BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING

October 5, 2004 Meeting Minutes

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, October 5, 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 Joel Atkinson, of Cathedral Church of the Nativity, 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.

Citation – Honoring Charles J. Sculley

President Schweder read a Citation honoring Charles J. Sculley who retired from the Fire Department after 26 years of service. The Members of Council, along with the assembly, applauded Mr. Sculley and wished him well in his retirement.

Citation - Honoring Thomas Williams

President Donchez advised that the Citation honoring Thomas Williams who retired from the Fire Department after 25 years of service will be forwarded to him since he was unable to be present this evening.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of September 21, 2004 were approved.

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

Instituting Time Limits – Courtesy of the Floor

David Sanders, 69 E. Goepp Street, said he disapproves of setting time limits for speakers under Courtesy of the Floor. Mr. Sanders stated that limiting speakers before City Council to ten or twelve minutes is wrong. Mr. Sanders expressed his thoughts that “this is a public meeting. I think we come here, we sit here, many nights we wait to the very end, and to ask us to be limited to ten minutes, especially on rezoning issues…[for] some people it takes more than ten minutes…But, I think it’s wrong. I think City Council in the past has asked for our support, they’ve asked for the public input. We vote for you people. You get paid to listen to us. And, I think…asking for the courtesy of the floor [to be limited] to ten minutes is wrong. I did ask last month if we would be able to extend our ten minutes to somebody else. The answer is probably no. In checking, Northampton County…does allow someone to offer their ten minutes…So, again, I’d like you to rethink about this. I don’t think it’s necessary. I think this is a public meeting and we should be allowed to speak as much as we need to.”

William Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, stated he is opposed to the time limit for those who speak to the Members of Council under Courtesy of the Floor. Mr. Scheirer recounted that, as he told Mr. Mowrer some months ago, he personally can live with fifteen minutes, and does not think he has ever gone beyond ten minutes. Mr. Scheirer indicated there are only a few people who go beyond ten minutes. Mr. Scheirer stressed one of the problems with a time limitation “is that it widens the gap between the Council and the citizens. It’s a barrier. It’s largely a symbolic barrier because there’s only a few who go beyond, but a barrier nonetheless. And, I don’t think this is the best way to go about things. As the President knows, there are tools and Roberts Rules of Order, for example, on pages 331 and 333, that allow the chair to require speakers to be more focused…At the last meeting it was said that, and with the amendment that was approved, and I agreed with that, that the rules could always be suspended to allow somebody to go longer, and the motion would be to suspend the rules in order to do this particular thing. There’s another motion that accomplishes the same thing, and I think would be a little bit better, that’s called extend the limits of debate. It also would be for a particular person for a particular length of time. It would also require a two-thirds vote. The reason why I think it’s a little better is that suspending the rules sounds like we’re really doing you a special favor here whereas extending the limits of debate I think is a little more focused.” Focusing on the question raised at the last meeting and tonight about transferring time from one speaker to another, Mr. Scheirer said, unless a special rule is adopted, Roberts Rules would be operative and rights to debate are not transferable, as cited on page 328.

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, commented that, in reviewing this request, the sponsor has stated that in the past there was a three minute limitation, but it was at some later time removed and rescinded. Mr. Antalics recalled that in recent years it was tried again to put a limitation and it was defeated. Mr. Antalics said, based upon that history he “would like to ask the sponsor what is his prime reason for introducing it again.”

Mr. Mowrer responded that, being a pastor and having to preach every Sunday morning, he knows that approximately ten minutes is about the maximum that people are going to listen. Mr. Mowrer continued on to say he also knows that, when people get up and talk at City Council Meetings, about 80% to 90% of the requests made are not legislative matters but are administrative matters and should be taken to the Administration rather than to the legislative body. Mr. Mowrer expressed his belief that “if you really know what you want to say you can say it in ten or twelve minutes. You don’t need more.” Mr. Mowrer added that when people get up and talk for long periods of time it also delays other people an opportunity to talk, they may become tired and do not get a chance to speak, or they feel “crowded”.

Mr. Antalics asked has anyone reviewed the violation of Courtesy of the Floor and whether there is any data. Mr. Antalics advised he has data. Mr. Antalics informed the assembly that he reviewed one year’s Meetings of Council. In those 24 meetings, at the second Courtesy of the Floor there were 103 comments by citizens, six were excessive, and four were substantive: car wash, loss of water, illegal activity in the Watershed, and investigation of timbering. Stating two were excessive and frivolous, Mr. Antalics said the third time the person who was excessive and frivolous spoke, Acting President Donchez had the ability to intercede and cut it down to nine. Expressing that when speaking is limited it is an intimidating factor, Mr. Antalics commented he has heard many times that people who come to speak before City Council are very sensitive and uneasy. Mr. Antalics continued on to say “when they are told they can’t speak to speak their mind, they may not want to come forward. So, you’re intimidating the public by putting a limitation. So, they may have a real issue. But, the point is, if it works, don’t fix it. The numbers from 103 comments at 24 Council Meetings over the last year decry this desire to limit because it’s unnecessary.” Highlighting the fact that out of the 103 comments only 1.9% were frivolous, Mr. Antalics queried “are you going to punish 99% of the people for 1%.” Mr. Antalics inquired whether the sponsor of the Resolution recalls the group Citizens for Constructive Renewal, who were concerned about the closing of Broad Street, when he was Mayor.

Mr. Mowrer replied yes.

Mr. Antalics said the point he is making is that apparently “they could have been a thorn in your side.” Mr. Antalics observed that the six Members who have been on Council for more than one year never brought up the issue for time limitation. Consequently, Mr. Antalics explained he is looking for the logic, other than Mr. Mowrer’s explanation, and whether there is possibly a historic precedent.

President Schweder affirmed to Mr. Antalics that a discussion about this issue was before City Council about four years ago.

Mr. Antalics, recalling he did mention that the matter was before City Council, said it was rescinded, retried, and defeated, and now it is before City Council again. Expressing that, if one goes by fact “this is a very unwise Resolution because it gives a negative message to the citizens of Bethlehem for whom you’ve asked to speak for,” Mr. Antalics asserted “to not allow them to speak their mind is a disservice to the people you’ve asked to represent.”

Rezoning South Mountain to RR - Residential

Louise Valeriano, 3114 East Boulevard, with reference to the proposed rezoning of South Mountain, highlighted the fact that there is a plaque in City Hall calling Bethlehem “tree city”. Ms. Valeriano said “I think we ought to take better care of our trees on the South Mountain.” Ms. Valeriano continued on to point out that the trees produce oxygen to help improve the quality of air in Bethlehem. She added that, with reference to recent publicity about the quality of air, the air in Bethlehem is not too bad but not too good either. Ms. Valeriano thought all the tress that can be should be preserved, and stressed that South Mountain is a beautiful point for people to look at. Ms. Valeriano, while expressing her thought that three houses on one acre is too much, communicated if that is what Council wants to do then so be it. Ms. Valeriano noted that a lot of trees have been cut down and said she would not like to see any more cut down behind Donegan School.

Renaming City Center Plaza

Ms. Valeriano suggested that the City Center Plaza be renamed Pfeifle Plaza. Commenting that all Mayors have done something good in their tenure, Ms. Valeriano stated that Mayor Pfeifle was the Mayor the longest of any of the Mayors. She continued on to note he rooted out corruption in the City, and did many other good things for the City. Ms. Valeriano, observing there is not really anything named after Mayor Pfeifle, pointed out that Pfeifle Field is no longer Pfeifle Field, since it is now being developed for housing. Ms. Valeriano stated that, for Mayor Archibald Johnston, Johnston Drive has been named. Ms. Valeriano restated her thought that City Center Plaza ought to be renamed Pfeifle Plaza.

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, noting that three Members of Council were not present at the Parks and Public Property Committee meeting on September 30, 2004, presented to them information he passed on to the other Members of Council who attended the Committee meeting. Mr. Antalics communicated there are three options: table the Resolution for renaming the City Center Plaza, vote down the Resolution, or vote to rename the City Center Plaza. Mr. Antalics suggested that the Resolution be tabled to be polite to everyone involved, as he mentioned in his article that appeared in the Morning Call. Mr. Antalics said for forty years the name has been Bethlehem City Plaza. Mr. Antalics suggested that City Hall be renamed as Schaffer/Payrow City Hall. Mr. Antalics suggested that Town Hall, donated by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, be renamed Schwab Center. Mr. Antalics, pointing out that Bethlehem Steel Corporation was instrumental in making dramatic donations to the City, stressed that the City has no recognition of the Bethlehem Steel. Mr. Antalics added that Mayors have gone to Bethlehem Steel’s executive officers to ask for favors and received them, and former Mayors know this, at no cost to the City because Bethlehem Steel had a vested interest in the City. Mr. Antalics recalled he had suggested renaming the Hill to Hill Bridge as Schwab Bridge. Noting that Roland Adams was instrumental in the formation and building of the Bethlehem Public Library and donated over $250,000, Mr. Antalics communicated the Library could be renamed Roland Adams Memorial Library. Mr. Antalics added that the name Bethlehem City Center could be kept and satisfy everybody. Turning to his handout in which the Bethlehem Globe-Times recognized Bethlehem’s various Mayors in honor of the City’s bicentennial, Mr. Antalics noted that primary emphasis is given to Mayor Schaffer who was the visionary in recommending that a new City Center be built. Mr. Antalics related that Mayors Schaeffer, Payrow, and Mowrer met in 1975 and the work of Mayor Schaeffer was recognized. He added that Mr. Gaugler called former Mayor Schaeffer the man who visualized downtown redevelopment. Suggesting that the Resolution be tabled, Mr. Antalics said do not do a disservice to the people who deserve recognition. Mr. Antalics stated he was asked by a number of people on Council that if Mr. Antalics had any extra information to please forward it to the Members of Council. Mr. Antalics said “I am a citizen. It’s not my job”, and added that before a Resolution is considered it should be researched. Mr. Antalics, stating that since he brought it up Schaeffer has become key in this discussion, remarked before that it was almost a done deal. He observed that, based upon conversations individually with Members of Council, the renaming was going to be to Payrow Plaza. Mr. Antalics asked when did Members of Council receive notification of the Resolution that is now on the Agenda as Resolution 11 B. Mr. Antalics said the issue was presented before the Parks and Public Property Committee on September 30, 2004 for a Resolution to rename City Center Plaza as Payrow Plaza. Quoting from the Rules of Council, Mr. Antalics stated that, since the Committee met to consider a Resolution on September 30, Resolution 11 B is out of order and should not be on the Agenda.

Instituting Time Limits – Courtesy of the Floor

Peter Crownfield, 569 Brighton Street, noted he has spoken before City Council a number of times but has not gone near ten minutes. Mr. Crownfield said he is opposed to the time limit for some of the reasons that were already stated, but mostly because it is unnecessary, and the chair always has the authority to cut off someone who is being off-topic or rambling on.

Rezoning South Mountain to RR Residential

Mr. Crownfield pointed out that, according to the EPA and other Federal sources, Northampton County is among the 10% worst air quality areas in the United States, county by county, as is Lehigh County. Mr. Crownfield, focusing on hilltop development, advised it is blamed for flooding down below, and severe damage. Mr. Crownfield observed that is another factor to consider in the rezoning proposal, and added that the more restrictive, the better the protection for the people who are already here.

Renaming City Center Plaza

Mr. Crownfield, noting he did not live in Bethlehem at the time and did some research, commented he thinks a lot of people agree that Mayor Schaeffer was a visionary in that he was looking forward at where the City should go. Mr. Crownfield communicated there are many who wish the vision had been different so that such lengths would not have to be gone through in order to restore Historic Bethlehem if more of Historic Bethlehem had been preserved. Mr. Crownfield said, while he credits that Administration for being visionaries, he does not think their vision served the City very well.

Citizen Research

Mr. Crownfield, turning to the issue raised earlier of Council doing their homework and citizens should not have to, said he agrees with many of the things Mr. Antalics said. However, Mr. Crownfield remarked that “democracy is not a spectator sport and we’re not here just to watch you, but to participate.”

Rezoning South Mountain to RR Residential

Santiago Rivera, 1349 Lynn Avenue, stated he is at the meeting to answer any questions the Members of Council may have as to his reasons for the amendment he is requesting in the rezoning of South Mountain. Mr. Rivera added he hopes that the amendment he requested is approved.

6. OLD BUSINESS

Sinkhole - Lafayette Avenue

Mrs. Belinski asked the Public Works Director if the staff went to Lafayette Avenue to see the two new sinkholes that developed, and what is the analysis of the situation. Mrs. Belinski recounted that, at the Lafayette Avenue property of two citizens who are 86 and 88 years old, water pipes burst and there are huge sinkholes. It cost the citizens from their life savings $30,000 to have a concrete contractor fill in the sinkholes. The City’s insurance company is willing to give them $5,000. As a result of the most recent storm, there are now more sinkholes on their property. Mrs. Belinski inquired whether it is still being said that it is an act of God and the City is not responsible.

Michael Alkhal, Director of Public Works, affirmed that he did go to the site and looked at the intersection in question. The new sinkholes that have developed are entirely on private property. In the area that was restored previously, including the area in the street, there is no activity within or underneath that area. Mr. Alkhal stated at this point he is not sure what the City’s involvement should be.

Mrs. Belinski, noting that she was at the site, pointed out there are three depressions on the street that crosses Lafayette Avenue, and remarked that more sinkholes are coming.

Mr. Alkhal advised that, when he was at the site last week, all the sinkhole activity was at the edge of the right of way, and onto the private property at the edge of the sidewalk away from the street.

Mrs. Belinski explained the rest of the street was supposed to be finished; however, it is the contention of the concrete contractor that because the rest of the street was not done by the City that is why there are sinkholes now.

Mr. Alkhal, expressing his disagreement, noted that the sinkhole activity that affected the street area itself was dug out, and the City did make every effort to find the eye of the sinkhole and to fill, compact, and properly restore the street. Mr. Alkhal noted the areas that received repairs are still intact and there is no sign of sinkhole activities currently underneath them. Mr. Alkhal advised that the activities about which Mrs. Belinski is speaking are outside those areas, and are brand new activities, unfortunately. Mr. Alkhal explained there is a lot debate about sinkhole activity, including what causes them, and how to properly repair them.

Mrs. Belinski stressed she thinks it is unconscionable that the City’s insurance company is willing to give the property owners only $5,000 but the owners put in $30,000.

Strategic Planning

Mrs. Belinski asked the names of the people who were selected to be the committee of eight to participate in the new strategic plan.

David Brong, Director of Water and Sewer Resources, listed the names of the committee members, as follows: David Brong, Stephen DeSalva – City Engineer, Jeff Andrews – Water Supply Superintendent, Jody Schnalzer – Quality Control Supervisor, Jack Lawrence – Special Projects Coordinator, Mark Wood – Wastewater Treatment Supervisor, Linnea Lazarchak – Financial Services Manager, and Steve Brown – Water Treatment Plant Operations Supervisor. Mr. Brong explained that certain people will participate as needed based on their expertise but do not have to be permanent members of the group.

Mrs. Belinski, observing that the committee is comprised of the City’s own people, questioned why a $50,000 consultant is needed to tell the City what the committee members could tell the City since they know the problems and what has to be done.

Mr. Brong, informing Mrs. Belinski that the contract was written as a $50,000 maximum, expressed he would be surprised if that number is reached although he will not guarantee that number will not be reached by the time of the first iteration. Mr. Brong explained that the value in the strategic planning process is the process itself. Mr. Brong continued on to explain, as the process proceeds, the people who have the detailed knowledge of the operations, the finances, and the history are being educated as to how to think. Mr. Brong said the reason there is a facilitator is to have an unbiased observer help lead the group through some of the more confusing and opinion-laden issues. The second reason is that the facilitator is training the workforce that has never been through anything like this on how to think strategically, and is essentially showing the group textbook solutions on how to go through the strategic planning process. Another benefit is that since the group is interested in expediency and quality of the process and training, the group can evaluate its present situation against benchmarks from other industry leaders. Mr. Brong continued on to note that, in going through a benchmarking exercise, one can dig through data, spend money on travel and visit best practices, search the internet, and so on. However, that exercise is very time consuming. If the right individual or group is helping the process, that data is at their fingertips because they do it for a living. Mr. Brong restated that is yet another reason for having professional facilitation.

Mrs. Belinski queried whether the facilitator will tell the City why for six years the City has not been able to find water customers. Mrs. Belinski added that the facilitator does not have to tell the City how to manage the watershed because Art Brooks, who is an expert, has been hired and Council is very satisfied with his management plans. Mrs. Belinski continued on to say there are good people at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mrs. Belinski further stated she would like to question the Water Filtration Plant. Mrs. Belinski thought that since there will be two real estate professionals on stand-by “the bottom line is we’re trying to sell off some of our real estate at the watershed.”

Mr. Brong said that has not been discussed at this point in time. Mr. Brong noted the issues that have addressed at this point revolve around stating the mission, understanding how the group will go about doing the process, internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as some of the external threats and opportunities and how they relate to the City’s utility.

Mrs. Belinski expressed her opinion that the eight employees know their jobs very well and “this is all window dressing” to come out with what the Administration’s final outcome will be, it will be said there was a strategic planning committee, and the plans will include selling off watershed land. Mrs. Belinski stressed that she seriously questions Schoor DePalma, the company hired as the new consulting firm to the Bethlehem Authority. Mrs. Belinski related that, at a Bethlehem Authority meeting she attended, a representative of Schoor DePalma said that the company would optimize the efficiency of the plant and it will not cost any money. Mrs. Belinski debated that and said she knows there are problems since the media in filters have come to the end of their useful life, and to replace the media and one filter costs $100,000. Focusing on a recent report, Mrs. Belinski highlighted the fact that there are problems with the air scour system which has resulted in shifting and mixing of the filter media rendering the filters incompetent for direct filtration. Mrs. Belinski questioned why nothing was heard about the air scour system when the former engineering consultant, Gannett Fleming, was doing work for the Bethlehem Authority. Mrs. Belinski added that the result of Phase I was never made known. Mrs. Belinski stressed that, although it was said that Gannett Fleming was the best, Gannett Fleming never solved the problems that have been going on for six years that she knows of. Reiterating that Schoor DePalma at first said it was not going to cost any money, Mrs. Belinski pointed out that upon further examination it is found that it will cost money. Mrs. Belinski, turning to a water treatment plant optimization study, questioned whether upgrades are recommended for two of the filters.

Mr. Brong replied no, it is two of the elemental processes of the Water Filtration Plant that include chemistry, filtration, and flocculation. Mr. Brong confirmed to Mrs. Belinski that media in the filters must be replaced. Mr. Brong advised that, before the report is taken at face value, there are ongoing discussions about the nature of the report the intent of which was to make the assumption that the process will not change. The City would work within the existing confines of the direct filtration model and try to optimize the water filtration operation based on that fixed set of process conditions. However, Mr. Brong thought the reality is that may not be the best option, there would be more discussion on the matter, and it is being developed for the Budget. Mr. Brong expressed that he fully understands Mrs. Belinski’s frustration. Mr. Brong added that the document was not intended to be the plan for resolution but rather a step along the way. Mr. Brong affirmed that the problem will be fixed.

In response to Mrs. Belinski’s question concerning how Schoor DePalma’s statement about a solution not costing money can be reconciled, Mr. Brong responded he thinks that was a statement as to the goal of the optimization study. The intent of the study was to optimize that operation with a minimum of investment, a non-capital intensive solution to make the Water Filtration Plant operate as well as it can.

Mrs. Belinski explained that the statement of the Schoor DePalma representative cannot be checked because the Bethlehem Authority Executive Director destroys the tape of the minutes.

Damage from Hurricane Ivan – September 18, 2004

Mrs. Belinski, expressing she was alarmed when she read about all the damage resulting from Hurricane Ivan in September, thanked Charles Brown, Director of Parks and Public Property, for writing the comprehensive report. Mrs. Belinski asked about the sinkhole underneath the Ice House.

Mr. Brown advised it is framed and work is currently being done. He explained that, in conjunction with the former ice-making process, there is naturally a tunnel from the Ice House into the Lehigh River. During the storm, the Ice House was flooded with four feet of water. Mr. Brown continued on to point out there was extensive damage throughout the parks system, and the staff is working to try to make the parks as safe as possible. Mr. Brown, noting there is money available that would be received next year, explained the City is working right now with a limited budget and help. Mr. Brown confirmed to Mrs. Belinski that the sinkholes along the Sand Island towpath are about 20 feet and 15 feet wide. He added that the Parks and Public Property Department is working with the Public Works Department to address sinkholes at the City’s retention ponds. Mr. Brown expressed his assurance that the staff is working very hard to correct all the problems. Mr. Brown stated that at Illick’s Mill Park from the falls back it is destroyed, and there is a six foot hole in the roadway towards the back of the park area. Mr. Brown, in response to Mrs. Belinski, said the City does not have flood insurance.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

A. City Solicitor – Use Permit Agreement – Christkindlmarkt

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 27, 2004 from John F. Spirk, Jr., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed Use Permit Agreement between ArtsQuest and the City of Bethlehem for use of City property for Christkindlmarkt 2004 for the time period November 8 through December 24, 2004, according to the Agreement.

President Schweder stated that the authorizing Resolution will be listed on the October 19, 2004 Agenda.

B. City Solicitor – Use Permit Agreement – Live Bethlehem Christmas Pageant

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 27, 2004 from John F. Spirk, Jr., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed Use Permit Agreement between Live Christmas Pageant Society, Inc. and the City of Bethlehem for use of the Community Arts Pavilion and surrounding field for the 2004 Live Bethlehem Christmas Pageant for the time period December 6, 2004 to January 10, 2005, according to the Agreement.

President Schweder stated that the authorizing Resolution will be listed on the October 19, 2004 Agenda.

C. Santiago Rivera – Amendment to Rezoning South Mountain – CS, RM, and RG to RR-Residential

The Clerk read a letter September 30, 2004 from Santiago Rivera, P.O. Box 205, Hellertown, Pennsylvania 18055, requesting consideration of an amendment that would remove his property at 1349 Lynn Avenue that is presently zoned RM - Residential from the South Mountain rezoning proposal which would result in rezoning Mr. Rivera’s property to RR – Residential.

President Schweder stated that appropriate action will be taken under Ordinances for Final Passage this evening.

8 . REPORTS

A. President of Council

None.

B. Mayor

1. Administrative Order – Madeline J. Brown – Sister City Commission

Mayor John B. Callahan appointed Madeline J. Brown to the Sister City Commission effective until September 2007. Mr. Donchez and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,481 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 – Robert W. Brown – Sister City Commission

Mayor Callahan appointed Robert W. Brown to the Sister City Commission effective until September 2007. Mr. Donchez and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,482 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 – Lee D. Cunningham – Codes Board of Appeals

Mayor Callahan appointed Lee D. Cunningham to the Codes Board of Appeals effective until January 2009. Mr. Donchez and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,483 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 – C. Frank Shipman – Fine Arts Commission

Mayor Callahan appointed C. Frank Shipman to the Fine Arts Commission effective until June 2007. Mr. Donchez and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 14,484 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. Parks and Public Property Committee

Mrs. Belinski, Chairwoman of the Parks and Public Property Committee, presented an oral report of the Committee’s meeting held September 30, 2004 on the following subjects: Renaming City Center Plaza – Payrow Plaza; and Southside Recreation Coordinator.

9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL PASSAGE

A. Bill No. 38 – 2004 – Rezoning South Mountain – CS, RM and RG to RR-Residential

The Clerk read Bill No. 38 - 2004, Rezoning South Mountain – CS, RM and RG to RR-Residential, on Final Reading.

Amendment to Bill No. 38 – 2004

Mr. Donchez and Ms. Szabo sponsored the following Amendment to Bill No. 38 – 2004:

That SECTION 1. of Bill No. 38 – 2004 which reads as follows:

SECTION 1. That the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania be amended by changing all the “CS – Shopping Center”, “RM – Residential” and “RG – Residential” symbols and indications as shown on the City Zoning Map in the area described as follows:

ALL THAT CERTAIN tract or parcel of ground situate along South Mountain, in the Fifth (5th) and Sixteenth (16th) Wards, City of Bethlehem, County of Northampton, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows:

BEGINNING at the northwest corner of Northampton County Tax Map Parcel P6 3 6 on the east line of State Street, thence from said point of beginning, east along the north line of said parcel to the intersection with the west line of Parcel P6SE2B 11 19, thence south along the west line of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel, thence east along the south line of said parcel to the southwest corner of Parcel P6SE2B 11 18, thence east along the south line of said parcel to the southeast corner of said parcel, thence east along the southerly lines of Parcel P6SE2B 11 6 to the southeast corner of said parcel, thence south along the west line of Parcel P6SE2C 1 1, to the south line of unimproved East Seventh Street, thence east along East Seventh Street to the west line of unimproved Edward Street, thence south along Edward Street to the south line of unimproved East Eighth Street, thence east along said street to south line of unimproved James Street, thence east along the north lines of Parcel P7 16 1, to the south line of William Street, thence north along Redfield Street across William Street to the south line of East Eighth Street, thence east along said street to west line of Brinker Avenue, thence south along unimproved Brinker Avenue to the south line of unimproved Alfred Street, thence east along said street to the west line of Arnold Street, thence south along said street to the south line of unimproved East Tenth Street, thence east along said street to the west line of Lynn Avenue, thence South along said street to a point along Lynn Avenue opposite the north corner of Parcel P7 17 1A, thence east along north line of said parcel to northwest corner of Parcel P7 17 2A, thence east along the north line of said parcel to the northerly line of Parcel P7 17 8, thence East along the north line of said parcel to the northeast corner of said parcel, thence south along the east line of said parcel to the southeast corner of said parcel, thence east along the south line of Parcel P7 17 9 to the west line of Fire Lane, thence south along Fire Lane to the southeast corner of Parcel P7 17 17, thence west along the south line of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the northwest corner of said parcel, thence west along the south line of Parcel P7 17 15 to the southwest corner of said parcel, thence south along the east line of Parcel P7 17 13 to the northeast corner of Parcel P7 17 16, thence south along the east line of said parcel to the southeast corner of said parcel, thence west along the south line of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel on the east line of William Street, thence west across William Street to the southeast corner of Parcel P7 16 19, thence west along the south line of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the southwest corner of Parcel P7 16 18, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the southwest corner of Parcel P7 16 16, thence north along the west lines of said parcel to the southwest corner of Parcel P7 16 12, thence north along the west line of said parcel to
the northwest corner of said parcel, thence continuing in a northwest direction along the boundary of the existing CM zone as it passes through Parcel P6 3 3, to the southwest corner of Parcel P7 16 9, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the south line of Parcel P7 16 8, thence west along the south line of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the southwest corner of P7 16 3, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the southwest corner of Parcel P7SW1D 8 4, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the northwest corner of said parcel, thence west along the south line of Parcel P7 16 1 to the southwest corner of said parcel on the east line of Edward Street, thence west across Edward Street along the south line of East Tenth Street to the southwest corner of Parcel P6SE2C 1 1, thence north along the west line of said parcel to a corner of the existing CM boundary, south of East Eighth Street, thence west along the CM boundary, through Parcel P6 3 3 to the east line of Parcel P6 3 6, thence west along the south lines of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel, thence west along the existing CM boundary, through Parcel P6 3 3
to the east line of unimproved Joseph Street, thence north along the east line of said street to the north line of unimproved Sullivan Street, thence west along said street to the east line of State Street, thence north along said street to the south line of East Fifth Street, thence across East Fifth Street to the aforementioned point and place of beginning.

TOGETHER with all those certain portions of E. Seventh St., Edward St., E. Eighth St., James St., Aaron St., E. Beyl St., Redfield St., William St., Brinker Ave, Alfred St., Arnold St., E. Tenth St., Lynn Ave, Fire Lane, and Sullivan St., which are adjacent to the above described parcel, extending from the street lines herein described to their respective centerlines.

GENERALLY, SAID PARCEL OF LAND IS BOUNDED on the North by portions of E. 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th Streets, James, Aaron, Edward and Alfred Streets, on the East by portions of Fire Lane and Lynn Avenue, on the South by portions of Northampton County Tax Parcel P6 3 3, now or formerly of Lehigh University, and on the West by portions of Joseph and State Streets. This area is shown on the attached plan.

to those of an “RR – Residential” District.

Shall be amended to read as follows:

ALL THAT CERTAIN tract or parcel of ground situate along South Mountain, in the Fifth (5th) and Sixteenth (16th) Wards, City of Bethlehem, County of Northampton, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows:

BEGINNING at the northwest corner of Northampton County Tax Map Parcel P6 3 6 on the east line of State Street, thence from said point of beginning, east along the north line of said parcel to the intersection with the west line of Parcel P6SE2B 11 19, thence south along the west line of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel, thence east along the south line of said parcel to the southwest corner of Parcel P6SE2B 11 18, thence east along the south line of said parcel to the southeast corner of said parcel, thence east along the southerly lines of Parcel P6SE2B 11 6 to the southeast corner of said parcel, thence south along the west line of Parcel P6SE2C 1 1, to the south line of unimproved East Thurston Street, thence east along East Thurston Street to the west line of unimproved Edward Street, thence south along Edward Street to the south line of unimproved East Eighth Street, thence east along said street to south line of unimproved James Street, thence east along the north lines of Parcel P7 16 1, to the south line of William Street, thence north along Redfield Street across William Street to the south line of East Eighth Street, thence east along said street to west line of Brinker Avenue, thence south along unimproved Brinker Avenue to the south line of unimproved Alfred Street, thence east along said street to the west line of Arnold Street, thence south along said street to the south line of unimproved East Tenth Street, thence east along said street to the west line of Lynn Avenue, thence South along said street to the northline of William Street, thence southeast along the northline of William Street to the southwest corner of tax map parcel P7 17 1A, thence along the southern boundary line of said parcel to the northwest corner of tax map parcel P7 17 2A, thence east along the north line of said parcel to the northerly line of Parcel P7 17 8, thence East along the north line of said
parcel to the northeast corner of said parcel, thence south along the east line of said parcel to the southeast corner of said parcel, thence east along the south line of Parcel P7 17 9 to the west line of Fire Lane, thence south along Fire Lane to the southeast corner of Parcel P7 17 17, thence west along the south line of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the northwest corner of said parcel, thence west along the south line of Parcel P7 17 15 to the southwest corner of said parcel, thence south along the east line of Parcel P7 17 13 to the northeast corner of Parcel P7 17 16, thence south along the east line of said parcel to the southeast corner of said parcel, thence west along the south line of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel on the east line of William Street, thence west across William Street to the southeast corner of Parcel P7 16 19, thence west along the south line of said parcel to the
southwest corner of said parcel, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the southwest corner of Parcel P7 16 18, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the southwest corner of Parcel P7 16 16, thence north along the west lines of said parcel to
the southwest corner of Parcel P7 16 12, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the northwest corner of said parcel, thence continuing in a northwest direction along the boundary of the existing CM zone as it passes through Parcel P6 3 3, to the southwest corner of Parcel P7 16 9, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the south line of Parcel P7 16 8, thence west along the south line of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the southwest corner of P7 16 3, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the southwest corner of Parcel P7SW1D 8 4, thence north along the west line of said parcel to the northwest corner of said parcel, thence west along the south line of Parcel P7 16 1 to the southwest corner of said parcel on the east line of Edward Street, thence west across Edward Street along the south line of East Tenth Street to the southwest corner of Parcel P6SE2C 1 1, thence north along the west line of said parcel to a corner of the existing CM boundary, south of East Eighth Street, thence west along the CM boundary, through Parcel P6 3 3 to the east line of Parcel P6 3 6, thence west along the south lines of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel, thence west along the existing CM boundary, through Parcel P6 3 3 to the east line of unimproved Joseph Street, thence north along the east line of said street to the north line of unimproved Sullivan Street, thence west along said street to the east line of State Street, thence north along said street to the south line of East Fifth Street, thence across East Fifth Street to the aforementioned point and place of beginning.

TOGETHER with all those certain portions of E. Thurston St., Edward St., E. Eighth St., James St., Aaron St., E. Beyl St., Redfield St., William St., Brinker Ave, Alfred St., Arnold St., E. Tenth St., Lynn Ave, Fire Lane, and Sullivan St., which are adjacent to the above described parcel, extending from the street lines herein described to their respective centerlines.

GENERALLY, SAID PARCEL OF LAND IS BOUNDED on the North by portions of E. 5th, 6th, 8th, and 10th Streets, James, Thurston, Aaron, Edward and Alfred Streets, on the East by portions of Fire Lane and Lynn Avenue, on the South by portions of Northampton County Tax Parcel P6 3 3, now or formerly of Lehigh University, and on the West by portions of Joseph and State Streets. This area is shown on the attached plan.

to those of an “RR – Residential” District.

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

Voting AYE on Bill No. 38 – 2004, as Amended: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 38 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4276, was declared adopted.

B. Bill No. 39 – 2004 – Amending Article 534 – Residential Permit Parking – Adding 900 Block of East Fifth Street

The Clerk read Bill No. 39 – 2004, Amending Article 534 – Residential Permit Parking – Adding 900 Block of East Fifth Street, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 39 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4277, was declared adopted.

C. Bill No. 40 – 2004 – Amending Article 342 – Re-enacting LERTA – Enterprise Development Area

The Clerk read Bill No. 40 – 2004 – Amending Article 342 – Re-enacting LERTA – Enterprise Development Area, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 40 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4278, was declared adopted.

D. Bill No. 41 – 2004 – Amending Article 343 - Re-enacting LERTA – North Side Central Business District

The Clerk read Bill No. 41 – 2004 – Amending Article 343 – Re-enacting LERTA – North Side Central Business District, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 41 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4279, was declared adopted.

E. Bill No. 42 – 2004 – Amending Water Capital Budget – Water Collection and Treatment, and Water Control – Overtime

The Clerk read Bill No. 42 – 2004 – Amending Water Capital Budget – Water Collection and Treatment, and Water Control – Overtime, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 42 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4280, was declared adopted.

F. Bill No. 43 – 2004 – Amending Community Development Budget – South Side Lighting and North Side Planning.

The Clerk read Bill No. 43 – 2004 – Amending Community Development Budget – South Side Lighting and North Side Planning, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 43 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4281, was declared adopted.

10. NEW ORDINANCES

A. Bill No. 44 – 2004 – Amending Article 150 – Board of Appeals

The Clerk read Bill No. 44 – 2004, Amending Article 150 – Board of Appeals, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mr. Mowrer, and titled:

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

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 44 – 2004 passed on First Reading.

11. RESOLUTIONS

A. Amending Rules of Council – Courtesy of the Floor – Instituting 12 Minute Time Limit

Mr. Arcelay and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 14,485 to amend Rule 3 B of the Rules of Council, which reads as follows:

B. Courtesy of the Floor is extended for public comment as set forth in Rule 3 hereinabove.

to read as follows:

B. Courtesy of the Floor is extended for public comment as set forth in Rule 3
hereinabove but in no event shall one individual address Council during Courtesy of the Floor for a period of time in excess of twelve (12) minutes.

Mrs. Belinski said she cannot vote for time limits. Mrs. Belinski recounted that, before she was elected as a Member of Council, she sat in the audience for eight years. Mrs. Belinski continued on to relate that the first time she addressed City Council under Courtesy of the Floor was on January 17, 1989 and she spoke against the proposed incinerator. For two years, she clipped every article in the Globe-Times about the issue. After reading a newspaper advertisement placed by the Saucon Associates for a Viable Environment in which it was stated that, if people do not want the Christmas City turned into the garbage dump of the Northeast they could call a telephone number and sign a petition, Mrs. Belinski called and told the person who answered the telephone all the information she had accumulated. The person told Mrs. Belinski she should put the information into a speech, and present it at a City Council Meeting which she did. Mrs. Belinski, explaining she had a lot of valuable information in her speech, recalled she was told by the President of Council halfway through her speech that he wanted her to come to the end of her speech. Mrs. Belinski stressed that she was not redundant in her speech, but everything she stated was very damaging against signing the incinerator contract. Consequently, Mrs. Belinski fought to stay at the podium, in light of all the information she had gathered for two years and had condensed into her speech, because she felt at least she could be given the courtesy to be heard. Mrs. Belinski related that a person in the audience told the President of Council she would give up her time to let Mrs. Belinski finish her speech. At that time, Mrs. Belinski said the Solicitor advised the President of Council that was proper, and she was allowed to finish her speech. Mrs. Belinski asserted that, had she not been able to finish her speech, she thinks “right how we’d have that incinerator in our backyard.” Advising that she had brought out a lot of damaging information, Mrs. Belinski communicated she did not have any official standing and was just an ordinary citizen who took such an interest in the issue. Mrs. Belinski further advised that, two days later, a Member of Council told her “you had things in your speech that even Members of Council didn’t know about the incinerator contract.” Mrs. Belinski noted she found out that, during a recess in the City Council Meeting that night, two lawyers, the City Solicitor, and City Council Solicitor met with the Members of Council and the Mayor and said “stop it right now” because of what she said. Consequently, Mrs. Belinski stressed she is very much against instituting time limits. Mrs. Belinski communicated that, if she had not been allowed to finish her speech that night, the City would have had millions of dollars of debt, and would be in much worse shape now which was later proved in that Orange County, Florida and Warren County, New Jersey went ahead and built incinerators that had obsolete technology and paid dearly for it. Mrs. Belinski reiterated she cannot vote for time limits.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 5.
Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski, and Mr. Donchez, 2. The Resolution passed.

B. Renaming City Center Plaza as Payrow Plaza
Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 11 B, as follows:
Whereas, the Council of the City of Bethlehem is desirous of renaming the City Center Plaza in honor of H. Gordon Payrow, Jr., former Mayor of the City of Bethlehem, to honor and recognize H. Gordon Payrow, Jr. as a well respected and dedicated community servant.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Council of the City of Bethlehem that City Center Plaza is hereby renamed Payrow Plaza.

President Schweder, affirming there are also two amendments before City Council, said he would recognize first the amendment proposed by Ms. Szabo and Mrs. Belinski, and asked the Clerk to read the Amendment.

1st Amendment to Resolution 11 B - Renaming City Center Plaza as Mayors Plaza

The Clerk read the first Amendment to Resolution 11 B, sponsored by Ms. Szabo and Mrs. Belinski, as follows:
That Resolution 11 B which reads as follows:
Whereas, the Council of the City of Bethlehem is desirous of renaming the City Center Plaza in honor of H. Gordon Payrow, Jr., former Mayor of the City of Bethlehem, to honor and recognize H. Gordon Payrow, Jr. as a well respected and dedicated community servant.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Council of the City of Bethlehem that City Center Plaza is hereby renamed Payrow Plaza.

Is hereby amended to read as follows:

Whereas, the Council of the City of Bethlehem is desirous of renaming the City Center Plaza in honor of City of Bethlehem Mayors as well respected and dedicated community servants.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Council of the City of Bethlehem that City Center Plaza is hereby renamed “The Mayors’ Plaza”, and that a plaque be dedicated with the names of each Mayor and dates of service in chronological order, with appropriate space provided to add future Mayors.

Ms. Szabo said she is asking for this amendment because through the years each Mayor of the City of Bethlehem can be remembered by some citizen and throughout history as having made great contributions to the City. At the same time, for other citizens the memories are less positive and are painful to remember. Whether serving in inadequate quarters in the City market, East Broad Street, or East Church Street, each Mayor has selflessly given so much time and effort, has had success, and failures. Therefore, Ms. Szabo said equal recognition should be given to every Mayor, not just one or two. The growing pains of the united boroughs were difficult, and each decade brought unique problems. Ms. Szabo stated she proposes that Resolution 11 B be amended to rename the City Center Plaza as the Mayors Plaza.

Mrs. Belinski, stating that while she sponsored the Resolution to get it on the table for a vote, advised that she favors Ms. Szabo’s amendment. Mrs. Belinski expressed that is a more fair way if the plaza has to be renamed. Turning to a booklet about the building of the City Center that was dedicated on Tuesday, November 28, 1967, Mrs. Belinski noted there is a breakdown of how much each individual item cost. The library cost $1,780,000. For the building of Town Hall, Bethlehem Steel Corporation gave the City $464,335. Mrs. Belinski, expressing that the complex goes beyond Mayors Schaeffer and Payrow, expressed her agreement with Ms. Szabo that, if the plaza is to be renamed, it should be renamed the Mayors Plaza, and list all of the Mayors on the plaque because each one in their own way contributed towards bringing the City to where it is today.

Mr. Leeson noted he has had the pleasure of knowing or working with five or six Mayors and each one of them has given most of their life when they were serving in that office, including Mayor Callahan. Mr. Leeson, pointing out it is a seven days a week job, observed it is a thankless job, there is a lot of criticism, and the Mayor has to take responsibility for both the good and the bad. Mr. Leeson communicated that, in his view, each Mayor in his own right has done the best he could under the circumstances, and expressed that no one is perfect and the best decisions are not always made. Mr. Leeson thought that the spirit of the original Resolution to honor one of the deceased Mayors is an honorable gesture to a fine Mayor, and he has no problem with it. Noting there has been discussion in the community by thoughtful people who have pointed out that there have been other Mayors who have also rendered distinguished service to the City and had a hand in the planning and creation of the concept of the City Center, Mr. Leeson communicated they have correctly pointed out this is something that was not just one man’s work but spanned at least two Administrations if not more. Observing it is appropriate for a government agency to name something in someone’s honor, and adding that the Federal and State governments do so, Mr. Leeson said he sees no problem with the City doing it. Mr. Leeson thought, however, if the City is going to do it, it should be something unique to each former Mayor in memorializing them, because they are worthy of memory and the collective appreciation of the community. Mr. Leeson stated that, as much as he likes the idea, he likes the original idea better. Expressing his appreciation for the amendment that he said was a fine idea, Mr. Leeson confirmed that his preference is for the original Resolution, and he will vote no on the amendment for the reasons he explained.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 3. Voting NAY: Mr. Arcelay, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Mowrer, 4. The 1st Amendment failed.

2nd Amendment to Resolution 11 B – Renaming City Center Plaza as
Schaeffer-Payrow Plaza

President Schweder stated there is a second amendment, sponsored by Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Donchez. The Clerk read the second Amendment to Resolution 11 B, as follows:
That Resolution 11B which reads as follows:
Whereas, the Council of the City of Bethlehem is desirous of renaming the City Center Plaza in honor of H. Gordon Payrow, Jr., former Mayor of the City of Bethlehem, to honor and recognize H. Gordon Payrow, Jr. as a well respected and dedicated community servant.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Bethlehem that City Center Plaza is hereby renamed Payrow Plaza.
Is hereby amended to read as follows:
Whereas, the Council of the City of Bethlehem is desirous of renaming the City Center Plaza in honor of Earl E. Schaffer, former Mayor of the City of Bethlehem (1950-1962) who initiated the idea for a new City Center to be located on New Street, and in honor of H. Gordon Payrow, Jr., former Mayor of the City of Bethlehem (1962-1974) who implemented the building of the City Center, as well respected and dedicated community servants.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Bethlehem that City Center Plaza is hereby renamed Schaffer-Payrow Plaza.

Mr. Leeson, while stating the amendment is a good idea, said he still likes the original proposal better. Mr. Leeson expressed his reason is that if a deceased Mayor is going to be memorialized who has rendered distinguished service to the community, a memorial to that person should be created that is unique and distinctive, and is dedicated to that Mayor’s memory. By creation of a hyphenated memorial, Mr. Leeson thought it links two people together who should be recognized separately and distinctly. Mr. Leeson suggested that perhaps another facility or publicly owned building might be suitable for naming in honor of former Mayor Schaeffer, and commented he is not suggesting an answer tonight. Communicating that the original idea was a fine idea, Mr. Leeson commented that the discussion in the community was worthwhile, and there should be a suitable memorial for former Mayor Schaeffer. However, Mr. Leeson restated that he likes the original idea better and will be voting against this amendment also.

Mr. Mowrer, affirming that he sent the original proposal, commented that he obviously favors renaming the City Center Plaza as Payrow Plaza. Mr. Mowrer recounted that, at the Parks and Public Property Committee meeting, Mr. Donchez offered an amendment that would tie the two together and that was acceptable to him because both Mayors were part of this facility. So, Mr. Mowrer said he could vote for both of them.

Mr. Donchez stated that he offered the amendment in the spirit of a compromise to include Mayor Schaeffer who was instrumental in the vision of coming up with the idea for a City Center complex, and Mayor Payrow as implementing the concept. Mr. Donchez, saying he feels comfortable with either one, expressed that in the spirit of compromise he offers the amendment in order to perhaps have it pass. Observing that the overwhelming majority of Bethlehem residents will always call it the City Center, Mr. Donchez stated that he will keep his amendment on the table. Mr. Donchez asked, in deference to Mr. Mowrer, does Mr. Mowrer personally prefer the original proposal.

Mr. Mowrer replied yes, and added he wishes that could be voted on first.

President Schweder noted that Mr. Mowrer could move to table the amendment or withdraw it.

Mrs. Belinski, expressing she does not think it should be renamed anything, advised she talked to Mrs. Payrow who said she wanted to have a plaque installed citing that Mayor Payrow is the one who followed through and had the City Center built. Mrs. Belinski continued on to relate that Mrs. Payrow told her that Mayor Payrow thought it was ridiculous to even name a street after someone.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 5.
Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski, and Mr. Leeson, 2. The 2nd Amendment passed.

3rd Amendment to Resolution 11 B – Renaming City Center Plaza as Payrow Plaza

President Schweder stated he would give a ruling with which Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, concurred. President Schweder affirmed what is before City Council now is passage of Resolution 11 B. As voted on now, the City Center has the name of Schaeffer-Payrow Plaza. President Schweder noted it would be in order for Mr. Mowrer to make an amendment which would take it back to the original proposal, if that is what Mr. Mowrer wished to do, or if any Member of Council chose to do so.

Mr. Mowrer moved to do so. Mr. Leeson seconded the motion.

President Schweder confirmed what is now before Council is a motion by Mr. Mowrer that would state that Council would rename the City Center Plaza in honor of H. Gordon Payrow, Jr. and rename it Payrow Plaza, as follows:
Whereas, the Council of the City of Bethlehem is desirous of renaming the City Center Plaza in honor of H. Gordon Payrow, Jr., former Mayor of the City of Bethlehem, to honor and recognize H. Gordon Payrow, Jr. as a well respected and dedicated community servant.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Council of the City of Bethlehem that City Center Plaza is hereby renamed Payrow Plaza.

Mr. Leeson commented that, in his view, Council has spent a little too much time on this, as worthy a reputation as these two men had. Mr. Leeson observed it is something that suggests a policy is needed going forward rather than dealing with it on an ad hoc basis. Mr. Leeson suggested that, if the amendment is adopted, the President delegate to one of the Committees of Council the tasks of developing a policy and evaluating the possibility of memorializing the late Mayor Schaeffer as well.

Voting AYE: Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, and Mr. Schweder, 4. Voting NAY: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, and Ms. Szabo, 3. The 3rd Amendment, containing the same language as Resolution 11 B, hereafter to be known as Resolution 14,486, passed.

Ms. Szabo expressed the hope that, if Council ever goes through this again, it is not going to wait 37 years to praise somebody.

President Schweder recalled that, having two members of his family having things named after them in the City, for a long period of time into the 1970’s and 1980’s it was the belief that nothing was to be named for anybody. President Schweder continued on to recount it was Mr. Leeson’s father, a former City Solicitor, who wrote an opinion that it could be done.

Motion – Considering Resolutions 11 C through 11 G As A Group

Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Arcelay moved to consider Resolutions 11 C through 11 G as
a group.

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

C. Certificate of Appropriateness – 25 East Morton Street

Mr. Arcelay and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 14,487 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing illuminated signs on front and back of building with new signs at 25 East Morton Street.

D. Certificate of Appropriateness – 740 East Fourth Street

Mr. Arcelay and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 14,488 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a projecting sign for Western Union at 740 East Fourth Street.

E. Certificate of Appropriateness – 413 East Morton Street

Mr. Arcelay and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 14,489 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to bring the building up to code, remodel the inside, install duchlap four siding and vinyl replacement windows, and replace front and back doors with steel doors of 413 East Morton Street.

F. Certificate of Appropriateness – 226 East Third Street

Mr. Arcelay and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 14,490 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install an exterior sign at 226 East Third Street.

G. Certificate of Appropriateness – 217 Broadway

Mr. Arcelay and Mr. Mowrer sponsored Resolution 14,491 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the second story windows in the front of the building to match the existing windows at 217 Broadway.

Voting AYE on Resolutions 11 C through 11 G: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolutions passed.

H. Authorizing Participation in PACC – City of Harrisburg

Motion - Removing Resolution From the Table

Mr. Leeson and Mr. Donchez moved to take from the Table Resolution 11 H that was tabled at the August 3, 2004 City Council Meeting.

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

Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson sponsored Resolution No. 14,492 which authorized the City of Bethlehem to participate in the PACC (PA Capital City) Automotive and Equipment Contract, which is administered by the City of Harrisburg, by purchasing supplies and services from the contract, based upon the terms and conditions of the contract, and at the same prices.

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

12. NEW BUSINESS

BEDCO Audit

President Schweder asked Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, to give Council an update on Resolution 14,466 that was passed September 7, 2004 seeking to conduct a forensic accounting investigation of the bank accounts and financial records of the Bethlehem Economic Development Corporation (BEDCO), and what has taken place so far.

Attorney Spadoni replied that mid last week he spoke with the accountant, drafted a document request, and had the request in writing hand delivered to both Mayor Callahan and Tony Hanna, Director of Community and Economic Development, on Friday, October 1, 2004. Mr. Hanna telephoned Attorney Spadoni’s office late Friday afternoon to acknowledge that he received the letter, and indicated he was going to call Attorney Spadoni on Monday, October 4, 2004 which he did. Attorney Spadoni said he received a letter this morning from Mr. Hanna. Attorney Spadoni affirmed that in Attorney Spadoni’s letter that was hand delivered it was indicated that Mr. Hanna was to produce the requested BEDCO documents by Monday, October 11, 2004 at the Clerk’s office. Attorney Spadoni, continuing on to say there was some discussion about that, advised Mr. Hanna had some concerns. Attorney Spadoni explained that, in the letter he received today from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Hanna indicated that the records would be produced by Monday, October 18, 2004. In addition, Attorney Spadoni said that yesterday morning when he spoke with Mr. Hanna there was some concern about the chain of custody and the integrity of the records. Attorney Spadoni noted he assured Mr. Hanna that would be in Attorney Spadoni’s purview to be sure that, as delivered, the records would be reviewed and maintained in the deliverable state to the accountant. Attorney Spadoni, reporting that he spoke with the accountant late this afternoon in that regard, advised it was no concern of the accountant and that would be a non-issue, Attorney Spadoni would deliver the records to the accountant, and accountant would undertake his work.

Mr. Leeson, recalling that his original request to Mr. Hanna was dated May 25, 2004, recounted that Mr. Hanna called Mr. Leeson within a week or two after that, and indicated the records would be made available during the month of June for review. Mr. Leeson queried what has been going on for the last five months.

Mr. Hanna, explaining several things have been happening, said a part-time bookkeeper for BEDCO had to assemble some of the records since Mr. Leeson had made a seven year request for information that was not all readily available in terms of information readily at Mr. Hanna’s disposal. Mr. Hanna further advised there were unaudited statements for the last two years, and during discussion with several former officers of BEDCO it was decided to have audited statements done. Mr. Hanna noted those statements are being prepared right now and are complete. Mr. Hanna continued on to say the entire ten year documentation chain will be presented to the Solicitor and to the accountant.

Mr. Leeson, affirming he received a copy of the audit, asked what is holding up the delivery of the documents tomorrow morning, for example.

Mr. Hanna responded because it has been asked now for an additional three years worth of documents. Mr. Hanna, noting that Mr. Leeson’s original request was strictly for financial statements and bank records, stated that Attorney Spadoni’s letter to Mr. Hanna now has been expanded to include information about all of the purchase of various properties, and minutes for BEDCO dating back to 1994 that had to be pulled out of the archives. Mr. Hanna advised that he has to bring the bookkeeper back in to expand her work to three more years, some of which predates Mr. Hanna, and may not even be available on the computer. Mr. Hanna said the seven years requested was available in Quick Books so that was easily available. Mr. Hanna informed Mr. Leeson that the additional three years will have to be looked at this week and assembled. Denoting that it will probably be about ten or twelve boxes of information, Mr. Hanna observed it is not an insignificant amount of data.

Mr. Leeson, expressing his understanding, recounted he asked for certified audits if there were any, and if there were none that is fine.

Mr. Hanna stated “we decided to just have certified audits done for the last three years as well.”

Mr. Leeson, pointing out that he asked for the originals of the records, communicated he did not ask for bookkeepers to go pouring through them, and he just asked for the records.

Mr. Hanna, saying “they’re here, they have to also be pulled together,” advised they were archived, but not very well archived going back to seven years, and were just basically put in a conference room so they had to be located and pulled together. Mr. Hanna added “but they’re done.”

Mr. Leeson expressed that he really sees this as foot dragging. Highlighting the fact that there is the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law, Mr. Leeson observed that Mr. Hanna knows what the provisions are, and what the City’s policy is. Mr. Leeson remarked that, unless it has been changed since he wrote it as the former City Solicitor, ”you’re long overdue.”

Mr. Hanna, stating that BEDCO is a 501C 3 corporation and that part of the records were for private non-profit, expressed he is not sure that the Right to Know Laws apply. Mr. Hanna advised he is basically saying that the information will be made available, and pointed out that he had also noted to Mr. Leeson that he is short on staff, etc. So, Mr. Hanna said, it was not foot dragging, it was just a question of time commitment.

Mr. Leeson, commenting that “if all it takes is getting the boxes out which is all we want, we don’t need accountants to go through it,” said “deliver it in accordance with the deadline requested. Can you do that.”

Mr. Hanna replied “they will be done by the 18th [of October], as I noted to Mr. Spadoni.”

Mr. Leeson, expressing he does not understand what is the hold-up, questioned why the information cannot be supplied on the date requested.

In response to Mr. Leeson’s comments, Mr. Hanna stated there is nothing going on, and it is just a question of time commitment.

Mr. Leeson, noting he knows where the records are, said he would come and get them himself.

Mr. Hanna advised that the records were pulled out of the archives this evening by Mr. Brown’s crew, they are in the Economic Development office, they will be gone over by Mr. Hanna, and they will be made available to the Solicitor by the 18th of October. Mr. Hanna said “ I just need that time. I basically have two people working in the office at this point, and a part-time bookkeeper. I wanted to go through the things. Somebody has to basically pull out all of the information. It’s going to take some time. It’s just a physical amount of labor to do it.”

President Schweder noted it is his understanding that Mr. Hanna has all of this completed for seven years of what has been requested.

Mr. Hanna indicated in the affirmative.

President Schweder observed that would be available right now.

Mr. Hanna responded “you want seven years right now, I’ll give you seven years.”

President Schweder asked which three years are not available currently.

Mr. Hanna replied 1994, 1995, and 1996. Mr. Hanna recounted that Mr. Leeson asked for information back to 1997. Noting that the request from Attorney Spadoni was for information back to 1994 and was considerably larger than Mr. Leeson’s request, Mr. Hanna pointed out that Mr. Leeson did not ask for minutes but asked for financial information. Mr. Hanna stated that Attorney Spadoni’s request asked for minutes for ten years of the BEDCO meetings, and the minutes have to located and produced.

President Schweder suggested that, in the spirit of compromise, Mr. Hanna deliver the seven years of material he has ready tomorrow morning, and that for the additional three years that Mr. Hanna needs to do Council will accede to Mr. Hanna’s wishes and give Mr. Hanna until the 18th of October to do that.

Mr. Hanna said the seven years of information will be delivered by Monday, October 11. Mr. Hanna advised that the bookkeeper is coming in to see Mr. Hanna on Thursday. Mr. Hanna, affirming that the seven years has been pulled together, said he “has to assemble and put [it] in boxes to basically get it up to Mr. Spadoni, so we’ll…have it Friday…”. Mr. Hanna explained it is just him pulling the information together along with the bookkeeper. Mr. Hanna restated that seven years will be to Attorney Spadoni by Friday.

President Schweder stated that the information should be delivered to the Clerk.

General Fund – Cash Balance

Mr. Leeson, referring to the General Fund Analytical Review as of August 31, 2004, observed it looks as though the Cash Balance is $1.4 million less than what was hoped for, primarily because of medical insurance costs. Mr. Leeson inquired whether there are any preliminary numbers for September.

Dennis Reichard, Business Administrator, advised that medical costs for the last three or four weeks last month has come down. Expressing that while those numbers are encouraging, Mr. Reichard observed it could be discouraging next week because it is a volatile situation. Mr. Reichard, communicating that he does not want to give any false hopes that the number will remain, highlighted the fact that about one-half million dollars was transferred, as reviewed by the Finance Committee. Mr. Reichard stressed, however, there is no assurance that the amount will be sufficient to meet expenses from now until the end of the year. Turning to the Cash Balance for September, Mr. Reichard explained there are situations pertinent to cash flow and the City has now received certain grants, some of which came in the beginning of October, so the Cash Balance is in a somewhat better position than in August. Mr. Reichard affirmed that the City is paying its bills, is making the payrolls, and is doing what it needs to do.

Mr. Leeson said the reason he is asking is because the number alarms him.

Mr. Reichard, acknowledging it alarms him, too, especially the medical costs, explained that, as he said at the Finance Committee meeting, it is a cost over which the City has no control.

Mr. Leeson, while expressing his understanding, stated that, in the context of advance planning, if it assumed that there will be approximately $1.4-$1.5 million less than anticipated due in substantial part to increased medical costs, with a projected Cash Balance cushion of $500,000 in the Budget that would put the City in a deficit of almost $1 million. Mr. Leeson observed, if that scenario persists, then the City will not be able to meet payroll at the end of the year, or early in 2005.

Mr. Reichard, advising that over the last month or two the Administration has been discussing with Department Heads the controlling of expenses, expressed that a fairly good job has been done. He continued on to say that the City has been spending wisely and is making sure there is the cash available to spend. Mr. Reichard confirmed that, because of the medical costs, there has been a lot of discussions the last few months about controlling some of the expenditures so that there will be a balance.

Mr. Leeson further expressed concern that, on a current accounts basis, the City has the $800,000 estimate that it owes to the Bethlehem Authority, which Mr. Reichard addressed in a memorandum a few weeks ago. Mr. Leeson highlighted the fact that it has to be addressed.

Mr. Reichard, affirming it is being worked out, stated that he has met with Ronald Donchez, Chairman of the Bethlehem Authority, and a good compromise has been reached.

Mr. Leeson pointed out that on a current accounts basis it translates to a debt owed on the books at the present time, and the City is technically insolvent because the City does not have the money to pay that bill, and the $800,000 is owed.

Mr. Reichard explained that a payment plan is being reviewed rather than paying the amount back in one year. Mr. Reichard added he thinks that is acceptable to Mr. Donchez in discussions last week.

Mr. Leeson expressed that he wanted to alert Mr. Reichard that these are the types of things he will be asking about for the next Finance Committee meeting.

Norfolk Southern Railway - Utilization as a Greenway - South Bethlehem

Ms. Szabo, recounting that at the July 20, 2004 City Council Meeting she tabled the Resolution relative to the grant application for acquisition of the Norfolk Southern Railway to be utilized as a greenway in South Bethlehem, advised that she contacted Mr. Hanna to inquire when the information will be received to address several questions that were raised about the future and the present. Ms. Szabo commented that Mr. Hanna has indicated he will get the written information this week so that Council can proceed with the Resolution.

Former Durkee Plant – Eighth Avenue – Development Status

Ms. Szabo asked the status of the proposed development at the former Durkee site on Eighth Avenue.

John Spirk, City Solicitor, replied the litigation is in the Commonwealth Court on the appeal, and a briefing schedule in Commonwealth Court in Harrisburg is being prepared.

Ms. Szabo queried when do the appeals run out.

Attorney Spirk explained that the Commonwealth Court will come up with a briefing schedule, after briefs are filed there will be arguments, then the Commonwealth Court will rule, and then the loser can, if desired, appeal and ask the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to consider entertaining that appeal.

Ms. Szabo asked when do the appeals end.

Attorney Spirk advised, after the Commonwealth Court rules, and if the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania refused to hear the appeal, that would be the end of the appeals.

Conservation Easement - Watershed

Mrs. Belinski, noting that Tunkhannock Township sent documents to Stephen Salvesen, Executive Director of the Bethlehem Authority, hoping for a conservation easement on 600 acres at the Watershed, observed that the Bethlehem Authority could possibly gain between the Township, the County, and the State $1 million if the Authority agreed to a conservation easement. Mrs. Belinski inquired the status of the matter.

Mr. Salvesen, replying the formal document just came in, informed the Members he had a preliminary conversation with the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Tunkhannock Township. Mr. Salvesen continued on to advise it was brought to the Bethlehem Authority Board who directed Mr. Salvesen to get a proposal from the Township Supervisors which he did, and it will be on the Bethlehem Authority’s agenda for this month.

Zoning Hearing Board – William Fitzpatrick

Mr. Donchez expressed the hope that for the next City Council Meeting the Resolution for the Mayor’s recommended appointment of William Fitzpatrick to the Zoning Hearing Board can be considered.

13. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

Slot Machines – Bethlehem Works

Margarita Gonzalez, 1349 Lynn Avenue, noting she read in the Morning Call that there is consideration of bringing gambling to the Bethlehem Works area, said she opposes that. Ms. Gonzalez continued on to say she does not see that it would bring in anything positive to the community. While acknowledging it might bring jobs, Ms. Gonzalez expressed there are other means of bringing jobs and encouraging companies to come to the City, as opposed to gambling which in her view is a negative thing. Ms. Gonzalez highlighted the fact that, if people want to gamble, there are lotteries. However, when a host of gambling games are brought to the City, Ms. Gonzalez did not think that is a positive thing, and communicated that it encourages people to utilize money they do not have. Ms. Gonzalez reiterated that she opposes any type of gambling in that area.

Rezoning South Mountain to RR - Residential

Mary Ann Heilman, 1541 East Ninth Street, focusing on the rezoning of land on South Mountain and the request of Santiago Rivera, queried is it possible for certain sections to be rezoned as was done in the case of Mr. Rivera’s requested amendment. Turning to her property located within the area that was rezoned under Ordinance 4276 adopted this evening, Ms. Heilman explained that is where she felt, rather than build more homes, she would want to have some type of convenience store perhaps. Ms. Heilman, with reference to comments at a City Council Meeting about a maximum of three homes per acre, said she cannot do that because she does not have enough. She pointed out that, down the street, there are five houses at 25 feet each and 100 feet back, and yet on her property she would have to put three homes per acre.

President Schweder observed that Ms. Heilman is asking whether she has an opportunity to do what was done with Mr. Rivera’s property. President Schweder continued on to note that Ms. Heilman is saying she would like the opportunity for the land that she owns to be zoned as she sees fit. President Schweder, confirming to Ms. Heilman she would have the opportunity to do that, asked either Mr. Hanna or Ms. Heller to speak to that. President Schweder informed Ms. Heilman there is a procedure she would have to go through and, if approved, the request would eventually be brought to City Council. President Schweder affirmed to Ms. Heilman that there is a solution to what he thinks she is asking.

Ms. Heilman thought that from what she heard tonight it had already been ruled except for Mr. Rivera’s property.

President Schweder explained that the original proposal would have taken all of the area involved and rezoned it to RR – Residential zoning. President Schweder continued on to explain to Ms. Heilman what occurred tonight on Final Passage of Bill No. 38 – 2004 is that the Ordinance was amended so that the parcel of land owned by Mr. Rivera was taken out of the original proposal by which action Mr. Rivera’s property remains under its present RM - Residential zoning. President Schweder informed Ms. Heilman that she could meet with Ms. Heller and have a determination made if that same consideration could be made in the case of what Ms. Heilman is requesting.

Darlene Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, notified Ms. Heilman that if she would come to the office it could be discussed whether or not she would want to submit a rezoning request for her property, and Ms. Heilman’s request would be reviewed individually and separately.

Ms. Heilman expressed she did not know there was a procedure that could enable her to make the request.

Ms. Heller further informed Ms. Heilman that if she wants to have consideration for the rezoning of her parcel there is a process by which Ms. Heilman can submit a request, and the Planning Bureau and City Council can consider whether or not the request would be appropriate to rezone Ms. Heilman’s property back to the way it was.

Patriot Act

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, said, with several judges striking down various aspects of the Patriot Act and for Council to bypass consideration of a Resolution requested by concerned citizens and then address two Resolutions tonight which really have no impact on the City on any level, the discussion on renaming the City Center Plaza confounded him. Mr. Antalics remarked the discussions remind him of the Shakespeare play called Much Ado About Nothing.

14. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.