HOME | COUNCIL MINUTES | COUNCIL PORTAL | MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY PORTAL

Somerset Borough Council Minutes

Council Meeting Minutes will be posted after they are approved at the following meeting.

Click to Print Minutes

JOINT MEETING – Somerset Borough Council &
The Municipal Authority of the Borough of Somerset
February 7th, 2022 - 5:00 p.m.

JOINT MEETING AGENDA

1. Joint Meeting Called to Order:
    a) Borough Council Meeting Called to Order – President Ream

    b) Municipal Authority Meeting Called to Order – Chairman Flower

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call:
    a) Borough Council Members present: Pam Ream; Lee Hoffman; Ruby Miller; Sue Opp;
Steve Shaulis and Jim Clark.

    b) Mayor: Fred Rosemeyer also present.

    c) Also present were the following: Borough Manager, Michele Enos; Chief of Police, Randy  Cox; Director of Finance, Brett Peters; Administrative Assistant, Roger Bailey; Solicitor, James Cascio; Consulting Engineers, Tom Reilly and Jake Bolby.

    Roll Call:
    a) Municipal Authority Members present: Vince Jacob; Ruby Miller; Jessica Sizemore and
Ben Flower.

Public Comment:
a)     none

4. New Business – Joint Discussions:
    a) Sewer Project – Discussion concerning the private sewer lateral options and the costs
        associated with each option. 

Ms. Enos brought out that this meeting would be in an open forum to have questions answered, any concerns addressed, any additional information disclosed, or a review of any previously discussed information before a final determination is made.  She said that a final decision would have to be made by the February 28th, 2022 Joint Meeting.  She added that this decision date is part of the schedule that was submitted, and approved, by DEP as part of the Borough’s Corrective Action Plan.  She expressed that comments on how Council and Authority Members felt, at this point, would be welcomed and helpful.
She mentioned that Mr. Clark had been informed on the discussions that have been transpiring over the last several years concerning this Project. 

        Mr. Hoffman asked if the decision that the Council and Authority was making was just between the laterals or the public project. He asked what the time limit was, and subsequently, the implementation with everything that had to be decided with it?  He asked what decision must be made by the end of the month.  Ms. Enos answered by saying that the decision that must be made by the end of February is what Council and the Authority wants to do with the private laterals.  She added that whatever is decided will guide what is done on the public side.  

Mr. Bolby added that the Borough must get rid of the issue by the year 2030.  He added that this was in the Corrective Action Plan schedule.  He brought out the private lateral decision is tied into the Plan. 

        Solicitor Cascio asked if the decision would influence any of the Borough’s policies or procedures, and if it would affect new construction of homes.  Mr. Bolbyanswered by saying, “Yes”, and that it would be implemented when the Borough wanted to do so.  Any new construction would have to comply with the sewer lateral design and testing, to make sure the new pipe is solid.  He added that this would also ensure that the new connections are not contributing to the current problem. 

        It was asked if the Authority would make the recommendation.  Ms. Enos answered by saying that the Authority would make the final decision, but Borough Council needs to support that decision.

Mrs. Ream said that the decision regarding the private laterals must be a firm one, and the Authority and Borough Council must both agree on that decision.  She said that her understanding is that if the choice is to go to the foundation, it would still be enough of an abatement to satisfy the problem.  She asked if she was correct in thinking this way.  Mr. Bolby answered by saying that there is benefit going to the foundation, but they still must have some of the larger infrastructure on the public side.  He said that there is less of a gain that you see between the curb of the property line and the foundation.  He added that you run into similar issues, because now you are dealing with beautiful yards that would still be impacted.

Mr. Bolby explained that when you are stopping at the foundation there are options.  He said that you can do it as a project, but you must get easements from every property owner to do so. He added that if it is electedto have the property owner to do that portion, then you could make it their own undertaking.  It could also be made as part of the Municipal Authority Project.

Mr. Clark mentioned that putting the least amount of burden on the taxpayer is a must.  He brought out that the Borough has an aging community and a lot of individuals on a fixed income.  He added that we cannot burden the people and keep running them from our community. 

Solicitor Cascio reminded him that this is not funded by taxes but is funded by sewer bills.   

Mrs. Ream mentioned that it will still cost the homeowner, but we still must meet the guidelines that were put before the Borough.

Mr. Clark commented that if we can get by with replacing the main line without going on peoples properties, or going under the slab, we would be a whole lot better off.

Mrs. Ream expressed that she doesn’t want to go under people’s slabs.

Mr. Hoffman mentioned that Mr. Bolby had disclosed at a previous meeting about another Community that chose not to go under people’s slabs, and only to the foundation, which in turn, had very little effect.

Mr. Bolby recapped that this Community chose to go up to the foundation only, but were not permitted to do a few other upgrades, so they were still hydraulically overloaded.  So, they did have some gain, but not enough to fix the entire problem even after they spent all the money to replace all the mains.  He said that it was only because they were not allowed to make their Plant bigger along with a few other things. 

Currently, this Community is in discussions with DEP to do the extra work.  So, this is a different situation from what Somerset Borough is facing. 

        Mr. Flower mentioned that the worry is that from 5-7 years from now that just replacing up to the foundation will not be good enough, and homeowners will be asked to dig up their basement then.  But also going under people’s slabs are very invasive, and there are ways to remove the water that is going under the slab. 

It was also mentioned some homeowners may choose to disconnect water services in their lower levels to save their slabs from being dug up.

Ms. Enos brought out that regardless of what decision is made, it still affects the homeowner on the private side, as well as the public side, because the rate payer is paying for both.

When Solicitor Cascio questioned about funding the Project, Mr. Reilly pointed out that their recommendation would be to apply for a loan through Penn VEST, because they will probably do an affordable rate calculation very similar to the Borough’s Water Project.  At this point, if a grant is awarded, that would also help with customer rates.

        Mrs. Opp asked the Municipal Authority what their thoughts were, and if they had consensus on what they feel would be the right decision.

        Mr. Flower briefly discussed his own hands-on experience in sewer work in Ligonier, Lake Stonycreek, Inspections at STMA and other related jobs.  He said that even if you have people go after inflow & infiltration all the time, and you try to maintain it, you are still never going to eliminate it all. He said that inflow & infiltration will always be there. 

Mr. Flower mentioned he is hopeful that the Borough could at least keep the sewer flows within the Plant instead of bypassing and having lagoon overflows. He mentioned that as someone who does this work every day, he feels that everything should be tested.

Mr. Flower brought out that the Borough has the gravity sewer system that typically has only standard 8” sewer main. He said that eventually it is going to get full because it can only carry so much.  This is the reason why you go with bigger pipes, but in turn, the costs are also greater.  The Borough also has a lot of manholes that are in disrepair and are leaking like a sieve.  

He said that whenever an 8” pipe fills up, and you have a sewer lateral that is coming from someone’s house without a check-valve on it, it is going to go into the basement.  It would not go into the basement of someone who would have something with pressure.

        Mr. Shaulis asked if a “happy medium” could be reached, and instead of replacing the whole lateral, put a check-valve in, and a viewport in, so it could be monitored.  Mr. Flower answered by saying that this could be done but disclosed that if the check-valve is closed, the homeowner cannot use water. He explained that if a sewer system is totally full and is pushing against the check-valve to close it so it is not coming back into someone’s basement, that check-valve will only be released whenever the water recedes.  If you have so much capacity in your sewer lateral you may only be able to flush the toilet, because it is not allowing the water to go down the down pipe.  The water will stay in the lateral until the water pressure in the main releases the check-valve and allows it to open again. 

Mr. Flower brought out that homeowners could also be given the option to abandon facilities that may be in their basements.

        Ms. Enos reiterated that infiltration & inflow doesn’t get better.  Damaged lines, and lines that take in water, do not get better over time.  That is the reason why the Borough is seeing the problems on the public side.  She said that it is about what the Authority and Council is comfortable with, as long as they have a full understanding of what is being presented to them.  

Ms. Enos expressed that if the decision is to go to the foundation, because the Authority and Council think it is better from a public relations standpoint, and we make that up on the public side, then it is about what makes them feel comfortable with seeing the project through to the end.  She said that from a clinical standpoint, everything points to the fact that you have much greater success if you go under the slab.  This has been defined over many projects.  With each selection comes a decision about not getting everything if you chose a certain direction.  She brought out that the decision may not be the 20-year solution, it may be the 10-year solution or 5-year solution.

Mrs. Opp commented that, eventually, we may have to go under slab anyway.

Mr. Flower added that if this were the case, the Penn VEST loan in 10 years is still not paid off.

Ms. Enos brought out that if bigger public infrastructure is built to make up for what we are not getting on the private side, it would cost the rate payers more. She said that the cost comparisons regarding this, discussed at the last Joint meeting, to remove 7 million gallons of infiltration & flow, was $45 million dollars for public infrastructure construction costs verses $20 million dollars with private sewer lateral replacement.  She added that whatever decision is made will have a direct cost effect to the rate payers.

Mr. Reilly discussed some of the Project financing packages that Penn VEST may consider, when awarding loans to a community, to make sewer rates more affordable for its rate payers.  

Mr. Reilly reiterated that the Authority and Council’s decision needs to be based on what they can implement through the end of the Project.  He expressed that this is how they need to make their decision.  He mentioned that the Engineers will absolutely support any decision the Authority and the Borough Council make and we will make it work.  He expressed that from his experience, based on what he has seen on these decisions, it is going to be extremely difficult to implement a decision that includes testing under the slab.

Mrs. Ream expressed that her decision is not a political one.  She is looking at it from a realistic standpoint.  She mentioned that the Borough has a lot of older individuals that are on a fixed income that own their homes.  She added that it is going to be difficult for them to understand why we are asking them to do this.  Also, Mrs. Ream said that she doesn’t want to get to the point where they can’t take the heat anymore after asking people to dig up their finished basements.  She disclosed that she fully believes that the right decision would be to go under the slab. But from a homeowner’s perspective, she said that she is not thrilled about digging up her garage to comply with these standards.

Mrs. Ream expressed that major educational material should be sent out to homeowners who pay their own water & sewage bill when the decision is made.  She said it should include information about the Project and any potential projects in the future.  She expressed that she believes that the Authority and Borough Council know what the right thing to do is, but is it the right decision for the Borough?

Ms. Enos expressed that it is more important to choose something that can be seen through to the end.  She said that there has been too many Municipalities who have started, got into it, got the heat, couldn’t take it, and went back to the Engineer’s to change things. 

Ms. Enos said that the Authority and Council’s determination is going to set forth the next plan on the public side. She said that we need a solid answer so it can be marketed the whole way through the Project.

Ms. Enos said that the Public Outreach will occur after the decision is made.

Mrs. Ream brought out that if the Authority and Borough Council were not collectively ready to make a final decision at the present meeting, she asked that all members of Borough Council and the Authority be at the next meeting so that there could be a full count, and a full vote, of all members. 

She added that if there were any further questions that needed answered before the decision is made at the next meeting, they could be answered by reaching out to Mr. Bolby or Ms. Enos. 

        Discussion was held among all Members of the Authority and Borough Council about the private lateral choices.   

         In answer to a question about what the ramifications to the Project would be to only replace to the foundation, Mr. Bolby brought out that there is flexibility with either the decision to stop at the property line or the decision to stop at the foundation.  He said if the decision is to stop at the property line, O.K.  In Project Year 5, we can decide to go to the foundation.  This is going to help you in the long-term but would prolong taking away the infiltration & inflow.  But if the decision is to stop at the foundation in Project Year 1, and Year 5 we stop at the property line, that is more of a problem because we would have to make things bigger downstream. 

Mr. Bolby expressed that he thinks the 2 choices would be property line or through the structure, which is replacing under the slab. He reiterated that the decision between the property line and foundation gives some flexibility.  But if you stay with the worse case, you only have a gain if you choose to do additional, which that portion, can be done through the public project.  As a group, this would be more attractive to everybody rather than having individual property owners undertake their own projects.  He added that it would be a benefit, but it would be easier to add from the property line to the foundation later, because it is a gain.  If you started with it, then subtracted it, that makes it more complicated. 

        Mrs. Ream brought out that Ms. Enos and Mr. Bolby will review the 3 options at the next Joint Meeting on February 28th, 2022, along with their costs and the impact of those 3 options.  She reiterated that questions can be addressed to Ms. Enos, Mr. Bolby, or Mr. Reilly before the next Joint Meeting.  

Mrs. Ream also thanked both Mr. Bolby and Mr. Reilly for all they have done to help the Authority and Borough Council learn and understand all that is involved before they must make the final decision.

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY MEETING AGENDA

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting:
    a) December 27th, 2021 – Joint Municipal Authority/Borough Council Meeting Minutes.

Motion
Mr. Jacob moved, Mrs. Miller seconded, to approve the December 27th, 2021 Joint Municipal Authority/Borough Council Meeting Minutes.
         
Motion Unanimously Carried

 

ENGINEER’S REPORT
Mr. Bolby next discussed the status of various Projects

WATER:

        1) Water System Capital Improvement Projects:
Mr. Bolby mentioned that we are in the Easement Acquisition phase.  We have 59 of those reported, but still have a good portion to go.  Mr. Bailey is actively trying to acquire these from everyone that we are asking an Easement from.  He brought out that we will be talking to legal counsel soon about taking it to the next level.    

        SEWER:

        1) Assessment, Repair, and Abatement Plan (Hydraulic Overload):
            Mr. Bolby brought out that on January 11th, 2022 the 6-Month Corrective Action Plan Report to DEP, regarding the sewer, was submitted.  Every 6 months we are continuing to update them on the progress.  In the next 6-Month Report, we will include the decision surrounding the lateral, and will be working on the Abatement.

 

        GENERAL:

        1) Center Avenue Sidewalk:
Mr. Bolby said that the Sidewalk Replacement Project, which is on the southern side, and the Utility Replacement, which is on both the north and south 100 blocks, is ongoing.  They are also on schedule.

        Ms. Enos added that the Borough received the Tap Allocation.  She said that because we are under the Corrective Action Plan, we must formally request sewer or lateral taps, then wait for a response.  The Borough has received that response and has been approved for taps for 2022.
Mr. Bolby added that because we are under this Corrective Action Plan, each year, we must ask to have additional sewer connections.  Because they are following along with the plan, DEP has granted approval.  

Mr. Bolby disclosed that for approximately 1 ½ years the Municipal Authority was not allowed to issue any sewer taps, which impacted not only the Borough, but also the customers in the Township who are connected to the Sewage Treatment Plant.  There was also 18 or 19 Building Permits on-hold in Somerset Township, because there were no sewer taps issued. 

2. New Business:
    a) None 

3. Payment of Bills/Requisitions:
    a) None 

4. ADJOURNMENT

Motion
Mrs. Sizemore moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Jacob. 

Motion Unanimously Carried
5:59 p.m.

  

BOROUGH COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

 

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings:
    a) December 27th, 2021 – Joint Municipal Authority/Borough Council Meeting Minutes.

Motion
Mrs. Opp moved, Mr. Shaulis seconded, to approve the December 27th, 2021 Joint Municipal Authority/Borough Council Meeting Minutes.

Motion Unanimously Carried
b) January 3rd, 2022 – Borough Council Organizational Meeting Minutes.

Motion
Mr. Shaulis moved, Mr. Hoffman seconded, to approve the January 3rd, 2022 Borough Council Organizational Meeting Minutes.

Motion Unanimously Carried

2. Opening of Bids:
a) None

3. General Public Comments:
a) None registered  

4. Administrative Business:
a) Communications (None)

    b) Payment of Bills for the month of January 2022.

Motion
Mrs. Opp moved, Mrs. Miller seconded, to approve the payment of bills for the month of January 2022 numbered 37695 - 37816 totaling $408,560.23.

Motion Carried 5-1
5 yes - 1 no
(5 voting “Yes”; Mr. Clark voting “No”)

    c) Department Reports – Consider approving the Departmental Reports for the month of
       December 2021.

Motion
Mrs. Opp moved, Mrs. Miller seconded, to approve the Departmental Reports for the month of December 2021.
Motion Unanimously Carried

5. Policy Agenda:

    Old Business:
    a) None


New Business:
    a) Resolution No. 2022-03 – Consider authorizing the disposal of Police Department and Water/Sewer Department records in accordance with the Commonwealth’s Records
        Retention Act.

Ms. Enos stated that it takes Council’s action by Resolution to dispose of certain records that can be disposed of.  She said that this is done on an annual basis from our Police Department and our Water/Sewer Department.  These records are disposed of in accordance with the Commonwealth’s Records Retention Act. 

        Motion
Mr. Shaulis moved, Mr. Clark seconded, to authorize the disposal of Police Department and Water/Sewer Department records in accordance with the Commonwealth’s Records Retention Act.
Motion Unanimously Carried

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-03

 

WHEREAS, The Borough of Somerset adopted Resolution No. 87-02 on April 27, 1987 providing for the destruction of certain papers in accordance with the Retention and Disposition Schedule for Records of Pennsylvania Municipalities and;

            WHEREAS, The Somerset Borough Administration wishes to dispose of some of its records in accordance with this Resolution;

          NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following items be authorized for purging:

            POLICE DEPARTMENT:

• 2014 Accident Reports
• 2019 Abandoned Vehicle Forms
• 2020 Abuse Petitions
• 2011 Trespass Records
• 2017 Letters In / Out
• 2017 Warning / Repair Forms
• 2017 Borough Permits
• 2015 Vehicle Calibrations
• 2018 Seized License Plates
• 2018 Drivers Records
• 2019 Due Diligence Forms
• 2020 Paid / Voided Parking Tickets
• 2018 TDR’s (Transport / Detention / Release Record)
• 2017 Closed Traffic and Non-Traffic Citations
• 2018 Residential Parking Permit Applications 
• 2018 Meter Bag Request Forms
• 2020 Victim Services Forms
• 2018 Magistrate Reports

WATER / SEWER DEPARTMENT:

• 2014 Water / Sewer Bills
• 2014 Penalty Run & Account Detail Sheets                 
• 2014 Daily Cash Receipts Journal    
• 2014 Adjustments
• 2014 Log Books
• 2014 Payment Schedules          


Adopted this 7th day of February, 2022

b) Request from Paul Cippa – Mr. Cippa is requesting the Borough to approve the  placement of “No Parking” signs along Maplehurst Drive.

Ms. Enos mentioned that the Borough received a request from Paul Cippa who lives at 708 Maplehurst Drive in the Brierwood area.  He is asking that there be “No Parking” signs erected along Maplehurst Drive.  A prior request was received from him in July 2008 requesting “No Parking” along Brierwood Drive.  At that time, Chief Cox addressed this issue and recommended that his request be granted.  Borough Council, in turn, approved his request.

In Mr. Cippa’s current formal request letter, he stated that a family on Cannel Drive has large get-togethers and do not have enough parking, so they are parking on Maplehurst Drive.  He said that this causes a visibility issue.  Mr. Cippa also indicated on a map where he would like the “No Parking” signs to be erected.  Ms. Enos brought out that if his request would be granted, Borough Council would make the determination where the best appropriate place would be for the signage.  She also asked Chief Cox if he would evaluate Mr. Cippa’s request.

        Discussion was held among Council concerning Mr. Cippa’s request.

        Solicitor Cascio suggested that a traffic area study be completed in this area for evaluation, possible policy ramifications and the appropriateness of Mr. Cippa’s request.

Motion
Mrs. Miller moved, Mrs. Opp seconded, to have Chief Cox generate a 90-day traffic study on Maplehurst Drive prior to a Borough Council decision regarding Paul Cippa’s request for “No Parking” signs to be placed along Maplehurst Drive. 

Motion Unanimously Carried

c) Council Vacancy – Consider filling the vacancy on Borough Council for the unexpired term of Fredric Rosemeyer.

Mrs. Ream said that with Mr. Rosemeyer moving into the Mayor’s position, he had submitted his resignation from Borough Council, which in turn, opens up a seat on Borough Council.  She said that, traditionally, a recommendation is provided by the Council Member stepping down.  She asked Mr. Rosemeyer if he had provided any recommendations to Ms. Enos for his seat.  Mr. Rosemeyer disclosed that he had recommended Sienna Davis and informed her that if she is interested in the position, to send a formal letter to Mrs. Ream, President of Council.
Mrs. Ream said that it would also be proper to advertise for the vacant seat.

Solicitor Cascio disclosed that the Borough Code states that Borough Council would promote a successor, but from a transparency perspective, it would be appropriate to advertise for “Letters of Interest” for the open seat.  The recommendation would then come back to Borough Council, after which, they would make the decision to appoint a replacement for the unexpired term of the vacant Council seat. 

d) Somerset Area Ambulance Association – Consider authorizing a donation request for the Somerset Area Ambulance Association. (The 2021 Donation - $4,000.00 distributed in increments of $1,000.00 per quarter).

Mrs. Ream brought out that, traditionally, Council has been providing this donation to Somerset Area Ambulance in increments of $1,000.00 per quarter.  She expressed that they are the sole provider for our Community in the Borough.  She disclosed that Mr. Peters had already built this donation into the budget.  She asked if Council wanted to discuss this request or had any questions or concerns regarding this donation.  There were no questions or concern voiced.

        Motion
Mrs. Opp moved, Mr. Hoffman seconded, to authorize the donation request from the
Somerset Area Ambulance Association for a total of $4,000.00, which would be distributed in
increments of $1,000.00 per quarter.
Motion Unanimously Carried

Committee, Administration, Special Reports:
    a) Manager’s Report - (Enos)

Ms. Enos stated that, obviously, we are gearing up towards the decision making on the sewer. 
She reiterated that we received the tap approval that we requested from DEP. It is 20 EDU’s that will be shared between the Borough and the Township depending on where the request comes in. 

Ms. Enos added that if Council had any questions regarding the submitted Monthly Reports, feel free to contact her and their questions would be answered.   

    b) President’s Report – (Ream)
Mrs. Ream thanked Mrs. Miller for all her years as President of Borough Council.

She also welcomed Jim Clark as the newest Borough Council Member and said that she appreciated him being here.

        Mrs. Ream also expressed that the “Fire & Ice” Festival was nice this year and went really well. 

        Mrs. Ream asked Solicitor Cascio if he had any updates for Chief Cox concerning the stop signs placed on Garrett Street
Solicitor Cascio brought out that at the last meeting, it was authorized to prepare and advertise an Ordinance to establish traffic control in this area.
Ms. Enos brought out that this Ordinance has been advertised. 

Chief Cox is handling temporary traffic control in this area for 30 days, which has not been reached as of this meeting.       

Mrs. Ream reiterated that some residents along Garrett Street reached out requesting that there be some stop sign placement on West Garrett Street in the area where you would turn up on Stadium Drive.  From the football field, there is not a stop sign until you get to the corner of Dott Avenue.  She brought out that this area is a “racetrack”, so residents reached out to ask if there was something Council could do to slow the traffic down. 

        Mrs. Ream also thanked Mr. Bailey for getting PennDOT out at the intersection of Church Street and South Center Avenue.    

Mr. Bailey disclosed that the representative at Penndot is still going to get Roger the “speed counter” to place on South Center Avenue.   Mr. Bailey added that the Penndot representative also advised him to get a Speed Engineer’s Report to put up a stop sign.

Mr. Bailey brought out that Chief Cox or the Public Works Superintendant could authorize one “Stop” sign, but added that an all-way “Stop” sign has to come through a Traffic Engineer.  Mr. Bailey said that he was told that according to the Highway Standards, it would be unlawful to put an all-way “Stop” sign in, because there is not enough traffic and not enough accidents to warrant it.

Mr. Bailey stated that Penndot is going to look at that area and give the Borough different ideas on things we can address.  He said that maybe if we put up a speed limit sign to show the speed; we can maybe slow down traffic that way.

Chief Cox asked if the Penndot representative was talking about putting those electronic Radar Stations up, and brought out that they are approximately $3,500.00 a piece.

Mr. Bailey answered that this is what he was referring to, and mentioned that the representative was going to bring some of those into the Borough, at the State’s expense, and put them up to use to see what would happen at this intersection.

Mrs. Ream disclosed that the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center’s projected opening, in the Somerset Borough location, is in May 2022.  She added that they will not have any radiation services but will have chemotherapy services.

    c) Finance Report – (Peters)
Mr. Peters provided Borough Council with the Year-to-Date Financial Report through the
month of December 2021. 

       General Fund:                   Water Fund:                      Sewer Fund:
Revenues – 115.28%         Revenues – 88.59%           Revenues – 91.87%
Expenses – 99.53%           Expenses – 99.02%            Expenses – 74.00% 

        Mr. Peters added that if Borough Council had any questions, to reach out to him and he would answer those questions. 

d) Engineer’s Report - (Bolby/Reilly)
        (The Engineer’s Report was discussed during the Joint Municipal Authority/Borough
         Council Meeting)

    e) Somerset Inc. Representative – (Hoffman)

Mr. Hoffman expressed that “Fire & Ice” went great a few weeks back.  He brought out that the number in attendance looked positive throughout the whole event.  He disclosed that 151 people competed in the 5K with 25 people not showing up. 

Mr. Hoffman also mentioned the 5 “pop-up” store locations that Somerset Inc. is involved in. He disclosed that they are premises that people set up in a 100-300 square foot space, or bigger.  He brought out that it showcases a lot of different people.  He said that all 5 spaces have forward momentum, with 3 new tenants moving in.  He added that Somerset Inc. hopes to continue this program.          
Mr. Hoffman also mentioned that “Spring Clean-Up” will be coming up soon, along with the “Chalk the Block” event coming up in the Summer.   

    f) Fire Department Representative - (Clark)

Mr. Clark disclosed that for the month of January 2022, the Fire Department ran 33 calls. He mentioned that 10 of those calls were in the Borough, 21 in the Township, 1 on the PA Turnpike.  Mr. Clark also disclosed the type of calls the Fire Department responded to.  He brought out that they responded to 9 vehicle accidents, with 6 of them being traffic controlled.  They ran 4 fire alarms, had 2 investigations, 2 physical rescues, 2 assists to other Departments, 2 vehicle fires, 1 animal rescue, 1 water main break, 1 lift assist, 1 tree down, 1 gas leak, and 1 wire down. 

Mr. Clark thanked Borough Council, Ms. Enos and Chief Cox for their cooperation in implementing the new procedure regarding when the Fire Department can get called out within the Borough for vehicle accidents.  Borough Police can now get on the scene to evaluate to see if it is necessary for the Fire Department to be called.  He expressed that this has been working out extremely well in reducing the number of alarms in the Borough. 
Mr. Clark mentioned that the Fire Department’s next goal is to start chipping away at the downed trees and wires, accidents in the Township and to get PennDOT to be a little more active in their traffic control.  

Mr. Clark again thanked the Borough and Borough Council for their cooperation in all that they do for the Somerset Fire Department.  He said that it is really appreciated.

    g) PSAB Representative – (Rosemeyer)
Mr. Rosemeyer mentioned that the PSAB Conference will be held in Hershey, PA from May 26th – 30th, 2022.
He also disclosed that the Somerset County Borough’s Association Meeting is scheduled for April 21st, 2022 at the Country Club.  He added that this will be the first meeting in a few years.

    h) Solicitor’s Report – (Cascio)
        (Solicitor Cascio had nothing further to report)

    i) Mayor’s Report – (Rosemeyer)

Mayor Rosemeyer disclosed that a new officer named Katherine Frey was hired that had a very impressive interview.  He brought out that she is a college graduate who was a Corrections Officer in Westmoreland County Prison.  She was also a Sergeant at SCI Somerset.  He added that she will be an asset to Chief Cox and the Staff.

        Chief Cox disclosed that an opportunity arose where the Police Department could apply for 100% grant funding for a drone.  He brought out that Travis Hutzell, from United Way, gave tremendous support by doing all the work and putting it all together for the Department.  Chief Cox disclosed that the cost was either $37,000.00 or $67,000.00.  He added that whatever the cost, there would be no cost or matching funds coming from the Borough.  

Chief Cox brought out that the Police Department currently has an Officer who has his Private Pilots License, so he has his endorsement to fly an unmanned aircraft.  He added that the grant will also pay to get other Officers trained and certified to operate drones so that the Department will always have an operator available.  He added that he plans on having 4-5 Officers get their commercial Drone Operator Certification.       
Chief Cox said that plans have been put into place to include making the drone available for use by the Borough and the Fire Department when they need using it to search a higher scene.  He reiterated that it will be available at no cost to the Borough taxpayers.

10. Executive Session– Mayor Rosemeyer requested an Executive Session to discuss police
personnel matters and potential litigation.

      Motion
Mrs. Opp moved, seconded by Mr. Shaulis to go into Executive Session to discuss police personnel matters and potential litigation.

                                                                           Motion Unanimously Carried
6:37 p.m.

     Back in Session
       7:01 p.m.                       

11. ADJOURNMENT

Motion
Mrs. Opp moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Clark.

Motion Unanimously Carried
7:02 p.m.

                                                                      
________________________________________
Michele A. Enos, Borough Manager/ Secretary