The Jackson Township Supervisors held their regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. at the Jackson Township Municipal Building. Members present were Supervisors Dave Bracken, Bruce Baker, Bob Stephens along with Secretary-Treasurer / Manager Dave Hirko and Solicitor Bill Barbin. The meeting was called to order by Dave Bracken, Chairman with the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

Board Roll Call was taken with all three Supervisors present.

Public Comments Concerning Agenda Items:
Denny Mehora said, I’d like to speak to the Board of Supervisors of Jackson Township on behalf of the citizens of Pudliner Lane. We’d like to present a petition for Jackson Township to take over Pudliner Lane. We received a majority of over 50% of the property owners who are willing to give up their portion of right-of-way and the property they own to Jackson Township to take it over. There are some property owners who have questions and concerns about the "take over" before they will sign. We thought we would check with the Board of Supervisors and ask for some guidance and some direction. . . .some help. I work at the Department of Transportation. . . it’s a great thing what the Township’s doing taking roads over and getting liquid fuels taxes and bringing taxation into the Township. It not only helps those on Pudliner Lane but all of us in the Township. If there’s any questions the Board has, I’ll try to answer them. Chairman Bracken said, it’s probably best that we go over this. Mehora continued, we gave Dave names, a map and an easement drawn up at the Courthouse. . you already have that. Solicitor Barbin said, you know the Code for taking over roads. . .it’s a little complicated. . . I’m counting four different ways to take over roads that’s in the Township Code. We have a policy established that we used on Raymond & Eagle Drives where there were no disputes. . no problems. . the road was already "up to snuff" and everybody signed. . .we accepted dedication. . . with the map we had PennDOT come out and inspect it and they put it on the log and we’re all done. If everybody doesn’t sign, then there’s other options. . . some of them involve front footage assessment. . .some of them involve condemnation damages for people who are objecting to the property and maintenance to their land. Talking with the Roadmasters today, they asked me to go through and spell it all out. . .the options. . . . . so they suggested that we send out an explanation of what all the options are both on your road and then another road that is very similar. . .Pinelock. Mehora said we thought we would only have a situation or problem with the property owners on the other side because they don’t live on that highway. The question I ask is where the established road is. I understand that they are willing to give up their portion with the understanding that the other portion is taken off the right. Barbin asked, not from the center? Mehora continued. . . and truly the way the road was laid out years ago when my grandfather, Mr. Pudliner had it laid out. . . . when the road was built and put in back in the early fifties or late forties, the residents involved in it were on the DeRubis side. . . . but the right-of-way or where the right-of-way should be is all on Brian’s property which he purchased from Karlinsey. What we’re saying is the right-of-way’s there the whole way up through all except a few property owners at the bottom. They gave up that right-of-way when I decided to build up there and I went to the property owners at that time and they gave a letter to my attorney, John Kuzmiak. They gave up the right-of-way to grant us easements to go up and down and to make any improvements to the road and it’s recorded in Cambria County. I talked to John this afternoon to try to get some advice to give the Township Solicitor and he told me that the way he read it and the way he sees it, if you were a resident of that road and willing to give up their portion, then he sees that there would be no problem and there should be some kind of solution. Barbin said, there’s a procedure and actually, residents have a right to force the Township to take over a road, where there’s a majority of residents but there’s some consequences attached to that too and I think the point you guys were making was everybody should be aware of what those rules are and then tell us if this is really what you want to do. . . .if the majority of residents petition the Township . . .the majority of front foot owners of the road petition the Township to take it over, the Township is required to take it over, but the person who objects could end up going to court and saying I want paid damages for taking my property right and that damage ends up getting assessed equally against the owners including the person who is getting the damages. The cost gets divided up including him. I think it’s important that that information goes out to everybody and then you find out are there 51% of the people who really want to do that, so we don’t get half way through something and they say, wait . . .I didn’t understand and they get mad. Mehora said we had concerns bringing this to the Board when we didn’t have 100%. Barbin said, if we had 100% we could make it easy for you. Mehora said, we had concerns and we’re going to let it go, but it’s important to the Township. I know I’ve talked to the Township a number of times and a Supervisor at PennDOT and said what do you think would happen if we started upgrading some of our dirt lanes and dirt roads into the Township. . . .I see nothing but good for everybody concerned. Barbin said, as long as their not too long. There’s a couple of answers there but that’s why you adopted the Resolution in 2003. . . for an easy procedure for the Township. . . we’ll take over your road. Do you want me to go ahead and send a letter to each of the people. . . just spell it out what the procedures are? Bracken replied, it would be in the best interest of everybody to have the letter and the options available. Maybe that’s the best way we better handle it. Barbin said, I’ll attach a little petition that says Section 67-314. Mehora said, I think if they understand the law they might go back to the other option. Maybe they’ll seek council and council advises them that way. Barbin said the cart way has to stay within the 33 feet as our law requires us not to take a road under 33 feet, but it could be over on one side if there’s survey points. Mehora said, and there already are established survey points. Barbin said, that’s something for you to talk amongst your neighbors. . .what’s the way to get everybody in. Mehora replied, Brian’s already agreed that he don’t mind giving up his 16 foot of property my aunt’s giving up her share, I’m going to give up mine, Jim & Carol will give up theirs and Tom & Sherry will give up theirs. . . .Cliff and Naomi. . .Cliff’s fear is more land being taken away towards him. Barbin said, I think you should tell us what you want. . . .I can do that as long as the cart way is within the 33 feet. Mehora replied, well it would be and that’s what we want. The only issue we have is whose property it’s on. Barbin said, we only go by the center when we don’t have any other information. We can set it some other way. .clearly and specifically. Mehora said, there’s center points there if you want to take a look at them. Barbin said, I’ll check out the options. . .we’ll look at them but if you come to an agreement, the easy way where everybody agrees and we don’t have to go through all these extra procedures, just tell us that there’s no problem. There’s one other condition. . this road can not be taken over unless East Taylor also takes over or else we would have to put a cul-de-sac at the end and none of you want that. Mehora said, you can’t put one there. From our understanding, East Taylor wants to take it over. Barbin said, I’ve talked with their Solicitor and that’s my understanding also. Mehora added, I think if you talked to the East Taylor Water Authority, they would like it taken over as they have tanks up there. . .there’s an issue with elderly people living up there. Supervisor Baker said, and that’s our position also . . that East Taylor wants us to take this section over and they’ll maintain that road. Mehora said, that’s correct. . they can’t take over theirs without Jackson. . . we’ve been through this years past. Barbin said, the Jackson Township section is in fine shape and meets our requirements so there’s no cause for physical improvements but there could be a cost shared if there was a condemnation cost and I want to send out a letter to all of you to spell that out. Manager Hirko said, I’ve talked to one of the secretaries at East Taylor and there is a person who got in contact with her and is gathering signatures down in East Taylor to petition their Board. I’m not sure what kind of policy they have down there. I’m not sure they have a formal policy like we do. Mehora asked, do you want me to show you where the survey points our? Barbin replied, when we get to the final step. .that would make sense then. . . but we got to get an agreement that we understand what we’re doing and how we’re doing it.

Minutes:
Motion Baker, second Stephens to approve the minutes of the Board of Supervisors March 30, 2006 Meeting. Vote-3 yes.

Manager Hirko noted, in the General Fund we received an insurance check for approximately $75,000. which shows as a receipt but it also went out as a disbursement. . .basically we transferred or gave it to the Fire Company to put in their Truck Fund but we hold their insurance. The other thing was the Highway Aid Fund. . .we received our Liquid Fuels Funds so that’s why you see the increase in receipts.

Expenditures:
Motion Stephens, second Baker to approve the bills for the period of March 31, 2006 through April 27, 2006. Vote-3 yes.

Township Police Report:
The February-March, 2006 Police Report submitted by Police Chief Bob Fatula was presented. The figures for February-March were as follows: 911 Calls dispatched to Police were 678. Reportable Incidents were 93 broken down as follows: Theft-10, Harassment-8, Aggravated Indecent Assault-7, Corruption of Minors-7, Endangering Welfare of Child-7, Receiving Stolen Property-7, Indecent Assault-6, Burglary-5, Criminal Mischief-5, DUI (Driving While Under the Influence)-5, Incest-4, Rape-4, Statutory Sexual Assault-4, Criminal Conspiracy-3, Involuntary Deviate Intercourse-3, Identity Theft-2, Underage Drinking-2, Drugs-1, Furnishing Alcohol to Minors-1, Public Drunkenness-1 and Vehicle Theft-1. Accidents Handled-19, Traffic Citations Issued - 75, Non-Traffic Citations Issued - 4, Criminal Charges Filed were 77 broken down as follows: Aggravated Indecent Assault-7, Corruption of Minors-7, Endangering Welfare of Child-7, Receiving Stolen Property-7, Theft-7, Indecent Assault-6, Burglary-5, DUI (Driving While Under the Influence)-5, Incest-4, Rape-4, Statutory Sexual Assault-4, Criminal Conspiracy-3, Involuntary Deviate Intercourse-2, Underage Drinking-2, Drugs-1, Furnishing Alcohol to Minors-1, Harassment-1 and Public Drunkenness-1. A note was made on the report that $47,124.00 was recovered through arrest or restitution including $28,491.00 from a 2005 investigation that was completed as of the date of this report.

Correspondence:
Manager Hirko said, we received a nice letter from Elizabeth Cain of Cumberland, Maryland on the Veterans Monument. It says, Dear Dave, Once again, I want to offer our families’ heartfelt thank you for your tireless dedication and hard work involving the Veteran’s Memorial. This project has touched our hearts deeply in ways you and your town may never know. When I started this journey months ago in search of our family history, I never imagined it would end with a Veteran’s Memorial in a small Township just a few hours from home. Of course, I found the Jackson Township Website quite by accident as I was looking for family information and it was natural for me to go to the Veteran’s section, coming from a military family and the rest as they say is history! It took me less than a week to come to Jackson after I learned of the Memorial. I pulled into the parking lot and just sat there a moment, almost afraid to get out of my car. I walked up slowly, very slowly. I think I stood there 5 minutes; my eyes darted back and forth and never stopped moving. . .I had to remember to breathe. . . This Township is so small, there are so many names. It was an honor to be standing there, it was an honor!!! You see, for the past 5 months I have been fighting with Salisbury National Cemetery in North Carolina for a headstone for Israel D. Dishong who died as a POW in the prison there. Although military records say he died there, the cemetery wanted me to "prove he was buried" there. So I felt with your Memorial, finally Israel would get some recognition for his sacrifice, since he has no headstone anywhere. Besides he would be on the Memorial with his younger brother Noah and some cousins! I can’t wait until Memorial Day; I wouldn’t miss it for anything. Please come up and say "hello". Thank you for what you have given me and my family. I will be forever grateful. Liz.

Old Business:
Chairman Bracken said, at this time we will review the re-bidding the fuel bids. Manager Hirko said Luther P. Miller showed a .10 cents differential. Solicitor Barbin said, that’s .10 above OPIS Rate. Hirko said, Martin Oil showed .248 cents. Motion Stephens, second Baker to accept bid from Luther P. Miller for heating oil, premium no-lead gas and diesel fuel. Vote-3 yes.

New Business:
Motion Stephens, second Baker to approve subdivision of William & Helen Cook. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Stephens, second Baker to approve Resolution 06-06 to clarify correct names on Township Roads (list is attached to the agenda), subject confirmation from 911 and excluding Ogden Street. Solicitor Barbin said, it’s officially called Ogden Street but people call it Ogden Road. If you change it to Ogden Road. . . I don’t think it’s really significant. . . in a search warrant it could make a difference but other than that. . I don’t think it would make a big difference. Supervisor Baker said, there’s a lot of people. . we’re talking about everybody’s drivers license, homeowners insurance policies. . .everything is listed as Ogden Street. Manager Hirko said, that’s because everything goes by 911. Baker said, we call it Ogden Road. Supervisor Stephens said, our map shows it as Ogden Street. Barbin said, once 911 names a road, all the official things change. . .you have the authority. . you can set it whatever you want. Baker answered, but the question is, do we do that with everything listed as Ogden Street? Stephens said, whatever is most convenient for the people. Barbin said, it might be most convenient how it is. Barbin said, even though it’s not what people say? Stephens said, my own personal feelings. . .before we start changing things forcing people to change every piece of literature. Barbin said, you can make the motion without the change to Ogden. . . that’s what you’re saying. Chairman Bracken said, we’ll make the motion without the change to Ogden. Hirko asked, should I fax the list to 911 to make sure there are no other discrepancies? Barbin replied, yes. . fax it up to 911. . .actually, you need to send it to them anyway. If there are any problems, you bring it back to the Supervisors. You won’t change any sign names unless 911 approves it and you’re taking Ogden off and keep it as Ogden Street as the official records state right now. Hirko said, the other main one was Adams Avenue. . there’s a lot of old documents that reference Adams Street but 911 has Adams Avenue. Barbin said, so you’re not changing anything with the Post Office. . .that’s the bottom line. A vote was then taken. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Baker, second Stephens to approve agreement between Jackson Township, JETSA and the Jackson Township Water Authority setting forth guidelines for sharing in any maintenance and repair costs for incurred for the newly purchased 2006 Ingersoll-Rand Air Compressor. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Baker, second Bracken to approve 3 year contract with Barnes, Saly & Company, Certified Public Accountants, to audit accounts of Jackson Township for the calendar years 2006 through 2008. Supervisor Stephens said, I’d like to comment. We went over this once before and this cuts out our Auditors for the Township. Solicitor Barbin said, meaning the Audit. . they don’t do the regular Audit. Stephens replied, right. . . we never had any problems. . .when we first initiated this with Barnes Saly, they didn’t show any discrepancies. I don’t see the need to have a three or four year contract. Why couldn’t we do it for just one year? Is there any benefit anybody has for 3? Manager Hirko said, I think they give you a better price. Chairman Bracken agreed, they do give you a better price. Hirko said, if you get a proposal for one year it would be more than the three year. Stephens said, they did it for one year in 2002 for the 2001 Audit. Hirko said, correct. Stephens asked, are there guidelines or specified amounts they can charge for it? Barbin replied, no. . .there’s no limit on what they can charge. They’re professional Auditors. . . compared to the elected Auditors, there’s no limit on what they can charge. Hirko said, the price referenced in this contract is $3,450. and I think previous price was $3,100. . . so we could lock this price in for three years. Barbin said, I’ve seen $5500. per year. Hirko said, they’re not even quoting one year. . I don’t know what they would say for one year but for the three year, it’s $3,450. The previous contract was $3100. which they quoted that for the last three years. Barbin said, so we haven’t had a one year price since 2002? Hirko answered, that’s right. A vote was then taken. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Stephens, second Baker to adopt revised Random Drug & Alcohol Testing Policy for Jackson Township Police Department. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Stephens, second Baker to accept resignation of Allen Berkey, part-time for the Jackson Township Police Department. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Baker, second Stephens on transferring $ 19,680.90 from the Capital Reserve Fund to the General Fund - $4,889.00 to Naugle Insurance for April Installment, $4,403.00 to Laurel Highlands Fence for work done at Mitchell Park, $3,621.30 to Centre Communications for work done on new police vehicle, $2,925.00 to Richard Sutter & Associates for Planning & Consulting Services, $2,941.46 to Martin Oil for fuel and heating oil and $901.14 to P. Joseph Lehman for stormwater management. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Stephens, second Baker on approving the time sheets from March 26, 2006 through April 8, 2006 and April 9, 2006 through April 22, 2006. Vote-3 yes.

Other New Business:
Chairman Bracken said, we have a Resolution to apply for a LUPTAP Grant for a Multi-Municipal Comprehensive Plan for Jackson, Cambria and Ebensburg Borough. Motion Baker, second Stephens to adopt Resolution to apply for a LUPTAP Grant for a Multi-Municipal Comprehensive Plan for Jackson Township, Cambria Township and Ebensburg Borough. The motion was opened to public comments. Tim Davis commented, for grants. . .we basically don’t need to join those two municipalities. . but we’re working together to look at things that can be done, being cost-conservative, productive to the Township including the recreation thing you’re trying to do there. . .it’s great! If we can’t do that as a School District, what can we do? Bracken said, that’s one of the purposes of this Multi-Municipal Agreement. . . that we can do things like this. Davis said, for example, if your equipment would break down, you’d need something with a relationship like this. It gives you the authority to share different things and help each other verses everybody trying to buy everything. A vote was then taken. Vote-3 yes.

Supervisor Baker asked, do we need authorization to do that sign ledger? Solicitor Barbin replied, yes. . we were looking at updating the Township Ordinance with the stop signs and traffic control devices and I discussed with the Supervisors, there’s an alternate procedure for doing that is. . adopt a Roadmaster Ordinance that authorizes the Roadmasters to place signs when they’re needed and they’re enforceable as soon as they go up. The Roadmaster has to put it in a ledger. . .an official Township ledger book counter-signed by the Secretary and the Roadmaster has to report it to the Supervisors at the next meeting. The Supervisors can take it out if they want to but if they don’t take it out, it becomes permanent. The point is, if you had a really picky traffic accident case, how do you prove the traffic control sign was legal? There are a bunch of old ordinances for stop signs and different ones. . you need to pull those out. Sometimes things change and you haven’t always caught them and we were going through the Township getting a list of every sign and doing an updated Ordinance to make sure every sign was correct and I’m suggesting that we follow this more flexible way of doing it. . .you’re basically. . you. . the Supervisors are delegating to the Roadmasters the authority to place signs. Manager Hirko asked, should we include weight limit signs with that? Barbin replied, yes. Baker said, any posted sign. Barbin added, all traffic control signs of every sort. . we put them in different sections. They could obviously be put on only if we had proper engineering information to justify them. Do you want to tell me to draft up an Ordinance like that? Motion Baker, second Stephens to authorize the Solicitor to draft a Roadmaster Ordinance for Jackson Township. The motion was opened to public comment. Will Michaels said, just a thought about traffic signs here, stop signs. . . it would be nice to have signs stating, stop sign ahead. I’ve seen these different places through the State. It’s something that helps somebody new on the road and I’m wondering if that extra sign might tell you that there’s a stop sign ahead. . . if it’s foggy or something like that. Supervisor Stephens said, we could take that into consideration. Baker said, if there’s a visibility issue, then that’s very valuable. Stephens said, I was just thinking of that yesterday and today going to Johnstown. . I got out and drove past the one and I didn’t notice it dawned on me after I passed it. Barbin said, there was a lawsuit in Barr Township where a person sued the Township saying because a hump in the road, you couldn’t see the stop sign within enough time to slow down. It was a decent legitimate argument. . .by the time you saw the stop sign, it was too late to slow down. I think that’s what you’re saying. Michaels said, I’ve seen it where it’s really bad. Steve Yurasek said, a good place for a sign like that is where you’re coming off Benshoff Hill on to 271. Having the antique store handy there, I can watch that crossing. . .we don’t stop. . we just slow down. Lots of people. . and the other day the fire truck was coming through there relatively fast and the guy never slowed up. . he just wheeled right out. It’s a stop sign. . . not a yield sign. Barbin said, a warning might emphasize it a little more. Baker asked, what is the protocol for placing stop signs or any sign on a State road? Barbin said, it’s not a stop sign. . .it’s a stop sign ahead. We’re not placing a stop sign. . .we’re placing a warning sign. Hirko asked, would that be anything like. . we’re allowed to put school bus stop signs on State roads. Barbin added, and we’re allowed to put no parking signs on State roads. We notify PennDOT we’re doing and they write back and say ok. Tim Davis said there’s regulatory signs, warning signs and directional signs. A warning would be the one this would fall under. Hirko said, I know we’re allowed to do warning signs. Davis said, we need one over on Adams Avenue. . .a bigger stop sign. Barbin said, we probably should check with Bob Mills and I don’t know the specific rule. Yurasek said, you can just sit down there and watch that and you’d be amazed. Person after person comes out that road and never stops. Davis said, Swigle Mountain’s another one going over Adams. . .going across from Adams and at the end of Adams on William Penn. Michaels said, anything to warn somebody. . that’s the main thing. . . to prevent an accident. Davis asked, I’d like to ask the Solicitor, do you need to cover anything in regards to if there’s an accident and a regulatory sign is knocked down, how quickly it’s replaced for the purpose of liability? Barbin answered, we have to replace it as soon as we’re aware of it. Davis asked, would that have to go into a log. . who would be responsible of reporting it. Barbin said, the law would say when it is replaced and that’s one of the benefits of the log. . it shows that. Davis said, in other words, a policeman would notify them at the accident scene that a regulatory sign was knocked over and it would be their responsibility or with State signs, the State would be responsible. Baker added, believe me. . when a sign goes down, we know about it the next morning. Barbin said, and the ledger is good proof of that. A vote was then taken. Vote-3 yes.

Public Comments:
(None)

Solicitor Barbin asked, I’d like some additional clarification. I’m sending the letter to the people on Pudliner. We should also send it to the people on Pinelock. Chairman Bracken replied, yes. Barbin said, even though they weren’t here, they have the exact same situation where one guy’s not signing.

Adjournment:
Motion Baker, second Stephens to adjourn the meeting at 7:44 p.m. Vote-3 yes.