MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 MINUTES. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Greg Erosenko.

Transcription

1 MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 MINUTES The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Greg Erosenko. LORD S PRAYER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Lord s Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were recited at this time. ROLL CALL The Recording Secretary, Sharon McIndoe, called roll and the following were present: Mayor Erosenko, Bernhard Erb, Nick Gresock, Lois Drumheller, Jim Johns, Diane Allison, Steve Duncan, Clarence Ramsey, Lynette McKinney, Bruce Dice, Paul Hugus, Susan Werksman and Jamie Storey. EXECUTIVE SESSION Council conducted an executive session during the February 9, 2012 Work Session between 9:45 p.m. and 10:20 p.m. to discuss Taylor Street and clerical negotiations. No official action was taken by council. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE 11-1-C(R) LEVIN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP/ GRACE LIFE CHURCH Ms. Janice Olszewski, a resident of 101 Asbury Court, came forward to express her concerns. She inquired who requested this issue be placed on the agenda and Mayor Erosenko indicated it was the manager and himself. She asserted when the resolution was passed there were conditional issues related to the development of the site including the DEP, the water issues, grading and the applicant should get bonding before an occupancy permit is issued. She reported she lives in the fourth ward and passes the facility daily so she noticed they are working inside but she was unaware that they had a permit. She questioned when the permit was issued and Mr. Hugus was uncertain of the exact date but estimated it to be a week or ten days ago. Mayor Erosenko clarified no occupancy permit was issued. Ms. Olszewski pointed out that they need the bond in place before the building permit is issued. Mayor Erosenko explained if they did not get the building permit they could not get the funding for the bonding which is why they requested the variance. Ms. Olszewski inquired how it was granted to them before a

2 Regular Meeting 2 February 14, 2012 public meeting was held to discuss issuing the permit. Mayor Erosenko indicated that was answered. Mrs. Drumheller disagreed because no one on council was aware a permit was issued. Ms. Olszewski indicated one of the conditions of the resolution passed by council was that the applicant had to have a bond in place before a building permit was issued and it would have to be satisfied or a variance would be needed which would have to be granted at a public meeting by council. She indicated council has to approve it before a permit can be issued. Mayor Erosenko answered the prior manager approved it and Ms. Olszewski questioned whether he had the authority to do that. Mr. Dice reported the prior manager polled council via and received affirmation of a majority or super majority of council to proceed to do it. He indicated when he received the okay then he directed Mr. Hugus to issue the permit and it would be affirmed at the next meeting. Ms. Olszewski questioned whether that is in direct violation of the Sunshine Act. Mrs. Drumheller took issue with that. Mrs. Allison indicated that she responded to it and Mr. Hugus issued a statement in an which she pointed out any vote or action should be done at a public meet. She stated what was polled was if anyone was willing to address it but she indicated a vote would have to take place at the council meeting and no action could be taken until after council votes. She pointed out an action was taken prior to a vote and Mr. Little had no authority to take that action on behalf of a polled vote, straw vote or an vote. She indicated no vote of council is permitted other than at a public meeting so no action should be taken whatsoever until it is voted on publically at a council meeting. Ms. Olszewski questioned whether a permit should not have been issued and Mrs. Allison answered affirmatively. Mrs. Drumheller added she saved her s since the work session when she was informed of this issue. She reported an from the manager at that time informed her that he had just spoke with the mayor and the mayor informed him that he contacted council members and five of them answered affirmatively in releasing the building permit for Grace Life Church. She indicated her immediate response was that although the mayor has the right to speak to anyone what was the purpose of the tally because announcing the decision by any number of council members should occur during a public meeting and is inappropriate in an . Ms. Olszewski stated it was issued in violation and Mayor Erosenko disagreed and felt he has the right to request comments from council on issues. Ms. Olszewski clarified that the issuance of a building permit was probably in violation. She felt if the municipality starts to grant variances for resolutions that have already passed by the agreement of council then it would set precedent. She explained her church had a large building program but never requested any special treatment for any variances. She pointed out no other church in the community has requested it; Mr. Hugus concurred. She suggested this was setting a precedent that is in violation to the Sunshine Act and without the knowledge of council. She disagreed with that action and she could not understand why a poll was taken and acted upon. She asserted council has been discussing for the last month about how council should work together.

3 Regular Meeting 3 February 14, 2012 Pastor Bruce Schafer from Grace Life Church came forward to express his concerns. He felt the overall benefit of pushing things is to maybe help the people in the community put a church in whether it is done before or not. He pointed out they have been in the community for 15 years trying to help people. He expressed his gratitude to the mayor, Mr. Hugus and Mr. Ciufo. He suggested council should look at the overall project and make an educated decision about whether or not it is a good thing for the community. He stated if it is a political game they could just stop and go to Westmoreland County. He reported he has been begging businesses to come to Monroeville to work in the homes, residences and business but they respond that there is too much red tape. He wanted them to see that he is part of a community where that is taking place and they can work together to resolve the issues. He referred to the comment that something was done illegally. He felt government is for the people not for political moves. He reported their goal is to save people from divorce and drug addiction and a majority of them live in Monroeville. He indicated they are not looking for a handout but they are working with Levin Partnership and he clarified that no one is slipping in the back door to create any problems. Pastor Schafer explained the issue is that they have lights and parking access, retention ponds and all the codes have been met and the requirements have been met within the blueprints of Chester Engineering to see this move forward. He stated they have a limited amount of resources as they sought for the permit to build out the inside to get the value to $1.2 million which Levin Furniture needs to get a tax write off. He reported the generous people who have crossed hurtles in Monroeville would like to see this church go in there. He pointed out the retention issues are costing $200,000 more than expected and they want to get the deed transferred quicker so if they could create that value, they would not have to put up the $180,000 and they would have the bond in place before they do any work on the parking lot and earth moving. He pointed out they are only looking for a one to two month opportunity to create the value on the inside of the building to $1.2 million so the deed can be transferred and the funding can be put in place so the bonding can be put in place and the project will move forward. He was hopeful that everyone could work together to try to bring this project to pass. Mr. Erb was concerned that the action of getting a building permit was taken without council taking a vote. He explained the variance needed council s approval which could only happen at this meeting before the building permit was issued. He stated regardless of the value and the importance of the project and doing something in the vacant Levin Furniture Store, the issue is the manager did not have the authority to issue a building permit. He stated that authority can only be granted through a public council vote, not a discussion with each individual council member. He again stated the procedure followed by the manager is the question not the value of the project. Mr. Erb questioned why the applicant could not have waited a week and Pastor Schafer indicated they have been pushing for this permit for a while. He contended that whatever resolution the manager came to, they paid the fee and were handed the permit. He asserted council has to make that decision at this time regardless of the manager s actions. He indicated they did work inside before hand and all they did was seal the building and put windows in so they could retain heat so the working sprinkler system

4 Regular Meeting 4 February 14, 2012 would not freeze. He stated they were very clear and the inspectors walked through the site so they were not doing anything they were not allowed to do. Mrs. Allison questioned in the developer s agreement prior to getting a building permit whether they are required to post a bond. Mr. Hugus explained a bond has to be put in place in order to execute a developer s agreement because the bond amount in the developer s agreement go hand in hand. Mrs. Allison inquired whether the bond amount was posted and Mr. Hugus answered he has the bond amount but not the bond itself. Mrs. Allison questioned whether the municipality should have the bond and Mr. Hugus answered affirmatively. Mrs. Allison inquired whether the municipality needed to grant an exception to get the building permit which council was to vote on at that meeting. Pastor Schafer indicated they were trying to get a waiver of the bond. Mrs. Allison explained it is required in the developer s agreement that the applicant has to have the bond in place for the applicant to get a building permit so council is voting on allowing them to get the building permit without the bond; Pastor Schafer concurred. Mrs. Allison indicated the problem is that is council should be voting on it at this time but the applicant received it prior to approval. She pointed out the applicant did not just do everything and pay for it, the issue is that the bond is not in place which the applicant is requesting an exception. Pastor Schafer further explained the former manager indicated that they did everything legally by requesting the waiver and they were given the permit and whether anything done behind the scenes was illegal, they were told they did everything required. Mrs. Allison again stated the applicant needed to have the waiver first and the applicant was granted the permit before the waiver. Mr. Erb agreed that no one is questioning the applicant s actions. Further discussion ensued regarding the actions taken and the timeframes of the church. Mr. Bob Stevenson, a resident of 520 Cottage Lane, came forward to thank everyone on council for what they do. He felt this problem was a mess and could have been averted if there had been better communication between the director of building and planning and the interim manager. He suggested staff should have informed the acting municipal manager about what happened but since it did not happen, council was uninformed. Further discussion ensued. Whereupon, the public hearing concluded. RESOLUTION 12-7 CONDITIONAL USE 11-1-C (R) LEVIN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP/ GRACE LIFE CHURCH The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 17,775 square foot furniture store into a church and the new installation of 18 parking spaces with Parcel 1107-F-343 and 32 parking spaces with Parcel 1107-F The proposed development is located at 4761 William Penn Highway, Allegheny

5 Regular Meeting 5 February 14, 2012 County Parcel ID Nos F-343, 1107-F-356 and on three parcels totaling 2.49 acres I the C-2, Business Commercial Zoning District. RESOLUTION 12-7 SITE PLAN 11-2-ST(R) LEVIN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP GRACE LIFE CHURCH The applicant is requesting site plan approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 17,775 square foot furniture store into a church. The proposed development is located at 4761 William Penn Highway, Allegheny County Block and Lot Nos F- 343, 1107-F-356 and 1107-F-368 on three parcels totaling 2.49 acres in the C-2, Business/Commercial Zoning District. Mr. Dice inquired whether there should be a motion to waive the requirements for posting a bond. Mr. Hugus clarified that the building permit was removed from Condition Nos. 3 and 9 in the site plan; and the building permit was removed from Condition Nos. 3 and 6 for the conditional use. He stated everything remains the same with those two applications except the building permit was extracted from those resolutions. Mr. Dice questioned whether a motion would be to approve these applications and Mr. Hugus pointed out that these applications are revisions as designated with the (R) following the numbers. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Hugus explained the (R) designates a revision which was the extraction of the building permit from these conditions of approval. Mr. Dice was concerned because it does not specifically state anything was changed and it only shows an (R). He felt it needs to be stated in clear terms that the requirement for the building permit is being removed which is connected to the posting of a bond. Mr. Hugus stated the building permit was extracted from the two resolutions. Mr. Dice clarified that the new, revised resolution does not have a building permit condition and Mr. Hugus concurred. Mr. Erb further clarified that the building permit requirement has been removed from the conditional use and to allow the building permit without the bond has been removed from the second one. Mr. Hugus further explained Item No. 2 is the site plan resolution and the conditions of approval Nos. 3 and 9 the building permit were removed from those resolutions to allow for the building permit to be issued. Mr. Erb explained the issue is not whether council was informed on Thursday morning or not but that action was taken without authority granted by council. He stated this action could only occur once this vote takes place if the vote affirms the conditional

6 Regular Meeting 6 February 14, 2012 use and site plan. He indicated council was not thrown under the bus by the staff and they have been professional throughout the process. Whereupon, Mr. Erb duly made the motion to approve Conditional Use 11-1-C (R) allowing the building permit and eliminating the requirement for the bond for the building permit. Mr. Johns seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried with five affirmative votes and two negative votes. The voting was as follows: Merrs. Erb, Gresock, Johns, Duncan and Ramsey voted affirmatively; Mrs. Drumheller and Mrs. Allison voted negatively. Further, Mr. Johns duly made a motion to approve Site Plan 11-2-ST(R) with the same revisions and Mr. Duncan seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried with five affirmative votes and two negative votes. The voting was as follows: Merrs. Erb, Gresock, Johns, Duncan and Ramsey voted affirmatively; Mrs. Drumheller and Mrs. Allison voted negatively. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There being no corrections, additions or deletions to the minutes of the Public Budget Meeting of December 6, 2011, Reorganizational Meeting of January 3, 2012, Citizens Night Meeting of January 5, 2012 and Work Session of January 5, 2012, a motion was duly made to approve those minutes, as submitted, and Mr. Johns seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF REPORTS OF TAX COLLECTIONS There being no comments or questions, a motion was duly made by Mrs. Drumheller to approve the Reports of Tax Collections and Mr. Erb seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. LIST OF BILLS, BUDGET TRANSFERS AND PAYROLL Council then considered approval of the List of Bills in the amount of $1,481,069.10, Budget Transfers and Payroll in the amount of $879, Whereupon, Mr. Erb duly made a motion to approve the payroll and Mrs. Drumheller seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. Further, a motion was duly made to approve the list of bills and budget transfers and Mr. Johns seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously.

7 Regular Meeting 7 February 14, 2012 VACANCIES OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND AUTHORITIES CONVENTION VISITORS BUREAU Whereupon, Mr. Duncan duly made a motion to nominate Mrs. Amanda Settlemaier to the Convention Visitors Bureau and Mr. Erb seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. LIBRARY BOARD Furthermore, Dr. Gresock duly made a motion to nominate Ms. Anne Marie Morgante from Ward Two to the Library Board and Mrs. Drumheller seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION Further, Dr. Gresock duly made a motion to nominate Dr. Daren Morgante from Ward Two to the Planning Commission and Mrs. Drumheller seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. OPEB TRUST COMMITTEE There being no further discussion, Mrs. Drumheller duly made a motion to appoint per the nominations of the non-uniformed employee Mr. Mark Ciufo and Dr. Gresock seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Furthermore, Mrs. Drumheller duly made a motion to appoint Mr. Rob Pioth as the uniformed police employee retiree and Mr. Erb seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. BIDS AND PROPOSALS Traffic engineering services for the intersection of Jamison Lane/Oxford Drive and Monroeville Boulevard ADA/traffic signal upgrade construction plan. Mr. Hugus reported this is a proposal from HRG, the municipal traffic engineers for engineering services to prepare the bid specifications and drawings for the ADA upgrades of the traffic signal of Jamison Lane/Oxford Drive. He stated this is an approved capital improvements project. There being no discussion, Mrs. Allison duly made a motion to approve the bid and Mr. Duncan seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously.

8 Regular Meeting 8 February 14, 2012 FIRE ENGINE FIRE COMPANY NO. 1 Specifications for a Type II Pumper for Fire Company No. 1. The Monroeville Fire Chiefs Committee approved a set of written specifications for the replacement of the 1993 SEAGRAVE Pumper which is scheduled for this budget year. These specifications are consistent with the fire serves as well as NFPA, ISO needs of the community and have been prepared with reference to existing and past specifications where applicable. The final COSTARS price will be $603,653 with the prepay option of $587,723. Mayor Erosenko reported this item was discussed at the work session. There being no further discussion, Mr. Erb duly made a motion to approve the fire engine for Fire Company No. 1 and Mrs. Allison and Mrs. Drumheller seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS GEORGIANNE WOODHALL Mrs. Georgianne Woodhall, a resident of 4560 Broadway Boulevard, came forward to submit the advertisement from the redevelopment authority from 2008 when she was on the board with Marilyn Skolnick and Diane Allison. She stated it reflected what they paid to advertise their meetings. She reported that she requested council at citizen s night to not reimburse that advertising expense of $ She asserted this was between the mayor and Mr. Little and the manager was informed he was not in a position to advertise for the RDA. She indicated she also made it clear to Mr. Wilson at the RDA meetings and submitted a copy of the $15.53 bill for the Times Express advertising for the year and another $15 bill for the cancellation of a meeting. She felt it was completely unnecessary to spend $194 and expect to be reimbursed by the taxpayers of Monroeville. She stated it is not a debt of the redevelopment authority under the urban redevelopment law and there is no reason to reimburse for the expense. Mrs. Woodhall wanted to clarify something for the record about a statement made by the mayor that when she was on the RDA that she was for the redevelopment authority board. She stated that is a completely false statement and she referred to the minutes of October 2007 through January of 2008 where it clearly reflects her feelings about the creation of the RDA. Mayor Erosenko inquired what agenda item was being addressed because this section was for agenda items only. Mrs. Woodhall answered it is under the manager s report. Mrs. Woodhall continued and referred to another remark about when she chaired the RDA she did not have a problem with eminent domain. She reported they did not have any meetings because they had no money. She indicated she read the article twice to council, The End of Eminent Domain Error and she made reference to the Keylo Case. She stated specifically at two different meetings that as long as she was on the RDA with

9 Regular Meeting 9 February 14, 2012 Mrs. Allison and Mrs. Skolnick that no one had to worry about any use or abuse of eminent domain. Again, she indicated she wanted to make it clear for the record. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION 12-8 A resolution relative to the procurement of professional services for the municipal pension system(s) sponsored by the Municipality of Monroeville based on the requirements of Act 44 of Mrs. McKinney reported this is a housekeeping item that was prepared by Mockenhaupt. Mr. Dice added all the municipalities are doing it. There being no further discussion, Mrs. Drumheller duly made a motion to approve the resolution, as read, and Mrs. Allison seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION 12-9 A resolution authorizing the advertising for bids for the 2012 Road Resurfacing Proram for the attached list of roadways throughout the Municipality of Monroeville. Mrs. McKinney reported this was discussed at the work session and prepared by Mr. Hugus. There being no further discussion, Mr. Erb duly made a motion to approve the resolution and Mr. Johns seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION A resolution authorizing the municipal manager to enter into an agreement for the Municipality of Monroeville with Southwestern Corporation for the Regional Traffic Signal Program. Mrs. McKinney reported this is a grant the director of building and planning obtained for the municipality. Whereupon, Mrs. Drumheller duly made a motion to approve the resolution and Dr. Gresock seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously.

10 Regular Meeting 10 February 14, 2012 RESOLUTION A resolution authorizing Wheels Mechanical to perform night time improvements of Monroeville Chrysler Jeep storm sewer repair work located at 3721 William Penn Highway to minimize the impact on the high volumes of day time traffic and enhance traffic safety on Route 22. Whereupon, Mr. Johns duly made a motion to approve this resolution and Mrs. Allison seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION A resolution expressing opposition to the ongoing court ordered reassessment and asking the court of common pleas to stop the process immediately; calling upon the governor and general assembly to impose a statewide moratorium on singled out, court ordered county reassessments; and calling upon the governor and general assembly to enact comprehensive legislation that provides for a uniform statewide system for establishing property values among all counties in the commonwealth so that all residents, businesses, governments and school districts are afforded the stability, certainty and fairness. Whereupon, a motion was duly made by Mrs. Drumheller to approve the resolution and Mr. Johns seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION A resolution approving expenditures from the police asset seizure fund. There being no further discussion, a motion was duly made by Mr. Erb to approve the resolution and Mrs. Allison seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION A resolution stating opposition to preemption of zoning authority by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania relating to gas drilling as presented in House Bill No Whereupon, Mrs. Drumheller duly made a motion to approve the resolution and Mrs. Allison seconded it. Mrs. Drumheller explained the reason she is presenting this information prior to the vote that informs the state of displeasure of the municipality over HB 1950 has nothing to do with natural gas industries establishing themselves responsibly in the state.

11 Regular Meeting 11 February 14, 2012 She agreed that if something is done responsibly which is a major reason for having a zoning ordinance in place the municipality should welcome that responsible development. She presented a description of House Bill 1950 by one of its proponents in the general assembly from the 62 District which describes it, as establishing an impact fee dedicated to offsetting the affects of local communities where drilling is occurring, enhancing water protections, environmental safeguards, increasing fines and penalties, funding environmental programs and conservation districts and preserving local control. Counties would have the ability to impose an annual fee depending the price of natural gas over the next 15 years collected and distributed by the public utilities commission. She stated it is known as House Bill 1950 which has two parts. She read fees from the gas and oil industry is for the distribution and local zoning preemption. It deals with the fees that the State of Pennsylvania proposed to extract from gas drillers and then how those fees are distributed between state agencies and counties. The more serious issue is the law s affect on local preemption because it takes away the municipality s rights to enforce zoning regulations to the oil and gas industry. Municipalities govern through two mechanisms and largely it s zoning authority and the comprehensive plan providing for health, safety and welfare for citizens, orderly development of the municipality and those responsibilities are executed through the authority. This takes away the ability to affective carry out what the municipality s zoning ordinance would expect of this particular industry. It replaces it with a one-size-fits-all state zoning for oil and gas regulation. Not all municipalities have the same concerns, characteristics or demographics. By zoning preemption, the law really concerns many people who have been talking about it since October, November and December. She stated the most serious action comes when a local ordinance is stricter than the new state law. She indicated this introduces something that all municipalities are likely to challenge based on the updated ordinances that she has reviewed and she requested the solicitor to review. She asserted if the municipality challenges the state through the public utilities commission or the attorney general about how oil and gas industries should comply with the municipality s ordinance, the arbitrator that makes the decision will work for the state. She explained if the PUC deems that the local ordinance does not comply or is more stringent than this law, it not only creates a state entity that becomes the attorney for the plaintiff, it also means that the municipality s zoning ordinance is determined to be unreasonable and the municipality may be ineligible for the impact fees generated under the law and make the municipality liable for the legal costs for that battle. She questioned why the state should be the final arbitrator. Mrs. Drumheller made a presentation showing what would happen after the law is passed which states that local governments must authorize gas and oil operations as permitted uses in all zoning districts with the exception of where the compressors are located which is industrial and what decibel noise level is regulated which is approximately 60 decibels. She felt this takes away the power at the local level over what conditions must be satisfied to provide for health, safety and welfare or imposed restrictions such as the hours of operations. She pointed out the municipality could not impose regulations on the gas industry that is not imposed on any other industry within that zoning district that it is in. She stated there is a designation to have the compressor stations in the industrial areas but the municipality cannot impose restrictions on access

12 Regular Meeting 12 February 14, 2012 routes other than what might be imposed by the municipality s planning code or the motor vehicle code. She felt this was significant because there is no area where those routes could not be established. Mrs. Drumheller explained the information that came through the bill on setbacks for the Marcellus Drilling. She reviewed that it adds approximately 100 feet more than the current requirement. She explained 300 feet is not a long district but whether its 300 feet from a structure for a well impoundments or 500 to 1,000 feet from water wells and 1,000 feet from public water supplies is why the municipality has a conditional use which is so important in the ordinances is because it controls something that may or may not be good. She indicated that it also says that if any of these regulations get in the way of anyone who has a gas right from obtaining the gas that the municipality has to grant a variance which she felt was not a rule at all. Mrs. Drumheller was concerned with what the bill does not address such as wall density, or the requirement for the maximum number of well pads, or acres and the distance between ponds. She indicated it is reflected in how density and other shale drilling states have increased and she gave the example of the Barnet Shale in Texas. She pointed out they keep creeping closer and closer together and some only have 250 feet between wells. She explained the split estate where one person owns the surface rights and the other owns the mineral rights under the surface. She stated if a property owner does not own their mineral rights someone else can come and build a gas well on it. She mentioned there is an argument about the elimination of frack ponds and she explained them. She pointed out that is why some local zoning ordinances require frack water to be contained in tanks because it eliminates the barriers for the frack ponds. She indicated frack ponds do not contain themselves and have infiltrated their fluids into soil beds which have reached into biological systems and into the food chain. She reported the law does not address mid-stream regulations which is a gas gathering pipeline. She gave an example that if it was laid across a property of 200 acres like a farm it would take that land out of service and it will never be developed. She stated it adversely impacts future use by restricting development as a result of the industry rules and the land where the pipes are put in cannot be used for a structure. Mrs. Drumheller referred to the quote protect and promote public health, safety, morals, general welfare is from the police powers act guaranteed by the constitution. She explained it applies to the reason behind zoning laws but those police powers by preemption of the bill are no longer controlled by the municipality not when it negates by municipal laws are to where gas and oil are developed, no conditional control causing an uncertainty in future land use. She stated most of the legislators in the general assembly did not understand this preemptive issue and there was discussion to remove it from the bill to make it separate because if it had been included for the first part of the bill, what needed to be done would have been obvious. She felt the issues are technical and not everyone understood them which then left the municipalities to deal with the problems without control of them.

13 Regular Meeting 13 February 14, 2012 Mrs. Drumheller was uncertain how many municipal governments are planning subsequent action with the passage of the bill and the signing by the governor. She requested council join her in opposing House Bill 1950 because of the preemption of zoning authority. She requested an aye vote and for council to sign the letter of opposition with the bill. Mr. Erb indicated that he strongly disagreed with Councilwoman Drumheller. He felt the existing problem with all the regulations at the municipalities is like when the City of Pittsburgh puts a moratorium on all drilling. He pointed out they do not have anywhere to drill except maybe some industrial sites. He suggested preemption is unnecessary because there are not too many places to drill that have the required ten to twelve acres. He explained once the site is complete only one acre is needed to maintain it and only five to ten acres to drill the site. He suggested that practically the things required by this bill cannot be implemented by the industry and felt House Bill 1950 should be supported. He indicated council should support this industry that would bring jobs and wealth to the state for years. He requested council members vote nay and do not sign any letter in opposition to the bill. Mayor Erosenko commented there will be more discussions on this issue if it comes to Monroeville. Mrs. Drumheller explained all the particulars that she mentioned have been discussed but the issues brought out by Mr. Erb have not been addressed by the bill. She suggested absent the language in the bill that she mentioned, it does not have regulations over those items. She felt the problem with the bill is more of what it does not say than what it does and she suggested it was written for the purpose of preemption. She stated that leaves the municipality with once establishing a 300 foot barrier from a standing structure and most residents do not own their mineral rights. She indicated due to the amount of wet gas as opposed to dry natural gas there is a great deal of it throughout southwest of Pennsylvania and anyone can have any zone available given the distance from a structure. She felt that is what the bill says. Whereupon, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with six affirmative votes and one negative vote by Mr. Erb. RESOLUTION A resolution authorizing filing of an application for funds with the RAAC for grant funds in the amount of $75,000 for the Jamison Lane Intersection Signal ADA upgrade. Mrs. McKinney reported this is tied to the proposal approved earlier in the evening and the municipality was not approved during the first round so this is a reapplication.

14 Regular Meeting 14 February 14, 2012 Whereupon, Mrs. Allison duly made a motion to approve the resolution and Mr. Erb seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE 2541 An ordinance repealing Ordinance No and adopting new comprehensive stormwater management provisions for the Municipality of Monroeville pursuant to the Stormwater Management Act 32 P.S. Section There being no further discussion, Mrs. Drumheller duly made a motion to approve the ordinance and Mrs. Allison seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE 2542 An ordinance amending Section 3 of Ordinance 2427 to include the animal control officer as an employee considered to serve in a 24-hour capacity. Whereupon, Mrs. Allison duly made to approve the ordinance and Mr. Duncan seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE 2543 An ordinance relative to the establishment and maintenance of the employees pension annuity, insurance and benefit fund or funds to amend certain provisions of the pension plan or program applicable to the police employees of the Municipality of Monroeville. Furthermore, a motion was duly made by Mrs. Drumheller to approve the ordinance and Mrs. Allison seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT JANICE OLSZEWSKI Ms. Janice Olszewski, a resident of 101 Asbury Court, came forward to express her concerns about the church ordinance. She indicated she is not opposed to the church but felt the municipality has tried to help them by granting variances so the property could be occupied and have a better appearance. She pointed out the municipality spent $12,000 extra in engineering fees to help them along and the standard site plan costs approximately $4,000. She stated the fees for this church was $16,000 and the taxpayers paid the extra $12,000. She suggested the applicant should stand by what has been previously agreed to in the previous approval. She pointed out this set another precedent with another variance and she questioned what would be done when another church requests a variance. She was concerned that the people of the parish want to occupy the

15 Regular Meeting 15 February 14, 2012 building by Easter and that they would not have the exterior work completed. She questioned why there is an issue with the bond because they already have funding in place. She inquired why they did not pay the bond before they got the permit. She indicated the municipality is continually setting precedence by giving variances and she agreed with helping people but the municipality has come to the point of giving them leeway in the amount of engineering fees. She stated they have several other hurtles that have not be addressed with DEP and soil contamination. She disagreed with council giving variances for something that has already been approved. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS MUNICIPAL MANAGER ADVERTISEMENT AUTHORIZATION Mrs. McKinney requested permission to place a half-page advertisement in the Gateway High School Musical Carousel in the amount of $90. Whereupon, Mrs. Drumheller duly made a motion to approve authorization and Mr. Duncan seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. McKinney requested permission to place a quarter-page advertisement in the Gateway Baseball 2012 Program Booklet in the amount of $75. There being no discussion, Mrs. Drumheller duly made a motion to approve the advertisement and Mr. Duncan seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR RDA ADVERTISEMENT FUNDS Mrs. McKinney reported this is a request for reimbursement of RDA advertising funds in the amount of $ to Mr. Thomas Wilson. Whereupon, Mr. Erb duly made a motion to deny and Mrs. Allison seconded it. Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried with five affirmative votes and two negative votes. The voting was as follows: Mr. Erb, Dr. Gresok, Mrs. Allison, Mrs. Drumheller and Mr. Ramsey voted affirmatively; Messrs. Johns and Duncan voted negatively. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mrs. McKinney requested council adjourn to an executive at the end of the meeting to discuss information on network security, personnel matters and possible land acquisition.

16 Regular Meeting 16 February 14, 2012 COUNCIL MEMBER S REPORTS FIRST WARD COUNCILMAN BERNHARD ERB Mr. Erb thanked everyone who attended the meeting and anyone watching on television. He felt it is important and that the residents should stay involved and contact the council members. He sent Valentine s wishes to his wife. SECOND WARD COUNCILMAN NICK GRESOCK Dr. Gresock sent Happy Valentine s Day wishes to his wife and daughter. THIRD WARD COUNCILWOMAN LOIS DRUMHELLER Mrs. Drumheller agreed that it is important to not establish precedence over things that come before council regardless of who it is and how the municipality tries to work with them. She suggested to be fair is all that should be done but she felt it was more troubling to understand how it would have been perceived if the votes occurred by polling. She indicated she voiced her concerns about it being inappropriate at the time. Mrs. Drumheller reported she had tried to get people who wanted an informational meeting for council on the language of the bill. She inquired whether council wanted to meet for the purpose of this information so that their word can be given and all questions answered. She questioned whether council wanted to meet for the purpose of the information inviting the people who have gone to Harrisburg or not. She requested council let her know by the end of the week. Mr. Erb welcomed the meeting publically and have it as an educationally meeting for the entire public. Mrs. Drumheller indicated it was a matter of where and when. A discussion ensued regarding that it be televised. Mr. Duncan inquired whether the informational meeting should have been held before a vote was taken and was uncertain whether a meeting is necessary. Mrs. Drumheller stated this meeting would give detailed information. Mr. Duncan indicated that he is not in opposition but was just questioning it. FOURTH WARD COUNCILMAN JIM JOHNS Mr. Johns thanked the council members for allowing the Grace Life Church to move forward and wished them luck. He also sent Valentine s Day wishes to the pretty ladies. FIFTH WARD COUNCILWOMAN LOIS DRUMHELLER Mrs. Allison reported it was the consensus of council at the work session to have a manager s search committee. She requested a motion of council so she could appoint. Whereupon, Mr. Erb duly made a motion to form a manager s search committee and Mrs. Drumheller seconded it.

17 Regular Meeting 17 February 14, 2012 Mr. Duncan indicated he is not in opposition to the committee but he inquired why all seven council members could not be part of it. He suggested if there were 35 applicants then council could meet to review them and narrow it down to 10 and vote on it at another meeting. Mrs. Drumheller inquired whether there would be a special meeting. Mrs. Allison indicated there would have to be a quorum. Mr. Dice explained there are many ways to do it and he was familiar with the committee approach. He indicated Councilman Duncan inquired whether council could act as a committee of the whole, all seven. He explained a meeting would have to be convened and recessed to executive session because employment issues would be discussed. He felt it would be very time consuming and he anticipated the receipt of more than 50 applications. He stated if council desired all seven members, it could be done. Mr. Erb explained he had asked the same question when the last committee was formed and it was pointed out that the last time a committee of the whole was used to do a search, it took forever because a consensus could not be reached. He felt it would delay the search immeasurably and he agreed with the process used after it was used. He suggested a committee of fewer than four makes sense because it would help move the process forward. Mrs. Allison explained the committee could go through that process but all resumes would be available for all of council to review. Mr. Erb suggested the committee makes sense and he made all the interviews available to everyone. Whereupon, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. Furthermore, Mrs. Allison appointed Councilman Erb, Councilman Johns and herself, Councilwoman Allison and Councilman Erb as the chairman. Mrs. Allison commended the public works department on the great job they did on snow removal this past weekend. She also reported there is a left turn signal for traffic traveling up Stroschein Road turning left onto Monroeville Boulevard for safety reasons. She commended the engineering department and Mr. LaGorga. Mrs. Allison reported Visit Monroeville is looking to expand their number of shuttle bus drivers and anyone with a CDL, Class C can apply. She indicated they are used for weddings and events. She referred everyone to Amy Simmon at Mrs. Allison also reported Visit Monroeville is looking for business owners and restaurant managers to participate in their retail restaurant focus groups. She indicated one is scheduled for February 28 and 29. She referred everyone to contact Donna Bore at the same number. She stated this is a great way for local businesses to share their marketing efforts.

18 Regular Meeting 18 February 14, 2012 Mrs. Allison reviewed the upcoming events at the convention center; February 15-19, Allegheny Sports/Travel and Outdoor Show; February 23-26, Monroeville Home Show; March 2-4, Steel City Con; March 2-4, Spring Show; and March 9-11, Golf Show. Mrs. Allison commended Mrs. McKinney for doing an excellent job as interim manager. She thanked her for her hard work and dedication to the municipality. Mrs. Allison wished everyone a happy Valentine s Day. SIXTH WARD COUNCILMAN STEVE DUNCAN Day. Mr. Duncan wished is wife, daughters and granddaughters happy Valentine s SEVENTH WARD COUNCILMAN CLARENCE RAMSEY Mr. Ramsey wished all of Monroeville a happy Valentine s Day. MAYOR GREG EROSENKO Mayor Erosenko sent everyone in Monroeville a happy Valentine s Day especially his wife and daughter. Mayor Erosenko reported in a couple of weeks an informational meeting will be scheduled for Boyce Campus concerning the reassessments. He indicated some assessors will go to the senior center to assist anyone who needs help before the deadline. He suggested no one waste their time on the informal appeals process and he promised everyone the information would be available on the web and TV. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Erb reported that since he was the only member who still had the records from the previous manager s search, he distributed copies of the minimum qualifications and the previous position profile that was sent. Whereupon, Mr. Erb duly made a motion to recess to executive session. Mr. Dice advised the meeting was to discuss information on network security, personnel matters and possible land acquisition. Mr. Ramsey seconded the motion. Mr. Dice reported there would be no further voting after the executive session. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, LCM/sam Lynette C. McKinney Interim Municipal Manager

19 Regular Meeting 19 February 14, 2012