Council Minutes

April 6, 2004 Meeting Minutes

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 – 7:30 PM – Town Hall

1. INVOCATION
2. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL

President J. Michael Schweder called the meeting to order. Reverend Richard D. Collins of First Church of the Nazarene offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to the flag. Present were Ismael Arcelay, Jean Belinski, Robert J. Donchez, Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., Gordon B. Mowrer, Magdalena F. Szabo, and J. Michael Schweder, 7.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of March 23, 2004 were approved.

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

2004 Bond Issue – Police Equipment

Steve Marshall, President of the Fraternal Order of Police, stated he is before City Council once again to speak, as he did at the March 15, 2004 Finance Committee meeting, about the desperate need to have the Bond Issue passed for the Police equipment that has been requested. Noting a comment was made about the lack of Police presence at the March 15 Finance Committee meeting, Mr. Marshall highlighted the fact that a number of Police Officers are in attendance at this evening’s City Council meeting in support of the Bond Issue. Mr. Marshall said he is at the meeting to again express the need for the equipment that consists of three Police cars and the allotted radios. Mr. Marshall explained that the radios are needed to keep the Police Department on track with the changeover to the new radios. Informing the Members that the radios being replaced are no longer made and there are no parts available for them, Mr. Marshall advised that the old radios being replaced are used for spare parts. Mr. Marshall stressed that without the new radios there are no new parts, and without the parts the old radios cannot be fixed. Mr. Marshall continued on to state that the new Police cars in the Bond Issue are to replace the older cars that have high mileage, are getting dangerous to drive, and are costly to keep repairing in order to keep them road worthy. Pointing out that the Police cars are driven twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, Mr. Marshall added that the cars must also sit idling while reports are being written, for instance. Mr. Marshall noted that when the Police cars are finally rotated out of patrol service, they are used for unmarked Police cars or are rotated out to other City Departments. Mr. Marshall, stating that the items are necessities and not luxury items, asked City Council to pass the Bond Issue so the Police Department can continue to provide the needed service to the community in the safest possible manner for the Police Officers.

6. OLD BUSINESS

Former Bethlehem Steel Corporation Property – Possible Development by ISG

Mr. Donchez, with reference to a newspaper article today about ISG company, noted it was felt that Delaware Valley Real Estate Trust would be the developer for the Bethlehem Works property area along Third Street. Observing it seems that conditions have changed, Mr. Donchez asked is there any additional information that can be provided to City Council regarding the status of ISG and Delaware Valley Real Estate Trust.

Mayor Callahan explained that the Administration made numerous attempts to contact Delaware Valley, and has made contact with ISG about the nature of negotiations concerning development of former Bethlehem Steel Corporation property on the South Side. Mayor Callahan noted that a meeting was held recently with representatives of Delaware Valley concerning a possible baseball project. Adding that he spoke today with State Representative T. J. Rooney, Mayor Callahan stated that Delaware Valley did not wish to comment at this moment about negotiations. Mayor Callahan recounted that he was a Member of Council when City Council voted on a Resolution for a cooperation agreement with Delaware Valley Real Estate Trust. Given Delaware Valley Real Estate Trust’s considerable political clout, Mayor Callahan said he would like to see the group ultimately take the property over. However, beyond that, Mayor Callahan pointed out what is most important is that the properties end up in the hands of a developer that is going to do something positive with the land. Observing that ISG is clearly working to sell the property, Mayor Callahan thought that is to the City’s benefit because the firm is a steel company and not a development company. Mayor Callahan said he expressed a desire to ISG that the City be viewed as a partner in the process because of the tremendous taxpayer investment in the lands of well over $10 million. Mayor Callahan advised that ISG has indicated they see it as such and will be cooperative with the City.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

A. Deputy Director of Community Development – 2004 Public Housing/Section 8 Income Limits

The Clerk read a letter dated February 19, 2004 from Dana B. Grubb, Deputy Director of Community Development, to which was attached the latest household income limits for Housing and Community Development related activities. This data is used to determine program benefits according to the federal statutory intent of the Housing and Community Development Act. This is notification that this has not been revised from the information of Fiscal Year 2003.

President Schweder stated this is for information only, and no Council action is required.

B. City Solicitor – Use Permit Agreement for Public Property – 2004 Borinquenfest

The Clerk read a memorandum dated March 15, 2004 from John F. Spirk, Jr., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed Use Permit Agreement between the City and the Puerto Rican Cultural Coalition, Inc., for use of the area beneath the Hill-to-Hill Bridge for the 2004 Borinquenfest for the time period June 21, 2004 to July 1, 2004, according to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

President Schweder stated that the authorizing Resolution will be placed on the April 20, 2004 Agenda.

C. Chairman of Finance Committee – Resolution – Insurance Coverage

The Clerk read a memorandum dated March 31, 2004 from Robert J. Donchez, Chairman of the Finance Committee, regarding a proposed Resolution that would require the Administration to provide each year to City Council a detailed list of all the City’s insurance policies and amount of liability coverage for each, and that the Administration would notify City Council whenever changes occur in policy and liability coverage, cost of coverage, change in carriers, and when policies are renewed.

President Schweder stated that authorizing Resolution 11A is listed on the Agenda.

D. City Solicitor – Use Permit Agreement for Public Property – RiverFusion 2004 Concert

The Clerk read a memorandum dated April 2, 2004 from John F. Spirk, Jr., City Solicitor, to which was attached a Use Permit Agreement for Public Property between the City and Illick’s Mill Partnership for Environmental Education for use of Sand Island West for the time period May 13, 2004 to May 18, 2004 for the RiverFusion 2004 Concert, according to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

President Schweder stated that that the authorizing Resolution will be placed on the April 20, 2004 Agenda.

E. City Solicitor – Use Permit Agreement for Public Property – Little League Baseball and League Football Teams

The Clerk read a memorandum dated April 2, 2004 from John F. Spirk, Jr., City Solicitor, to which was attached proposed Use Permit Agreements for Public Property between the City and the following Little League Baseball and League Football teams: City Line Little League, Lehigh Little League, North Central Little League, Northeast Little League, Northwest Little League, Southside Little League, Bethlehem Raiders, Bethlehem Saints, and Bethlehem Steelers. The agreements are for use of various City fields and parks, according to the terms and conditions of the Agreements.

President Schweder stated that the authorizing Resolutions can be placed on the April 20, 2004 Agenda, unless the Parks and Public Property Committee wishes to review the agreements.

F. Business Administrator – 2004 Tax Ordinance

The Clerk read a memorandum dated April 2, 2004 from Dennis W. Reichard, Business Administrator, to which was attached a corrected Ordinance showing the Landfill tax millage which was not indicated on Ordinance 4233 passed on December 16, 2003. The correction does not change the total millage of 11.75 mills of tax.

President Schweder stated that Bill No. 12 – 2004 is listed on the Agenda for First Reading.

8 . REPORTS

A. President of Council

None.

B. Mayor

1. Administrative Order – John J. Tallarico, Jr. – Bethlehem Authority

Mayor John B. Callahan appointed John J. Tallarico, Jr. to the Bethlehem Authority, effective until January 2005. Mr. Donchez and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,323 to confirm the appointment.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolution passed.

2. Administrative Order – Beth Starbuck – Board of Historical and Architectural Review

Mayor John B. Callahan reappointed Beth Starbuck to the Board of Historical and Architectural Review, effective until February 2009. Mr. Donchez and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,324 to confirm the appointment.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolution passed.

3. Administrative Order – Augustine Sebastionelli – Redevelopment Authority

Mayor John B. Callahan reappointed Augustine Sebastionelli to the Redevelopment Authority, effective until March 2009. Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 14,325 to confirm the appointment.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolution passed.

4. Administrative Order – Cleo Smith – Board of Historical and Architectural Review

Mayor John B. Callahan reappointed Cleo Smith to the Board of Historical and Architectural Review, effective until March 2009. Mr. Donchez and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,326 to confirm the appointment.

Ms. Szabo questioned whether the Administrative Order is for an appointment or reappointment and if it is for the North Side or South Side historical board. Mayor Callahan, affirming it is the North Side, noted that he would confirm whether it is an appointment or reappointment.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolution passed.

5. Administrative Order – Larry Kisslinger – Bethlehem Housing Authority

Mayor John B. Callahan reappointed Larry Kisslinger to the Bethlehem Housing Authority, effective until March, 2009. Mr. Donchez and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,327 to confirm the appointment.

6. Administrative Order – Nancy Topping – Sister City Commission

Mayor John B. Callahan reappointed Nancy Topping to the Sister City Commission, effective until March, 2007. Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 14,328 to confirm the appointment.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolution passed.

7. Administrative Order – Dr. Michael B. Heller – Civil Service Board - Police

Mayor John B. Callahan reappointed Dr. Michael B. Heller to the Civil Service Board – Police, effective until February, 2008. Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 14,329 to confirm the appointment.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolution passed.

C. Finance Committee

Mr. Donchez, Chairman of the Finance Committee, presented an oral report of the Committee meeting held on March 30, 2004 on the following subjects: Amending General Fund Budget – Health Bureau – (A) Caring for Two, (B) Bioterrorism, (C) Osteo-Cardio Program, (D) Injury Prevention Program, (E) Healthy Women 50+ Program, (F) AIDS Program; Transfer of Funds – Planning and Zoning Bureau – Department Contracts; Earned Income Tax (EIT) Rules and Regulations – Revisions; and 1994 Bond Issue – Bethlehem Authority – Forward Refunding.

9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL PASSAGE

A. Bill No. 1 – 2004 – 2004 Bond Issue – Non-Utility Capital Projects-General Fund Equipment ($366,120) and Sewer Capital Projects ($2,000,000)

The Clerk read Bill No. 1 – 2004, 2004 Bond Issue – Non-Utility Capital Projects and Sewer Capital Projects, on Final Reading.

President Schweder affirmed that during the last several years he has raised questions with respect to having items in the Bond Issue that are not strictly Bond Issue equipment items. Noting that he met with Mr. Donchez yesterday, President Schweder stated that, with respect to Bill No. 11 – 2004, the Bond Issue involving the Hirko case settlement, he thinks it is appropriate for him to vote in favor of the bond issues tonight since there would not be other mechanisms within the Budget to support them. President Schweder confirmed that he will be voting in support of the 2004 Bond Issue that contains Non-Utility Capital Project items for General Fund Equipment.

Mr. Donchez thanked Mr. Marshall for his comments, and expressed the hope that his colleagues support the 2004 Bond Issue which he felt was long overdue so that the City can move on and obtain the radios, additional cruiser cars, fire apparatus and other equipment.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 1 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4240, was declared adopted.

B. Bill No. 3 – 2004 – Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus and Route 412 Project

The Clerk read Bill No. 3 – 2004, Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus and Route 412 Project, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 3 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4241, was declared adopted.

C. Bill No. 4 – 2004 – Amending Liquid Fuels Fund Budget – 2003 Carryovers

The Clerk read Bill No. 4 – 2004, Amending Liquid Fuels Fund Budget – 2003 Carryovers, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 4 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4242, was declared adopted.

D. Bill No. 5 – 2004 – Amending General Fund Budget – Permits and Inspections Overtime and LATCH Program

The Clerk read Bill No. 5 – 2004, Amending General Fund Budget – Permits and Inspections Overtime and LATCH Program, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 5 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4243, was declared adopted.

E. Bill No. 6 – 2004 – Amending Community Development Budget – CDBG and HOME Programs – 2003 Final Amounts

The Clerk read Bill No. 6 – 2004 – Amending Community Development Budget – CDBG and HOME Programs – 2003 Final Amounts, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 6 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4244, was declared adopted.

F. Bill No. 7 – 2004 – Amending Water Capital Budget – Funding Decrease – Bethlehem Authority Projects

The Clerk read Bill No. 7 – 2004 – Amending Water Capital Budget – Funding Decrease – Bethlehem Authority Projects, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 7 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4245, was declared adopted.

10. NEW ORDINANCES

A. Bill No. 8 – 2004 – Amending General Fund Budget – Health Bureau

The Clerk read Bill No. 8 – 2004, Amending General Fund Budget – Health Bureau, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mr. Arcelay, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR 2004.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 8 – 2004 was declared passed on First Reading.

B. Bill No. 9 – 2004 – Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – Communications Center Upgrade

The Clerk read Bill No. 9 – 2004, Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – Communications Center Upgrade, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE 2004 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR NON-UTILITIES.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 9 – 2004 was declared passed on First Reading.

C. Bill No. 10 – 2004 – 1994 Bond Issue – Bethlehem Authority - Forward Refunding

The Clerk read Bill No. 10 – 2004, 1994 Bond Issue – Bethlehem Authority – Forward Refunding, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mr. Arcelay, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA, DETERMINING TO INCUR DEBT IN THE AMOUNT OF $___,___,___ IN CONNECTION WITH THE REFUNDING BY BETHLEHEM AUTHORITY (THE “AUTHORITY”) OF CERTAIN LEASE RENTAL DEBT HERETOFORE LAWFULLY INCURRED BY THE AUTHORITY AND EVIDENCED BY THE AUTHORITY’S OUTSTANDING GUARANTEED WATER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF 1994 (THE “1994 BONDS”); DETERMINING THAT SUCH DEBT SHALL BE INCURRED AS LEASE RENTAL DEBT TO BE EVIDENCED BY A SERIES OF GUARANTEED WATER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF 2004, TO BE AUTHORIZED AND TO BE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY; BRIEFLY DESCRIBING THE REFUNDING PROJECT IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH SAID REFUNDING IS TO BE UNDERTAKEN AND SPECIFYING THE REMAINING USEFUL LIFE OF SAID PROJECT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR, THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL, THE CITY CONTROLLER, THE CITY TREASURER, THE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR OR THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY TO PREPARE, VERIFY AND FILE, AS APPLICABLE, THE DEBT STATEMENT AND OTHER APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DEBT ACT, 53 PA. C.S. § 8001 ET SEQ., AS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED, AND, UPON RECEIPT OF APPROVAL OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TO EXECUTE, ATTEST, ACKNOWLEDGE AND DELIVER, AS APPROPRIATE, (I) A SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT AND LEASE, DATED AS OF AUGUST 15, 2004, BETWEEN THE AUTHORITY, AS LESSOR, AND THE CITY, AS LESSEE, SUPPLEMENTING A CONTRACT AND LEASE, DATED AS OF JANUARY 1, 1992, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED BY SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACTS AND LEASES, BETWEEN SAID AUTHORITY, AS LESSOR, AND THE CITY, AS LESSEE, AND (II) A GUARANTY AGREEMENT, DATED AS OF AUGUST 15, 2004, WITH RESPECT TO AFORESAID GUARANTEED WATER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF 2004; APPROVING THE FORMS OF SAID SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT AND LEASE AND SAID GUARANTY AGREEMENT; CONSENTING TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF SAID SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT AND LEASE BY THE AUTHORITY, AS SECURITY, TO THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SUMMIT BANK AND FIRST VALLEY BANK, AS TRUSTEE UNDER A TRUST INDENTURE, DATED AS OF JANUARY 1, 1992, AS HERETOFORE SUPPLEMENTED AND AMENDED, AND AS FURTHER SUPPLEMENTED AND AMENDED BY A FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE, TO BE DATED AS OF AUGUST 15, 2004, AND AUTHORIZING DELIVERY OF SAID GUARANTY AGREEMENT TO SAID TRUSTEE; SPECIFYING THE MAXIMUM LEASE RENTALS TO BE PAID BY THE CITY PURSUANT TO SAID SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT AND LEASE AND THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF SUCH LEASE RENTALS; GUARANTEEING PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON THE AFORESAID GUARANTEED WATER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF 2004 AND MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS WITH RESPECT THERETO; SPECIFYING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF THE GUARANTY OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY PURSUANT TO SUCH GUARANTY AGREEMENT; PLEDGING THE FULL FAITH, CREDIT AND TAXING POWER OF THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO THE GUARANTY AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR PROPER OFFICERS OF THE CITY TO TAKE ALL OTHER REQUIRED, NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE RELATED ACTION IN CONNECTION WITH SAID PROJECT, SAID SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT AND LEASE, AND SAID GUARANTY AGREEMENT.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 10 – 2004 was declared passed on First Reading.

D. Bill No. 11 – 2004 – Hirko Settlement - $7.39 Million

The Clerk read Bill No. 11 – 2004 – Hirko Settlement - $7.39 Million, sponsored by Mr. Leeson and Mr. Mowrer, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA, DETERMINING TO INCUR DEBT IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,900,000; DETERMINING THAT SUCH DEBT SHALL BE INCURRED AS LEASE RENTAL DEBT TO BE EVIDENCED BY A SERIES OF GUARANTEED LEASE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF 2004, TO BE AUTHORIZED AND TO BE ISSUED BY BETHLEHEM AUTHORITY; BRIEFLY DESCRIBING THE PROJECT FOR WHICH SAID DEBT IS TO BE INCURRED AND SPECIFYING THE REALISTIC USEFUL LIFE OF SAID PROJECT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR, THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL, THE CITY CONTROLLER, THE CITY TREASURER, THE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR OR THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY TO PREPARE, VERIFY AND FILE, AS APPLICABLE, THE DEBT STATEMENT AND OTHER APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DEBT ACT, 53 PA. C.S. § 8001 ET SEQ., AND, UPON RECEIPT OF APPROVAL OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TO EXECUTE, ATTEST, ACKNOWLEDGE AND DELIVER, AS APPROPRIATE, (I) AN AGREEMENT AND LEASE, DATED AS OF MAY 15, 2004, BETWEEN SAID AUTHORITY, AS LESSOR, AND THE CITY, AS LESSEE, AND (II) A GUARANTY AGREEMENT, DATED AS OF MAY 15, 2004, WITH RESPECT TO AFORESAID GUARANTEED LEASE REVENUE BONDS; APPROVING THE FORMS OF SAID AGREEMENT AND LEASE AND SAID GUARANTY AGREEMENT; CONSENTING TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF SAID AGREEMENT AND LEASE BY SAID AUTHORITY, AS SECURITY, TO THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE UNDER A TRUST INDENTURE, DATED AS OF MAY 15, 2004, AND AUTHORIZING DELIVERY OF SAID GUARANTY AGREEMENT TO SAID TRUSTEE; SPECIFYING THE MAXIMUM LEASE RENTALS TO BE PAID BY THE CITY PURSUANT TO SAID AGREEMENT AND LEASE; GUARANTEEING PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON AFORESAID GUARANTEED LEASE REVENUE BONDS AND MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS WITH RESPECT THERETO; SPECIFYING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF THE GUARANTY OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY PURSUANT TO SUCH GUARANTY AGREEMENT; PLEDGING THE FULL FAITH, CREDIT AND TAXING POWER OF THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO THE GUARANTY AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR PROPER OFFICERS OF THE CITY TO TAKE ALL OTHER REQUIRED, NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE RELATED ACTION IN CONNECTION WITH SAID PROJECT, SAID AGREEMENT AND LEASE, AND SAID GUARANTY AGREEMENT.

Mr. Leeson noted that City Council and the Administration have been working hard over the past weeks to come up with a concept that would minimize the burden of the $7.39 million that must be paid for the settlement of the Hirko case. The Administration submitted an alternate bond payment proposal dated April 2, 2004. However, Mr. Leeson explained he was unable to develop a comfort level with that proposal since there had not been any significant adjustments in comparison to prior proposals. Mr. Leeson continued on to state that he does appreciate the willingness of the Administration to come up with another idea. Mr. Leeson advised that, in view of the fact that Council would be deliberating on the matter on First Reading this evening, yesterday afternoon he circulated another alternate proposal to the Members of Council and the Administration. Mr. Leeson, in summarizing his proposal, stated it has a number of advantages. Unlike the Administration’s wrap around debt service proposal that he said only postpones the inevitable, Mr. Leeson commented that his proposal can result in cost savings ultimately to the citizens of Bethlehem. Mr. Leeson advised he is proposing a level debt service with an equalized payment plan on an eleven year basis which was the time frame originally requested by the Administration. Mr. Leeson continued on to explain his proposal is for annual payments of principal and interest at $850,000. Mr. Leeson recited four specific advantages to his concept. The first is that there will be very substantial savings in interest expense of an estimated minimum of $1,000,000 and possibly more. The second is that a payment on the bond issue debt in 2005 will help avoid the unneeded and unjustifiable, in his opinion, capitalized interest expense that would be incurred by skipping a payment in 2005 or making the most minimal of payments in 2005. The third advantage is that the debt is repaid with due consideration for timing in that the payments are not stretched out too long and matches the eleven years originally proposed by the Administration. The fourth advantage is that it eliminates the balloon payments that delayed the worst of the budget pain for later years. Under the Administration’s current revised plan, the balloon payments get a little worse and balloon up to $2.6 million in the final year of the bond issue debt. Mr. Leeson communicated that he thinks it is incumbent on him as a proposer of a debt repayment plan to also recommend and suggest how it will be paid. Mr. Leeson said “we need to be realistic and acknowledge that borrowing money costs money, and the $7.39 million [to be borrowed] does not come without a price tag associated with it.” Mr. Leeson advised he is proposing that a ½ mill tax increase, which would yield about $650,000, be specifically earmarked to be dedicated for repayment of the $7.39 million bond issue debt. Mr. Leeson added this is essentially the same that was done in the matter of the Landfill debt bond issue a number of years ago. Mr. Leeson continued on to say the balance of what is needed to fund the annual $850,000 debt service he is proposing be derived from an overall reduction in General Fund expenses of about $200,000 or .005% of the approximately $40 million plus General Fund Budget. Mr. Leeson, focusing on the amortization schedule attached to his proposal, stated it has been brought to his attention that it needs to be adjusted because it does not include the capitalized interest for the remainder of 2004 or the costs of issuance. Consequently, the schedule needs to be revised. However, Mr. Leeson pointed out that it demonstrates the concept of the $850,000 per year series of debt service payments. By responsibly addressing the issue of this $7.39 million debt now and not later, and by identifying specific funding sources, Mr. Leeson stated that the City’s future borrowing capacity is not being burdened in future years given the Non-Utility Capital Projects bond issues that the City floats every other year. Expressing that his proposal is a responsible plan, and is devised to try to minimize the burden on the taxpayers, Mr. Leeson said “let’s be frank. Let’s be honest. Any time you incur debt of this nature there is going to be budgetary pain.” Mr. Leeson stated he would like to propose this payment schedule as a plan to repay the $7.39 million debt that must be borrowed with the Bond Issue.

President Schweder, affirming that Bill No. 11 - 2004 is the Ordinance that sets the $7.39 million amount to be borrowed, noted the Bill does not contain the debt service schedule but the schedule would come before City Council on Final Reading of the Bill. Dennis Reichard, Business Administrator, confirmed that is correct. President Schweder proposed that City Council vote on Bill No. 11 - 2004 at this time. Then, President Schweder advised he would move to take out of order Resolutions 11 I and 11 J that represent the sense of Council for how the debt should be paid as proposed by Mr. Leeson. President Schweder stated he would give the latitude for discussion for all proposals at this time.

Mr. Donchez, with reference to the Committee of the Whole meeting on March 31, 2004, highlighted the fact that there were many numbers containing debt service schedules in front of Council and expressed that he appreciates the responses from the Administration. Mr. Donchez stressed that he felt it was important to get as much information as possible for both the wrap around and level debt service payment proposals through 2015, and show in those schedules the issuance of the traditional $3 million every other year for Non-Utility Capital Projects Bond Issues. Mr. Donchez commented that, as he said last week, the wrap around schedule had some good features. However, Mr. Donchez said he thinks the level payment schedule had some stronger features. Mr. Donchez communicated that the compromise debt service payment schedule forwarded to City Council this past Friday “was a little disappointing” even though it started the payments in 2005 of $70,000 since the debt service payments in the last three years were quite high in the balloon style of repayment. Mr. Donchez expressed his belief that there is a precedent for what Mr. Leeson is putting before City Council going back to the Landfill debt, in that there would be a dedicated tax strictly to go towards payment of the Hirko settlement and that could not be used for anything else. Mr. Donchez stated that Mr. Leeson’s proposal addresses the payments immediately and equitably, and in a way that the payments will be the same over the course of the bond issue. Mr. Donchez highlighted the fact that equal bond issue payments beginning in 2005 will require a small tax increase dedicated for the settlement, but will save the taxpayers over $1,000,000 in interest which he asserted is important. Mr. Donchez further emphasized that it is important to look at this issue today and come up with the best plan today rather than looking at what may happen economically six or seven years down the road, or looking at the possibility of calling the bonds and refinancing them in six or seven years. Mr. Donchez stressed “we can’t speculate. I think we have to look at real numbers today, and address the issue today, based on the situation we have today.” Mr. Donchez, expressing that the numbers being presented by Mr. Leeson are real, said they are not based on the possibility of any refinancing or future economic development, and are based on today’s numbers. Mr. Donchez stated, because of that, he will support the proposal since he believes it is the best for the citizens of Bethlehem, in addition to the fact that it will save $1,000,000 over the period of time in interest payments, and payments will begin in 2005 in equitable fashion.

Mayor Callahan advised that Mr. Reichard will now distribute to the Members of Council a comparison that was prepared today based on Mr. Leeson’s proposal that was received last evening.

Mayor Callahan informed the Members that the Administration still strongly recommends the twelve year wrap around debt service payment schedule for the following reasons. It takes advantage of the historically low 50 year interest rates; it minimizes the tax burden in any given year to the taxpayers; it allows additional borrowing for future capital projects; the $7.39 million is paid off in twelve years which is shorter than the normal fifteen year bond issue for capital projects; and, most importantly, it keeps a total level debt service of $2.9 million from 2004 to 2014. Mayor Callahan said, in his opinion, there is no reason to view this issue in a vacuum. Mayor Callahan continued on to say there is a responsibility to look at the City’s total debt picture. This debt can be incorporated into the City’s total General Fund obligations and minimize the impact in any given year. Stating “we have been frank, we have been honest throughout this process”, Mayor Callahan said the numbers before Council are real numbers based on today and not based on any projected refinancing, or any projected growth. Mayor Callahan expressed the belief that the Administration’s proposed eleven year wrap around debt service schedule strikes the right balance, and minimizes financial pain felt by the taxpayers in any one given year. Mayor Callahan further said “by stretching the payments out over… twelve years, we do not burden future generations with this case but we also don’t steal grandma’s pocket book today.” It takes advantage of the current historically low tax rates and strikes the right balance of time and savings. Turning to the comparison distributed to the Members of Council by Mr. Reichard, Mayor Callahan said it shows a more real picture of Mr. Leeson’s proposal in the sense that it does include issuance costs and capitalized interest. Mayor Callahan commented that the graph shows the impact on the City’s General Fund debt service obligation in the first five years of the payment of the settlement, and the impact it would have on the taxpayers. Mayor Callahan submitted that, under Mr. Leeson’s proposal, the balloon payment actually would be in the form of an unnecessary tax increase over the next five years in order to fund the settlement, as demonstrated by the large spike in the blue line. Mayor Callahan stressed that the Administration’s proposal wraps around the City’s current debt and does not necessitate a balloon payment to the taxpayers. Focusing on the Administration’s compromise debt service structure, Mayor Callahan expressed that Mr. Donchez could have indicated his disappointment, and the payment schedule could have been “tweaked” further. Pointing out that the Administration did not receive Mr. Leeson’s proposal until after the close of business yesterday when it was delivered by the Police Department, Mayor Callahan noted that on Friday there would have been an opportunity to make whatever changes were necessary. Mayor Callahan stated that the Administration responded to what was thought to be priorities based on the last meeting. Mayor Callahan noted that the Administration’s compromise debt service structure designated by the yellow line provides similar level debt payments on the part of the General Fund over time and pays off the settlement one year earlier than the other two proposals. In regard to the actual cost savings, Mayor Callahan stated that, if the issuance costs and capitalized interest are incorporated into Mr. Leeson’s proposal, the differences among Mr. Leeson’s, the Original Administration Proposal, and Administration Compromise Structure are not dramatic. Mayor Callahan exemplified that the aggregate interest expense under the Original Administration Proposal is $2,305,675, under Administration Compromise Structure is $1,956,952 or a difference of about $350,000 over the life of the loan which is essentially $29,000 a year in a $46 million General Fund Budget which he thought was a reasonable cost. Under Mr. Leeson’s proposal, the interest expense is $1,639,759.22 or a difference of about $700,000 which equates to about $60,000 per year. Mayor Callahan, remarking it is a delicate balance, thought that to avoid an unnecessary tax increase for $60,000 of a General Fund Budget of $46 million is a compromise he is willing to make. Mayor Callahan expressed that, in characterizing Mr. Leeson’s proposal, it is the worst of both worlds in that it forces an unnecessary tax increase and requires a cut in City services. Restating that the Administration has been frank and honest throughout the process as to the costs, and the numbers are real, Mayor Callahan thought the plan being considered by Mr. Leeson offers very little in the way of cost savings, is an unneeded and unjustified tax increase, it creates a balloon payment for the taxpayers over the next four to five years, and it is not funding the entire settlement. Mayor Callahan continued on to say, “if you’re going to do a tax increase to fund the settlement, then do a tax increase to fund the settlement. If you’re going to request a $200,000 cut in the City’s budget then I think it’s encumbent either to fund the entire settlement or come up with the $200,000 worth of cuts which you’re willing to make…”, and added it is necessary to incorporate the $3 million of Non-Utility Capital borrowing over the course of the same time period.

Mr. Reichard commented that the numbers provided to the Administration by Mr. Leeson do not include the whole picture, as Mr. Leeson stated earlier. Mr. Reichard recalled that the Administration approached City Council with a .9 mill tax increase for the Landfill debt which would have taken care of the whole debt. However, City Council at that time did not want to do that and a compromise was reached at .4 mill for the Landfill debt. Recounting it had been stated at the time that in the future there would probably be additional revenue to take care of the difference, Mr. Reichard pointed out there is no additional revenue and revenue from timbering has not yet arrived. Mr. Reichard expressed that, if the problem is going to be fixed, it should be fixed now if that is what Council wants to do, and put a .7 mill tax increase on the problem to fix it. Mr. Reichard stressed he does not know where a reduction of $200,000 in General Fund Expenses is going to be found. Mr. Reichard informed the Members that next year there are raises under the contracts, medical benefits are running $738,000 ahead of last year because of claims, and there will be pension benefit increases next year due to stock market losses in 2001 and 2002. Mr. Reichard remarked that if Council wants to raise taxes that is Council’s prerogative “but do it. Don’t put it off, get it done, do the .7 [mill], and let’s get on with business.”

Michael Setley, of Concord Public Finance, the City’s financial advisors, located at 502 Walnut Street, Reading, Pennsylvania, noted his comments focus mostly on the last matters addressed by Mr. Reichard that come under City financial management. Mr. Setley, while stating that city financial management is very difficult, remarked that Bethlehem has been blessed compared with small cities in Pennsylvania. Nonetheless, Mr. Setley said most of the City’s fiscal management issues are really beyond management. He exemplified that health care costs are going to go where they are going to go. Advising that pension costs will be discussed with the Finance Committee in the coming weeks, Mr. Setley explained that, because of the poor financial performance in the pension portfolio in 2001 and 2002, it will take a seven figure “hit”. Mr. Setley, observing that almost none of the $46 million General Fund Budget is discretionary, highlighted the fact that almost all is required to be paid out due to prior commitments including collective bargaining agreements, debt obligations, or other obligations. Mr. Setley stressed that a very small portion of the Budget is manageable. Mr. Setley stated “what’s presented to you now is a situation that is subject to management…You can manage this risk. You can choose to either take a bite out of the taxpayers which is avoidable here or to choose to manage not to do so, when faced with…a series of other unmanageable costs which will undoubtedly stress the General Fund next year…to a point where a tax increase may be unavoidable to maintain a level of service and to maintain quality of life that Council and the Administration chooses to maintain for the citizens.” Mr. Setley said his main point is this balloon payment in the first five years is not necessary. While acknowledging that Mr. Leeson’s plan is not wrong, Mr. Setley said it is not necessary and is not required in order to satisfy this obligation. Mr. Setley pointed out that the City will not have similar choices to make when it comes to funding the pension plans and health care costs. Mr. Setley thought that, given the other things facing the City in the very near term, a decision to adopt Mr. Leeson’s plan will put additional unnecessary stress on the taxpayers and the citizens of the City.

President Schweder, affirming that the debt incurred by the City as a result of the settlement of the Hirko case is $7.39 million, denoted that the proposal forwarded by the Administration last week was for a $7.9 million borrowing and asked about the discrepancy.

Mr. Reichard explained that the $7.9 million amount includes issuance costs and capitalized interest since there is nothing budgeted for the payment.

President Schweder pointed out that under the Administration’s original proposal there would be no payment made in 2005.

Mr. Reichard, affirming that is correct, advised that under the compromise plan a payment of $70,000 would be made in 2005. In further response to President Schweder, Mr. Reichard stated that under the compromise plan the payment schedule would range from $70,000 to $2.5 million in 2014.

President Schweder noted that, under the proposal advance by Mr. Leeson, the payments would be about $850,000 as opposed to a $2,400,000 swing in the life of the schedule under the Administration’s compromise proposal.

Mr. Reichard contended that, under the Administration’s compromise plan, the debt service with the normal $3 million borrowing for Non-Utility Capital Projects every two years would remain at approximately $2.9 million. Mr. Reichard stressed that is the amount the City has always strived for and equates to about 6.7%-7% of the General Fund. Mr. Reichard continued on to point out that Mr. Leeson’s proposal does not show the normal $3 million borrowing for Non-Utility Capital Projects every two years.

President Schweder queried what is the total average annual debt service that has been calculated under the Administration’s plan over the life of the $7.9 million bond issue.

Mr. Setley replied it would be about $2,900,000 for existing debt service plus the $7.9 million bond issue for the Hirko settlement without regard for the additional borrowing. In further response to President Schweder, Mr. Setley explained that the General Fund Debt Service in the 2004 Budget is a little more than $2.9 million. In the Administration’s wrap around proposals, the idea is to take advantage of declining debt service so that debt service will be maintained more or less at $2.9 million. As a result, there would be no spikes in the City’s debt service in the future given the current existing debt service in addition to the $7.9 million Hirko settlement bond issue.

President Schweder, observing what is being said is that, with current debt in place, at some point going out there will be only $200,000 worth of debt from all other bonds, remarked he has never seen that amount.

Mr. Setley acknowledged that, certainly, there will be future borrowing without question and the debt service amount will never fall off that far. Mr. Setley asserted that one of the questions is whether it is more prudent to borrow the money now on a longer term basis at probably 35 or 40 year lows in interest rates and then make a decision on the future debt based on the facts known at that time. Mr. Setley continued on to note reasonable projections would indicate that interest rates would probably be higher at some future time and the City would want to keep the debt shorter in terms of its average life. Mr. Setley insisted the question is why one would want to keep the debt short in this great environment of finance, and risk having to finance longer future capital projects in higher interest rate environments. Mr. Setley stated what is known today is the City’s existing debt service profile, that the City can avoid a tax increase based solely on the Hirko settlement, and the interest rates are at lows that practically have not been seen throughout adult lives. Mr. Setley stressed those are all factors that bode in favor of the wrap around structure.

Mayor Callahan pointed out that the 12 year wrap around structure recommended by the Administration does include the $360,000 for Non-Utility Capital Projects for which Council voted tonight, in addition to $2,000,000 for Sewer Fund Projects for which Council voted tonight, and also includes a $3,000,000 financing for Non-Utility Capital Projects for 2005. It does not, however, make that $3,000,000 projection for 2007, 2009, etc. Mayor Callahan communicated it is difficult in 2004 to project financing too far out into the future such as 2007. Mayor Callahan stated the Administration felt that the 12 year wrap around structure was a reasonable estimate of the numbers that could be reasonably predicted into the future. Mayor Callahan, adding that Mr. Leeson’s proposal does not include long-term capital bond issues either, said he does not see that as a necessary weakness in the Administration’s proposal versus Mr. Leeson’s proposal. Mayor Callahan noted an argument could be made that the financial pain would be greater than the increase shown in the future debt service payment schedule under the Administration’s proposal for the Hirko bond issue settlement if one were to incorporate future bond issues under Mr. Leeson’s proposal. Mayor Callahan, saying that the Administration’s “numbers are real, they’re based on now, and they fund the entire settlement”, stressed that the proposal put forth by Mr. Leeson assumes a $200,000 savings through cuts in the General Fund which would be very difficult. Mayor Callahan pointed out that, even in the best of inflationary environments, things tend to go up rather than down. Mayor Callahan remarked that, in contrast to the assumption under Mr. Leeson’s proposal in which the General Fund would be $200,000 less next year given raises as a result of collective bargaining agreements, etc., in addition to all the other costs that are likely to go up and not go down, he thinks the Administration has painted a much more realistic picture of the City’s long term debt than under Mr. Leeson’s proposal. Mayor Callahan stressed that, at the very least, if one is going to assume a $200,000 savings in the General Fund every year going out, “you should at least provide some means by which to achieve those savings.”

President Schweder, acknowledging the City is faced with a terrible situation that no one would want to be faced with, communicated the difficulty in imagining that anyone in government would be in favor of raising taxes. However, President Schweder asserted there are certain things that are inevitable. If one is talking about a swing of $70,000 to $2.5 million in the payment schedule for the settlement under the Administration’s proposal, President Schweder questioned does it make more sense for a more equitable distribution of the money over the entire length of the bond issue to fund the Hirko settlement. President Schweder pointed out that Mr. Leeson’s is not really a unique proposal, and is exactly what was done when former Mayor Cunningham was a Member of Council. The figure of $200,000 appears in the minutes of the meeting at the end of December 1997 as being part of the reduction in the budget. President Schweder explained what is being sought is to have some uniformity of the debt service payments which allows for equal distribution over the life of the bond issue to fund the Hirko settlement and is what City Council did in consultation with the Administration at the end of 1997. President Schweder, noting that at some point during the life of the bond issue a half mill will generate more money than it does now, advised it is not the intention of City Council to overpay at that time. Rather, the half mill amount will be for the first year, perhaps the second year, and as it goes on, but it would be the intent of Council that as the revenue from a half mill continues to increase then eventually the entire payment would end up coming from that source. President Schweder asserted that either a legitimate payment is made in 2005 or a simplistic way out is found to avoid a realistic payment in 2005. Observing there is a choice, President Schweder said “we all have a responsibility in paying this, and to paying it in the most equitable way. We can do one of two things. We can spread this out with the pain that is attached to it by increasing the taxes at that point and we can pay it in an equitable fashion, or we can simply turn around with a proposal that balloons out and say to every child in elementary school in Bethlehem today this will be your payments at the end compared to what we pay today.” President Schweder communicated that “at least for this Member of Council, and I think the others, that’s a situation that we would like to avoid. It is obviously a very difficult choice that none of us relish but we have a responsibility to get this entire situation behind us, and I think that we move ahead quickly with doing this and doing it in an equitable way.”

President Schweder, confirming what is before City Council is fixing the Hirko settlement at $7.39 million, affirmed the Resolutions are not before Council at this point that address the tax increase or repayment.

Mr. Mowrer, commenting that he has reviewed Mr. Leeson’s proposal, said he could live with it and would not be a major problem and he sees a lot of good merit in it. Mr. Mowrer communicated he is also attuned to what the Administration has been discussing, along with their financial consultant, particularly when one is talking about the potential of future health insurance costs and pension plan costs. Mr. Mowrer, observing that he has favored the Administration’s plan because he thinks overall, and with the counsel that has been received, they are professionals who deal with such issues regularly, advised he would tend to say that is his first priority. However, Mr. Mowrer said he could also live with the proposal offered by Mr. Leeson.

President Schweder announced he will now call out of order Resolution 11 I and recognize Mr. Leeson.

Mr. Leeson explained that Resolution 11 I authorizes the incurring of debt of up to $7.39 million to provide for funding of the Hirko-Karoly settlement plus reasonable and necessary issuance costs, plus capitalized interest. Mr. Leeson continued on to say that the funds to be raised for the settlement are to be used for that purpose and no other purpose. Mr. Leeson advised that Resolution 11 J deals with the half mill tax increase and also the $200,000 of spending cuts in the General Fund.

Mr. Reichard clarified that it is realized the $7.39 million will be more with the costs of issuance and capitalized interest, and it is understood that on Final Reading the number will be different since $7.39 million is the base proposal plus the costs.

I. Hirko Settlement – Ordinance to Incur Debt

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Szabo sponsored Resolution 14,338 by which Bill No. 11 – 2004 shall determine to incur debt of $7,390,000; determining that said such debt shall be incurred as a lease rental debt to be evidenced by a series of guaranteed lease revenue bonds, series of 2004, for the funding of the Hirko settlement plus reasonable and necessary issuance costs, and any capitalized interest for the year 2004. All of such funds are to be earmarked and designated solely and exclusively to fund the Hirko settlement plus reasonable and necessary issuance costs only, and for no other purposes.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder. The Resolution passed.

President Schweder next requested that Resolution 11 J be read.

J. Funding Hirko Settlement – Allocating Tax Revenues of ½ Mill and Reducing General Fund Expenditures by $200,000 - 2005 through 2015

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Szabo sponsored Resolution 14,339 that segregated and/or escrowed in a separate account .05 mill from the revenues raised from the Tax for the years 2005 through 2015 for General City purposes, all of such funds to be earmarked and designated solely and exclusively to pay off debt pertaining to the Hirko lawsuit settlement, only, and for no other purpose. In addition, General Fund Expenses shall be reduced by the amount of $200,000 for the years 2005 through 2015 for the purpose of paying off debt pertaining to the Hirko lawsuit settlement, only, and for no other purpose.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder. The Resolution passed.

Mayor Callahan, communicating that he is disappointed by Council’s action tonight, said he wants to make it clear that nobody is pushing costs back to others. While expressing that he appreciates Council’s financial advice, Mayor Callahan said any basic consumer knows and understands that if one takes out a 30 year mortgage it will cost more than a 15 year mortgage. However, the average citizen does not have the money to take a 15 year mortgage, and every day people take out a 30 year mortgage. Mayor Callahan expressed the opinion that is not an option right now for the City of Bethlehem. Continuing on to say he thinks the City should take a reasonable time to finance something just as an average citizen would do, Mayor Callahan thought that his plan makes sense for those reasons. Pointing out there is tremendous potential in the City, Mayor Callahan stressed there is not the means right now to pay the Hirko settlement in the way in which Council has put forth. Observing that Council is not telling him anything that he does not already know in all of Council’s assessments tonight, Mayor Callahan emphasized that he has put forth a financially responsible plan which does not require the City to reach down into the taxpayers pockets today or even tomorrow. Mayor Callahan said “if Council wishes to fund this settlement this way I want to indicate that I’m not going to sign it, and it is my plan to veto the bill. I think it is completely unnecessary. All we are doing in the plan we put forward is managing the City’s money in a way that people do every day in leveling out the City’s debt service. I’m not going to ask the taxpayers of Bethlehem to raise taxes any more than is necessary today. I’m not going to sign this legislation, and that taxes people at a rate that they don’t need to be taxed at. This can be managed. This is one expenditure in a forty-six million dollar budget, and forcing us to raise taxes now unnecessarily is just unreasonable. We don’t have to raise taxes now to pay off this item. So, I wanted to make that clear tonight, for the record, if Council wishes to continue in this path, they can do it without me involved.”

E. Bill No. 12 – 2004 – Amending Ordinance 4233 – Fixing the Tax Rate for All City Purposes for the Year 2004

The Clerk read Bill No. 12 – 2004 – Amending Ordinance 4233 – Fixing the Tax Rate for All City Purposes for the Year 2004, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Ms. Szabo, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
ORDINANCE 4233, FIXING THE TAX RATE FOR
ALL CITY PURPOSES FOR THE YEAR 2004.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 12 – 2004 was declared passed on First Reading.

11. RESOLUTIONS

A. Requiring Administration Report to City Council – Insurance Coverage

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,330 requiring the Administration to report to City Council, in writing, not later than the second Monday in each year, the types of insurance coverages maintained by the City, the amount of such coverages, the name of the insurance company, the name of the insurance agent and/or broker, if any, and the cost of such coverage. Also, the Administration shall report immediately to City Council at any time of a change, modification, addition, and/or deletion of the insurances obtained and maintained by the City, howsoever arising. In addition, the Administration shall arrange for periodic reports to City Council, in writing, on the progress and status of any and all legal matters threatened and/or pending affecting the City.

Mr. Donchez stated that the Resolution is basically a follow-up to the one he offered a few years ago when there was a situation dealing with the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mr. Donchez recounted he felt at that time it was very important to have something on the books so that whenever outside attorneys would be hired City Council must be informed why, how they would be paid, and why they were being hired. Mr. Donchez noted that twice a year the Administration has always provided that information upon his request since 1997. Turning to the Resolution before Council, Mr. Donchez remarked that the past $500,000 insurance coverage for liability that the City had was really unacceptable but is now moot and the City has to deal with the present situation of the Hirko settlement. Mr. Donchez explained he is offering the Resolution to have the Administration provide City Council with all the City’s insurance coverages, the amount, whenever there would be a change in carrier, or a change in any type of coverage, and the information is to be provided to City Council before expiration or renewal. While expressing his understanding that insurance coverage is within the Administration’s jurisdiction, Mr. Donchez communicated that the Resolution represents a way of sharing the insurance information so that City Council knows exactly how much insurance the City has, and expressed the hope that his colleagues would support the Resolution.

Mr. Mowrer expressed his thought that there are a lot of unanswered questions about the City’s insurance. Mr. Mowrer observed that among the major questions would be what was the City’s catastrophic liability insurance at what time, in what year was it dropped to $500,000, who made the decision to drop it, did the insurance company make that recommendation, are there copies of the proposal of the insurance company, was there a broker who would have said to the City do not drop it as this is a very important part of your coverage, what kind of legal advice did the City get at that time. Mr. Mowrer said it seems to him there are a lot of questions that he has not heard answered, there might be some liability on somebody’s part, and that the City could get some of the money back.

John Spirk, City Solicitor, commented that he has not gone back to look at the file from 1997 to research the matter as of yet. Attorney Spirk said he has been told it was a decision made by the Mayor and the Business Administrator in 1997 based on their assumption that the City had not had any large liabilities in this area and it was a way to save money.

Mr. Mowrer expressed his understanding was State liability limits it to $500,000 for the City being sued but Federal liability can go much higher which is what happened in the Hirko case. Mr. Mowrer said he would be curious as to what the recommendation of the insurance brokers were as well as what legal advice the City received.

President Schweder asked what is the City’s current level. Attorney Spirk replied $7,000,000. Attorney Spirk, in further response to President Schweder, affirmed that in the Hirko settlement the City would have been short by $300,000 if it had $7,000,000 coverage. Attorney Spirk noted that Mr. Reichard has been in consultation with the insurance carrier. Mr. Reichard, advising that the City’s policy renews in July, stated that the City is looking towards increasing that amount. President Schweder inquired whether there were years when the City’s liability insurance coverage was higher than $7,000,000. Mr. Leeson, former City Solicitor, stated that when Mayor Cunningham and he came into City Hall in January 1998 they immediately identified this problem, and increased the coverage to $11,000,000. Over time, insurance costs went up and a budgetary decision was made to cut it from $11,000,000 to $7,000,000. Mr. Leeson said he would encourage the Administration to raise the coverage amount back to what it was. Mr. Leeson added he thinks all have learned from this lesson that to be short on insurance is not the way to go, and even if it costs extra the City needs to get the insurance coverage in place. Mr. Leeson said he personally would like to see the City’s insurance coverage get back up to a minimum of $10,000,000 or better.

Mr. Mowrer, pointing out he has spent 30 years in the insurance business, stated that every proposal he made was for a high dollar figure on liability with a large deductible. Mr. Mowrer continued on to note the City can stand a $500,000 or even a $1,000,000 deductible but struggles when it comes to a $7,000,000 amount to be paid. Mr. Mowrer commented he does not understand why there was not more logic put into the recommendation.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder. The Resolution passed.

B. Approving Earned Income Tax Rules and Regulations – Revisions

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,331 to which were attached the Rules and Regulations for Tax on Earned Income and Net Profits, as amended, retroactive to January 1, 2003, in accordance with Act 166 of 2002.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 6. The Resolution passed.

C. Transfer of Funds – Planning and Zoning Bureau – Department Contracts

Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 14,332 that transferred $16,400 in the General Fund Budget from the Community and Economic Development Department – Administration – Department Contracts Account to the Planning and Zoning Bureau – Department Contracts Account to allow the City to encumber 2004 contracts with the City’s Historical Officer.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 6. The Resolution passed.

D. Transfer of Funds – Health Bureau – Equipment – Skin Cancer Control Program

Mr. Arcelay and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 14,333 that transferred $510 in the General Fund Budget from the Health Bureau – Skin Cancer Control Account to the Health Bureau – Equipment – Skin Cancer Account, for purchase of storage and filing cabinets for use in the Skin Cancer Control Program.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder. 6. The Resolution passed.

Motion – Considering Resolutions 11 E through G as a Group

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Leeson moved to consider Resolutions 11 E through G as a group.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 6. The motion passed.

E. Certificate of Appropriateness – 1 East Fourth Street

Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,334 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing wall signs at 1 East Fourth Street.

F. Certificate of Appropriateness – 128-136 Graham Place

Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,335 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish 128-136 Graham Place for renovation, expansion and parking for the Portuguese American Club.

President Schweder observed that the proposal represents a perfect example of how the South Bethlehem Historic Conservation District is supposed to work, and is a very good compromise on the part of the South Bethlehem Historic Conservation Commission and the owners of the building to allow for removal of the buildings and improvement of the structure.

G. Certificate of Appropriateness – 313 East Third Street

Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,336 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install an awning sign, lettering on the front window, and a refrigeration/freezer unit at the rear of the building at 313 East Third Street.

Voting AYE on Resolutions 11 E through G: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 6. The Resolutions passed.

H. Authorizing Execution of Operation and Indemnity Agreement – Village View Water Company

Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 14,337 that authorized the Mayor, the Controller and/or such other City officials as deemed appropriate to execute the Operation and Indemnity Agreement, Lease Amendment (to be executed at a later date) and such other agreements and/or documents as are deemed by the City Solicitor to be necessary, in connection with the purchase of the Village View Water Company by the Bethlehem Authority.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolution passed.

12. NEW BUSINESS

None.

13. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

Zoning Hearing Board – Garrison Street Apartments

Bill Fitzpatrick, 732 Center Street, advised that the issue on which he is seeking assistance is on behalf of the neighbors in the immediate area of the block watch and the neighbors on watch group on Center and Garrison Streets. Mr. Fitzpatrick informed the assembly that, several weeks ago at the behest of the residents of Garrison Street, he appeared at a Zoning Hearing Board meeting at which a variance was requested to develop a four unit apartment house on a very small lot in what is primarily a residential area. The developer had with him a very intelligent and articulate counsel who was able to portray the situation that, while he even stipulated that he did not agree with the zoning at that particular area, it would permit the construction of the type of property that was being proposed. Mr. Fitzpatrick expressed the belief that in the Zoning Hearing Board hearing statements were either misrepresented or misunderstood by the deliberating group, and said those statements were attributed to the zoning officers and the planning officers. Mr. Fitzpatrick advised that, “regrettably, in our case, the variance was granted. Since this is a [neighborhood] group of people without tremendous affluence or resources to hire counsel or representative, we have taken the opportunity to file a petition and have presented that to Mr. Hanna. We would like to thank Mr. Hanna, Mr. Lezoche and Ms. Heller for their assistance in this matter and their understanding. However, we would invite the Members of Council to take a look at this and support us, and we would ask you, Mr. Mayor, as well. We think it’s simply a project that does not fit in the area. We are asking the City to appeal this for us because we do not have the financial means to seek counsel and to proceed with court proceeding. We feel this is contrary to what we understand is the stated purpose of the City to actually address density issues in the neighborhoods and actually reclaim single family residence that had previously been carved into multi-unit apartment houses. This actually would create the construction of a new four unit building. In order to shoehorn it into the small lot, it would have to be turned sideways so that the front and back would actually face the immediate adjoining properties. That is the first and most pressing issue for us. But, secondly, several things were brought up in that hearing that concerned all of us greatly about what is the zoning in our neighborhoods, and we would respectfully ask that a study be done of the areas, particularly in my neighborhood in the 600 and 700 blocks of Center Street and that of Garrison Street involving the neighbors to ascertain whether the zoning currently in place is appropriate and, if not, what regress is available.”

Mr. Arcelay expressed his concurrence with Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Arcelay noted that he generated a memorandum earlier this week to the Administration concerning the situation. Stating it is something that should not have happened, Mr. Arcelay stressed it is something that definitely needs to be reviewed.

Mayor Callahan confirmed that the Administration has received Mr. Arcelay’s memorandum and expressed that his concern is appreciated. Mayor Callahan, stating that Mr. Fitzpatrick’s involvement in the block watch is very much appreciated, noted that having lived close to the neighborhood for the last 6-7 years he is well aware of the density issues and the need for parking. Mayor Callahan, advising that the Administration has taken a very close interest in the matter, said he has driven by the area and looked at the lot in question when he found out about the Zoning Hearing Board’s decision. Mayor Callahan explained that the Administration is working on trying to resolve the situation and is not in agreement with the decision that was made by the Zoning Hearing Board.

Tony Hanna, Director of Community and Economic Development, advised that the day after the Zoning Hearing Board took its action, a memorandum was generated to the Law Bureau indicating that the City wanted to file an appeal on the Zoning Hearing Board’s action. Affirming that “we concurred with the neighbors”, Mr. Hanna continued on to say “we feel that the Board may have abused their discretion, in terms of the Zoning Ordinance and the bases for appeal, particularly those that relate to density and conversions as was the case on that evening. Mr. Hanna, confirming that the Department has been in consultation with the Law Bureau in terms of the appeal, advised that the Department is waiting for the written decision of the Zoning Hearing Board so that a determination can be made as to exactly what the bases of the appeal might be. Mr. Hanna added that the Department is also in discussion with the appellant to see if there is a way that the matter can be amicably resolved by virtue of a redesign or possibly a resubmission. Acknowledging that taking an action against one of the City’s boards such as the Zoning Hearing Board and appealing their decision is a strong statement for the City to make, Mr. Hanna expressed the hope that the matter can be resolved amicably. Mr. Hanna continued on to say, if not, then “we are in a position where we will be appealing the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board.”

Mrs. Belinski advised that, in the past, she has attended several Zoning Hearing Board meetings, and felt that the Zoning Officer insinuated his opinion to try to influence the Board which she thought was uncalled for. Mrs. Belinski said she took exception to what happened at the meetings in the past. Mrs. Belinski, wondering how much influence the Zoning Officer is supposed to have on the deliberations of the Board, thought that the Board discussed an issue among themselves and if they had a question then the Zoning Officer was there to answer.

Mr. Hanna informed Mrs. Belinski that in this particular instance the Zoning Officer’s position was contrary to that of the Zoning Hearing Board and he did not agree with the Board’s action. Mr. Hanna said, in addition, the Board deliberated in Executive Session and made their decision without any influence from any staff member, whether the Zoning Officer or Planning Director. Mr. Hanna thought that, in this particular case, Mrs. Belinski’s concerns are misplaced, at least in terms of the decision discussed by Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, in response to Mrs. Belinski’s comment, clarified that he was trying to convey his belief that the opinions of the Zoning Officer were actually disregarded in this case in the hearing itself. The opinions that the Zoning Officer had expressed to Mr. Fitzpatrick and that Mr. Fitzpatrick had heard throughout the proceedings were contrary to the approval of the variance that was granted, and the Zoning Officer was, in fact, not part of the final deliberation.

Mr. Leeson, with reference to Mr. Hanna’s comments that the Zoning Hearing Board went into Executive Session, asked if that is customary or unusual for this case.

Mr. Hanna responded “they’ve been doing it more and more…and we’ve asked the Law Bureau to research whether or not their actions in Executive Session were, in fact, appropriate…Their Solicitor advised them that the Executive Session was, in fact, appropriate based upon…a recent case decision which allowed Zoning Hearing Boards to go into Executive Session…”.

Mr. Leeson suggested that Mr. Hanna look at the issue. While acknowledging that the case apparently allows the Zoning Hearing Board to go into Executive Session, Mr. Leeson said that does not mean they have to do that.

Ms. Szabo related that, at yesterday’s First Monday meeting at the Cathedral Church of the Nativity, members of the South Bethlehem neighborhood housing committee reminded her that she had promised to take up the question of allowing single homes to be converted into multiple family units and high density residences. Ms. Szabo communicated that she will be contacting Mr. Hanna about the issue.

Mr. Hanna recalled that last year he wrote a rather lengthy and elaborate memorandum to City Council addressing the question that came up last year and indicating the City’s position on conversions. Mr. Hanna communicated that the cited situation on Garrison Street was not truly a conversion of a single family residence but rather a density issue in terms of a lot. Mr. Hanna affirmed there have been no conversions this year. Mr. Hanna commented that he would be happy to share his memorandum with the Members of Council again.

Ms. Szabo stated there is a concern that, in the future, it cannot be guaranteed that conversions will not happen.

Mr. Hanna responded there are no guarantees unless the City totally eliminates conversions in the Zoning Ordinance; and, in fact, as long as the Zoning Hearing Board and the Zoning and Planning staff adhere to the three tests in the Zoning Ordinance, there will not be problems.

Patriot Act

Peter Crownfield, 569 Brighton Street, said he is at the meeting to speak with reference to a Resolution that he has brought up before. Recounting that last August he appeared before City Council and suggested it would be appropriate to pass a Resolution to protect civil rights and civil liberties in Bethlehem, particularly in view of the Patriot Act and some other Homeland Security measures that have been put into effect recently, Mr. Crownfield said at the time 145 other cities had already done so. Mr. Crownfield, affirming he appeared before Council in February to repeat his request, said at that time 230 cities had passed a Resolution. Advising that now 275 cities and 4 states have passed a Resolution, Mr. Crownfield highlighted the fact that the City of Bethlehem has yet to act, and expressed the hope that it can do so soon.

Michael Laughton, a resident of the East Hills area, said he is speaking tonight also to address the issue of the Resolution discussed by Mr. Crownfield. Mr. Laughton advised that his specific concern is section 608 of the Patriot Act that allows the government to seize the assets of an individual or an organization without prior notice or hearing if the government says that individual or organization has engaged in or is planning an act of domestic terrorism. Stressing that no one wants terrorism in their community, Mr. Laughton said the definition of domestic terrorism is so broadly worded that under this section of the Patriot Act the government could effectively bankrupt an organization or individual with which it simply disagrees. Informing the assembly he has been a member of Lepoco, a peace advocacy organization that has been a vibrant part of the Bethlehem community since 1965, Mr. Laughton advised that, under section 608 of the Patriot Act, Lepoco could be bankrupt. Mr. Laughton affirmed that he has written letters to the editors of the local newspapers, and has written letters and made telephone calls to State and Federal representatives expressing his concerns with certain government policies. Mr. Laughton thought this was his responsibility as a citizen of a democracy. However, he pointed out that under section 608 he could be labeled a terriorist, have his property seized, and be bankrupt. When the Federal government gives itself this kind of power, Mr. Laughton stressed it stifles dissent, and fear of the power that it generates will cause self-censorship. Mr. Laughton, restating that 275 cities and 4 states have passed Resolutions to protect the civil liberties of the citizens, expressed he would like the City to do the same.

James Goodley, 427 Montclair Avenue, said he is speaking as a Lehigh University engineering student and is echoing concerns of hundreds of Lehigh students and probably over a dozen campus organizations that are really concerned about the Patriot Act, and about its application in the libraries. For international students, there have been numerous forums at Lehigh University on the Patriot Act. The international student department has said that some students who go back home on break are actually denied access to come back. Advising he has spoken to many librarians who have indicated that, if the FBI would come in at night and ask a graduate who is manning the desk to get records, it might intimidate them, Mr. Goodley said he does not think that has a place in the university. Mr. Goodley stated he would ask that City Council adopt a Resolution against the Patriot Act.

Joris Rosse, 1966 Creek Road, said he supports the previous comments that were made in support for the Resolution that is proposed against the Patriot Act. Mr. Rosse informed the assembly that he went through World War II under the occupation by Germany in Holland that started in 1940 and ended in 1945. Mr. Rosse communicated there is an eerie resemblance in the gradual cracking down of civil liberties that was experienced then and that he experiences, witnesses, sees, and reads about now. Mr. Rosse, expressing there are many other behaviors and issues have happened that would indicate to him as a careful observer, a political science major, and a Phi Beta Kappa in his junior year, “that we are in a very difficult predicament in this country. We have to be very, very careful to protect our civil liberties because once lost, they can be unregainable.” Mr. Rosse stated he supports the plea to join those other cities and states that had the wisdom, courage, and fortitude to stand strong and support the Constitution against this kind of behavior.

Guy Gray, 801 Vernon Street, said he wants to speak in support of Bethlehem City Council taking up the Resolution mentioned by Mr. Crownfield. Mr. Gray, recounting that the group has been bringing the issue before City Council since last August, said “you just owe it to them to bring it to a vote [and] make a decision.” Mr. Gray, recalling there was a meeting co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters at the UGI building that he attended, expressed his surprise that there were over 300 people at the meeting. Mr. Gray pointed out it is an issue that a lot of people are very concerned about. Mr. Gray observed that if Council brings the Resolution to a vote it will honor the movement among local citizens. Mr. Gray urged that when Council does vote it vote for a Resolution and join the other cities because much social change has come about in the country through such movements, and added it is a very grass roots, democratic way of getting change in government.

Hirko Settlement

Dean Bruch, 625 Hawthorne Road, stated with what he has heard about the Hirko case and developing a method to pay for the settlement, he would hope that the City does not linger on with this issue. Mr. Bruch thought the most prudent thing is to pay the bill and get it done with, and do not wait until the end and have a balloon payment.

Former Durkee Property – Eighth Avenue - Steel

Mr. Bruch asked what is the steel being used for that is on flat bed trucks at the former Durkee property on Eighth Avenue.

Francis Donchez, Police Commissioner, noted that a Police Officer stopped there to write a report but he is not sure the Officer knows why the trucks are there and added that he does not know why.

Expressing that it might be retaliatory, Mr. Bruch thought people should ask Mr. Petrucci, the property owner, if he is proceeding along the lines of good business procedure to try to get his proposed project done.

Ms. Szabo commented it was her understanding that a long time ago the property owner was given permission to use the Eighth Avenue property for storage of material.

Mayor Callahan pointed out that Mr. Petrucci owns the lot and the property is zoned Industrial Redevelopment which he is reasonably confident would include the storage of tractor trailers. Mayor Callahan said he would check into the matter.

El Shaddah – Wood Street - Parking

Mr. Bruch, focusing on El Shaddah, a community based faith organization, pointed out the organization is able to rent 68 spaces from the Wood Street property. Mr. Bruch felt someone should look into the matter. Mr. Bruch, while stating he is not saying he does not want the organization there, explained he does not want the cars as a consequence of the organization’s activities on the surrounding residential streets. Mr. Bruch observed that, as a result, it might be necessary for residents to get Residential Permit Parking. Mr. Bruch expressed it is too bad that the City could not get taxes for the property.

Hirko Settlement

Chuck Nyul, 1966 Pinehurst Road, with reference to his plan to pay off the Hirko settlement that he distributed at the last City Council Meeting, said that information can be discarded in that he now understands the payment of the settlement through the bond issue. Mr. Nyul, advising that today he went through the financing scenario again, said he took figures that were reported in the Morning Call which amounted to $10,003,373 that was his starting point. Mr. Nyul informed the assembly that he has plans for 4, 8, 10, and 12 years each of which has its own specific tax increase, and is based on a home assessment of $50,000. Mr. Nyul said, surprisingly, the payoff in each plan comes out to $333.45 for each home assessment of $50,000. Consequently, Mr. Nyul communicated he cannot see the argument. Mr. Nyul commented that in his 4 year plan a citizen would pay $83.36 and $27.79 in his 12 year plan. However, he said, the “mortgage” is $333.45 based on $15,000,000 of real estate. Mr. Nyul, stating that he would take the 4 year payment plan to pay off the Hirko settlement, and “get moving”, added that he has no time to wait for 12 years. With reference to the payment plan proposed by the Administration, Mr. Nyul did not think there are 75,783 homes assessed at $50,000.

Former Bethlehem Steel Corporation Property - Development

Turning to the former Bethlehem Steel Corporation property, Mr. Nyul observed if the City had the funding it could buy property from the current owner and control development on the property. Mr. Nyul stressed it is up to the City to approve what a new owner wants to put on the site. Mr. Nyul added he does not think a museum will work out on the site. Focusing on the blast furnaces, Mr. Nyul expressed his opinion that it is time to tear them down because it is painful to think what was done to the Bethlehem Steel company.

14. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
ATTEST:

City Clerk