Council Minutes

October 15, 2002 Meeting Minutes

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, October 15, 2002 - 7:30 PM - Town Hall

INVOCATION
PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL

President Gregory called the meeting to order. Mr. Schweder offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to the flag. Present were Jean Belinski, John B. Callahan, James A. Delgrosso, Robert J. Donchez, J. Michael Schweder, Magdalena F. Szabo, and James S. Gregory, 7.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of October 1, 2002 were approved.

5. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR (for public comment on ordinances and resolutions to be voted on by Council this evening)

Proposed Sidewalk Ordinances

Michelle Leidich, 2263 Linden Street, communicated that she has listened very hard and intently to the past discussions on the matter of the proposed sidewalk ordinances, and expressed her appreciation for the work that was done on the ordinances. However, at this point, Ms. Leidig said she would rather leave the City in which she has been a life-long resident than comply with an ordinance that is not fair to everyone. Ms. Leidich asserted that the ordinance has not been applied equally across the board for several decades. Ms. Leidich, advising that she intends to fight the inequality as long as she lives on Linden Street, stated that the ordinance needs to be rewritten to fix the problem, not propagate it. Ms. Leidich remarked "this is an issue that is now the principle of the thing." Noting that safety studies have been done by the Police Department, Ms. Leidich informed the Members that, according to a letter recently received by one of her neighbors, the dates of those studies are now gone. Ms. Leidich continued on to say "but, they would have us believe that the information that was contained in those studies is accurate. I tend to disagree with the information in those studies. I was out on both days when those studies were taken, and there is some very, very bad inconsistencies with what I saw as to what was reported in the letter that was given to Mr. Humphreys." Ms. Leidich, questioning the issue of safety, noted people have been seen running in the street on the side where there are sidewalks, nothing has been done about a complaint of lack of sidewalks at the nearby school, and added it is worse trying to navigate Center Street than Linden Street. Ms. Leidich said, "until there is a fair, equitable ordinance, and this one you're working on tonight is not it, in place, and until everyone is under the same gun, please do not come to me and tell me of the perils of not having sidewalks." Ms. Leidich, pointing out there are statutes of limitation on crime, stressed "but not this, and I have committed no crime. I merely purchased a home without sidewalks in a City that continues to enforce inequality. Only some people need this. Others do not. My fight is against the inequality, not against the sidewalks." Ms. Leidich, thanking Council for all its help in this matter, expressed the hope that the issue can be finished soon but with fairness to all, and done right so as not to jeopardize her and her neighbors' properties. Ms. Leidich requested that Council "rethink this ordinance and force them to write an ordinance that is going to be applied to all."

Brian Humphreys, 2253 Linden Street, noting that the neighborhood has changed after 1988 when a doctor's office was located there, acknowledged that the neighbors did choose to allow the doctor's office. However, Mr. Humphreys stressed "the doctor's office taught us a lesson. We learned that we had to make a decision about what kind of place we wanted to live in. We had to either make our neighborhood a full commercial area with commercial zoning, or keep it as a… residential zone…". Turning to a letter he received from the Public Works Department in which the area was referred to as commercial, Mr. Humphreys pointed out that the two commercial properties are the doctor's office and an accounting business next door, one of which is there on a variance and the other on a special permit. Mr. Humphreys asserted "it's well known that the doctor's office that is there now is the source of most of the parking trouble in the neighborhood. Nothing has been worse for the peace and safety of the neighborhood than the doctor's facility" about which, he contended, he was deceived regarding the size of the business and amount of traffic it would create. Mr. Humphreys advised that the employees of the doctor's office are forced to park on the street. Mr. Humphreys informed the Members that a neighborhood lawsuit was filed in 1998 but has laid dormant.

Mr. Humphreys said "taking the requirement of a vote away from City Council is the last thing that should happen at this time. If the Administration can be allowed to direct [the installation of sidewalk], without the benefit of an airing before the Council, it will be more difficult than ever to ensure that private interests are not exerting pressure on the process." Mr. Humphreys expressed the opinion that "the six lots on Linden Street are a matter of unfinished business that must be settled before we go giving the City Administration unprecedented power and override a policy in place for decades and decades."

Mr. Humphreys stated "I have found that I have an enormous disadvantage when questioning the City. Information anybody would need to have a clear understanding of what's been going on around here isn't in a form just anybody can find and use very easily." Mr. Humphreys, advising that he took an entire day yesterday to learn what the City has been doing about rights of way over the past thirty years, said he "found not a single case that looked like ours where the right of way was dedicated in exchange for simply moving a property line. There had to be a reason why there were only two lots with dedicated right of ways in our area where it's not the norm…The Public Works office then sent me to the County Courthouse to research deeds. I was told that was the only way to find out what I wanted to know…". However, Mr. Humphreys stressed he was told at the Courthouse "you won't find that here" and that the City of Bethlehem Public Works Department has that information. Mr. Humphreys, highlighting the fact that an attorney could conduct a title search to find out the status of the right of way, pointed out that would cost thousands of dollars to obtain the necessary information. Mr. Humphreys insisted that "in order to craft a policy here there are facts that we need to know. I have made formal requests of both the Public Works Department and the Law Bureau to learn all the pertinent details about the City's record of resub[division] deals, and also very importantly the cash value assigned to the rights of way…". Mr. Humphreys, stating that he does not have the information to be prepared for this meeting, even though he has been requesting it over the past few weeks, explained that is why he requested that the ordinances be placed on the agenda for the next City Council Meeting rather than this one. Mr. Humphreys said "unless the Public Works Department can prove otherwise, there's no case like ours in Bethlehem. Nobody ever gave up two $17,000 rights of way just to have a [property] line moved. I pose my question to open Council and request an answer based on the records." Mr. Humphreys, questioning what would Walter Brockmeir, the former owner of the two lots in question on Linden Street, have been told if he had refused to dedicate his right of way when he moved his property line, advised he could not get the answer from anyone in City Hall yesterday. Mr. Humphreys, saying he wants an answer, stressed "we're all entitled to know how many times that's happened in the past thirty years. If Council knew for sure what past policy has been, then it could craft an exception to the so-called rules where everyone involved could be happy. I've studied it enough to know that it's likely that it could even be done without ramification that would cause future claims for the City…I ask that you reject this ordinance to send a message to the Administration that an ordinance that isn't better than the one it replaces shouldn't pass at all." Remarking that the Appeals Board only adds another round of legal fees for anyone who wants to object, Mr. Humphreys informed the Members that he and his mother have had to spend thousands of dollars already on neighborhood problems directly attributable to controlling commercial enterprise in the neighborhood that never should have been. Mr. Humphreys thought it was better to try to stop something before it advances to even higher levels of the legal system. Mr. Humphreys stated it seems that Council has a function it should not abrogate in favor of an unseen force that would govern without rule. Mr. Humphreys expressed his concurrence with his neighbor's comments about the response from the Public Works Department concerning the safety issues. Mr. Humphreys said if traffic accidents are going to be related to pedestrian safety he would want to know where the traffic accidents happened. He felt that the mentioned traffic accidents were more likely to have happened at the intersections of Dewberry and Elmhurst Avenues where there is sidewalk. Mr. Humphreys advised he has never seen a traffic accident happen in the area where there was no sidewalk. Focusing on the traffic study that he was given, Mr. Humphreys said it does not have a date. In checking with Capt. Mill, Mr. Humphreys stated he found that the date may have been February 9 or 8, 2001. Mr. Humphreys, continuing on to say it makes mention of snow cover, advised he has cleared the snow in the walkway in front of his house promptly. Mr. Humphreys, restating that the traffic report does not have a date and it is only a typewritten opinion, thought it was invalid and contains information that is questionable. Mr. Humphreys further advised that he checked with the National Weather Service and there was no snow on February 8 and 9, 2001 but on February 5, 2001 there was a snowfall of 1.3 inches. Mr. Humphries, adding that the study was done for about one hour, said he would like to have more information about it so he can understand how there seems to be a discrepancy about the weather conditions. Mr. Humphries asked that the matter be taken seriously.

Proposed Animal Ordinance

Mike Hilton, 2219 Main Street, expressed his support for the proposed Animal Ordinance. Mr. Hilton thought the proposal provides a reasonable opportunity to limit the number of animals based on the ability of the owner to care for the animals. In addition, if the owners are unable to care for their animals, it provides an opportunity for the City and the neighbors who would be impacted to have some recourse. Advising that he lives across the street from an individual who has twenty-four large seventy to ninety pound dogs in a relatively small house and yard, Mr. Hilton explained that the dogs were bred for protection and bark when someone walks by. More importantly, however, Mr. Hilton advised that his quality of life and that of his neighbors has been limited and there is a potential health risk as a result of the situation. Mr. Hilton informed the Members that this summer he and his family could not sit outside and have dinner on their patio because of the smell from dog feces. Moreover, when there is a significant rainfall, there is runoff onto his property from the individual's property that contains odorous silt. Prior to the proposal, there was no recourse in view of the current legislation. Mr. Hilton reiterated that under the proposal the number of animals would be limited not based on specific numbers but on the ability of the owner to care for them. Expressing that the proposal is fair, Mr. Hilton communicated that it also addresses the quality of life for the protection of the animals.

6. OLD BUSINESS

None.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

A. City Solicitor - Use Permit Agreement for Public Property - 2002 Live Bethlehem Christmas Pageant

The Clerk read a memorandum dated October 7, 2002 from Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed resolution for Council's consideration for a Use Permit Agreement for Public Property between the Live Bethlehem Christmas Pageant Society and the City of Bethlehem for use of the Community Arts Pavilion and Surrounding Field for the 2002 Live Bethlehem Christmas Pageant for the time period December 9, 2002 to January 13, 2003, according to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

President Gregory stated that the appropriate Resolution will be listed on the November 6, 2002 Council Agenda.

B. Business Administrator - 2002 State Aid - Pension

The Clerk read a memorandum dated October 4, 2002 from Dennis W. Reichard, Business Administrator, advising that the check for State Aid for Pension Funding was received on October 2, 2002 payable to the Treasurer of the City of Bethlehem in the amount of $1,173,301.50. The proceeds have been allocated as follows: Police Pension Fund - $138,110.38; Fire Pension Fund - $438,110.38; Officers and Employees Pension Fund - $68,110.37; PMRS Pension Fund - $528,970.37.

President Gregory stated that authorizing Resolution 11 N is listed on the Agenda.

C. City Solicitor - Use Permit Agreement - Christkindlmarkt

The Clerk read a memorandum dated October 11, 2002 from Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed Resolution for a Use Permit Agreement for Public Property between the Bethlehem Musikfest Association and the City of Bethlehem for use of various City properties for Christkindlmarkt 2002 for the time period November 29, 2002 to December 22, 2002, according to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

President Gregory stated that the appropriate Resolution will be listed on the November 6, 2002 Council Agenda.

D. City Solicitor - Technical Revisions to New Animal Ordinance

The Clerk read a memorandum dated October 11, 2002 from Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., City Solicitor, to which was attached a copy of the revised Bill establishing new Article 1159 - Animals that included several technical revisions to enhance the clarity of the ordinance and strengthen its legal defensibility.

President Gregory stated that the revisions enumerated in Attorney Leeson's memorandum have been incorporated into Bill No. 35 - 2002 that is listed on this evening's Agenda for First Reading.

8 . REPORTS

A. President of Council

None.

B. Mayor

None.

C. Community Development Committee

Mr. Schweder, Chairman of the Community Development Committee, gave an oral report of the Committee's meeting held on October 3, 2002 on the following subject: Animal Ordinance - Revisions.

D. Finance Committee

Mr. Delgrosso, Chairman of the Finance, gave an oral report of the Committee's meeting held on October 9, 2002 on the following subjects: Transfer of Funds - Golf Course - Temporary Help; Transfer of Funds - Traffic Maintenance - Overtime; Transfer of Funds - Fire Department - Special Drill Teams - Overtime; Amending General Fund Budget - Local Law Enforcement Block Grant; Transfer of Funds - Police Department - General Overtime; Amending General Fund Budget - Northampton County Drug Task Force; Transfer of Funds - Recycling Bureau - Overtime; Transfer of Funds - EMS Bureau - Temporary Help and Overtime; Amending General Fund Budget - Health Bureau - Highway Safety Grant; Amending General Fund Budget - Health Bureau - Immunization Outreach Grant; Amending General Fund Budget - Health Bureau - Bio-terrorism/Emergency Preparedness Grant; Water Capital Budget - Utilization of Savings - Chemical Feed Pump Equipment; Transfer of Funds - Sewer Maintenance Bureau - Overtime; Transfer of Funds - Meter Shop - Overtime; Transfer of Funds - Water Filtration - Overtime; Water Capital Budget - Utilization of Savings - Portable Band Saw; and Transfer of Funds - Financial Services Bureau - Overtime. The Committee also received an explanation of the Transfer of Funds request in the total amount of $80,000 for the project to clean the raw water transmission mains between Wild Creek Reservoir and the H-Chamber. No Committee action was required.

9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL PASSAGE

None.

10. NEW ORDINANCES

A. Bill No. 35 - 2002 - Establishing New Article 1159 - Animals

The Clerk read Bill No. 35 - 2002, sponsored by Mr. Schweder and Mr. Delgrosso, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, REPEALING EXISTING ARTICLE 1159 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES ENTITLED "ANIMALS AND FOWL"; AND ESTABLISHING A NEW ARTICLE 1159 ENTITLED "ANIMALS".

Mr. Delgrosso recalled that he and Mr. Schweder conferred with Attorney Leeson concerning the points they had raised in the past about numbers of animals at residences, and further discussed the matter with various City Departments. Mr. Delgrosso pointed out there was much cooperation, and many drafts were made by Joseph Leeson, City Solicitor, of proposed legislation. Mr. Delgrosso thanked everyone involved for their time and effort, and, in particular, the City Solicitor.

Mr. Schweder echoed Mr. Delgrosso's comments with respect to Attorney Leeson, Dana Grubb, Deputy Director of Community and Economic Development, and others in the various Departments who worked in cooperation with Mr. Delgrosso and him. Mr. Schweder, noting there are people in the community who would like perhaps to see more far-reaching legislation, observed that the proposal will stand up to challenges, and places a realistic responsibility on individuals. Mr. Schweder highlighted the fact that, first and foremost, the consideration is the quality of the existence that is provided to the animals and their conditions that are as important as anything else. Mr. Schweder expressed the hope that the Bill will pass unanimously this evening.

In response to Ms. Szabo, Attorney Leeson explained that the reference to rabbits and guinea pigs was deleted from Section 1159.13 at the recommendation of Dr. Janice Lashmet, the veterinarian who provided assistance in this matter, since it was felt that permits would not be needed for rabbits and guinea pigs.

President Gregory, while expressing his support of the proposal, said he would like to see more restriction in terms of the number of animals. Mr. Gregory highlighted the fact that, if someone cleaned up the area before a permit were issued, it is possible there will still be a large number of animals that could be problematic. Mr. Gregory commented it is something that can be reviewed for the future if it is not addressed at the next meeting. Mr. Gregory remarked that, when there is an outlandish number of animals such as 15, 20 or more, something could be done to discourage it since he felt that was the reason for the initial review of the ordinance.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 35 - 2002 was declared passed on First Reading.

B. Bill No. 36 - 2002 - Amending Article 303 - Motor Fuel Meters - Inspection Fee

The Clerk read Bill No. 36 - 2002, sponsored by Mr. Schweder and Mrs. Belinski, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 303 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 36 - 2002 was declared passed on First Reading.

C. Bill No. 37 - 2002 - Amending General Fund Budget - Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, Northampton County Drug Task Force, Highway Safety Grant, Immunization Outreach Grant, and Emergency Preparedness Grant

The Clerk read Bill No. 37 - 2002, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mr. Delgrosso, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR 2002.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 37 - 2002 was declared passed on First Reading.

D. Bill No. 38 - 2002 - Amending Article 905 - Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Requirements - New Developments

The Clerk read Bill No. 38 - 2002, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Callahan, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 905 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES ENTITLED "STREET IMPROVEMENTS; ASSESSMENTS."

In response to Mrs. Belinski's comment that the six properties in question on Linden Street would not be affected by passage of the ordinances, Attorney Leeson explained that upon the effective date, the ordinances will become the law of the City applicable to all properties. Mrs. Belinski said she still feels there is a problem with the six properties and that the situation is not fair. Expressing the hope that, before the final vote, an equitable agreement can be reached with the property owners, Mrs. Belinski said she will vote in favor of the proposal tonight without prejudice.

Mr. Callahan recounted that, having been the past Chairman of the Public Works Committee, the issue was discussed for many hours. While observing that the situation has unfortunately become more than sidewalks, Mr. Callahan denoted that the proposal addresses situations in the City where there are health and safety concerns with the lack of sidewalks. Mr. Callahan thought that has been confirmed in the Linden Street case with at least two traffic studies. Mr. Callahan pointed out that, under the proposal, there is clearly a procedure and criteria involved pertaining to installation and repair of sidewalks. Mr. Callahan continued on to say the ordinances "puts the process in the hands of the people that it belongs with, which is the inspectors and the Public Works Director, where it should have always been and not before City Council. City Council doesn't vote to determine if we should enforce electrical code violations, or fire code violations, and I don't feel that we should get involved in violations of our sidewalk ordinance either." Mr. Callahan stated that he will vote for the bills this evening.

Ms. Szabo, Chairwoman of the Public Works Committee, thanked all those involved, including Members of Council, Attorney Leeson, and Michael Alkhal, Director of Public Works, who spent a lot of hours on the proposal. She noted that suggestions made over the three year period were put into the ordinance.

Mrs. Belinski, noting that the issue has been safety, said she still goes back to the unfairness of the issue in that, if the property owners who reside south of Spring Garden School are being pressured to put in sidewalks, the fact remains that children walk from the townhouses north of Spring Garden School where only half of the length of the school has sidewalks. Mrs. Belinski insisted that the School District should be forced to put in sidewalk the whole length of Spring Garden School.

Mr. Schweder, stating that he will be voting in favor of the bills this evening, commended Mr. Alkhal and Attorney Leeson for the time they spent on the proposal and in meeting with him. Mr. Schweder pointed out his interpretation of the ordinances is that it is much more limiting than the current ordinances since it will set up a procedure so people cannot just come in and make the case for something to be done. Mr. Schweder noted it must be well documented that it cannot be remedied by any other means other than the direct construction of curbs and sidewalks. Mr. Schweder recounted part of the argument he made in the past is the inconsistency in it and that he did not want to see a migration of this type of action going beyond what was the specific case on Linden Street that brought the matter to Council's attention which has been accomplished under the proposal. Mr. Schweder continued on to say that, under the proposal, the procedure will now be in place for the individual case that brought the issue to a head to begin with, and it may be a case that is not justified. Mr. Schweder, expressing that the proposal makes sense, pointed out it is more limiting and more consistent going forward, removing Council from the process makes sense, and added it will be more difficult to develop cases than had been the situation in the past.

Mrs. Belinski said, since Mr. Humphreys had difficulty in finding evidence of the traffic study, date, etc., she would like to request that the appropriate Department supply her with the records as to when the traffic study was done, the time it was done, and how long a period. Mrs. Belinski later requested to receive the record of accidents since 1998, and, in particular, if they are at the intersections. President Gregory noted that a study would have to be done. Mr. Alkhal added that, as was discussed at the last Committee meeting, once the Ordinance is enacted, the Department will follow the procedures as outlined. Mr. Alkhal said "we fully intend to do another pedestrian survey."

President Gregory, restating it has taken a while, commented a good point has been reached, but remarked that concerns about sidewalks in the City have been put aside during the lengthy process. President Gregory remarked that the ordinances are long overdue. Acknowledging that many Members of Council do not feel the situation on Linden Street is fair, President Gregory observed maybe that will be addressed in the next few weeks to some degree or afterwards through the tightening of the Ordinance. President Gregory observed that, once the ordinances pass, the situation on Linden Street would have to be studied again. Reiterating it is long overdue, President Gregory communicated that he will support the bills tonight.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 38 - 2002 was declared passed on First Reading.

E. Bill No. 39 - 2002 - Establishing New Article 909 - Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Requirements - New Developments

The Clerk read Bill No. 39 - 2002, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Callahan, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 909 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES ENTITLED "SIDEWALKS, CURBS, GUTTERS AND DRIVEWAYS."

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 39 - 2002 was declared passed on First Reading.

F. Bill No. 40 - 2002 - Amending Article 150 - Codes Board of Appeals

The Clerk read Bill No. 40 - 2002, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Callahan, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 150 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES ENTITLED CODES BOARD OF APPEALS.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Delgrosso, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Schweder, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Gregory, 7. Bill No. 40 - 2002 was declared passed on First Reading.

11. RESOLUTIONS

A. Authorizing Execution of Documents - Highway Safety Program Grant

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Delgrosso sponsored Resolution 13,921 which authorized the Mayor and the Controller to execute the grant documents provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation under its Highway Safety Program Project No. J3 03-21-1 for child passenger safety.