Board Roll Call was taken with all three Supervisors present.

Public Comments Concerning Agenda Items:
Steve Yurasek said, that thing with the officers taking the gun. . .the City of Johnstown got their ass in a jam by letting Rok take his gun and carry it. Are we not going to put ourselves in the same predicament here? Cops carrying Township guns and the guns assigned to the Township. . .it’s owned by the Township. He takes it and gets in trouble. . .are we not going to be liable for that? Chairman Bracken answered, no. . because he’s qualified to carry that gun. Yurasek said. . so. .he’s qualified to carry it. . .I’m qualified to carry a gun too. That doesn’t give me the right to have a Township gun. I’m liable for my weapon but the Township’s liable for him. He goes to a party say. . . he’s policing a party. . .he gets in an argument with a girlfriend and uses the weapon. . .we’re liable because it’s our weapon. We own the weapon. . .it’s a Township gun. Solicitor Barbin said, nobody’s ever won one of those cases that put liability on the gun just because it was a gun. There’s fear about those cases and there’s talk about a Federal law that says gun owners and gun manufacturers don’t have any liability. . there’s talk about that but nobody’s ever won a case like it. Yurasek replied, talk to Attorney Green about that. The detriment it put Johnstown in. . . Barbin said, if there’s something wrong with our gun or wrong with the training of our Officer in his duties, we’ re responsible, and there’s a big area of liability, but. . just the gun. . a proper, working gun outside the Township and him keeping it with him when he’s outside the Township. . .I don’t believe there’s any liability attached to that and many municipalities have that policy. Yurasek replied, I just thought I’d bring it up. Supervisor Baker said, we’re not talking about carrying them on the street. . .we’re talking about using them at their other place of employment. Barbin said, well. .they’re going to have them with them. . . the point is he has it with him so the moment he gets into the Township he has his gun but doesn’t start doing police work for us accidentally. We don’t ever want him using a gun that’s not our gun in the Township. The point of it is to make sure that when he comes into the Township. . he’s driving into his shift and he gets called when he’s part way into the Police Department, he has our gun. . .he’s never going to use some other gun that maybe defective. . may have bad trigger, bad safety. . whatever. He’s always going to have our good gun that we purchased available. Yurasek said, there’s a possibility that somebody takes that gun away from that Officer and he uses it. . are we liable? Barbin answered, no. . I don’t believe there’s ever been a case where we held somebody liable for that. There’s fear and in our Country you can sue for anything so there’s always fear of those things. I do not believe that there has ever been a case that has found somebody liable because it’s just a gun. You would say the same thing. . it’s a tool . . .it can used or misused. Betty Lou Shoup asked, if he’s working part-time and he’s working for another detail can he shoot the gun that is given to him by Jackson Township to do work in East Taylor? Barbin answered, that’s what the Policy says. Shoup asked, if something happens in East Taylor, who’s responsible. . .them or us? Barbin said, it’s East Taylor but the one place we could be liable is if the gun is defective. . but we’re checking the guns. . . we’d be liable if it was defective and it caused harm here and the point is we don’t want to have him carrying a defective gun around or an old beat-up gun around. . .we want the Officer to have a good gun. They can sue us if we gave a defective gun out and even if he’s working in East Taylor, we could be liable. . I don’t want to say we wouldn’t be liable under any circumstances. If the gun’s defective and we gave him the gun, we’re responsible but if he just mis-uses the gun as a human being at a party. . .at home. . pulls it out of his car. . or policing for East Taylor, that’s his responsibility and not our action.

Minutes:
Motion Baker, second Stephens to approve the minutes of the Board of Supervisors April 27, 2006 Meeting and the May 8, 2006 Meeting. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Baker, second Stephens to approve the bills for the period of April 28, 2006 through May 25, 2006. Vote-3 yes.

Township Police Report:
The April, 2006 Police Report submitted by Police Chief Bob Fatula was presented. The figures for April were as follows: 911 Calls dispatched to Police were 420. Reportable Incidents were 31 broken down as follows: Theft-7, Harassment-6, Criminal Mischief-5, Reckless Endangerment-4, DUI (Driving While Under the Influence)-3, Armed Robbery-1, Assault-1, Defiant Trespassing-1, Disorderly Conduct-1, Terroristic Threats-1 and Vehicle Theft-1. Accidents Handled-8, Traffic Citations Issued - 42, Non-Traffic Citations Issued - 1, Criminal Charges Filed were 8 broken down as follows: DUI (Driving While Under the Influence)-3, Criminal Mischief-1, Defiant Trespassing-1, Disorderly Conduct-1, Terroristic Threats-1 and Theft-1.

Correspondence:
Manager Hirko read a letter from Rick Becker of the East Taylor-Jackson Little League. The letter said, I am writing this note to thank you for all your support of the ETJ Baseball League at Mitchell Park. As a 20+ year volunteer of our Youth Baseball Program, I have seen many Supervisors in our Township. We have never, ever had the financial help that we are getting now. I can remember being turned down for help buying bags of fertilizer. These last few years are absolutely nothing short of amazing. New backstops, fences, concrete floors in our dugouts and scorer’s booths are just some of the things you have helped us get. They make the fields look awesome. I hope that the League never takes all of this for granted. If they do, I’ll remind them of how it could be. Again, thank you for your generosity.

Old Business:
Supervisor Stephens said, I have something I want to bring up. Three or four years ago I brought up about the Rager Cemetery and I want to know if I can make a motion concerning the same thing. Motion Stephens, second Baker that the Board of Supervisors request the Township Manager to do a cost analysis and make recommendations into: 1. Would it be legal to establish the perimeter of the Rager (also known as the Rager Lambaugh) Cemetery and the Brown Cemetery by using the post and chain method or something similar? 2. What would be the cost? 3. Who should bear the cost? 4. Yearly clean-up of both cemeteries. 5. At least three mows a year, one not more than 10 days prior to Memorial Day, second within five days of the 15^th of July and the third cutting within five days of the 15^th of September. 6. Who does the mows and the cost? After the township Manager discusses with the Solicitor, how to notify the land owners and what needs done legally and the Manager discusses with those who want to contribute financially and with work, he brings back his recommendations to the Board at next month’s meeting. The motion was opened up to public comment. Bob Albright asked, where is the Rager Lambaugh Cemetery? Stephens answered, the simplest way to get out and explain this is you go west on 22 to Fords Corner Road and get off on Fords Corner Road and go up there about a mile. . .you know where Loraine Road cuts off there to the right. . you turn right there and go up to the water tank. After you turn left and go up to the water tank. . you go up just a short distance on the tank road and there’s a spur there that cuts off there to the left . . .that’s the old road that took you back to what we called when I was a kid. . .the huckleberry field and we used to go on down and connect into Vintondale. . . .that was the road that went down to Vintondale at one time. That cemetery lies back there off to the right off of that road. I haven’t been back to it in recent times. I had written the owner of the property several letters requesting permission to go on his property to see the cemetery. I actually haven’t seen it since I was a kid more than 50 years ago and it was in disrepair back then and I have talked to several people who seen it. I personally haven’t but they’ve seen it in the last couple three years. They gave me a visual word description of what it was like and it certainly wasn’t being taken care of. There is a provision under the State Law that this gets done. So that’s where the Rager Lambaugh Cemetery is. The Brown Cemetery. . you go to Vinco and turn left which would be east on Adams and you go out there about a mile and come to a Lyle Street. . .it goes off to the left. You go right to the very end of the road and the old farmhouse sits up on the right hand side. . .well the Cemetery sits into the left there and one of the graves is on the very top of that gully. What we have there according to the records I have been provided. . .we have three Civil War Veterans buried in the Rager Cemetery plus it is also said that Michael Rager 1759-1839, Revolutionary War Soldier is buried there without a tombstone so I would like to see if we can’t get it cleaned up to perfection. Where his grave is, I’d like to see a stone erected at the entrance to the Cemetery. We may not be able to find all the Civil War veterans stones. . .that’s something we won’t know till we get in there. The Brown Cemetery. . and anybody who want’s it, I’ll gladly make a copy of this to give it to you. In the Brown Cemetery, there’s four Civil War Veterans buried in there. So the two cemeteries have some very important Veterans significant to Jackson Township and I’ve been told the Rager Cemetery probably is the oldest or one of the very earliest cemeteries in Cambria County. This Michael Rager is buried there and that was a Revolutionary War date of 1776. That gives you an idea of where the two cemeteries are located. Tom Rummel said, I just wanted to mention from what I can see here, there’s at least four past or present Post Commanders attending tonight. The Civil War Veterans. . I don’t know much about it other than what I heard. . my answer would be to make an attempt to clean it up. . not only do I think the Veterans would but the citizens would help to clean it up. As far as I understand, there is a gate blocking the road. I guess it’s on private property and perhaps the gate blocking the road is a good thing there to maintain the Cemetery and to protect it from any type of damage or vandalism. I think I personally would like to see us at least gain access to it and be able to mow it at least three times a year. Stephens said, let me clear something up for you. As of this afternoon at 2 o’clock, that gate was not locked and not closed. . either one. It was wide open. One of the things. . and this is what my motion does. . it opens it up for Mr. Hirko to talk to Mr. Barbin to get out and get the legalities involved in this thing. There’s two no trespassing signs on trees on either entrance to the gate. . both ends of the gate which is put up most likely with the intentions of keeping people out. That gate is usually open. I have seen it locked on two occasions over the years. . . closed. . I can’t say it was locked. Let’s give the owner the benefit of the doubt if at all possible and give him every opportunity to comply. We want to do this as discreet as we can with the least amount of fanfare and I think working with Mr. Barbin to give us a legal aspect of things and if the people and some of you are here would get out and offer to get out and help in some way to contribute money. . do work. . the organization maybe contribute was brought up. . if you contact Mr. Hirko if this passes through within the next month, we can get out and take a final vote on it maybe at next month’s meeting. Rummel said, I’d like to suggest to start a pilot program here in the Township being staffed by Veterans with documentation saying they have served in combat situations. . . .I guess using these men may help with the landowners knowing that’s who’s going on their property. You just don’t have anybody going in. They would have a purpose for being in there. . they’re long lasting Veterans. . they got proof of it. They’re going in there to maintain the Cemetery. We make this comment with respect to the landowners. Wes Lauffer said, I just found out about this. My great, great, great grandfather served in the Civil War. It’s very well that some of these gentlemen may have stood beside him. I would be proud to maintain them and if we don’t, shame on us all. If they need taken care of, I’d be more than proud to volunteer some time to help out. Dick McDowell said, I had an interest in this last time it came up and presented a petition signed by the Historical Society. At that last meeting there seemed to be some concern about forcing the property owner to maintain the cemeteries and put the undue burden on the property owners. I’d like to try to avoid that because that won’t fly if we do that again. One suggestion I’d like to propose. . . other people have donated properties to the Township with examples down at Loraine town. . . when people have donated large tracts of ground to the Township. If these people that currently own that so desire, can they donate those cemeteries to the Township? This possibly could remove at least some acreage on what they’re paying taxes on and maybe give them a little tax break. Because if the law now stands as I understand it, they can’t do anything with those cemeteries. . .in fact they’re supposed to be maintaining them and it could cost them money. Stephens said, a point I’d just like to make. . .do you have any idea what the cost would be?. . .there’s burial plots I’m sure nobody knows that they’re there and trying to get out and move bodies. . . McDowell replied, we’re not talking about moving any bodies. We’re talking about leaving the cemeteries right where they’re at. . . establishing boundaries as part of your motion and if the property owners so desired. . . they’d have to be agreeable to this. . .let them donate that piece of land to the Township dissolving them of any further responsibilities. . . possibly even reducing the acreage of the property they own and it might even give them a little tax break. Stephens replied, that’s a possibility. McDowell said, if financial burden is a consideration in this thing. . .it seemed to be last time. . .that could eliminate that. Solicitor Barbin said, the Township could buy. . the Township could accept a donation of that. . they can not condemn. The Township does not have the power to condemn. You couldn’t force it. McDowell said, I’m not trying to force anything. . I’m trying to work something out in the way that’s best for everybody involved. Stephens said, right. .I agree Dick. Rummel said, I got into a situation when I bought my property here. . .with the Pike Cemetery. They were interested in my land and I donated it to Pike Church. Tom Kasecky from the Nanty Glo VFW said, I’m a past Commander down there at the VFW and right now I’m the President down there. I think the VFW’s throughout the valley and the American Legions would help out and I’d be one of the first ones to help. Will Michaels said, probably what Dick McDowell had to say fills it up pretty good. . taking that burden off that property owner. . and that’s a big thing that you want to do. I think with this Township. . the finance that the Township’s in. . the property owner shouldn’t have any burden. Stephens added, it was never any of my intentions. . the very first time I even get out and suggested about using the Boy Scouts. . some aspiring Eagle Scout to do this as a project. . . I mentioned this to Dave Hirko . . but we got this thing off the ground now and we got a second for it and if we can get out and carry some votes on it here and make it official next month and then give Mr. Barbin some time to go over the legal aspects of what to do here. Talking about the post and chain method. . I didn’t know if that would be entirely legal because it’s not our property but it’s one of the things we can discuss. As far as just going in and cutting grass, I don’t see any legal problems there. We need to define what we can do legally before we can get out and enter a motion of what to do with finalities. Under no circumstances do I want the property to get out and cost them money if we can avoid it at all costs. I think the Townships got enough money. . and if need be. . we appreciate all the offers of help. Barbin said, if I can do what you’re asking. . the motion to pass. . .but remember. . in the Township Code it says the Supervisors have to decide first. . make a decision that the property owner has neglected the property. . you got to say that . . .officially you got to vote on it and say it. We believe the property owner has neglected the property and at that point you have to give the property owner 30 days notice to take care of it themselves. That’s spelled out real clear there. Stephens said, under Section 1536. Barbin said, that’s what it says. . Section 1536 B. If you’re going to get the votes to approve that, Dave and I can up with several options. There’s been several different things said here tonight. We can do what it says and work it out but if we’re going to go on. . . if it’s going to be anything other than a voluntary action between the property owner. . .the person who owns this land and whoever. . .if it’s anything other than voluntary, then you got to follow the notice requirements. You have to decide first if you believe the property’s been neglected . . make it official. . and then you give them 30 days notice to fix it. Baker added, and then we’ll charge them for the removal if they don’t do it. . . .all cost shall be. Barbin said, you may do this clean up, but if you do the clean up it says the costs shall be assessed. Now. . if there’s no cost. . there have been options. . let’s call a spade a spade. . if you find a way to do it without much cost, there may not be much cost to assess. Stephens asked, this doesn’t need done till next month. . is that correct? Barbin said, well between Dave and I. . Dave can do some checking with the property owners and I can write up the legal options. . if that’s what you want. . if that’s what the three of you want, we can do that. . we can spell it all out. I just want to remind you. . if we’re going to go on without the permission of the property owner, you got to follow these procedures. Lauffer said, Memorial Day’s coming up. . what are the legalities. . what problems would there be for some of us to go there and put flags on the graves of American Veterans? Barbin replied, I would talk to the property owner. If your not a family member, I’d talk to the property owner. Lauffer answered, all Veterans are family. I would like to know if that’s possible. Barbin said, I’m not going to give you permission go on someone’s private property. .I can’t do that. Albright asked, is this the only cemeteries where the Veterans are?. . there are other cemeteries in the Township. Stephens answered, those are the only two I’m aware of Bob. Albright said, there’s a cemetery up by Mt. Olive Church. Chairman Bracken said, I think there’s another cemetery in Jackson Township but you can only get to it through Vintondale. McDowell said, I think the one in Vintondale that you mentioned is pretty well taken care of and there seems to be no problem getting access too. As to the one by Mt. Olive Church, I’m not aware of any Veterans being buried there. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be preserved. Baker said, I think it’s abundantly clear that there’s more than enough people willing to do something up there. The respect the Veterans deserve. . you can’t put a limit on that. I think the problem here is everybody comes back to "if the property owner". The property owner may not want to donate the property. It’s been 50 years since you’ve been there? You don’t know it’s in disarray. Stephens replied, I had four people. . . Baker said, I understand that but if we go back to February of ‘03. The property owners of both cemeteries felt that they were being maintained. They both said that they were not opposed to anybody coming in and they were not opposed to any volunteer help. The Conservancy was there. . they offered and said that it’s something that they do and they’re willing to adopt or take over cemeteries. It’s in the minutes there. The Historical Society. . and I’m not completely 100% sure of what their ability is legally, financially but that’s something that they can also do and an Historical Society can receive grant money as well as the Conservancy to maintain cemeteries. 3 ½ years have gone by so I thought that they were still up to someone’s standards. I think what we need to do is go back to the property owners before we start imposing or trying to impose or make any rules on these people, we ought to get their feelings. It says right in the minutes that they’re all welcome here. Now. . in talking with the Solicitor he says. . . you’re saying you don’t know if it’s locked. . .but a post and chain method of keeping somebody out doesn’t mean that they’re allowed to drive in there but perhaps they can walk back there. I wouldn’t jump to conclusions. Barbin said, you don’t want to jump to a conclusion one way or the other before you know. Baker said, before we ask the Manager to do something that may be above his expertise, why don’t we table this and get yourself to head up . . get these guys in Veterans groups and such over to see the property owners and I’m sure they’re going to welcome them with open arms. Mrs. Dickert said. . and it’s her front yard. . .has anyone seem the one on Lyle. . the Brown Cemetery over there? It’s their front yard. . . it’s not a difficult thing to get to. Stephens said, I was there today. There’s weeds grown up on the front side. . .if you’re facing the cemetery from the road, on the left side, it was mowed but nothing was mowed over on the right. You could see the tombstones . . . grass up 2 ½ feet tall right now. Baker said, Bill, you said you would be willing to head up a Veterans group? Rummel replied, yes sir. Baker asked, would you be willing to take this as a task and visit these property owners and see. . . this is a great group of guys here. . I know what you Veterans are capable of doing. Rummel said, I’d be willing to talk to them and one thing we can’t lose sight of here. . . Congress set Memorial Day up to honor Veterans and dead patriots. . . we can all talk about what we’re doing, but there’s no discussion about what they did. . they gave their lives for their Country. We’re ordered by Congress to honor them and we do. I got to be honest Bruce. . we live in a Country when you walk up and see a no trespassing sign whether you’re allowed to go by it or not. . . no trespassing means we’re not allowed back there to honor our fallen Vets. Baker said, I think Mr. Ditchcreek had mentioned that same problem or issue you’re talking about with the signs. That was in hopes of keeping vandals out. It’s perfectly clear he does not restrict anybody from going back there. Barbin said, if you don’t want to make the motion to include these aggressive options. . but you make the motion for Dave to contact the property owners and ask them if they’d be willing to have some Veterans come out on Memorial Day and provide some assistance in taking care of it and that one, everybody clearly agrees with and there’s nothing negative. . .there’s no possibility of that being turned into taking their land and anything bad. Stephens said, this isn’t a clear cut case. . it’s gone on like this for fifty years that I know of. Right now I want to know. . can you get permission for the three Supervisors to go on that property and visually inspect that cemetery? Barbin said, the three Supervisors acting together as the Board of Supervisors have a right to go and inspect cemeteries because that’s the only way you could make your determination to see if it’s been neglected or not. You three have the right to go on them. . . not every Tom, Dick and Harry. I’m not telling you that I know the law on cemeteries. . I’m not up on it. I’m not telling you but I’m not totally telling you yes either. If I say something, I want it to be true. I’m not comfortable enough to say yes. . . but you three certainly have the right to carry out. . you have a statutory duty to determine if they’re neglected or not. Stephens asked, could we do that tomorrow morning? Baker answered, absolutely. Stephens said, pick a time. Bracken said, it would have to be 7 o’clock. Stephens said, I’ll be here at 6:30. Baker asked, do you want to call Mr. Ditchcreek and Mrs. Dickert to see if we can come in? Barbin said, you should call ahead of time for politeness. Baker said, we’ll call them this evening after the meeting. Stephens said, we’ll go up and inspect it ourselves. But something concrete has to be done here and established. This business of just letting it go down to the property owner to get out and make a determination. . .they made a determination for fifty years that I know of, but it’s not adequate in my opinion. Barbin added, and there’s a mechanism in the Code to do it but the problem is it’s a bit harsh. Baker said, that’s my point. . .I want to clarify it to the property owners before we do it. . that’s my only concern. We’ll call the property owners this evening and talk to them tomorrow. Motion Baker, second Bracken to table this until we make that visit. Kasecky asked, would it be possible for the VFW to go out Memorial Day and fix it up? Baker replied, sure and we’ll even ask them if they need attention now, we’ll ask if we can enter and do some maintenance work between now and Monday. Kasecky added, ask them if we can drive back there. Baker replied, I’m sure if he knows who it is, he’d be willing. A vote was then taken on tabling this motion. Vote - Baker & Bracken-yes, Stephens-no. Barbin said, anybody who wants contacted, let us know. . .because the more volunteers the better.

New Business:
The Board of Supervisors reviewed the Paving Bids received. Bids were received from Grannas Brothers, HRI, New Enterprise Stone & Line and Quaker Sales. Of the bids, it was determined that Grannas Brothers had the low bid at $55.60 per ton. Solicitor Barbin determined that all the bidders had the proper paperwork and documents in order.

Motion Stephens, second Baker to award bid for paving to Grannas Brothers for Road Projects scheduled for 2006. Vote-3 yes.

The Board of Supervisors reviewed the "Seal Coat" Bids received. Bids were received from HRI, New Enterprise Stone & Lime and Russell Standard. Of the bids, it was determined that New Enterprise Stone & Lime had the low bid at 78 cents per square yard. Solicitor Barbin determined that all the bidders had the proper paperwork and documents in order. Supervisor Baker said the double seal coat and prime coat wouldn’t apply as it was for a road that we thought we would be doing but now can’t.

Motion Stephens, second Baker to award bid for "Seal Coat" to New Enterprise Stone & Lime Company for Road Projects scheduled for 2006. Vote-3 yes.

The Board of Supervisors reviewed the Miscellaneous Materials bids received. Bids were received from Grannas Brothers, HRI, New Enterprise Stone & Lime and Quaker Sales. Of the bids received it was determined that Grannas Brothers had the lowest bid prices on all of the miscellaneous stone items. On the paving, a discussion took place and it was said that the Superpave would be picked up by our road workers. With Grannas Brothers or New Enterprise we couldn’t run a truck to Hollidaysburg or Roaring Spring for the difference in the price of the Superpave. It was questioned which location would be closer of HRI and Quaker Sales. It was agreed that the distance was about the same so the decision would come down to price. Of the bids, it was determined that on price, HRI had the low bid on Superpave Wearing Course 19.0 mm at $39.50 per ton and on Superpave Base Course 25.0 mm at $37.00 per ton. Quaker Sales had the low bid on Superpave Wearing Course 9.5 mm at $44.00 per ton. Solicitor Barbin determined that all the bidders had the proper paperwork and documents in order.

Motion Baker, second Stephens to award the 9.5 Superpave Wearing Course to Quaker Sales, the 19.0 Superpave Wearing Course and 25.0 Superpave Base Course to HRI and Miscellaneous Stone to Grannas Brothers. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Stephens, second Baker to approve license for temporary use of the property of Sara Jane Lecky on Saturday, July 15, 2006 for the purpose of holding a fireworks display during the Jackson Heritage Festival. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Stephens, second Baker to approve request from Tammy Grimes, founder of the non-profit group "Dogs Deserve Better" to use Leidy Park from June 28 through July 17, 2006 for a fundraising event. This is contingent upon this group providing the proper liability insurance and signing a waiver to use the facility. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Stephens, second Baker to approve the filing of an application with PennDOT for a permit to install and operate flashing warning devices to be erected along Pike Road in the area of the Cambria County Christian School which is being designated as a school zone. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Baker, second Stephens to approve the purchase of a 2006 Ford Crown Victoria Police Cruiser with accessories for the amount of $27,530.00 from Warnock Fleet & Leasing on the Pennsylvania COSTARS Purchasing Program. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Baker, second Stephens to approve Chief Fatula’s request to permit Jackson Township part-time officers to utilize their duty belt and weapon while employed by other local police departments, under the condition that any discharge of the gun be recorded with Chief Fatula and ammunition expended outside of the duties for the Jackson Township Police Department be promptly replaced. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Baker, second Bracken to authorize Solicitor to proceed with Amendment to Ordinance # 47 requiring that all structures within 250 feet of a water line adjacent to their property currently not connected to the public water system must connect before a new property owner takes possession. Vote- Baker & Bracken-yes, Stephens-no. Supervisor Stephens said, this whole thing of 250 feet. . originally sewer and water started off at 150 feet to my recollection. . it was 200 . . now they want to get out and up it to 250 feet. Where’s it going to end? That’s my reason to vote no. Supervisor Baker asked, isn’t that what you thought was a good idea and agreed to at our joint meeting? Stephens answered, not 250 feet. Baker said, it’s that way now. . what this was people who were there before this Ordinance. . once they sell. . . you were in favor of that? Stephens said, they’re getting their foot in the door. Solicitor Barbin said the old Ordinance had no distance limit. . it said if a water line touches your property you have to connect for water. . not sewer. . .sewer is 250 feet, but the old Ordinance said if it touches your property, we’re going to connect you no matter how far back you are. Stephens said, there were exemptions to certain roads. Barbin said, there was an exception that said pre-existing homes that weren’t already connected don’t have to connect. What you’re doing is taking that out and rather than keep it any distance, it’s actually being limited to 250 feet. Actually 150 feet for sewer is written right in the Code. Water doesn’t have any limit. Someone said that it had been taken out now. Stephens said, there was somewhere in the water that I read it had 200 on some thing. Barbin said, there’s no specific requirement now. There may be other places that have it but this is Jackson Township Water Authority.

Motion Stephens, second Baker on transferring $ 25,475.02 from the Capital Reserve Fund to the General Fund - $8,496.90 to Pashek Associates for work done on Recreation Master Plan, $5,575.00 to Richard Sutter & Associates for planning & consulting services, $5,373.00 to Naugle Insurance for May Premium, $5,076.12 to Martin Oil for April fuel and heating oil and $954.00 to Kaza Fire Equipment for fire extinguishers at Municipal Buildings. Vote-3 yes.

Motion Stephens, second Baker on approving the time sheets from April 23, 2006 through May 6, 2006 and May 7, 2006 through May 20, 2006. Vote-3 yes.

Other New Business:
(None)

Public Comments:
Ed Nischalke spoke on Ordinance # 131. He said, I need a little guidance or interpretation on portable toilets, port-a-johns. . . where do I go to get a permit? Barbin asked, for temporary sewage facilities? Nischalke said, yes. . I’m having a party and have a port-a-john. Barbin said, I’m not sure if they really require it, it could be just with the Township if it’s for the weekend. Everything else under there you would go to the Sewage Enforcement Office for Cambria County. I just wasn’t sure about temporary port-a-johns. George Burkey said, I don’t mean to interrupt you but I don’t if the owner would have permits for those units. Barbin said, when we passed Ordinance # 131, it says you have to get a permit. Nischalke said, I don’t know if the owner of those port-a-johns would have a permit covering. . .Barbin said, you need a Township Permit but we delegate our responsibility to the Sewage Enforcement Officer. Nischalke asked, do you guys have permits for yours?. . Leidy Field and Mitchell? Barbin answered, no . .we’re a Governmental Regulating Agency. Nischalke said, then you don’t need one? Barbin said, no, we don’t have to give ourselves one. Nischalke said, it’s the same with the Festival where it says. . I’m attending your Festival. . . you expect more than 500 people are going to be there. . your Ordinance says you have to have a permit if you’re expecting more than 500 people. Barbin said, but a Township doesn’t have to give itself a permit. We’re the ones who are responsible in the end. Act 537 says Jackson Township is responsible for sewage on anybody’s property for any problem that comes up. We have to make good on what somebody might do bad sewage wise. We can be responsible to clean it up. . the DEP has the right to order us to take care of malfunctioning sewage. We have regulations and permits to see that it’s handled in a way that’s unlikely to cause problems. We don’t have to give ourselves a permit because we’re responsible for ourselves no matter what. The whole point is that you don’t have bad sewage. . it’s not to make trouble. . .it’s to insure that sewage is properly disposed of. Steve Yurasek said, when I get a job, I have to get a port-a-john emptied every so often on the job site. There’s nothing said about any permits to be gotten. We just have a contract for port-a-johns and they have to agree to clean them once a week. The City of Johnstown has never required a permit. We tore down many buildings where we had to have a port-a-john on that site. Barbin said, I don’t know the City regulations on that. . I know this came up a couple of years ago in another Township where a guy made a little park on a 60' x 150' property up on Frankstown Road and put the port-a-john right up on the property line and left it there all summer. The Township decided port-a-johns warranted some sort of regulation and I’ve been putting them into the ordinances. Whenever I do sewage ordinances. . the same ordinance that has holding tanks for people and the bond. . the holding tank for commercial operations. . the port-a-john regulations go into every ordinance I do right now and any other regulations. Yurasek said, I did a job where we were responsible for putting in our own port-a-john and not in the facilities of the park. We set those up on the end of the parking lot. Nobody had any complaints. . nobody had any permits. . . and that was State & Federal money. Barbin said, the Township chose to make a regulation and I’m saying that they did it because I recommended it because I ran into a problem some years ago and the Township chose to have regulations on port-a-johns. . . and mostly so it doesn’t end up being a permanent fixture on the property. It’s a legitimate concern. . . . you put it in temporarily and take it out. .that’s one thing. . but what happens when you put one in for a long time? Who’s checking to see that it’s taken care of? It’s an item for regulation. . the Township could regulate it, or you guys could abolish the regulation if you didn’t think it was important. Yurasek said, as long as you rent a port-a-john, they’ll clean it once a week as long as you’re paying the bill. That paperwork could be turned over to the Township. They know what’s going on and if it’s not being done. . . Barbin said, I don’t have the ordinance right in front of me and I don’t remember all the terms of it. Nischalke asked, shouldn’t the Ordinance spell out what the permit requirements are? It spells it out for the holding tank. It doesn’t really say where you go to get them. Barbin said, if it doesn’t have no fee established either by ordinance or resolution. . it’s up to the Township to establish a fee. If they haven’t established a fee, there is no fee. The law always rules in the citizens favor to the extent that it doesn’t say otherwise. Yurasek said, I must have broke the law for a lot of years then. I had a pig roast down on my farm for twenty some years and I always got a port-a-john because my septic system wouldn’t handle that amount of people. Nobody ever told me I was in violation.

Adjournment:
Motion Baker, second Stephens to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Vote-3 yes.