Council MInutes

November 18, 2008

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
10 East Church Street – Town Hall
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 – 7:00 PM

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

President Donchez called the meeting to order. Pastor Larry Burd, Calvary Baptist Church, offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to the flag. Present were Jean Belinski, Karen Dolan, Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., Gordon B. Mowrer, J. William Reynolds, J. Michael Schweder, and Robert J. Donchez, 7.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of November 5, 2008 were approved.

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

ArtsQuest

Chuck Nyul, 1966 Pinehurst Road, addressed Council with regard to the Use Permit for Public Property for ArtsQuest commenting that he has not seen any money coming from ArtsQuest to the City. He said ArtsQuest has brought in tourists for 25 years and the City has a $65 million budget for 2009. Mr. Nyul said there is nothing in the budget showing money coming in from ArtsQuest/Musikfest and he thinks the City should demand something.

Public Surveillance Cameras

Peter Crownfield, 569 Brighton Street, stated that Council City has discussed two types of video camera systems this year, fixed security cameras in certain businesses and operator controlled public surveillance cameras which are in the bond issue. He said his remarks concern only the public surveillance cameras in view of the cost effectiveness and implications for personal privacy. Mr. Crownfield said the $800,000 proposed for this phase already makes clear that these are very expensive systems. He said it is not known at what point additional personnel might be needed as in many cities that have such systems and whether these systems are more expensive than alternative options for crime fighting purposes and which might be even more effective at less cost. He thinks it is Council’s responsibility not to allow any such system without a thorough, inclusive, comprehensive, public review process. He questioned why the City wants to install cameras at all, what are the specific law enforcement goals of the system, and how effective are they. Mr. Crownfield remarked that study after study in other cities shows they are not particularly effective. In Oakland, police proposed a public surveillance system and then withdrew it because of civil liberties concerns and because they couldn’t find any credible evidence that it actually prevented or reduced crime. He said these systems, for those who don’t know, have many features that you might not expect and, in fact, sound like a science fiction movie or something. He then described different ways that these cameras can be used to observe and record people and mentioned in other cities there have been problems with leaked police video footage going onto the Internet. The video can be archived permanently at very low cost and then can be later used by other agencies such as Homeland Security or whomever. Mr. Crownfield stated that the founders of this country placed an extremely high value on privacy and civil liberties. He said they believed that government should be completely open and transparent to the people and in turn that people should be completely free of government intrusion. The proposed system does not appear to meet this standard of privacy in civil liberties that we are due as citizens of the United States. There are too many unknowns and the City could be financially libel if there is a violation of civil liberties. He said he thinks before allocating any funds for cameras and surveillance systems, Council should establish by ordinance an appropriate review process, clear guidelines for approval and strict guidelines for use and it should be applied to all surveillance cameras, including existing systems. Mr. Crownfield referred to a letter from the Bill of Rights Defense Committee-Lehigh Valley to City Council that listed several requirements for this approval process that Council should establish, and explained that William Scheirer will finish his statement. Mr. Crownfield said he thinks there are many reasons to at least question this system. He said information needed has not been given and there has been no attempt to make it an inclusive public process. He said there are many reasons to even question whether it serves a useful purpose at all and also the civil liberties implications. Mr. Crownfield said he felt the people who live, work and go to school here in Bethlehem deserve to know all the details and to participate in an open process to consider whether this should proceed and asked that Council does that and thinks it is Council’s responsibility.

William Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, finishing up on Mr. Crownfield’s comments, read the requirements for an effective review process for Savannah systems. (1) The first is a description of the proposed system and the specific law enforcement purposes it is intended to serve and a plan for assessing its effectiveness including specific measurable goals against which outcomes can be tested. It is not enough to say you want to reduce crime, what kind of crimes do you hope to prevent or what kind of perpetrators do you hope to catch through this system. (2) A comprehensive analysis of alternative ways to achieve the same goals which would be additional police officers, improved lighting or even fixed cameras, as well as the cost and effectiveness of each approach. (3) An independent civil liberties impact statement that examines the civil liberties implications of the proposed system. He said it is interesting that Homeland Security recommends such a statement. (4) Detailed policies and procedures to assure that operators and supervisors will preserve civil liberties and individual privacy. Mr. Scheirer said this might be the most difficult requirement to deal with. (5) When all of the above reports and analyses have been made available to the public, hold a series of well publicized public hearings to make the public fully aware of the proposed systems capabilities and limitations, the basis for any claims about effectiveness, including any contradictory evidence and the potential impacts on privacy and civil liberties, and accept input and more testimony from all concerned parties. Mr. Scheirer said this is a very serious issue and needs to be done with great care.

Police Cars

Mr. Scheirer commented that the City is always buying police cars and they are bought through bond issues. He said it is true that a police car does last more than one year, so that is an argument for floating a bond for that purpose, but only part of the picture. He said the full picture is that almost every year the City is buying police cars and questioned why always borrow to fund something being done almost every year. Mr. Scheirer then made an analysis, using what he said economists call a steady state situation, of the buying and funding of police cars over a period of time and how the interest paid on the money borrowed could potentially fund the cost of a police officer.

Security Cameras

Eddie Rodriquez, 1845 Linden Street, said he is totally 150% in favor of security cameras. He thinks that if a perpetrator is involved in crime, drug sales, has an extensive record or is somebody suspicious, you would want to get a first hand look at what could deter crime, violence and drug sales, along the same way. Mr. Rodriquez said as a community activist he voluntarily gives up his time and goes out of his way to help ensure that our community is safe, and he said it troubles him that someone would go out their way and not see that this is a good thing. He said he thinks many people in the community need this type of surveillance and that it would help to deter crime. He commented that he knows first hand that these cameras are needed and hopes they are brought to this City. Mr. Rodriquez said he doesn’t want the criminal element to settle in our City and he thinks security cameras can help.

Budget

Dana Grubb, 2420 Henderson Place, stated that as Council moves forward with adoption of the budget he would like them to consider a number of things. He said he thinks an Economic stimulus package is needed at a local level. He said unemployment is up in the Lehigh Valley as well as the nation, mortgages are in foreclosures, and business is down locally, and the mindset that no tax is good enough is not good enough for many in our cities. Mr. Grubb remarked that adding new positions during these failing economic times other than in public safety is madness. He said he feels that borrowing $7.5 million for wishes, and not just necessities, is burdensome to residents during these times no matter what the interest rates are and many Bethlehem residents will struggle just to meet their own essential needs let alone extravagances. He commented that when they struggle to pay their tax bills from the City of Bethlehem they won’t be receiving any special rates or dispensation. Mr. Grubb questioned why recreation impact fees aren’t being used on things like miniature golf courses, instead of borrowing the money, and not paying interest. He said for the first time a casino host fee has been introduced into the City budget and he complimented the Administration on taking a conservative approach in their estimates. Yet, he said, it’s been dumped into the abyss that is the General Fund with no accountability for its use, despite the rhetoric of elected officials earlier this year. Mr. Grubb said there is no transparency when you cannot connect the revenue to the expenditures on this host fee. He said who knows if it is being used to fund public safety positions, paying down debt or increasing the cash balance with this money as everybody suggested and bought into earlier this year. Mr. Grubb said smoke and mirrors or spin in politics are not needed from our elected officials. Instead, he said, especially in these times, discipline, restraint and common sense by reducing borrowing and eliminating new positions other than those proposed in public safety is needed. He said there is no room for extravagance in 2009 and maybe beyond in the City budget or in personal budgets. Mr. Grubb remarked that if the borrowing would be reduced most of the new positions would not be added, that economic stimulus package in the form of a tax cut could actually be delivered.

6. OLD BUSINESS.

A. Tabled Items

None.

B. Unfinished Business

1. Establishing Article 314 – Security Cameras
2. Political Contributions and Expenditures – Proposed Ordinance
3. Gift of Real Estate – LVIP
4. Recreation Fees – Proposed Increases
5. Amending Zoning Ordinance – Article 1324 – Fees for Appeal and Article 1325 – Notice of Hearings
6. Bill No. 28 - 2008 – Amending Zoning Ordinance – Various Sections

C. Old Business – Members of Council

Resolution to Remove Left Turn Lane at Five Points

Councilman Schweder stated he would like to direct his remarks to President Donchez about something he has thought about for several weeks. He said last spring City Council by a vote of 5-2 passed a resolution which says that the will of Council was that at the intersection of the Five Points the left-turn lane was to be removed and the parking was to be restored as it had been prior to the left-turn lane at that point. He said there was contact back from PennDot that said they could proceed with this and they were willing to do it and said nothing has happened with that. He said at the last meeting or the one prior to that President Donchez was asked at that point what action had been taken with respect to this. Mr. Schweder asked President Donchez what action has been taken since this resolution was passed by Council to see that this was implemented.

President Donchez responded that the action that was taken is that Christopher T. Spadoni, Council Solicitor, was asked to meet with the Administration, which he did. President Donchez said he also met on the issue with Attorney Spadoni, Jack Spirk, Jr., City Solicitor, and Michael Alkhal, Public Works Director.

Attorney Spadoni reported that as a result of that resolution he met with the Administration and it was his understanding that they would move ahead. He said from what he can recall he is not aware of any action taken. He said they did meet and the resolution was in place and there were communications with PennDot that he shared with Council.

President Donchez further explained that in a memorandum that Attorney Spadoni provided to City Council that one of the concepts was the difference between an ordinance and a resolution. President Donchez said that he believes the resolution was like a statement of policy, not carrying the weight of an ordinance, which is the weight of law of City Council. He said his personal opinion is that if the issue would have been passed by way of an ordinance, it would have carried more weight. He said that at the meeting he had with Attorney Spadoni and the Administration, along with Councilman Reynolds, the comments from PennDot were that the time factor and the costs would be too great because the process already had been moving forward with the Five Points One-Way Pairing.

Councilman Schweder stated that he would like some clarification on what he feels is a very significant matter. That is, he asked, does either the presiding officer of this chamber or the Administration have the right to pick and choose what pieces of legislation passed by Council are followed or ignored. He said in the memo that was sent from Mr. Spadoni there were three different avenues that were laid out, but as best he can tell what has happened is that it has simply been ignored. Councilman Schweder said he does not want to debate whether it costs too much or whatever rationale there was in developing this. He said he would like to know that if there are 11,800 resolutions that have been passed by City Councils in this City since 1962, is the ruling given on this is that they do not have the weight to be adhered to or enforced either by Council or by an Administration going forward. He said he assumes if that is the case, every resolution that is passed doesn’t have the weight of anything. He asked if that is how we will be operating going forward, that resolutions do not carry significant enough weight and they don’t have to be followed.

President Donchez replied that, obviously, the answer is no. He said going back and at the meeting that was held, he did ask Attorney Spadoni to meet with PennDot to see if there would be some middle ground. He doesn’t believe that meeting took place. He said the request was made and when Mr. Schweder received the memo a few months ago there was the opportunity to raise the issue at that time. President Donchez went on to say that based on the memorandum of Mr. Spadoni the difference in the definitions of a resolution versus an ordinance are much different. Resolutions are important, but again, it is a statement of policy rather than an ordinance which carries the weight of law. Mr. Donchez said he felt that Attorney Spadoni made every effort to meet with PennDot, there has been a change at PennDot with a new district engineer, the Administration reported there was a cost factor, and the One-Way Pairing was already moving along. Attorney Spadoni agreed with President Donchez on what had occurred.

Mr. Schweder said removing the arguments there, if he takes that interpretation, he assumes that resolutions that Council passes really don’t have much weight. He said if they can be arbitrarily determined by the Administration not to be followed what reason would there be for any purpose to go through the process. For example, he said, with the Historical and Architectural Review Board, if anybody wants to change anything to his home it has to come before City Council and have Council approve a resolution stating that. So, he said, under this interpretation, people would not have to do that anymore, or if it were passed, they would not have to follow it. Mr. Schweder commented what is disturbing about this is if you look at a whole number of examples, this being one of several, but another at the Community Development Committee Meeting this evening. He said there is a new recycling program that has been implemented in the City and people have received their new recycling cans in various neighborhoods and yet nothing has been enacted. It is as if at this point Council is an afterthought. He said that President Donchez and he are both students of history and know the history of the City going back 40 years, and it would also seem to him that if Councilman Charles Donches, Councilwoman Dolores Caskey, or Councilman Frank Muhr were faced with the same thing, and if a decision by a Mayor or his administration was not to follow through on something, they would have been in the Court of Common Pleas already over this, which is what they did at one point when things were ignored by actions that Council had taken. Mr. Schweder stated that going forward if this is the new rule we function under then we had better concern ourselves of what are resolutions and what aren’t, because by what he is hearing now, they don’t carry weight and do not have to be enforced even if Council enacts them. President Schweder asked if he is misinterpreting that.

President Donchez responded going back to the main point that based on the 5-2 vote and all the information was presented by Mr. Spadoni, the greatest power of City Council is the power of the purse and obviously, any legislative body of a Third Class City has two options, take judicial action, or on any finance proposal that would come to the Finance Committee of City Council that could be held up. President Donchez said as the role of Council that gives the legislative body some leverage on issues. For example, if there was an issue pertaining to Public Works, City Council could pull back that legislation.

Mr. Schweder commented that he does not understand. He asked if what is being told to him now is that if something is passed and some department decides they do not want to implement it, the only cause of action Council has at that point is later on to refuse to fund programs in that department. There has to be some rationale here and what action Council or the presiding officer would take if something has passed and is being ignored. He said the issue does not matter, it is in far too many cases.

President Donchez recalled going back to that debate he thinks the question that was raised by Councilman Reynolds was the key question. He had asked why this was being done by way of a resolution versus an ordinance. Mr. Donchez said he thinks if this would have been passed by way of an ordinance it would have carried more weight and City Council could have taken a stronger position by way of judicial action. He said there was a time factor then from the time it was passed as a resolution to when the meeting occurred with the Administration. President Donchez said his interpretation is that resolutions do not carry as much weight as an ordinance, even though they are very important and are statements of policy. He said he thinks a stronger position would have been taken immediately by City Council if it were an ordinance.

Councilman Schweder asked what Council will do going forward. He said he knows what Council has done up to this point and what Mr. Donchez has decided to do as President. He said before we go on passing more resolutions he would like to know what are the rules of engagement here to do this. Mr. Schweder said the reality of what was being sought was a temporary solution to something, which when reading part of Attorney Spadoni’s proposal says that is a set period of time, we weren’t looking to enact this into eternity, what was being done was taking the action at that point. He said again he doesn’t think he has an answer and would like to know what will be done going forward. Mr. Schweder stated he has concerns about whether this is a policy in place now where people get to pick and choose what it is they are going to follow that is enacted by City Council. He said he thinks that Mr. Donchez as Council’s leader at some point is going to have to establish that policy to be adhered to because he does not feel it is being done so now.

Councilman Reynolds stated he was at the meeting with President Donchez, Mr. Spadoni, and Mr. Alkhal and said it was his belief that PennDot let the City know that PennDot was not going to move forward with this plan for a temporary solution with the idea that they were still going to have the one-way pairing to be completed in the near future as long as there was not some type of uniform consensus between the Administration and City Council. He said that was what was conveyed during the meeting. Mr. Reynolds commented that the biggest problem he had with this resolution was that it was going to be more expensive than what Council originally thought it was going to be and the idea that Council could say that something needed to be done without any sort of appropriation of money or without any input from Mr. Alkhal or Francis Barron, Traffic Engineer, who had both come out against it. He said with regard to the power of the purse, that was what Mr. Spadoni had said at the meeting, as to what Council’s role was. Mr. Reynolds went on to say that in the future if Council had a problem with the fact it was not implemented Council’s recourse would be not to approve expenditures other than taking it to court.

Councilwoman Belinski commented that her recollection from the letter that was sent to Mr. Alkhal from the PennDot official was that it did not address the reason why we wanted to eliminate that left-hand turn. She said it was because it would cost a lot less than $2 million, to see if it would improve the flow of traffic and to have a trial. The letter from the official at PennDot to Mr. Alkhal said why spend $50,000 because when the one-way pairs is put in the left-hand turn lane will be eliminated. Mrs. Belinski said she thinks the PennDot official was given a misinterpretation because it was not obvious to him why the left-hand turn lane was being requested to be removed. She said it was to increase the flow of traffic to prove we did not need the one-way streets and save $2 million so the City could use that money to reactivate the pumping station.

Councilwoman Dolan commented that with regard to rules and regulations she is confused because she thought two comments could be made on any subject, the third would require permission from the President, and the fourth would require a vote of Council. She questioned one Member of Council holding up the floor for such an extended period of time. With reference to Mr. Schweder’s example of a resolution with regard to the Historical and Architectural Review Board, Ms. Dolan thought if there was a major difference from when the resolution was approved by Council and if something were to happen to a house, for example, in between the time the resolution was passed and the time they went to do that work, they would have the right and the responsibility to come back to HARB and Council to have a re-evaluation of that approval. She said the resolution for removal of the left-turn lane was passed under the impression strongly promoted by Mr. Schweder that all that it would cost was a “bucket of paint and a paintbrush”. Ms. Dolan said she thinks there is a big difference between that and $50,000 for the initial study to see if it could move forward and the fact that PennDot said they would not do it. She remarked that the situation has completely changed, it is unusual, and it doesn’t happen very often. Ms. Dolan said she doesn’t think we usually pass resolutions in this way, recalling that she and Mr. Reynolds were the two who voted against it, and she was uncomfortable passing it because she did not believe Mr. Schweder’s concept of the paint and paintbrush, and thought it would cost money somewhere down the road as well as being potentially dangerous. Ms. Dolan stated that now that the cost is known perhaps the resolution should be rescinded.

Mr. Schweder, in response to Ms. Dolan, said he has not made a statement yet and he merely asked questions of the President of Council. Mr. Schweder commented that the issue is being debated and he does not think that is what it is about. He said he thinks Council needs a policy going forward, whether it requires rescinding something or taking legal action. He said the idea of Council enacting something and nothing happens with it is a process that government cannot function under and no one anywhere would allow that to happen. He said a policy is needed regardless of the issue. Mr. Schweder stated the issue he brought up this evening is not at all about the Five Points, he is not debating that, and what it really is is a constitutional question of the authority of Council, what it enacts, and what gets enacted by it.

President Donchez said that no one has more respect for the institution than he does, and Mr. Schweder and he go back a long time as students of Bethlehem City government. He thinks the best way to handle this and maybe it should have been done earlier based on the memorandum of Mr. Spadoni and the meetings with PennDot and the Administration, and the cost factor, would be to rescind the resolution. Mr. Donchez commented that he thought Mr. Schweder was going to raise the issue a couple months ago, but that didn’t happen. He said he thinks it is a Third Class City Code policy and if the Administration were not to respect an Ordinance by City Council, then legal action must be taken or power of the purse must be used against the resolution. He said again a resolution is a statement of policy and they have to be viewed in a different manner than an ordinance and that obviously both are very important to the process. President Donchez recalled the Zoning Board matter with Foulke Lumber that was taken to court. President Donchez said he thinks the policy is as clear as it was before the meeting today, and in retrospect what should have been done was to debate the issue and possibly rescind it because of the meetings with Mr. Spadoni and PennDot, etc. He said City Council is the legislative branch of government, Council can veto something, there is the power of the purse to withhold the Administration from moving forward on something. President Donchez added that he was surprised over the weekend to learn that recycling containers were being delivered to homes throughout the City before it even came to the committee. He said that was troubling. President Donchez said that was raised at the First Budget Hearing by Mrs. Belinski to Thomas Marshall, Recycling Director, because that was not discussed, debated or approved. President Donchez said that when City Council passes an ordinance if it is not respected City Council will take a strong position. He said maybe Council should consider rescinding this decision.

Mr. Reynolds said he felt comfortable moving forward with the fact that President Donchez did not move forward based on the idea that he thought it was a satisfactory response that PennDot wasn’t going to do anything if the two bodies didn’t agree. He said at that point he thought that President Donchez didn’t have anything else that he needs to do to push forward with this. He went on to say that the idea of talking about this resolution when we know and read in the paper the schedule of PennDot and we want them to do projects and the idea that we would send them conflicting information about something that when we talk about the will of the body, the will of the body also voted for the one-way pair. Council and the Administration have made it clear that we want them to move forward on that project and this would have likely moved that back. Mr. Reynolds said moving forward that if this is something we want passed, we should pass it as an ordinance. He said this is budget time and if we wanted to appropriate money then we should find money in the budget and make an attempt to add that. He said if that was done, and he said he wouldn’t necessarily support it, it would be a constitutional solution to this problem. If it had been suggested as an ordinance and in the budget in the first place, he thinks this would have been avoided. Mr. Reynolds said just as the Administration comes to Council to ask for transfers of funds for different departments, if this was something Council was serious about, it should have been something Council should have suggested the funding mechanism. Mr. Reynolds, referring to the difference between a resolution and ordinance, said it has been seen in other areas of government where people have tried to extend their powers and the powers of different offices, he said he does not think it would be wise for Council to consider doing, which they would be doing if Council told the Administration to fund things without telling them how to fund it. He said that comes back to Council’s power of the purse, and it is budget time and if there are projects that Council wants to include and pass an ordinance, rather than a resolution, that would tell the Administration to do this, Council has the opportunity to do it, and Council has the opportunity to try to find money in the budget while the 2009 budget is being passed if it is something Council is serious about.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

A. Quality Manager – Amending Article 923 – Disposal and Discharge of Industrial Waste Regulations

The Acting Clerk read a memorandum dated November 7, 2008 from Jodi L. Schnalzer, Quality Manager, to which was attached a copy of proposed amendments to Article 923, Disposal and Discharge of Industrial Waste Regulations. The changes are necessary due to revisions of the Federal Pretreatment Regulations and recent Local Limits re-evaluation. The changes have been reviewed and approved by EPA. After adoption by the City, all the contributing municipalities need to adopt the changes as well.

President Donchez referred the matter to the Public Works Committee.

B. Parks and Public Property Director – Golf Course Restaurant – Hours of Operation

The Acting Clerk read a memorandum dated November 13, 2008 from Ralph E. Carp, Parks and Public Property Director, which stated that a change in the permitted hours of operation at the restaurant beyond 10:00 PM is being requested to help ensure the continued success of the restaurateur during the off-season.

President Donchez referred the matter to the Parks and Public Property Committee.

8. REPORTS

A. President of Council

President Donchez reported that the Second Budget Hearing will be held Wednesday, November 19, at 7:00 PM in Town Hall to review the following departments: Department of Water and Sewer Resources, Water Fund Revenue Estimates, Water Fund, Water General Expenses, Water Capital, Sewer Fund Revenue Estimates, Sewer Fund, Sewer General Expenses, Sewer Capital, Department of Public Works, and Liquid Fuels Fund. President Donchez asked if the Department Heads would stay after their presentation for the public comment, and then comment by City Council.

President Donchez announced that after this evening’s City Council Meeting, the Council will meet as Committee of the Whole to review the Five Year Capital Plan.

B. Mayor

None.

C. Finance Committee

Mr. Leeson, Chairman of the Finance Committee, stated his report on the Finance Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, November 11, 2008 on the subject of the 2009 Bond Issue - Financing has been circulated in writing.

D. Community Development Committee

Mr. Schweder, Chairman of the Community Development Committee, gave an oral report of the meeting held at 5:45 PM prior to the City Council Meeting on the following subject: Proposed Amendments to the Recycling Ordinance. He reported that it was determined by the Committee that it was not in proper form and would not be advanced by the Committee at that point. Mr. Schweder said the meeting was recessed at the call of the Chair and it is hopeful that it will be considered before the Committee at the meeting to be held Tuesday, November 25, 2008, at 8:00 AM. He said it will be added to that agenda if there is time. No action was taken at this evening’s meeting.

Mr. Reynolds asked President Donchez if there will be Courtesy of the Floor at the Budget Hearings. President Donchez replied yes.

Mr. Reynolds then asked if the Finance Committee Meeting information was circulated to the general public. Mr. Leeson responded that item 10 L is listed on the agenda.

9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL PASSAGE

A. Bill No. 29 – 2008 - Amending General Fund Budget - Police Department – LCB Overtime Grant; Economic Development - Enterprise Zone Manager - PADCED Grant; Public Works – Mechanical Maintenance – Equipment Repairs – Reimbursement; General Expenses – Continuous Improvement

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 29 – 2008 – Amending General Fund Budget – Police Department – LCB Overtime Grant; Economic Development - Enterprise Zone Manager - PADCED Grant; Public Works – Mechanical Maintenance – Equipment Repairs – Reimbursement; General Expenses – Continuous Improvement, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Bill No. 29 – 2008, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 2008-28, was declared adopted.

B. Bill No. 30 – 2008 - Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget - TANF Repayment Fund; HOME Investment Trust; Park/Playground Improvements – Monocacy Complex; Southside Recreation Programs; Wireless Mesh Project – PADCED Grant

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 30 – 2008 – Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget - TANF Repayment Fund; HOME Investment Trust; Park/Playground Improvements – Monocacy Complex; Southside Recreation Programs; Wireless Mesh Project – PADCED Grant, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Bill No. 30 – 2008, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 2008-29, was declared adopted.

10. NEW ORDINANCES

A. Bill No. 31 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 General Fund Budget

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 31 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 General Fund Budget, sponsored by Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR 2009.

Mrs. Belinski stated that she sponsored a number of new ordinances this evening but it does not mean she agrees with all of them. She said she is not happy with a lot of the things in the General Fund Budget and will be voting nay.

President Donchez noted that since there will be a final vote, at this time a yes vote can be made without prejudice and changed on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Schweder, 2. Bill No. 31 - 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

B. Bill No. 32 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Water Fund Budget

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 32 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Water Fund Budget, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE WATER FUND BUDGET FOR 2009.

Voting AYE: Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Schweder, 2. Bill No. 32 - 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

C. Bill No. 33 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Sewer Fund Budget

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 33 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Sewer Fund Budget, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE SEWER FUND BUDGET FOR 2009.

Voting AYE: Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Schweder, 2. Bill No. 33 - 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

D. Bill No. 34 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Golf Course Enterprise Fund Budget

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 34 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Golf Course Enterprise Fund Budget, sponsored by Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan, and titled:

Voting AYE: Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Schweder, 2. Bill No. 34 - 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

E. Bill No. 35 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Liquid Fuels Fund Budget

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 35 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Liquid Fuels Fund Budget, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE LIQUID FUELS FUND BUDGET FOR 2009.

Voting AYE: Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Schweder, 2. Bill No. 35 - 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

F. Bill No. 36 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Capital Budget for Non-Utilities

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 36 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Capital Budget for Non-Utilities, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE 2009 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR NON-UTILITIES.

Voting AYE: Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Schweder, 2. Bill No. 36 - 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

G. Bill No. 37 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Capital Budget for Water Utilities

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 37 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Capital Budget for Water Utilities, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE 2009 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR WATER UTILITIES.

Voting AYE: Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Schweder, 2. Bill No. 37 - 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

H. Bill No. 38 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Capital Budget for Sewer Utilities

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 38 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Capital Budget for Sewer Utilities, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE 2009 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR SEWER
UTILITIES.

Voting AYE: Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Schweder, 2. Bill No. 38 - 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

I. Bill No. 39 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Community Development Budget

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 39 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 Community Development Budget, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUDGET FOR
2009.

Voting AYE: Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Schweder, 2. Bill No. 39 - 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

J. Bill No. 40 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 9-1-1 Fund Budget

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 40 – 2008 – Adopting the 2009 9-1-1 Fund Budget, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE 9-1-1 FUND BUDGET FOR 2009.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Bill No. 40 - 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

K. Bill No. 41 – 2008 – Fixing the 2009 Tax Rate for All City Purposes

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 41 – 2008 – Fixing the 2009 Tax Rate for All City Purposes, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, FIXING
THE TAX RATE FOR ALL CITY PURPOSES
FOR THE YEAR 2009.

Voting AYE: Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Schweder, 2. Bill No. 41 - 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

L. Bill No. 42 – 2008 – Authorizing Issuance of 2008 General Obligation Bond/Note - $8,000,000 – Non-Utility Capital Projects

The Acting Clerk read Bill No. 42 – 2008 – Authorizing Issuance of 2008 General Obligation Bond/Note - $8,000,000 – Non-Utility Capital Projects, sponsored by Mr. Leeson and Ms. Dolan, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OR NOTES, SERIES OF 2008 (THE BONDS OR NOTES) IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,000,000 PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DEBT ACT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 53 PA. C.S. CHS. 80-82 (THE ACT); PROVIDING THE PROCEEDS OF THE BONDS OR NOTES SHALL BE APPLIED TO FUNDING OF CERTAIN CITY IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBING THE CITY IMPROVEMENTS (THE IMPROVEMENTS), DETERMINING THAT THE SALE OF THE BONDS OR NOTES SHALL BE A PRIVATE SALE UNDER THE ACT, AND DETERMINING THAT THE BONDS OR NOTES SHALL BE NONELECTORAL DEBT OF THE CITY; FIXING THE INTEREST PAYMENT DATES, DENOMINATIONS AND REGISTRATION, TRANSFER AND EXCHANGE PRIVILEGES OF THE BONDS OR NOTES AND PROVIDING FOR BOOK ENTRY BONDS OR NOTES THROUGH DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY; SETTING FORTH THE MATURITY DATES, PRINCIPAL MATURITIES AND CURRENT INTEREST RATES OF EACH SERIES OF BONDS OR NOTES AND ESTABLISHING A REQUIRED SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SINKING FUND, AS HEREINAFTER ESTABLISHED, IN ORDER TO AMORTIZE THE BONDS OR NOTES; ESTABLISHING THE REDEMPTION PROVISIONS OF THE BONDS OR NOTES, BOTH OPTIONAL AND MANDATORY; ESTABLISHING THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE REDEMPTION OF THE BONDS OR NOTES; ACCEPTING A BID FOR PURCHASE OF THE BONDS OR NOTES AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT; DESIGNATING A PAYING AGENT AND REGISTRAR; DESIGNATING A PLACE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT OF THE BONDS OR NOTES AND INTEREST THEREON AND MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS WITH RESPECT TO THE TAX FREE STATUS THEREOF; ESTABLISHING THE SUBSTANTIAL FORMS OF THE BONDS OR NOTES AND THE PAYING AGENT'S CERTIFICATE RELATING THERETO; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICATION OF THE BONDS OR NOTES; PROVIDING FOR THE REGISTRATION OF THE BONDS OR NOTES, THE MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS OF REGISTERED OWNERS AND TRANSFER OF THE BONDS OR NOTES; DESIGNATING A SINKING FUND DEPOSITORY; COVENANTING TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON THE BONDS OR NOTES AND PLEDGING THE FULL FAITH, CREDIT AND TAXING POWER OF THE CITY TO SUCH PURPOSE; ESTABLISHING SINKING FUND FOR THE BONDS OR NOTES AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING PAYMENT THEREFROM; SETTING FORTH CERTAIN PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTMENT OF MONIES THEREIN; DESIGNATING A SINKING FUND DEPOSITORY; SETTING FORTH CERTAIN RIGHTS OF THE PAYING AGENT AND BONDHOLDERS OR NOTEHOLDERS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT AND OTHER RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE BONDS OR NOTES; PROVIDING FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE ORDINANCE MAY BE AMENDED OR MODIFIED; PROVIDING FOR THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS WITH RESPECT TO THE BOND INSURER, IF ANY, FOR THE BONDS OR NOTES; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING SPECIFIED OFFICERS OF THE CITY TO DO AND PERFORM CERTAIN SPECIFIED, REQUIRED OR APPROPRIATE ACTS; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR SETTLEMENT AND THE PAYMENT OF ISSUANCE EXPENSES; DECLARING THAT THE DEBT TO BE INCURRED IS WITHIN THE LIMITATION IMPOSED BY THE ACT UPON INCURRING OF SUCH DEBT BY THE CITY; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING PROPER OFFICERS OF THE CITY TO DELIVER THE BONDS OR NOTES UPON EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICATION THEREOF, UPON RECEIPT OF PROPER PAYMENT OF THE BALANCE DUE THEREFOR, AND ONLY AFTER SPECIFIED APPROVAL, AS REQUIRED, OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; SETTING FORTH CERTAIN COVENANTS RELATING TO THE FEDERAL TAX STATUS OF THE BONDS OR NOTES; PROVIDING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RULE 15c2-12; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES SO FAR AS THE SAME SHALL BE INCONSISTENT; PROVIDING WHEN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.

Ms. Dolan explained, for the benefit of the citizens in the audience, that First Reading does not mean it is a done deal on any of these ordinances and will be followed by extensive conversation and questioning. The First Reading moves the budget process forward and if Council did not approve it the budget process would come to a halt. She said there is a definite due date when the budget must be passed.

Voting AYE: Ms. Dolan, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 6. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski, 1. Bill No. 42 - 2008 was declared passed on First Reading.

11. RESOLUTIONS

A. Authorizing Execution of Use Permit Agreement for Public Property – ArtsQuest – Christkindlmarkt 2008, Christmas City Cirque 2008, First Night 2008

Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson sponsored Resolution 2008-207 that authorized the execution of a Use Permit Agreement for Public Property between ArtsQuest and the City for various City properties for Christkindlmarkt 2008, Christmas City Cirque 2008, and First Night 2008, for the dates and times listed on the agreement, according to terms and conditions of the agreement.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 6. The Resolution passed.

B. Certificate of Appropriateness – Historic District

Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson sponsored Resolution 2008-208 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace damaged and missing street signs within the Historic District.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 6. The Resolution passed.

C. Certificate of Appropriateness – 239 East Church Street

Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Leeson sponsored Resolution 2008-209 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a prefabricated storage shed at the rear of 239 East Church Street.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 6. The Resolution passed.

12. NEW BUSINESS

Setting Date for Adoption – 2009 Budgets

President Donchez accepted a motion from Councilwoman Dolan, seconded by Councilman Reynolds, to set a date for the adoption of the 2009 Budget on Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 7:00 PM in Town Hall. Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Schweder, and Mr. Donchez, 6. The motion passed.

Meeting Announcements

Chairman Schweder announced a Community Development Committee Meeting on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 8:00 AM in Town Hall on the Historic Properties Proposal, LERTA Ordinance, and the Recycling proposal.

Chairwoman Belinski announced a Parks and Public Property Committee Meeting on Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 5:45 PM in Town Hall prior to that evening’s City Council Meeting on various subjects, including the Golf Course Restaurant, Parks and Building Facilities, etc.

Chairman Reynolds announced a Human Resources and Environment Committee meeting on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 8:00 AM on the proposed 2009 personnel proposals. Mr. Reynolds noted that he knows the 8:00 AM meeting time is not ideal for people who have to work, but it is the only time that was available for everyone to meet.

13. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

Ethics, New City USA, Five Points Traffic Plan – One Way Pairs

Terry Meixell, 56 East Goepp Street, commented that originally he was going to speak about ethics and the letter he had sent to the Members of Council. He made the comment that just because it is legal does not mean that it is ethical. He then referred to the meeting he attended regarding what he believes is called New City USA, and heard that the City is going to match the funds raised if it goes through. He said he does not know if Council voted on this, but feels that his tax dollars would be better well served for the general public such as resurfacing of streets. Mr. Meixell said he thinks Main Street looks good, and Third Street looks better than he has ever seen it. He said he thinks the money would be better invested in hiring a few more people and getting a better street cleaner. He thinks the City should be able to maintain it without hiring someone else to come in. Mr. Meixell said if he was the Administration and someone told him he wasn’t doing his job right, he would feel offended instead of trying to defend it. He questioned how a tax raise is not being considered while assessing the businesses and whatever money is received then there would be a match with City funds. Mr. Meixell commented that those are his tax dollars going somewhere that he doesn’t appreciate.

With regard to the One Way Pairs, Mr. Meixell explained that from his conversation with Mr. Rebert of the State, he understands that bids for this project are not going out until May, so this isn’t a done deal yet. He said he has been requesting a test of this traffic plan be taken before all the money is spent, and has sent a letter to Mr. Rebert with a copy to Michael Alkhal expressing his concerns. Mr. Meixell said he took his own private survey of the businesses, and 19 were against the project and three were for it. He said the numbers are not there. He said during his survey people wanted to sign the survey but had explained to them that he was surveying just businesses. He said he thought that what happened on Broad Street would be an eye-opener, that owners did not want it, and years later all the money was spent to put it back the way it was. Mr. Meixell stated he would like to see a test done.

Immigrant Rights

Mimi Lang, 1526 Oakland Street, distributed a statement on the protection of the rights of immigrants and the links to U.S. economic and military policy from Lehigh-Pocono Committee of Concern (LEPOCO), and their concern about the treatment of immigrants, undocumented people in the Lehigh Valley and in the United States. She said they would like to prevent incidents such as the one mentioned in the letter in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, from happening in this area. Ms. Lang noted that over 80 municipalities in the United States have passed ordinances to offer some protection to the immigrant community and that the common thread in those ordinances is that law enforcement community or any of the city bureaucracy will not ask about immigration status when they are offering services to the residents so they are offering human rights to undocumented residents. LEPOCO is asking City Council to look at this document that has been written by LEPOCO and have included in the packet a document from the Pennsylvania Bar Association backing this idea and an article from the newspaper. She asked that City Council consider this.

Addison Bross, 157 East Market Street, with regard to the issue, pointed out that this should not be confused as a Federal issue, that this issue of undocumented immigrants in Bethlehem is a Bethlehem issue and policy has to be devised by the governing board of the City. Mr. Bross explained that is not easy for people to leave their home countries in Central and South America and come here to pick up positions to begin to reside in the United States. He said people wouldn’t be coming here and risking in many cases their lives if there was not a strong incentive to do so and that the incentive in large part is the desire of companies in the United States for cheap labor. He said he thinks that is a contradiction. They want labor from these people but are not sure about the status of undocumented immigrants and not sure that they are wanted as persons, that is as citizens who deserve the protection of the law, respect and human rights. Mr. Bross then commented regarding the historical context of the so-called immigration issue and that it is not an immigration issue but an issue of foreign policy. Mr. Bross then described some instances in history which resulted in conditions in some foreign countries making life difficult when people found it easier to come here. He said this is the context in which the so-called immigration problem needs to be considered. If undocumented immigrants aren’t to achieve permanent residence they need equal protection of the law and services that are provided freely for our citizens. Mr. Bross commented that he thought the safeguarding of these measures will be in the interest of every Bethlehem citizen.

Tim Chadwick, 1415 Monocacy Street, stated he is speaking as a member of LEPOCO’s Americas Solidarity Group who worked extensively for months to get the information that was distributed. He explained that he has lived over the years amidst a melting pot of immigrant workers from throughout Eastern Europe and Latin American, and most of his neighbors worked at the Steel or related industries. He said this City was built by immigrants, Moravians and Germans, and has a long history of working class people from many diverse cultures living side by side in communities. Over the past several years he said he has traveled to Venezuela and El Salvador, and in the packet that was distributed there is mention of a delegation that went to El Salvador which he took part in. Mr. Chadwick stated that the trips were life changing in making him aware of the outside forces that make survival in some of the Latin American countries virtually impossible and that he thinks it is our federal government’s public policy in trade and economics that plays an integral role enforcing the massive migration that is happening in our country. He urged Council to read the packet and research this issue and to take a positive stand for all immigrants’ rights in America. He said they are here today to call on City Council to consider the resolution and packet. Mr. Chadwick said they believe it is not the job of local municipalities like Bethlehem to enforce Federal immigration laws and are not concerned with all Federal law, only the administrative law such as immigration, tax, and environmental law. He said that is not customarily enforced by local agencies anyway, and in this case would be purely a selective use of local law enforcement. He asked if a City wanted to enforce immigration law, why not IRS law or EPA law, or OSHA regulations. He said they believe it is in the best interest of the constituents that Council take a moral and legal stand for the individual rights of all Bethlehem citizens. He said these perilous economic times as well as some of the extreme hatreds that are growing in neighboring communities of eastern Pennsylvania call for Council to confirm that Bethlehem stands for individual rights of all its residents and do not support the profiling of people simply because of their ethnic or perceived immigrant status. Mr. Chadwick said they look forward to working with the Mayor and City Council to take the necessary steps to adopt a resolution that would protect the human rights of all the good people who live, work and contribute to the community, and protecting all of our citizens from local law enforcement resources being utilized in enforcement of federal immigration laws is the right thing to do.

Actions of Council

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, stated that after observing Council this evening he feels forced to comment. He said he has been to a number of meetings here and said he apologizes to Pastor Burd and other pastors who have given invocations to elevate us to a level above our humanism as to what we might aspire to be and said that is commendable because that kind of guidance is needed. He said this evening he sat in dismay and was very disappointed at how far away from that goal we are. Mr. Antalics said Council is represented by the City’s best interests. He said an issue of principle, a policy, simply that, was brought up and there was no resolution on that issue but it deteriorated into issues that had nothing to do with the initial comment. He stated that Council are all democrats and should be on the same page so it shouldn’t be political, and the only common denominator is personality and personality should not enter into deliberation when elected officials are concerned with the welfare of the people. Mr. Antalics remarked that the fact that the President of Council needed to gavel down a Member of Council is dangerous because it negates Council’s mission by reducing to personal attacks. He said that is not needed or wanted and asks Council to respond and act in a professional manner. He said he thinks Council as a body owes an apology.

Ordinance and Resolutions

William Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, commenting on the differences between ordinances and resolutions, said he found himself making comparisons. He said on the one hand in the instance that was discussed PennDot said they didn’t want to agree to it if the Administration and Council were in disagreement. Mr. Scheirer, and he said that sounds reasonable. Mr. Scheirer said on the other hand, another way of looking at it is that even if Council were to pass a resolution by 7-0, the Administration could effectively veto it if it had the cooperation of PennDot, and he said that doesn’t sound as reasonable. He remarked that apparently the Third Class City Code does not have clear language on this, otherwise he thinks it would have been cited. Mr. Scheirer questioned Council Solicitor Spadoni and John F. Spirk, Jr., City Solicitor, asking if they knew of anything that would clarify the difference between a resolution and an ordinance.

Attorney Spadoni replied that he has written a comprehensive memorandum in that regard and said he would share it with Mr. Scheirer.

Proposed Tax on Businesses

Bruce Haines, 65 West Market Street, following up on Mr. Meixell’s earlier question regarding the proposed tax on the businesses in the City for the downtown improvements, asked what is the process, who is going to be involved in it, what input will occur.

President Donchez responded that he met about three weeks ago with the consultant who explained the concept. The consultant had told him that there would be a meeting with business people on the South Side and that meeting was held last week at the Comfort Suites. President Donchez said that City Council has not received any information on this. Mr. Donchez said he was at that meeting for only about the first 20 minutes and that Tony Hanna, Director of Community and Economic Development, had clearly stated at the beginning of that meeting that if the business people in South Bethlehem were interested in this concept, then the Administration would move forward and then present it to City Council. He said it was his understanding with the consultant and Donna Taggart that it seemed to be very similar to the Downtown Improvement District in Allentown a few years ago. President Donchez commented that he did not know what the reaction to it was and nothing has been brought to Council.

Mr. Haines asked if it would have to come before City Council before any taxes are imposed on the businesses and if there would be public input. President Donchez replied yes. Mr. Haines commented that as a businessman in Bethlehem he wanted to remind Council that businesses already pay quite a bit of taxes, taxes on real estate, mercantile taxes, and the collection of wage taxes from their employees, all of which go to the City. He said he knows the casino host fee was designed to mitigate damages in the City and to suggest that the businesses need to ante up more money in order to get matching host fee money to preserve our downtown is shortsighted. He said he would like to provide that input now, early in the process. Mr. Haines said considering the empty storefronts that exist already on Main Street, which is a vital concern of his, to go about looking for taxes from the existing businesses and merchants is shortsighted.

Immigrant Rights

Mr. Haines, remarking on the immigrants issue, said he believes the immigrants being spoken about that lived on the South Side were probably legal immigrants who were brought in through the process that allowed all those people to be here legally and to deserve the benefits that go with legal immigration.

Councilman Reynolds asked Attorney Spadoni what would the legal standing be if Council were to pass a resolution such as LEPOCO has mentioned. Attorney Spadoni answered that he hasn’t looked at it but his only response would be that it has always been the considered opinion of Council to stick to those issues that are given to Council by the legislature of the Commonwealth. Attorney Spadoni mentioned that in the past Council has been asked to consider resolutions, political or otherwise, and Council has shied away from those because they have been outside of Council’s domain and outside of the legislative enactments and authority given by the legislature to Council.

President Donchez commented that since Council has not had the opportunity to look at this, he asked Attorney Spadoni to look at it. President Donchez added that it has always been a tradition that rather than a resolution that a form letter signed by Members of Council could be sent out. President Donchez stated that it would be reviewed.

Five Points

Eddie Rodriquez, 1845 Linden Street, said he has letters from PennDot dated May 13, 2008, June 16, 2008, and July 14, 2008, one addressed to Mr. Alkhal from Ms. Taggart, one addressed to the City Clerk from Michael Rebert, and the other was addressed to Mr. Spadoni from Mr. Rebert. In response to Mr. Reynolds earlier comments, Mr. Rodriquez read a portion of Mr. Rebert’s letter that stated, “As you know the department is cooperating with the city with regard to the implementation of the Gateway or one-way pair traffic flow concept. The goal of our efforts is to combine the May 2009 contract letting documents for both the Department’s SR 378 Ramp project and the City’s Gateway project. Our mutual objectives in combining the two projects are to avoid conflicting designs, prevent wasteful rebuilding of newly constructed work and minimize motorists’ confusion and accidents as traffic patterns are changed”. Mr. Rodriquez said what he wanted to emphasize is that there will be massive confusion and that is already happening in that sector. He said the people will not adjust to those traffic patterns so readily. He said nobody was told what is going to happen on a timely basis from either Council, Mr. Alkhal’s office, the Mayor’s Office, or the Administration. Mr. Rodriquez commented that they had asked for a timely response and were not told. He said he would share what he has with anyone interested.

Behavior of Council

Mr. Rodriquez stated he does not want to see Members of Council behaving in a disorderly fashion, particularly in anger. He said we don’t agree on the one-ways but we have to agree that there were 133 petitions. Mr. Rodriquez said he voluntarily asked the business owners and residents, and they do not want it, and asked why the City would implement something that is not wanted. He said they are the ones who will suffer. Mr. Rodriquez stated as he has said before that these people have been suffering from a lack of business over the years and if this is done they will have no accessibility to their businesses except to go through a loop of traffic in a circular motion. He said you have to worry about Fourth and New Streets where there are residents who need the sidewalks. Mr. Rodriquez said to imagine a fast lane highway moving in one direction, particularly in the Five Points area, and said he did not think it would work and it would not be safe. He also said Linden and Center Streets should be put back the way they were because he does not think they work as one-ways.

Five Points

Dana Grubb, 2420 Henderson Place, commented that he thinks the money for the Five Points already exists in the budget, that it was appropriated earlier this year. He said it’s a misnomer if you look at the Capital Improvement Program, it is still being called the Five Points Gateway Enhancement Study and it is no longer a study, it is an implementation project. City Council appropriated a half million dollars in a state grant funding, $1 million in other funding which were contributions from the Sands and St. Luke’s Hospital, and $300,000 in local funding. Mr. Grubb asked if the funding source is from the state funding which was loaned to the Technology Centers and repaid when they were sold and the City has now been given permission to reuse it on this project, why can’t that $300,000 be used to do the short term reversal of the left hand turn lane. He said if the project does advance as planned at this point as a one-way pair system and you need that $50,000 back, all that would have to be done is go back to the state and ask for another $50,000 to make that project work. Mr. Grubb said he does not understand the budgeting, the money has been appropriated, the City can go ahead and do what was agreed under that resolution and still continue to move forward on the one-way pair. He said he does not understand the thought process or the lack of common sense. He said he assumes the City already has permission from the Commonwealth to reuse this money in this fashion. Mr. Grubb said if the project runs more than the $1.8 million which is reflected in the Capital Improvement Plan, the City will go back to the Commonwealth for additional funds. Mr. Grubb said he says he thinks there is a solution and the City could move forward on it.

Five Points and Budget

Chuck Nyul, 1966 Pinehurst Road, with regard to the one-way pairs, explained his experience driving in the City of Philadelphia. He stated he thought the one-way streets in Bethlehem will work if they are done right and the businesses can move somewhere else, like to Bethlehem Works where there will be parking. He said he thinks it will work, but it might take time.

Mr. Nyul, pointing out last year’s budget of $63 million and this year’s budget of $65 million, $2 million more than last year plus the new bond issue, another $8 million, for a total of $10 million, and doesn’t know why there is no tax increase. He said Council has the power to say no to certain things and yes to other things in the budget.

Five Points

Mary Pongracz, 321 West Fourth Street, stated that at the meeting on the One-Way Pairs there were only two people who spoke in favor of it, one of which is a member of the Planning Commission and owns property in that area. She said she thinks that gentleman was totally out of line because he has a vested interest in that area. Ms. Pongracz commented that she thinks there is no justification for the One-Way Pairing. She thinks every road should be available to get to the hospital. She also commented on the fact that the South Side is an historic district as well as the north side. She said she thinks the whole City is historic. With regard to the immigrants’ rights, Ms. Pongracz stated that all her grandparents came here legally from Europe, went to school to learn the English language. She mentioned an Act from 1954 that was passed that restricted the number of immigrants from any given country that was based on the number of people in that country. She said she thinks if you come into this country you should be treated as a decent civilized human being entitled to protection under the law, and the other side to that picture is to obey the law and become part of the community. She said no one that she knows of is against immigration or immigrants, and what people are against is the fact that there are so many of us in this town who suffered all types of discrimination. She said we do not lose our heritage, we learn a language and we become bilingual and bicultural.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.