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 in.pdf

JOINT MEETING – Somerset Borough Council &
The Municipal Authority of the Borough of Somerset
July 25th, 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; Jim Clark and Ian Mandichak.

    b) Mayor: Fred Rosemeyer also present.

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

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

Public Attendance:
a) None

4. New Business – Joint Discussions:
a) Abatement Plan to the Sewer Project – Discussion and review of the Abatement Plan
        prior to submitting to the Department of Environmental Protection.

Mr. Bolby mentioned that the Abatement Plan was developed from all the Flow Monitoring Study data that was collected in the last few years.

The “Total Flow” under the “Design Criteria” on the Abatement Plan Summary is for 16.0 MGD (million gallons per/day).  The 3 Phases of the Project are based around this total.  We are asking DEP to accept this criterion to allow us to move forward with the Project.

The 3 Phases that follow the Design Criteria include:
        Phase 1:  Removal or accommodation of that 16.0 MGD flow.  In the first phase of the Project we will be doing sanitary sewer replacement along with stormwater system improvements to accommodate the infiltration & inflow that will be removed from the sanitary sewer systems.  We are projecting that we will be removing approximately 4.42 MGD of infiltration & inflow.

Phase 2:  This Phase will involve the Wastewater Treatment Plant & Equalization.  We are planning to increase capacity to 11.25 MGD in this phase. 

Mr. Bolby explained the 2 reasons why the system is hydraulically overloaded:

One, isif the NPDES Permit is exceeded three consecutive months.  Currently, it is rated at 2 million gallons/per day. We are planning to re-rate the Plant to 3 million gallons/per day.  We have to demonstrate that the Plant in its existing condition, or under improved conditions, can accommodate the increase from 2.0 to 3.0.  That would address the three consecutive month criteria of a hydraulic overload.

The second issue with the hydraulic overload is overflow which occurs at the manholes, and also at the overflow that is attached to the equalization lagoon that exists at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.  So we would be increasing the peak flow capacity at the WWTP from a hydraulic rating of 5 MGD up to approximately 8.25 MGD.  Then adding 2.0 million gallons of equalization to provide a total of 3.0 million gallons. The existing equalization lagoon at the Wastewater Treatment Plant is 1.0 million gallons.  These values are going to change slightly when we get into the actual design.

Phase 2 will not begin for another 5-6 years.  It will happen after the collection system is completed.
Phase 3:  Pumping Station improvements and replacement of Coxes Creek Interceptor.  With replacement of the interceptor, we will remove a little bit more of the infiltration & inflow. 

Mr. Bolby said that the East End Pumping Station is currently undersized, so it is causing overflow upstream.  The capacity of that pumping station would be increased to allow the appropriate amount of flow to go through, which would be discharging into the Coxes Creek Interceptor.  So all those things play together.

In summary, Mr. Bolby pointed out that we will be accommodating approximately 16.11 MGD either through removal or capacity increases. 

        Mr. Bolby next reviewed the Project Cost Estimates.  He recognized that costs have increased in the construction industry, and the Cost Summary reflects those increases. 

He said that after direction was received from the Authority & Council to select the Combined Technique, it gave us the final Abatement Plan.  This final Plan includes some replacement and capacity increase.  It was also updated with design characteristics.  The flow through the Sewage Treatment Plant also has been adjusted after a more detailed look.  

Mr. Bolby added that especially before design, equalization and the Wastewater Treatment Plant is final and ready for permit in Phase 2, they hope the numbers will come in lower than what they are projecting right now with the current inflation rates.

Mr. Bolby reiterated that they wanted to present the information to the Authority & Council before it was submitted to DEP.  It is a continuation of the Flow Study Report, refined numbers and refined costs. 
Mr. Bolby added that as part of Phase 1, direction was received from both bodies that we would be stopping sewer line replacement at the property line.  That direction was worked into the final Abatement Plan recommendation, as well.  

Ms. Enos added that the Abatement Plan Summary is representative of all the decisions over the last 1 ½ years that have been reached, along with the final decision on the private side.  The cost estimates are more reflective of what the actual costs are taking into consideration the inflation costs. 

Ms. Enos stated that she would also like to get collective authorization for our Engineers to submit the Abatement Plan Summary to DEP.  She added that getting authorization from both bodies is the next official step so that we stay on our timeline with the Corrective Action Plan.

       
Motion:
Mrs. Miller moved, Mrs. Opp seconded, to move forward with the submission of the Abatement Plan to the Department of Environmental Protection.

Motion Unanimously Carried  
(Motion includes both the Municipal
Authority & Borough Council Members)

    b) Rules & Regulations for Water/Sewer System – Discussion concerning incorporating
        new testing standards for sanitary sewer laterals.

    c) Property Resale Ordinance – Discussion concerning the property resale ordinance for
        sanitary sewer lateral testing.

    d) Private Sewer Laterals – Discussion concerning construction and testing standards.

                               (above items b, c, and d all discussed together)

        Ms. Enos brought out that the Uniform Construction Code was adopted, so any new construction should be followed under its guidelines.  She added that this discussion is more about the Borough’s Rules & Regulations.  It is based on how Council feels about the following questions:  Where do we go with the lateral discussion for the future?  How do we incorporate lateral testing into our Rules & Regulations?  Will the triggering event be a renovation project or anytime there is an upgrade to the sewer system?   Do we then go in and request a sewer inspection?  Do we do it on a property transfer?  These are some of the things that we need to be discussing because we are going to be required to have Rules & Regulations adopted in place.  Currently, Rules & Regulations are in place, but there needs to be a more definitive measure on when do we do this, what is the triggering event, and what is Council comfortable with? 

Ms. Enos said that we need to make a collective decision, even though it would be an Authority matter.  As with all other serious matters, we get Council’s collective thoughts, and support, in one way or the other.  Staff Members are looking at how the Authority & Council feel about properties being tested through the transferring of properties, the selling and the buying. 

        Mrs. Miller asked if we can do testing at the point of sale, or if there is a problem at the residence, can we make that a rule?  Ms. Enos answered by saying we can make it clear by an Ordinance that in a transfer of property, if testing does not pass inspection, the property owner can then be given an opportunity to correct the problem prior to transfer of the sale.

Mr. Hoffman said a lot of other Communities have had trouble with this because of them being a little too strict.  He said that leniency could be built in for properties where neither the buyer nor seller have the funds to do this so the sale may not have to be rushed during the marketing period.  This might help to avoid some of the issues that have plagued other Communities where there is no one willing and able to do the project.  As a result, the property ends up sitting empty.

Mr. Hoffman said that another problem he has seen with an estate, when the owner has just passed away, is that the home is not kept up with for a few years.  Once people start investigating the property, and start getting it cleaned up, they discover that there is a problem with no funds to address it.

        Mrs. Ream asked if there was anything in place for maintenance and repair to a system for the homeowner.  Ms. Enos answered by saying that we know we have an issue with infiltration & inflow.How do we still continue to try to find a way to make this better for the future, or not add more to the problem that is costing a great deal to fix?  And what sets off the domino for Council?  Do you want to see this with transfers of properties? Do you want it as a part of any renovation that comes across a property that they have to do a sewer lateral testing?  In what ways can we set in place to give a property owner time, as well, too?  What is Council and the Authority comfortable with moving forward?  She added that it is going to be hard to ask homeowners to do it, but how do you get to a better place? 

        After Mr. Clark voiced concerns about residents who have sewer problems and illegal sump pumps, Ms. Enos said, “Moving forward, what can we do to help ourselves to get out of making the infiltration & inflow situation worse?  If we don’t want to do it on a larger project, do we want to make some progress and headway to the future?”  

Ms. Enos noted that there is a Stormwater Ordinance in place because we do not want any renovation or new addition to contribute further to the detriment of the infiltration & inflow.  On the sewer side, which is being affected by the infiltration & inflow, we are trying to set some type of Rules & Regulations where we are helping ourselves, and the Community, because they are paying for it.

Mr. Bolby noted that Ms. Enos referenced the Uniform Code Construction that was adopted by the Borough.  The UCC requires a pressure test of a lateral for new construction.  He said that it could be expanded upon with the Building Permit process, but that depends on what elements of a structure you are touching, the nature of work, and to
what extent you want to go. 

        The Authority and Council next discussed amongst themselves the different scenarios, and options, which may require testing or a Building Permit.

        Ms. Enos pointed out the Authority & Council have the ability to set the Rules & Regulations themselves with whatever they are comfortable with.  There are current Rules & Regulations in place, but they are very silent on the subject and when the triggering effect happens.  She added that they want to see what will work, but also remain fair in the process, as well. 

Ms. Enos added that they are trying to protect the huge investment that is being made without it further deteriorating and causing much more problems in the future. 

Mr. Bolby stated that the goal is to “wrap up” the Rules & Regulations.  So whatever the decision is, we want to make that consistent.
Ms. Enos noted that we will come up with a list of suggestions for later discussion.          

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY MEETING AGENDA

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting(s):
a) June 20th, 2022 – Municipal Authority Meeting Minutes.

Motion:
Mrs. Sizemore moved, Mrs. Miller seconded, to approve the June 20th, 2022 Municipal Authority Meeting Minutes.
Motion Unanimously Carried
2. New Business:
    a) Capital Water Project – Award bid to the lowest responsive bidder for the Capital
        Water Project.
Mr. Bolby reviewed the “Water System Improvements Bid Summary” with the Authority & Council.  
Bids were opened for the Water Systems Improvement Project on the 20th of July.

3 Contracts up for bid included:
          Contract #1 - Water Utility Line – 8 bids were received
Contract #2 - Demolition of the Water Treatment Plant – 4 bids were received
          Contract #3 – Electrical Work – 2 bids were received.

        There were 2 formal withdrawals of bids…One was from Jet Jack for Contract #1, which was the second lowest bid when it came to a base-bid comparison.  The second withdrawal

was from Port Vue Plumbing, the apparent lowest bidder for Contract #2.  In both cases, the contractors cited arithmetical errors.  Both contractors provided letters officially withdrawing their bids.

Motion:
Mr. Flower moved, Mrs. Sizemore seconded, to accept the withdrawal of bids from Jet Jack for Contract #1 and Port Vue Plumbing for Contract #2.

Motion Unanimously Carried

        Mr. Bolby brought out that Contract #1, which was the most competitive contract for the water line installation, was comprised of a Base Bid and 2 Additive Alternates. 

He explained that The Base Bids are divided up into waterline replacement Areas of 1, 2 & 3.  Project Area 1 begins by the Turnpike Plaza and runs out through East Main.  Project Area 2 runs from UPMC Somerset, south. Project Area 3 is west of Columbia Avenue. 
Project Area 4 is an Additive Alternate.  That is in the James Street area and south.  Additive Alternate #2 is for meter replacement outside of the Project areas. 

Mr. Bolby disclosed that within the Base Bid, we bid the water lines using ductal iron-type material.  Historically, PVC-type material is significantly cheaper, but because of the cost increases we have recently seen, we can bid a material-deductive alternate to replace or provide PVC in lieu of duct-line pipe to try and bring the cost down.

Mr. Bolby said that the Total Base Bid for Contract #1, plus the Additives is $13,306,374.00.  All the Base Bids, plus the Deductives applied, fell in at $13,019,099.00, a $280,000.00 difference.

Mr. Bolby said that the recommendation for all 3 Contracts is to award the Base Bid and the Additives considered under each Contract.
Contract #2 was next reviewed.  Mr. Bolby brought out that since the withdrawal of Port Vue Plumbing, the next lowest bid was Ligonier Construction.  Their total bid amount with Additive #1 was $3,313,934.00 for Water Treatment Plant improvements. 

There were 2 bids on Contract #3.  The lowest bidder was Darr Construction with a Base Bid and Additive #1 in the amount of $925,500.00.

The total Construction Budget was $17,890,000.00.  Even with the withdrawals, we came in under budget.  Mr. Bolby added that the recommendation is to award all the Base Bids plus the Additive Alternates to the respective contractors.
Ms. Enos noted that this is the $20 million dollars that has been discussed since 2018.  The prices we received are still within budget. 
Mr. Bolby noted that this leaves a small amount for contingency.

        Motion:
Mrs. Miller moved, Mr. Flower seconded, to award Contract #1 to Kukurin Contracting in the amount of $13,306,374.00.
Motion Unanimously Carried

        Motion:
Mrs. Sizemore moved, Mr. Flower seconded, to award Contract #2 to Ligonier Construction in the amount of $3,313,934.00.
Motion Unanimously Carried

Motion:
Mr. Flower moved, Mrs. Sizemore seconded, to award Contract #3 to Darr Construction in the amount of $925,500.00.

Motion Unanimously Carried

3. Payment of Bills/Requisitions:
a) None 

4. ADJOURNMENT

Motion:
Mrs. Sizemore moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Flower.        

Motion Unanimously Carried
6:02 p.m.

BOROUGH COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

 

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting(s):
    a) June 27th, 2022 – Borough Council Meeting Minutes.

        Motion:
Mr. Shaulis moved, Mrs. Opp seconded, to approve the June 27th, 2022 Borough Council Meeting Minutes.
Motion Unanimously Carried

2. Opening of Bids:
   a) 2022 Paving Bid – Award paving bid to the lowest responsive bidder.
Ms. Enos brought out that a list of roads to be paved was distributed to Council Members at last month’s meeting.  The Borough is going to be coordinating its efforts with Columbia Gas.  When Columbia Gas is restoring half of a lane, the Borough will be coming up on the other side to restore the full lane.  Thus, the Borough is working in conjunction with Columbia Gas.
The Borough had 3 bidders for the Paving Project:
         1. Tresco - $82,167.00 (lowest responsive bidder)
         2. New Enterprise - $154,048.24.
         3. Quaker Sales - $93,280.00. 

        Ms. Enos pointed out that Tresco is the paving contractor for Columbia Gas, as well, so the coordination process will be that much better.     
Ms. Enos next read the “Schedule of Prices” per/unit items fromTresco, before Council’s approval, because the quantities can change:
        Item #1 – 615 tons of WEARING COURSE IN PLACE…Tresco’s unit price is $120.00 per/ton.  We will be approving this.
        Item #2 – 2,789 square yards of MILLING of these roadways…Tresco’s unit price is $3.00 per/ square yard.
Ms. Enos added that the “unit prices” is what will need approved, but the overall cost is $82,167.00.

        Motion:
Mrs. Opp moved, Mr. Mandichak seconded, to accept the Paving Bid from Tresco, the lowest responsive bidder, in the amount of $82,167.00.

                                                                                    Motion Unanimously Carried

3. General Public Comments:
    a) None registered

4. Administrative Business:
    a) Communications (None)
    b) Payment of Bills for the month of July 2022.

Motion:
Mrs. Miller moved, Mrs. Opp seconded, to approve the payment of bills for the month of July 2022 numbered 38570 - 38683 totaling $387,010.62.

Motion Unanimously Carried

    c) Department Reports – Consider approving the Departmental Reports for the Month of
       June 2022.

Motion:
Mr. Opp moved, Mr. Clark seconded, to approve the Departmental Reports for the month of June 2022.
Motion Unanimously Carried

5. Policy Agenda:

    Old Business:
a) Announcement – An executive session was held on Tuesday, July 19th, 2022 at 5:00
        p.m. to discuss police collective bargaining matters.

    b) Zoning Amendments – Update on previous discussions concerning chickens and  
        fence regulations.
Ms. Enos brought out that allowing chickens in the Borough is still being researched.
Mrs. Opp and Ms. Enos both mentioned experiences of 2 residents from other Municipalities that allowed chickens in their towns, and the negative effects it brought with it.  Other members of Council also voiced their concerns about allowing chickens in the Borough.

Motion:
Mr. Clark moved, Mr. Shaulis seconded, to begin the preparation of an Ordinance that will state that chickens will be prohibited within the Borough limits.
Motion Unanimously Carried

    Amendment to the Motion:
        An amendment was made to the above Motion to include gaming birds along with chickens.

        Ms. Enos stated that she will be bringing more information to Council regarding the fence regulations at a further meeting.

    New Business:
    a) Petition of Kenton & Nancy Roberts – Consider the request to cancel the layout of an
        unnamed and unopened alley near Autumn Drive and Uhl Street.

Motion:
Mr. Shaulis moved, Mr. Mandichak seconded, to accept the request of Kenton & Nancy Roberts to cancel the layout of an unnamed and unopened alley near Autumn Drive and Uhl Street.
Motion Unanimously Carried

        Ms. Enos pointed out that the follow-up to this request will be the Ordinance consideration.  By accepting this, an Ordinance will be developed and kept in the records.  It has been duly advertised, so Council can consider it.  Council’s motion will be the official action for accepting the cancelling of the layout of this alley.

        Motion:
Mr. Mandichak moved, Mrs. Opp seconded, to adopt the Ordinance that will cancel the layout of the unnamed and unopened alley near Autumn Drive and Uhl Street.
Motion Unanimously Carried

    b) Multi-modal Grant Application – Consider authorizing the submission of a grant
        application for sidewalk replacement of the 100 Block of North Center Avenue in the
        amount of $426,280.00 and utilizing the 2022 and 2023 CDBG grant entitlement to be
        used for our 30% match of $127,884.00.

Ms. Enos stated that at the prior Council meeting we did not have confirmation if the 100 Block of North Center Avenue still qualified to use CDBG grant entitlement funding for this project.  Since then, Mr. Bolby received confirmation that this area is still in the low-moderate census tract, therefore, qualifying the grant monies for the projects use.  This means that no General Fund monies will be used. 
Ms. Enos added that If the 100 Block of North Center Avenue is removed from the census tract; something changes; or we get confirmation that the Grant has been funded, we can stillwithdrawal from the project.  If we do not want to use General Fund monies, we have the opportunity to decline the grant offer, if we receive one.

        Motion:
Mrs. Opp moved, Mr. Mandichak seconded, to authorize the submission of a grant application for sidewalk replacement of the 100 Block of North Center Avenue in the amount of $426,280.00, and utilizing the 2022 and 2023 CDBG grant entitlement to be used for our 30% match of $127,884.00.
Motion Unanimously Carried

    c) Resolution No. 2022-05 – Consider executing the Resolution to submit an application
        for funding through DCED for the sidewalk replacement of the 100 Block of North
        Center Avenue.

        Motion:
Mr. Clark moved, Mr. Shaulis seconded, to execute the Resolution to submit an application for funding through DCED for the sidewalk replacement of the 100 Block of North Center Avenue.

Motion Unanimously Carried

THE BOROUGH OF SOMERSET, SOMERSET COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
RESOLUTION NO.  2022-05

A RESOLUTION OF SOMERSET BOROUGH TO APPLY FOR A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND GRANT THROUGH THE PENNSYLVANIA DCED AS WELL AS AUTHORIZING THE BOROUGH MANAGER AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT AS OFFICIALS TO SIGN ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO APPLY FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED GRANT.

Be it RESOLVED, that Somerset Borough of Somerset County hereby requests a Multimodal Transportation Fund Grant through the PA DCED in the amount of $298,396.00 to be used for the North Center Avenue Sidewalk Project in the Borough of Somerset.

Be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Applicant does herby designate Michele Enos, Borough Manager or Pamela Ream, Council President as the official(s) to execute all documents and agreements between the Borough of Somerset and the PA DCED to facilitate and assist in obtaining the requested grant.

I, Michele Enos, duly qualified Secretary of the Borough of Somerset (Name of Applicant), Somerset County, (Name of County), Pennsylvania, hereby certify that the forgoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by a majority vote of the Borough of Somerset Council (Governing Body) at a regular meeting held _______, 2022_and said Resolution has been recorded in the Minutes of the Borough of Somerset Council (Applicant) and remains in effect as of this date.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I affix my hand and attach the seal of the Borough of Somerset (Applicant), this 25th, day of July, 2022.

Committee, Administration, Special Reports

    a) Manager’s Report - (Enos)
Ms. Enos stated that if anyone had any questions about the monthly Departmental Reports, feel free to contact her. 
She had nothing else to report. 
Ms. Enos requested that a brief Executive Session be held at the end of the meeting for a brief update.

    b) President’s Report – (Ream)

Mrs. Ream stated that “Chalk the Block” was amazing this year and the artists were incredible.  She added that was nice to see the food trucks and all the people.

She also reminded everyone that “Night Out” was going to be held Tuesday August 9, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. and encouraged everyone to attend. 

Mrs. Ream said that she has had calls with concerns about Columbia Gas.

Ms. Enos pointed out that the complaints that come into the Borough are about the workers from Columba Gas, and their subcontractors, walking where they shouldn’t or what they are doing.

Ms. Enos said that she forwards the complaints to the Project Manager.  She added that Jessica Sizemore is the Project Manager for Columbia Gas, and complaints are being referred to her so she can rectify them. 

Mr. Mandichak disclosed that the complaints he hears about is the lack of communication from Columbia Gas regarding finishing times.   
Ms. Enos noted that last year, Columbia Gas put out notices to all residents regarding their project timelines.  Weather, materials, availability and switching the areas where work is being done can all change, but there are a lot of factors that can lead to that.  So it is hard to always
communicate when it is happening, at the time it is happening.

    c) Finance Report – (Peters)
Mr. Peters provided Borough Council with the Year-to-Date Financial Report through the
month of June 2022.  It added that we are 50% of the way through the year.

General Fund:                   Water Fund:                      Sewer Fund:
Revenues – 73.75%         Revenues – 46.57%          Revenues – 48.55%
Expenses – 54.81%         Expenses – 51.08%           Expenses – 40.55%

        Mr. Peters added that if Borough Council had any questions, he would be glad to try and address them.  

   
d) Engineer’s Report - (Bolby/Reilly)

        Mr. Bolby discussed the following changes and updates to the Engineer’s Report:

      
WATER:

        1) Laurel Hill Reservoir:
Mr. Bolby disclosed that the Borough completed the 2nd Phase of the drawdown.

Also American Rivers, in conjunction with Western PA Conservancy and Somerset Conservation District, has summited a grant for the remediation of the reservoir on July 14th, 2022, along with a support letter from Ms. Enos. 

    e) Somerset Inc. Representative – (Hoffman)

Mr. Hoffman disclosed that he heard everyone enjoyed “Chalk the Block.”  It went smoothly even though there was a little rain hindrance.
Regarding the Brinker Building, approximately 2/3rd’s of the building is down to the studs, so they will be putting things back together before too long. 

The Jacobs Building officially transferred to Somerset Inc., so the salvage and demolition efforts there will be able to begin.  

f) Fire Department Representative - (Clark)
Mr. Clark said that the Fire Company participated in activities within the Borough as follows:

1. Attended the fireworks.
2. Participated in training regarding electric cars and their charging stations. There is
   issues with car fires, so the Fire Department received training in dealing with these issues.
3. Attended “Chalk the Block”.  Mr. Clark commented that it was a fabulous event.       

        Mr. Clark disclosed that there was a total of 7 calls in the Borough from June 28th –July 25th, 2022.  There were also 2 assists, 1 call on the PA Turnpike and 14 calls in Somerset Township, totaling 24 calls during this time period.

Mr. Clark pointed out that the Western PA Firemen’s Event will be held from August 4th – August 6th, 2022 which is open to the public.  The main area of activity will be at the Fire Station.  A parade will also be held on Saturday, August 6th. He mentioned that there will be a lot of food, music and fun for all.  He added that other Fire Companies will be on “stand-by” to handle their fire calls.

    g) PSAB Representative – (Rosemeyer)

Mr. Rosemeyer mentioned that the PSAB Conference will be held in Gettysburg, PA on October 14th-17th, 2022.

Mr. Rosemeyer also said that a “Police Appreciation Day” is being planned for August 22nd, 2022.  PSAB will be sending someone from Harrisburg to present something to the Police Department.

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

    i) Mayor’s Report – (Rosemeyer)

Mr. Rosemeyer, representing Tableland, said that a lengthy discussion was held with them today regarding children wearing masks.  Following Federal and State guidelines, Tableland takes this very seriously. 

Mr. Rosemeyer noted that everything is going well with Tableland.  They are financially well-off, and are doing well.

       Mrs. Opp mentioned the issue on Harrison Avenue where the arrows to direct traffic on the road are not visible again.  This is presenting a traffic hazard because of the confusion.

Ms. Enos disclosed that directional arrows use to be painted on the road, but PennDOT requires that the Borough have reflective, adhesive taping.  She and Mr. Bailey assured that this issue would be addressed. 

Mr. Rosemeyer mentioned that he received 2 phone calls regarding a road by the hospital and the railroad tracks. 
Mrs. Ream expressed that she believes the street lights in this area are correct.  She and Mr. Bailey agreed that, in this area, people are trying to beat the traffic. 

Ms. Enos stated that the timing controls of the street lights in this area are done by PennDOT since it is a State road.  She noted that PennDOT will be notified that a report came in concerning this area.

6. Executive Session – To discuss potential litigation.

        Motion
Mr. Mandichak moved, seconded by Mrs. Opp to go into Executive Session to discuss
potential litigation.
Motion Unanimously Carried
6:40 p.m.
Back in Session
6:44 p.m.

7. ADJOURNMENT

        Motion:
Mr. Clark moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Shaulis.

Motion Unanimously Carried
6:45 p.m.

_______________________________
Michele A. Enos, Borough Manager/ Secretary