Council Minutes

June 18, 2007 Meeting Minutes

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
10 East Church Street – Town Hall
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, June 19, 2007 – 7:30 PM

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

President Schweder called the meeting to order. Reverend Lori Leib, of Bethany United Church of Christ, offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to the flag. Present were Jean Belinski, Karen Dolan, Robert J. Donchez, Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., and J. Michael Schweder 5. Gordon B. Mowrer and Magdalena F. Szabo were absent, 2.

Citation – Honoring Garry L. Hahn

President Schweder presented a Citation to Garry L. Hahn who retired from the Police Department after 33 years of service. The Members of Council congratulated Mr. Hahn and wished him well in his retirement.

Public Hearing - 2007 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) - Revisions

Prior to consideration of the regular Agenda items, President Schweder called to order the first Public Hearing to consider amendments to the 2007 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) to revise specific project budgets and to create new activities.

Irene Woodward, Housing and Community Development Planner, affirmed that the amendments were previously presented at the May 24, 2007 Finance Committee meeting. Ms. Woodward advised that the City received an increased amount of $214,737 from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development for the 2007 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Program, and there was an increase of $32,000 from Program Income. Ms. Woodward enumerated the 2007 CDBG Program adjustments, as follows. The following new activities are established: Police Overtime - $20,000 Fire Equipment - $32,000; South Side Greenway - $77,737; Elm Street Administration - $15,000; Public Works Project – 600 Block of Itaska Street - $5,000; South Side Parks and Playground Improvements - $60,000. The following activities are increased in the stated amounts: Acquisition/Demolition - $32,000; Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem - $5,000. The revisions increase the 2007 CDBG Budget from $1,878,556 to $2,125,293.

Mr. Leeson inquired what is the type of Fire Equipment and whether it is CDBG eligible.

Ms. Woodward responded it is for a South Side Fire Station.

George Barkanic, Fire Commissioner, replied the equipment consists of new rescue tools to replace the 15-18 year old tools on Engine One. Fire Commissioner Barkanic, advising the Department tried to obtain funding through the Assistance to Firefighter Grant but was unsuccessful, explained it is at the point where they must be replaced or taken out of service.

Ms. Woodward affirmed to Mr. Leeson it is CDBG eligible.

Public Comment

Robert Pfenning, 2830 Linden Street, asked if the activities are new items.

Ms. Woodward responded they are new activities under the CDBG Budget.

Mr. Pfenning wondered whether there are other items in the current capital and operating budgets that would be CDBG eligible that could be funded with the new CDBG money rather than funded through the General Fund Budget.

Ms. Woodward, explaining there are Federal expenditure caps that must be followed, pointed out that Police Overtime and Salaries are funded through the CDBG budget.

President Schweder, while informing Mr. Pfenning there could be items funded with the new CDBG money rather than funded through the General Fund Budget, noted the Administration has made a determination not to do so. However, President Schweder confirmed that CDBG money can be spent only on specific items, and pointed out that CDBG funding can only be used at one Fire Station in the City on the South Side.

President Schweder stated that the Ordinance is listed on this evening’s Agenda on First Reading.

The first Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

Public Hearing - Amending Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) - Section 1347.10 – Recreation Land and Fees

President Schweder called to order the second Public Hearing to consider amendments to the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO), Section 1347.10 – Recreation Land and Fees to update the requirements for contributions for land or fees in lieu of land to address recreation impacts of new development.

7A. Lehigh Valley Planning Commission – Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance Amendment – Recreation Land and Fees

The Clerk read a letter dated May 25, 2007 from the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission which stated that at their meeting of May 24, 2007, the Commission reviewed the amendment and advised it is a matter of local concern and does not conflict with the County Comprehensive Plan.

Darlene Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, noted at the preceding Parks and Public Property Committee meeting the proposed Parks and Recreation Plan was discussed that is a corollary to the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance Amendment addressing Recreation Land and Fees. Ms. Heller advised the proposal updates the current provisions to not only comply with the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) requirements but also to increase the existing recreation fee of $200. Ms. Heller reviewed the proposed revisions to Article 1347.10. Ms. Heller informed the Members it is not planned to apply Section 1347.10 B to new plans that would be minor adjustments to prior plans or corrections. It is not planned to apply the section to non-commercial recreation facilities, schools, colleges, universities, or places of worship. A waiver is created for projects that qualify as housing units for affordable housing, and it is the same language that was included in the Ordinance that updated the tapping fee. Section 1347.10 C, Limitations on Use of Fees, addresses the MPC requirements to ensure compliance with how the fees are used and where they are applicable such as putting them in a separate account and using the fees for parks and recreation facilities that are available to the development being submitted. Ms. Heller, turning to Section 1347.10 C 4, said if there is any question then the money would be used in Monocacy Park because it is a central, regional park. Ms. Heller explained that in Section 1347.10 D, Land to be Preserved, the development should be providing new land for recreation, the section outlines the type of recreation land that would be acceptable, and it creates a definition for prime recreation land. In Section 1347.10 D 4, it outlines the amount of land that would be required depending on whether or not the land meets the definition for prime recreation land. Focusing on Section 1347.10 E, Fees, Ms. Heller advised the recommendation was to include a fee in the Ordinance although typically fees are approved in Resolutions. Ms. Heller affirmed the Section does state that the fee shall be established by separate City Resolution which may be updated from time to time. Ms. Heller notified the Members that the Department recommended a Residential fee of $1,500 for each additional approved new dwelling unit, and new fees were created for Industrial development, and for Non-Residential Uses Other Than Industrial, as follows, with a flat fee and sliding scale per square foot: Industrial - $1,200; and Non-Residential other than Industrial - $1,500. As the industrial buildings get larger, such as warehouse facilities, the recreational impacts become less. The Non-Residential Uses Other Than Industrial would be office, and retail uses. Section 1347.10 F addresses Decision on Land vs. Fees, and the preference would be to create recreational space for most developments. However, if there is available land that is abutting an existing park or playground there are alternatives for the Planning Commission to consider. Section 1347.10 G, Recreation Land to be Preserved, addresses suitability of land for recreational purposes, and that it will need to be improved, regraded, or landscaped. Turning to Section 1347.10 G 2, Ownership, Ms. Heller commented that, typically, it would be required that land be dedicated to the City. However, she exemplified that with a recently approved plan the Planning Commission preferred that land be accepted by the Wildlands Conservancy so there are provisions for alternatives. Section 1347.10 G 3, Easements and Deed Restrictions, ensures that land remains open space for perpetuity. Ms. Heller noted there are provisions for Priorities such as existing parks or playgrounds, and access and contiguousness. Ms. Heller advised that in Section 1347.10 H, the City can consider a combination of land and fees. Focusing on Section 1347.10 I, Time of Residential Fees, Ms. Heller commented that, while fees are required to be paid at the time the plan is recorded or the developer’s agreement is finalized, the Section allows for installments if a land development is large enough and it is proposed to be created in phases. Ms. Heller, referring to discussions at the preceding Parks and Public Property Committee meeting about how the determination was made in establishing the fee, advised the Department conducted a survey of land values, and studied what other communities are doing. Ms. Heller confirmed the Department forwarded to the Members of Council a memorandum outlining fees in surrounding communities. In addition, calculations were done for previously approved plans. The Department also took into consideration the fact that some areas of the City receive tax abatement. While recognizing some surrounding communities have higher fees, Ms. Heller stated the Department felt the proposed fee is reasonable, especially considering that the current fee is $200 and there is not a non-residential fee presently.

Council Comment

Mrs. Belinski inquired about land to be set aside for recreation at the site of the Martin Tower development on Eighth Avenue, and whether the City will be charging recreation fees.

Ms. Heller, confirming the Amendment does provide for some combination of land and fees, pointed out it also provides for a situation where there may be a park located within a homeowners association. Ms. Heller thought it would be reasonable that those could be counted into parks and recreational space since it would be used by the residents of that community, and there are provisions for easements and covenants.

Mrs. Belinski queried whether the Martin Tower development area should be open to the public.

Ms. Heller affirmed the point of the Amendment is for recreational facilities that are available to the public.

Charlie Schmehl, of Urban Research and Development Corporation, explained the provisions of the MPC state if a municipality is requiring recreation land that it start with a requirement for public recreation land dedicated to the municipality and open to the public. With the mutual consent of the City and the developer there could be fees, and there also can be other alternatives as provided in the Ordinance with mutual consent of the developer and the City. One of the alternatives would be land owned and maintained by a homeowners association at no cost to the City. The next question is whether the general public would be allowed on that land or just the residents of that community. Mr. Schmehl continued on to say that is an issue to be negotiated on a case by case basis. In the case of Martin Tower, Mr. Schmehl communicated he would assume it would be proposed to include some recreation facilities and that could be considered as counting toward some of the fees because the MPC also states a City cannot require the construction of any recreational facilities but it would be an issue for negotiation on a case by case basis.

Ms. Dolan asked who does the negotiation for the City and whether the negotiation has to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Mr. Schmehl, noting the original draft said the Planning Commission, communicated there may be recommendations from different boards but suggested the City in the end is the Mayor with advice and review from other boards.

Ms. Heller, affirming the Planning Commission is the final decision on land development plans, noted the Commission takes into consideration comments and recommendations from City offices. There is a provision in the Ordinance for Decision on Land versus Fees where it is stated that any recommendations that may be received from City Council, Mayor, City Engineer, School Board, School District staff and City staff should be considered.

Ms. Dolan observed that the process of negotiation will be a public process at a Planning Commission meeting with feedback and input from the Mayor, City Council, and the Planning Office. Adding there would also be input from the Department of Parks and Public Property, Ms. Heller further informed Ms. Dolan the final decision is part of the land development review process.

Mr. Leeson requested that Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, check whether at a future date City Council can amend the Ordinance so that if a property owner or association takes ownership of parks or recreation land pursuant to a land development project then public access be mandated if permissible under State law. He noted that the challenges posed by development in the City will become more significant and of a much larger scale and scope in the years ahead. Mr. Leeson, expressing his opinion that the City review process is not a strong one and the negotiation process is a weak one, observed it is not something that can be solved now. Mr. Leeson, communicating he wants to make sure there are no illusions, observed City Council will not be involved in the process of negotiation except to the extent that something happens to come to Council’s attention and the Members want to voice their opinion.

President Schweder asked what are the boundaries of the Monocacy Park.

Ms. Heller, noting there is the Monocacy nature area and the park, observed it may be defined in different ways.

President Schweder thought that since Monocacy Park will be the default area it would be helpful to know what it is before voting on it.

President Schweder asked, other than at BethWorks, what other land in the City would be eligible for donation for recreational facilities by a developer, or adjacent to parks that might be available.

Ms. Heller, replying there are not going to be many situations like that, observed there may be some areas to the North along the Monocacy Creek or along the County park but it would be very rare. Ms. Heller noted in the Ordinance it is stated the preference would be fees in lieu of land. Ms. Heller commented that the Parks and Recreation Plan discussed in the preceding Parks and Public Property Committee meeting it was acknowledged there should be investment in the existing parks rather than continuing to accrue additional acreage.

President Schweder queried why, other than State requirements, some of the provisions are in the proposal since it appears to be a revenue generating proposal rather than bringing more recreational land to the City other than at BethWorks.

Ms. Heller affirmed that under the proposal the City does meet the requirements of the MPC. Ms. Heller confirmed to President Schweder the two priorities were to ensure that the City meets the requirements of the MPC, and to create an opportunity to increase the recreation fees.

President Schweder communicated that he and Mr. Leeson had talked about how the City’s charter severely handcuffs City Council in how the City functions, and there may be a review of the City’s charter. President Schweder observed that, under the proposal, if the developers of Martin Tower have a provision for a recreational area then the Administration has the leeway to negotiate with that developer on whether or not that constituted recreational land.

Ms. Heller affirmed that is the way the MPC is written.

President Schweder further observed that, through negotiation, it could be determined that land would only be for the exclusive use of the residents of the Martin Tower facility and it would not be a public facility.

Ms. Heller, while commenting she does not think the Administration wants to negotiate land that would be reserved for private use and count that as a credit to the Ordinance amendment, noted there may be a combination of things but she does not know at present. Ms. Heller pointed out the purpose is to create public recreation facilities.

President Schweder inquired if there is a better way for Ms. Heller to come back to Council with an amendment that more clearly states what is the interest. President Schweder thought the proposal is written in such a way that it does not address the fact that the City would be faced at some point with people who have closed off property for the use of the residents of the development by negotiation.

Ms. Heller, denoting there are certain criteria in the Ordinance, stated the Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to make a choice. The City does not need to accept unusable land from a developer or land that is not available to the public, and the Ordinance gives the City options. Ms. Heller continued on to highlight the fact that the Ordinance is not written just for the Martin Tower or BethWorks development, and the City wants to be able to address issues related to other developments in the City that cannot be foreseen at the present time.

President Schweder restated that, aside from Martin Tower and BethWorks, there is probably nothing else in the City that would fit under the proposed Ordinance.

Ms. Heller, acknowledging that while there may not be a lot of other situations there will be some, stressed the City would want to be selective about where land is chosen instead of fees.

Mr. Schmehl, commenting he noticed a for sale sign for 32 acres on Linden Street that may include the Camel’s Hump area, observed that may be a situation where there might be some dedication of some open space preservation areas that may be valuable to the City.

President Schweder, noting that in Upper Saucon Township a developer is required to find other property within the township that needs to be purchased and dedicated to the township if it is not on the property being developed, queried if any thought was given to that concept. President Schweder thought perhaps that would be something to look into.

Mr. Schmehl, remarking that is unusual, said he is not familiar with that process. Mr. Schmehl, referring to the fact that the City is bound to a Commonwealth Court decision that if any changes are made to an advertised amendment then the review procedures have to be followed again, noted that would make it impossible to apply this Ordinance to current projects, and would delay the process about 45 days. Mr. Schmehl encouraged any additional items to be addressed as a follow-up action, and to try to move forward with the current proposal.

President Schweder suggested that the dilemma tonight is faced because of the nature of the advertising process that was followed.

Mrs. Belinski observed that among Mr. Pektor’s projects on Broad Street, the one at Broad and New Streets receives LERTA tax abatement, and thought his projects at the former Farr’s building might be receiving historic tax credits, as well as his project at the former Alpha Graphics building. Mrs. Belinski pointed out that Mr. Pektor applied for his Martin Tower project the day the advertisement went into the newspaper, and so that project is locked into the current Ordinance proposal fees. Mrs. Belinski highlighted the fact that the fee in Lower Saucon Township is $3,800.

Ms. Dolan commented the proposal could have been in front of Council much sooner if the Comprehensive Plan funding Ordinance that was presented to Council last October had not been turned down for various reasons. Ms. Dolan recounted she was applying pressure for the City to get a Recreation Plan as was Mr. Leeson, and citizens wanted a Recreation Plan, and noted a reason was because the City needed money. Ms. Dolan, affirming the proposed Ordinance will raise money, said it needs to be moved forward. Ms. Dolan observed if the advertisement had been placed a day sooner then Mr. Pektor’s Martin Tower plans would have been subject to the current $200 fee, and so there would still be a significant increase in the amount of money this developer would have to pay. Ms. Dolan, noting there is an opportunity to raise the fees by Resolution, commented she would support that. Ms. Dolan restated that the proposal should be moved forward.

Mrs. Belinski recounted that her objection to the Comprehensive Plan last year was due to the high density that was planned around Martin Tower. Mrs. Belinski explained the delay in the Parks and Recreation Plan was not with the Parks and Public Property Department in that they were waiting for the Community and Economic Development Department.

Public Comment

Patrick Herrity, 732 Hawthorne Road, commented he is leery of turning over public recreation land and putting it into private hands. Referring to President Schweder’s earlier question, Mr. Herrity pointed out that nowhere in the Parks and Recreation Plan in the inventory of parks is there a park called Monocacy Park. Mr. Herrity noted it mentions Illick’s Mill Park and the Monocacy Park Complex. Mr. Herrity, commenting he is curious as to what is Monocacy Park and expressing the hope that it can be defined, observed that Monocacy Park is alluded to in the Monocacy Creek Watershed Association’s Plan in Monocacy Park.

April Herrity, 732 Hawthorne Road, on behalf of the Bethlehem Citizens Association, stated the association generally supports the Parks and Recreation Plan and the proposed SALDO Ordinance Amendments but feels the fee should be doubled in order that the City has the parks system it deserves. The association feels that required recreational land should never be deeded over and incorporated into a property owner’s association. The association feels that meaningful public input should be obtained from all areas of the City and added to the document. Ms. Herrity, speaking as a member of the Elmwood Park Association Block Watch, said she is very happy the City has developed the Plan and Ordinance and that the fees will be put into a recreation account. However, Ms. Herrity thought all parks and recreation areas in the City are in need of funds and would prefer that the fees be put into a fund to benefit all parks and not just Monocacy Park as a default.

John Toulouse, West Market Street, said he wonders to what extent the Comprehensive Plan is not designed to satisfy the developers who would come into the City. Mr. Toulouse, expressing it is great that the recreation fee would be raised, stated that should bring money into the City coffers that the City can spend on other parks and not just those that are directly related to a development. Mr. Toulouse expressed concern that even more money would have to be spent to satisfy the development and nothing will be done for the other parks in the City. Mr. Toulouse thought the City should weigh the advantage of having increased fees from developers if it is not going to add to the money that is going to be spent on the parks.

William Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, commented that the Bethlehem Citizens Association thought the Parks and Recreation Plan should be revised within a year with meaningful public input, and that the default expenditure of funds should not be limited to Monocacy Park but should be for the City parks in general. Mr. Scheirer said if the default money went to Monocacy Park it would not be prime recreation land as defined in the Ordinance because it would be in the flood plain. Mr. Scheirer expressed his assumption that if the prime land is less than 25% of the donated land then one would have to give 4,400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. Mr. Scheirer thought if the fees are doubled at some point then the land should be doubled also. Referring to section F 5 of the proposed Ordinance, Mr. Scheirer commented that if the Ordinance were to be revised perhaps words to reflect input from the public could be added.

Dean Bruch, 555 Spring Street, communicated if public access is to be restricted then there should be a gated community. Mr. Bruch expressed his agreement that there are many parks in the City that need money and upkeep. Mr. Bruch felt that if developers want to have tax abatement but do not want to provide things for the future except when they feel their profit margin is covered then they should not be allowed to build. Mr. Bruch stressed it is time for developers to provide parking and their own recreation. Mr. Bruch stated the City should make the developers pay what should be paid up front.

Robert Pfenning, 2830 Linden Street, pointed out that in the proposal the purpose is to provide adequate park and recreational lands and facilities to serve inhabitants and occupants of new and expanded developments, rather than for the general public. Mr. Pfenning further pointed out the proposal states that the lands and facilities are to be accessible to the inhabitants of the developments that paid fees towards their cost, and such fees should only be used within a 5 mile radius of the boundaries of the subdivision or land development that paid the fees. Mr. Pfenning observed that not a lot of revenue is being generated for general parks development, and noted a lot of money will be needed for the Parks and Recreation Plan. Expressing concern that the proposal addresses money to develop new facilities, Mr. Pfenning wondered who will maintain these new parks, and who will police them. Advising he is a member of a homeowners association, Mr. Pfenning remarked if his board ever agreed to accept land deeded to it, to maintain it, assume liability for its use, and then open it to the general public he would be very displeased.

Peter Crownfield, 569 Brighton Street, expressed the hope that there would be some way to encourage people to listen to the public comment. Mr. Crownfield observed that brick veneer was applied to the former AlphaGraphics building at Main and Broad Streets and wondered who and why it was approved in the Historic District.

President Schweder replied it was approved by City Council upon the recommendation of the Historic Board. Commenting there were concerns about the project, President Schweder noted four different Certificates of Appropriateness were filed for the building that changed the proposals. President Schweder recalled the original Certificate of Appropriateness required that the building had to be a replica of the former building but that did not happen.

Holly Heitmann, 1306 Prospect Avenue, vice president of the Mount Airy Neighborhood Association (MANA), advised the residents put in over 500 work hours this second annual year in plantings and weeding in the neighborhood and parks, and explained the efforts and events that took place last year. Ms. Heitmann noted there have been discussions about putting a mural in the West Side Park. She noted that recently a community garden was installed. Referring to statistics contained in the Parks and Recreation Plan, Ms. Heitmann observed that the West Side has the largest unit growth in the City, has experienced demographic change, and as a changing community the West Side should be addressed. Ms. Heitmann pointed out that in section F 5 of the proposed Ordinance there is no mention of a public advisory board. Ms. Heitmann expressed her opinion that the community itself knows best what a park needs. Noting there is grant money that would be going to Monocacy Park, Ms. Heitmann communicated when recreation fees are utilized for a regional park as a default it neglects the neighborhood parks, will drive people out, and dismisses the fact that people can walk to the neighborhood parks. Ms. Heitmann stated that the sustainability factor of maintaining parks is not mentioned in the proposal. Ms. Heitmann hoped the proposal can be adopted as is but amended as quickly as possible, and stressed there are big issues with which the neighborhood is concerned.

Mary Pongracz, 321 West Fourth Street, wondered whether a surrounding recreation area is allowed to be open to the public in cases of nursing homes or assisted living facilities where there are residents who need special care. While expressing it is a wonderful working document, Ms. Pongracz thought if there is a recreation area for those who need special care, then it should not be open to the public.

Mr. Schmehl informed the Members that some of the language contained in the proposed Ordinance that was questioned is in response to requirements of the State law. One of the requirements is that whenever the fee is collected it has to be tied to a specific park facility. Mr. Schmehl continued on to explain, in case that requirement is ever missed, the Ordinance has a catch-all directing it to Monocacy Park. Mr. Schmehl, affirming the City can decide where the money goes, commented if a location is forgotten to be designated, then Monocacy Park is a default location. Mr. Schmehl stated that nursing homes would not pay the fee and so would not be covered by the requirement. Mr. Schmehl said the land requirements are based on national standards which help to give justification in case of challenge. Mr. Schmehl advised the reason why the Ordinance references servicing new residents is because that is the basis of the State law. The intent of the legislature for requiring land or fees is to serve new residents, to have facilities accessible to new residents, and the development is paying for their extra costs. Under the idea of the State law, the new development is not supposed to fix all existing problems. The State law does say the new facilities must be accessible to the residents and is why there is a guideline of how far the facilities will be from the new development. The State law does not allow the money to be used for maintenance. While exemplifying there may be a situation where there is homeowner association land and their pool is not open to the public, Mr. Schmehl explained there could still be a trail easement around the property that could be open to the public, and is an example of a negotiated solution where everybody benefits.

Eddie Rodriquez, 1845 Linden Street, observed that when there is a desire to bring in revenue as is the case with economic development in the City then the City is also bringing in what is coming from the outside which is already in the City. Mr. Rodriquez stressed there is a negative element who are waiting to prey on people no matter what section of the City.

President Schweder stated that the Ordinance is listed on this evening’s Agenda on First Reading.

The second Public Hearing was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of June 5, 2007 were approved.

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

Parks and Recreation Plan

Ms. Heitmann asked who commissioned the parks and recreation plan, where did Urban Research and Development Corporation get their information and advice, did they have open meetings, were chief stakeholders interviewed, where is the rationale for the recommendation section, what are the next steps, how is the plan adopted and by whom.

Ms. Heller responded that the City hired Urban Research and Development Corporation, and the firm worked with the Parks and Public Property Department and the Community and Economic Development Department to put the plan together. It is a composite of many master plans that the City has been working on each of which had a public process component. The plan was presented before the Planning Commission and then forwarded to City Council. Ms. Heller, noting this is the first part of the Comprehensive Plan process, advised there will be a full public process as the plan moves forward. Ms. Heller added that amendments can be part of the public participation process.

6. OLD BUSINESS

None.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

B. Police Commissioner – Reimbursement for Training of Police Officer

The Clerk read a memorandum dated June 5, 2007 from Randall P. Miller, Police Commissioner, requesting consideration of a Resolution necessary for the City to receive reimbursement from the State for 60% of the salary of Officer Jason Gerstner for the 20 weeks he will be attending the Allentown Police Academy.

President Schweder noted the Resolution is listed on the Agenda.

C. City Solicitor – Use Permit Agreement for Public Property – Greater Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce – Annual Clambake and Company Picnic

The Clerk read a memorandum dated June 14, 2007 from John F. Spirk, Jr., Esq., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed Use Permit Agreement between the Greater Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce and the City for use of the area beneath the Hill-to-Hill Bridge for their Annual Clambake and Company Picnic for the time period July 12 through July 14, 2007, according to the terms of the Agreement.

President Schweder stated the appropriate Resolution will be placed on the July 3 Agenda.

D. City Solicitor – Intergovernmental Financial Participation Agreement – Pennsylvania Department of Transportation – Easton Avenue Storm Sewer Project

The Clerk read a memorandum dated June 15, 2007 from John F. Spirk, Jr., Esq., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed Intergovernmental Financial Participation Agreement between the City and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in connection with the installation of drainage improvements along Easton Avenue in the vicinity of West Boulevard and Covington Avenue.

President Schweder stated the appropriate Resolution will be placed on the July 3 Agenda.

E. Director of Planning and Zoning – Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) – Geographic Information System (GIS)

The Clerk read a memorandum dated June 14, 2007 from Darlene L. Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, to which was attached the Planning Commission's proposed SALDO amendments approved at their April 12, 2007 meeting requiring that future plan submissions comply with the City's Geographic Information System (GIS).

President Schweder referred the request to the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission.

Mr. Leeson and Mrs. Belinski moved to schedule a Public Hearing on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 at 7:30 PM in Town Hall. Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5. The motion passed.

F. Director of Planning and Zoning – DCNR Grant for Greenway Design

The Clerk read a memorandum dated June 14, 2007 from Darlene L. Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, to which was attached a proposed resolution to accept the funding in the amount $399,000 for a DCNR grant for design and engineering of Phase I of the greenway. It is matched by transportation enhancement funds for development of Phase I of the greenway.

President Schweder stated the appropriate Resolution will be placed on the July 3 Agenda.

8 . REPORTS

A. President of Council

None.

B. Mayor

None.

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 prior to this evening's City Council Meeting on the following subjects: Tower Lease Agreement – Omnipoint Communications – Monocacy Park on Illick's Mill Road, and Parks and Recreation Plan. Mrs. Belinski affirmed the Parks and Recreation Plan was recommended for approval as is with the stipulation that it would be referred to the Recreation Commission for review following Council’s approval. Mr. Leeson added that the Recreation Commission can forward their suggestions for any changes.

9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL PASSAGE

A. Bill No. 7 – 2007 – Repealing Existing Article 313 – Private Watchmen and Establishing New Article 313 – Private Security Services

Removing Bill No. 7 – 2007 from Table

Mr. Donchez and Ms. Dolan moved to take Bill No. 7 – 2007 from the Table that was tabled at the May 1, 2007 City Council Meeting. Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5. The motion passed.

The Clerk read Bill No. 7 – 2007 – Repealing Existing Article 313 – Private Watchmen and Establishing New Article 313 – Private Security Services, on Final Reading.

Amendment to Bill No. 7

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Leeson sponsored the following Amendment:

That Section 313.01 which reads as follows:

313.01 GENERAL.

This Ordinance shall apply to any person, organization, corporation or entity that [is employed or engaged to provide, is providing, or employs or engages anyone to provide] watch guard, protective patrol, detective or criminal investigative services in the City of Bethlehem. This Ordinance shall not apply to local, state or federal government employees, police officers commissioned by the Governor or police officers of a municipal authority, educational institutions, or any humane society or similar association authorized by law.

shall be amended to read as follows:

313.01 GENERAL.

This Ordinance shall apply to any person, organization, corporation or entity that employs, engages or otherwise accepts the services of any other person, organization, corporation or entity that provides watch guard, protective patrol, detective or criminal investigative services in the City of Bethlehem. This Ordinance shall not be construed to apply to the employment, engagement, or acceptance of the services of local, state or federal government employees, police officers commissioned by the Governor or police officers of a municipal authority, educational institutions, armored car companies, licensed private detectives who are employed in a purely investigative capacity, or any humane society or similar association authorized by law.

That Section 313.02 which reads as follows:

313.02 NOTICE.

Any person, organization, corporation or entity to which this Ordinance is applicable shall, personally or through an agent, provide the following information and notice to the Police Commissioner of the City of Bethlehem:

A. At least five (5) days prior to the hiring, employment [or retention] of any person, organization, corporation, or entity, to which this Ordinance is applicable, such person, organization, corporation, or entity shall provide notice of such hiring, employment [or retention], on a form provided by the Bethlehem Police Department. Notice of hiring, employment [or retention] may be provided in advance at the beginning of any week, month or year, so long as the Police Commissioner receives notice of each hiring, employment [or retention] within at least five (5) days of the commencement of such hiring, employment [or retention].

B. If a person, organization, corporation, or entity to which this Ordinance is applicable [receives notice of its hiring, employment or retention] less than five (5) days prior to such hiring, employment [or retention], such person, organization, corporation, or entity shall provide notice of such hiring, employment [or retention], on a form provided by the Bethlehem Police Department, as soon as practicable immediately thereafter.

shall be amended to read:

313.02 NOTICE.

Any person, organization, corporation or entity to which this Ordinance is applicable shall, personally or through an agent, provide the following information and notice to the Police Commissioner of the City of Bethlehem:

A. At least five (5) days prior to the hiring, employment, engagement or acceptance of the services of any person, organization, corporation, or entity, to which this Ordinance is applicable, such person, organization, corporation, or entity shall provide notice of such hiring, employment, engagement or acceptance on a form provided by the Bethlehem Police Department. Notice of hiring, employment, engagement or acceptance may be provided in advance at the beginning of any week, month or year, so long as the Police Commissioner receives notice of each hiring, employment, engagement or acceptance within at least five (5) days of the commencement of such hiring, employment, engagement or acceptance.

B. If a person, organization, corporation, or entity to which this Ordinance is applicable hires, employs, engages or accepts the services less than five (5) days prior to such hiring, employment, engagement or acceptance of the services, such person, organization, corporation, or entity shall provide notice of such hiring, employment, engagement or acceptance, on a form provided by the Bethlehem Police Department, as soon as practicable immediately thereafter.

Mr. Donchez, Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, affirmed that the Northampton County District Attorney is in agreement with the proposed amendments that were also reviewed by Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, and Randall Miller, Police Commissioner.

Voting AYE on the Amendment: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5. The Amendment passed.

Voting AYE on Bill No. 7 – 2007, as Amended: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5. Bill No. 7 – 2007, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4433, was declared adopted.

10. NEW ORDINANCES

A. Bill No. 15 – 2007 – Street Vacation – Portion of Deschler Street

The Clerk read Bill No. 15 – 2007 – Street Vacation – Portion of Deschler Street, sponsored by Ms. Dolan and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE VACATION,
DISCONTINUANCE AND STRIKING FROM THE
CITY'S GENERAL PLAN OF STREETS OF A
PORTION OF DESCHLER STREET IN THE
17TH WARD OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON, PENNSYLVANIA.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5.
Bill No. 15 – 2007 was declared passed on First Reading.

B. Bill No. 16 – 2007 – Amending General Fund Budget – Parks Department - Equipment Repair; and Economic Development – Loan Costs

The Clerk read Bill No. 16 – 2007 – Amending General Fund Budget – Parks Department – Equipment Repair; and Economic Development – Loan Costs, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR 2007.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5.
Bill No. 16 – 2007 was declared passed on First Reading.

C. Bill No. 17 – 2007 – Amending Article 129 – Municipal Bond Funds – Restrictions

The Clerk read Bill No. 17 – 2007 – Amending Article 129 – Municipal Bond Funds – Restrictions, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AMENDING
ARTICLE 129, TITLED MUNICIPAL BOND ISSUES, BY
ADDING A NEW SECTION 129.03 - RESTRICTIONS ON
USE OF MUNICIPAL BOND FUNDS – PRIOR APPROVAL
OF CITY COUNCIL REQUIRED

Ms. Dolan commented this is a great example of the transparency that the Finance Committee was attempting to inject in all dealings and expressed she would hope the City would be doing these things anyway. Ms. Dolan added she supports the idea particularly when important financial decisions are being made.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5.
Bill No. 17 – 2007 was declared passed on First Reading.

D. Bill No. 18 – 2007 – Amending 2007 Liquid Fuels Fund Budget – Easton Avenue ADA SS Improvements

The Clerk read Bill No. 18 – 2007 – Amending 2007 Liquid Fuels Fund Budget – Easton Avenue ADA SS Improvements, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE LIQUID FUELS FUND BUDGET FOR 2007.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5.
Bill No. 18 – 2007 was declared passed on First Reading.

E. Bill No. 19 – 2007 – Amending 2007 Community Development Budget – CDBG and HOME Programs

The Clerk read Bill No. 19 – 2007 – Amending 2007 Community Development Budget – CDBG and HOME Programs, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUDGET FOR
2007.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5.
Bill No. 19 – 2007 was declared passed on First Reading.

F. Bill No. 20 – 2007 – Amending Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) – Section 1347.10 – Recreation Land and Fees

The Clerk read Bill No. 20 – 2007 – Amending Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) – Section 1347.10 – Recreation Land and Fees, sponsored by Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 1347.10
OF THE SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
PENNSYLVANIA AS AMENDED, ENTITLED
RECREATION LAND AND FEES

Mrs. Belinski queried when the fees start coming in will they be put in a separate escrow account to be used only for approved purposes.

Dennis Reichard, Business Administrator, replied yes.

Mr. Donchez asked if the Recreation Commission was presented with the parks and recreation plan proposal first.

Ms. Heller replied no.

Mr. Donchez stated, as a former member of the Recreation Commission, this is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that the Recreation Commission could review and there would be citizen input. Mr. Donchez asked why the Recreation Commission was not included in the process.

Ms. Heller advised that the public participation process is always important to the Department. Ms. Heller, noting the Department has worked on several plans that have come before Council, said they are very proud of the amount of public participation that has been arranged for the projects. Ms. Heller affirmed in this instance time was of the essence, and confirmed the parks and recreation plan was presented publicly at the Planning Commission meeting prior to forwarding it to City Council. Noting the Community and Economic Development Department worked with the Parks and Public Property Department, Ms. Heller explained it was felt there was public participation in many of the plans that are included in the parks and recreation plan. Acknowledging that typically the Department would want to have as much public participation as possible, Ms. Heller restated that time was of the essence.

Mr. Donchez expressed the hope that the Recreation Commission has the opportunity to review the plan and to offer their comments. Mr. Donchez added that every individual project stands on its own merits for public input.

Mrs. Belinski explained the first she knew of the matter was when she received a telephone call from a Morning Call reporter asking what she thought about a $2,000 recreation fee, and she did not know to what the reporter was referring. Mrs. Belinski noted that later she found out that the $2,000 fee was reduced to $1,500.

President Schweder asked whether it is correct that if the fee is established at $1,500 when the Ordinance is enacted two weeks from now then anyone who has filed anything from the date it was advertised in the newspaper going forward is bound by the $1,500 fee.

Joseph Kelly, Assistant City Solicitor, responded he knows that Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, and Joseph F. Spirk, Jr., Esq., City Solicitor, did discuss the issue and a letter was sent from Attorney Spadoni to Attorney Spirk indicating that because the Ordinance was advertised that individual would be subject to the Ordinance. Attorney Kelly noted what Mr. Schmehl was trying to indicate was that if an amendment were made today then the process would have to start over.

President Schweder noted all are in agreement that either what is before Council tonight is enacted as is or the process starts all over again. President Schweder observed anyone who filed from the day of the advertising in the Morning Call until the day the Ordinance would be changed would be bound by the $1,500 fee and asked is that correct.

Attorney Kelly said they would be bound by the $1,500 fee and the Law Bureau would make that legal argument.

President Schweder stated if it were to be changed to a different amount and that was done in very short order then it would leave it open to litigation.

Attorney Kelly, noting that is right, communicated if an amendment were adopted and it was tried to be enforced on the developer, the developer might say they want to pay less. However, Attorney Kelly advised it could be argued otherwise.

President Schweder stated he will vote for the Ordinance this evening because he does not think anyone has any choice. President Schweder asserted the procedure is as bad as it gets. President Schweder indicated there are some definitions missing, and there was no input from the Recreation Commission and other entities. President Schweder observed he would assume the City is locked into the fee going forward no matter what. President Schweder communicated that such matters as input and a change in the default park can be addressed. President Schweder recounted that for years the need for zoning changes were discussed but did not occur. President Schweder noted this proposal is unrelated to the delay in the Comprehensive Plan and could have been done much better. President Schweder pointed out that to vote against the proposal would be worse than doing nothing. President Schweder added, after the proposal is voted on Final Reading in two weeks, then the process could start again with public input and other input, and other determinations can be made. Noting there are certain things the City will be locked into that Council will not have the opportunity to change, President Schweder said obviously Council cannot turn around in a few weeks with fee changes.

Attorney Kelly advised that Attorney Spadoni did not address the issue of raising a fee and whether that can be retroactively applied.

President Schweder affirmed Attorney Spadoni reiterated that cannot be done. President Schweder pointed out he does not see how a fee can be changed two weeks after the Ordinance is adopted, for example, without opening up the City to litigation.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5.
Bill No. 20 – 2007 was declared passed on First Reading.

11. RESOLUTIONS

A. Requesting Reimbursement – Training of Police Officer

Mr. Leeson and Mr. Donchez sponsored Resolution 15,082 that authorized the City to obtain reimbursement of monies for expenses incurred for Officer Jason Gerstner pursuant to the training provisions of the Municipal Police Officers’ Education and Training Act, and agreeing that while receiving funds from the Commonwealth pursuant to the Act, the City shall adhere to the rules established by the Commission.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5. The Resolution passed.

B. Public Notification – Liquor License Transfer Requests, Economic Development Studies and Plans

Mr. Leeson and Mr. Donchez sponsored Resolution 15,083 requiring that, in Council's consideration of liquor license transfers and the approval of community and economic development plans and/or studies, a certificate must be submitted in writing to the Council of the City of Bethlehem that all property owners within 500 feet of any submission have been notified by first class mail, and such notice shall include a summary of the submission, indicate where such documentation may be reviewed in detail during normal business hours, and shall further advise as to the date, time and place of consideration by the City of Bethlehem.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5. The Resolution passed.

C. Certificate of Appropriateness – 213 West Fourth Street

Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson sponsored Resolution 15,084 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to renovate the facades and install signage at 213 West Fourth Street.

President Schweder, recalling the Resolution had not been considered at the last City Council Meeting because of questions about several open-ended items left to the discretion of the Historic Officer, affirmed he spoke with the Historic Officer. President Schweder advised that the Historic Officer understood the concerns and it was more a matter of wording.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5. The Resolution passed.

Considering Resolutions As A Group

Mr. Leeson and Mr. Donchez moved that Resolutions 11 D through 11 H be considered as a group. Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5. The motion passed.

D. Certificate of Appropriateness – 407 Center Street

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 15,085 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace storm windows at 407 Center Street.

E. Certificate of Appropriateness – 135 East Market Street

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 15,086 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint the front doors at 135 East Market Street.

F. Certificate of Appropriateness – 30-32 West Market Street

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 15,087 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to alter the exterior of 30-32 West Market Street.

G. Certificate of Appropriateness – 79 and 85 West Church Street

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 15,088 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to restore the sidewalk and driveway apron in front of 79 and 85 West Church Street (the Frueauff House and Main Hall).

H. Certificate of Appropriateness – 241 East Church Street

Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution 15,089 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install fencing and a new handrail at 241 East Church Street.

Voting AYE on Resolutions 11 D through 11 H: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 5. The Resolutions passed.

12. NEW BUSINESS

Zoning Hearing Board

Mr. Donchez observed that all the members of the various boards and authorities have the right to vote on issues except the members of the Zoning Hearing Board on which there are five members but only three voting members. Mr. Donchez advised he will send a memorandum to Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, to review the matter, and the possibility of expanding the Zoning Hearing Board to five voting members.

Bethlehem Housing Authority - Handicapped Ramp

Ms. Dolan, referring to the Bethlehem Housing Authority’s request for a handicapped ramp on Old York Road, asked for the status and who to contact.

Michael Alkhal, Director of Public Works, explained that, since the location is not ideal for wheelchair access, the Parks and Public Property Department will address the site after which a permit can be issued and the ramp can be installed. Mr. Alkhal added it is currently not conducive to wheelchair access beyond the point of where the ramp would be located to the building.

13. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

Various Issues

Dana Grubb, 2420 Henderson Place, stated that predicating action on the parks and recreation plan by citing plans and studies that are in some cases up to five years old is not public participation, and the process was disrespectful of the community. He added it is disingenuous to cite public participation anticipated for the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning updates after the fact. Mr. Grubb questioned how the Mayor can purchase a new vehicle out of the Health Bureau’s budget, and how the State would feel about the funding. Referring to the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Grubb noted it states that the RG Residential District is transitional from single family dwellings to twin houses but yet twin construction is not a permitted use. Mr. Grubb remarked there is a lot of work to do in updating the Zoning Ordinance, and it is disgraceful that the Zoning Hearing Board and Planning Commission have to use such a document.

Eddie Rodriquez, 1845 Linden Street, expressed there is disrespect on the part of one or two desk sergeants. Mr. Rodriquez related that shrubbery in the City is overgrown, and it should be enforced. Mr. Rodriquez said he would like to see an Ordinance that would prohibit planting of bamboo. Mr. Rodriquez observed there are blighted buildings throughout the City. Mr. Rodriquez communicated that Broadway should be widened east and westbound, and added the City has not stepped up when properties were available because of lack of money. Mr. Rodriquez explained that motorized scooters are traveling down one way streets. Mr. Rodriquez wondered why 414 Pawnee Street was given priority in a recent situation versus other places.
Atlantic Street - Disturbances

Mary Galvan, 636 Atlantic Street, enumerated the many disturbances in the 600 block of Atlantic Street at 618, 628, 632, 637 and sometimes at 634 Atlantic Street. Ms. Galvan advised she has called the Police numerous times for the same houses and for the same offenses. Ms. Galvan referred to City Ordinances Section 705.01 pertaining to disorderly conduct and peace disturbance, 705.04 pertaining to disorderly houses, and 705.05 pertaining to loitering. Further advising she has documented the calls she has made to the Police, Ms. Galvan listed the dates, times, and reasons for various calls she placed including trespassing, almost breaking her windows, blocking the street, noise, and loud music that vibrates her house. Ms. Galvan questioned why the Police on an occasion just drove by but did not stop and inform the individuals they are making a disturbance, and fine them. Ms. Galvan notified the Members that she is harassed when she leaves her property, and her mother has been harassed also.

Frederic Mill, Acting Police Commissioner, applauded Ms. Galvan for keeping record of all the incidents. Acting Police Commissioner Mill informed Ms. Galvan that he would meet with her after the meeting to review the matters.

Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance Amendment – Recreation Land and Fees

William Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, observed that the proposed SALDO Ordinance is both a revenue generating and cost generating proposal since it does not allow fees to go towards maintenance.

Patriot Act

Peter Crownfield, 569 Brighton Street, recalled that three years ago after many months of discussion by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, City Council declined to take action in the form of a Resolution concerning the Patriot Act. Mr. Crownfield informed the Members, since that time, the group has seen many cases of citizens held without charges or access to attorneys, wiretapping, and so on.

President Schweder, inquiring whether that happened to residents of the City, explained City Council would pass Ordinances that pertain to the City of Bethlehem. President Schweder notified Mr. Crownfield if there are examples involving City residents he would meet with him to discuss ways to address the situation.

Public Participation

Mr. Crownfield, referring to a past meeting held at the Comfort Suites about a South Side transportation loop, pointed out that follow-up public meetings on a revised draft of the plan were never held and the plan was advanced without the public input.

South Side - Neglect; Main Street - Trash

Mr. Crownfield thought neglect of the South Side is an institutionalized problem in the City. He related that in the area west of Wyandotte Street between Delaware Avenue and Broadway the trash is out of control and not enforced, the streets in the area have not been swept, particularly Fourth and Cherokee Streets, and a piece of curb has been missing since the winter. Turning to Broad Street, Mr. Crownfield stressed the amount of dust that comes from the street sweeper. Mr. Crownfield said on Main Street the trash barrels are often overflowing after a weekend, and there are no recycling bins.

Trees - Replacement

Robert Pfenning, 2830 Linden Street, stated a lot of surrounding municipalities have tree Ordinances that require developers to plant a tree if one is taken out. However, Mr. Pfenning noted the Planning Commission said the City does not have such an Ordinance.

South Side Issues

Mary Pongracz, 321 West Fourth Street, remarked the South Side has had the problem of people dumping unwanted citizens on the South Side, and the problem has not yet been solved. She stressed that dumping by social agencies, which has existed for about 30 years, must stop. Ms. Pongracz recalled that former Council Member Paul Calvo talked about this issue many years ago. Ms. Pongracz expressed that problems such as those related by the resident of Atlantic Street are a multi-pronged problem, part of which is absentee landlords, it is not basically a Police problem, and some of the housing is sub-standard. Ms. Pongracz pointed out what is happening on Atlantic Street now, where there were long-time residents who owned and took care of their homes, is not the way it was in the past. Ms. Pongracz stated there needs to be more enforcement and Police protection.

14. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.