used about 105 percent of the budgeted hours, but only 93 percent of the budget has been used. He stated he would point out that the screen and grit redesign was not in their contract to begin with and they did that redesign as part of an agreement with the City at the time. He stated they estimated that at $40,000 and it actually cost $33,863. He stated they had an agreement at the time that they would use their construction administration budget to do that work and they would not request any reimbursement for that unless they needed it at the end of the contract. He stated that was the reason they were here tonight. Mr. Wisniewski inquired why the actual hours were so much higher than what was budget and Mr. Hogan stated they had budgeted it based on electrical engineers working on it, mechanical, structural and all different classifications of personnel. He stated as it turned out there may have been a less expensive mechanical engineer working on it so the cost was less, but there were a lot more submittals than they initially estimated so the hours are higher but the costs are less. Mr. Hogan stated if the project were to finish at the end of June they would be right on budget, but as the contractor keeps sliding the schedule it is costing more money for them to address the contractor issues as well as provide inspection on-site. He stated through the end of July they are estimating it to be about $19,000 over. Mr. Wisniewski stated if that is through the end of July and they are now talking about August, when would they be coming back again. Mr. Hogan stated at the time he had sent the request to Mr. Drobina, the contractor was estimating he would be done in July, but once we had the last meeting the contractor was pushing the schedule to August. Mr. Hogan stated the next progress meeting is scheduled in three weeks and for all they knew the schedule could be pushed again. Mr. Hogan stated the reason he had addressed liquidated damages is because this Committee needs to decide if they want to assess liquidated damages. He stated that is in the contract to pay for any costs the City incurs because the contractor was late. He further stated that is not just engineering costs, it is also legal and any other costs you incur. He stated you need to assess that against the contractor to recover any of your costs. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt we should exercise that clause in the contract. Mr. Drobina clarified that in order to do that we need to send the contractor a letter of intent. Mr. Hogan stated he would be pleased to do that but first he would like the City law director to look at the contract and the draft letter and make sure that everything is okay because contractors will typically oppose that and may file a claim against the City. He stated that is why he would like the law director to take a closer look at it. Mrs. Sanders clarified the liquidated damages would go back to any approved completion date, which is July 15^th. He stated if there is an approved extension beyond July 15^th, then that would be the date to go on. Mr. Bachman stated for liquidated damages one of the difficulties is if the contractor can prove that equipment that he ordered was late in coming you would have a tough time, legally, if it was nothing that the contractor could control. Mr. Bachman stated that would be a concern of his. Mr. Benedict stated they have had some issues recently with some of the influent pump stations that were being manufactured that we are working through right now. He stated typically contractors will work with you to try and not get liquidated damages because when they go for another contract and are asked if they have ever had liquidated damages they want to say no they have not. Mr. Benedict stated they would do whatever they can to keep that from happening. Mr. Bachman stated he would agree that the threat of liquidated damages does tend to move the contractor along a little better. Mr. Wisniewski asked Mr. Drobina and Mr. Bachman to work with the law director and find out what we can and cannot do from that perspective and if they are willing to pick up the associated costs because of the delayed schedule in lieu of the liquidated damages he would be willing to consider that. Mr. Hogan stated if the Committee would like to wait until the job is completely done and they have the final numbers they would be willing to do that. He stated their notice to Mr. Drobina was to let him know that this was happening, that this was coming and to make him aware of it. He stated he would be glad to come back in two months and let the Committee know where it stands. Mr. Wisniewski stated that would be the preference of this Committee.

a. TDS – Update. Mr. Bachman stated we have a short list of three consultants to get a statement of qualifications, URS, Burgess and Niple, and AECOM. He stated the proposals are due in at the end of the month. Mr. Bachman stated he had received an e-mail from EPA stating that the TDS problem is getting more national interest and Ohio has one of the highest TDS limits in the nation of 1500 mg/l as a monthly average and our plants is 1632 mg/l. He stated with this he did not know what to tell our consultants to design our system for because EPA is saying it is certain that Ohio’s TDS limit will be lower than it is now and it would be prudent that any system we moved forward with now be able to achieve a WWTP effluent quality lower than what is currently required. Mr. Bachman stated one of the consultants has a project ready to go to construction for reverse osmosis so they are having accelerated discussions with EPA on their plant and he hoped to get some information from that. Mr. Bachman stated he has shared this information with the three consultants and has asked them to specifically address how they would handle this. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that when our NPDES permit comes up for renewal the EPA could change our limits. Mr. Drobina stated he was not certain but he believed our permit comes up for renewal in 2012, and it is a five-year permit. Mrs. Sanders clarified that if we started the construction of the reverse osmosis system it would take six to eight months to complete, so by the time we approved this, it was designed and constructed, it could be very close the that 2012 date. Mr. Wisniewski summarized that Mr. Bachman was still looking to have a recommendation for the Committee at the July Service Committee meeting.

C. WATER.

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Board of Directors of condominium associations regarding utility billing rates. Mr. Drobina stated our attorney did prepare a generic agreement that could be entered into with each condominium association that approached the City and asked for it. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that the condominium association would still be responsible for the bill and we did include a termination clause. Mr. Drobina stated as requested he had contacted all of the associations that he had contact information on and had provided them a copy of the agreement in case they had questions or concerns. Mr. Barletta stated he noticed in Sections 1 and 2 of the agreement we list actual fees and he thought we should refer to “minimum fee” or whatever and not put the actual dollar amount in because we could change our fees. Mr. Wisniewski stated he agreed with Mr. Barletta on that issue. Mr. Drobina stated he would have our law director reword those sections. Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve and forward to Council with the recommended changes in the wording referring to fees; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 2-0.

7. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

A. Engineer’s Report. Mr. Bachman stated he had provided a written report and would be happy to answer any questions.

B. ACTION ITEMS:

(1) Water Master Plan and Sewer Master Plan - Update. Mr. Bachman stated these projects are progressing.

a. S.R. 256 Safety Improvement Project - Update. Mr. Bachman stated he took radar readings on S.R. 256 and the median speed on S.R. 256 on the section from S.R. 204 to Diley Road was 42 miles per hour, and the speed 85 percent of the drivers go was 45 miles per hour. He stated he had sent the draft speed study to ODOT for their comments and he is waiting to hear back from them.

b. Improvement Options for Long Road from Diley Road to Colony Park – Update. Mr. Bachman stated he had no report this evening.

(2) Review discussion regarding Postage Drive. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to know if there was a TIF on this and Ms Crotty stated she did not think there was a TIF, however, she would check on that. Mr. Wisniewski stated he wanted to make sure there was no TIF before they made any decision. Ms Crotty stated she would have to check and see what the public improvements are. Mr. Wisniewski stated he just wanted to make sure the City is covered on this because he did not want to take this on and then be stuck with something because we didn’t think of something. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood staff had other priorities and this issue is not a top priority item. He stated he did not want staff to feel they should put aside their other duties to deal with this. Mrs. Sanders stated it has been her impression that the residents know this is a lengthy process and they just want to make sure they are not completely forgotten. Mr. Sauer stated he wanted to see numbers first and in speaking with the secretary of the association he was understanding about that. Mr. Wisniewski stated when this did come forward he wanted it to be crystal clear that if the residents want a sidewalk put in, it will be their responsibility to pay for it. He stated the developer got out of those costs and there is some reason it was put in as a private road; it benefited the developer or the complex in some fashion. Mr. Barletta stated there might be some money in this account that pays for the maintenance of the road, there should be a balance, and if we are going to have improvements made, like a sidewalk, that balance could be applied and would lessen the cost. Mr. Wisniewski stated if there was a fund, if there was a balance, if they are willing to hand it over, if they have collected it, etc. Mr. Barletta stated from conversations he has had with residents there, the funds have been collected. Mr. Bachman stated also the road is in fairly good condition right now.

C. TRANSPORTATION

(1) Review and discussion regarding ODOT controlled traffic signals. Mr. Bachman stated he had received some information from ODOT on this issue. He stated there has been a lot of turnover in the District in the past year, and it they are not sure where the money in the budget is for the ACS light. He stated they are trying to find that out from Central Office, so as soon as they find out they will contact him.

(2) School Speed Zone Study – Update. Mr. Bachman stated he has not been able to begin this study as yet, but he hoped to have something to report next month.

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

9. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Mr. Sauer stated when he was driving on West Columbus Street, behind the Circle K, there were a bunch of kids walking and it was dark. He stated where that ditch is, two of them almost got hit because there was traffic going both ways and he could not remember where this area was on our priority list. Mr. Bachman stated on the CIP we divided W. Columbus Street and Long Road into four separate projects with the first one being Long in front of the elementary school, then Long Road down to Columbus Street, then Columbus Street from Long to Hill Road, and that is the section Mr. Sauer was talking about. Mr. Sauer stated we might want to revisit that at some point and possibly move that one up because it seems to be more pedestrian traffic through there. Mr. Barletta stated all of the kids from Willow Pond walk there as well. Mr. Bachman stated he did not have a problem moving that up when he did the CIP this year.

10. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Wisniewski moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Mr. Wisniewski and Mr. Sauer voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 2-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 7:55 P.M., June 16, 2010.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk