Council Minutes

March 23, 2004 Meeting Minutes

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, March 23, 2004 – 7:30 PM – Town Hall
(Rescheduled from Tuesday, March 16, 2004)

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

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

CITATIONS

Honoring Ronald G. Dancho

President Schweder presented a Citation to Ronald G. Dancho on the occasion of his retirement from the Water and Sewer Resources Department after 46 years of service to the City.

Honoring Lewis R. Malpedo

President Schweder presented a Citation to Lewis R. Malpedo on the occasion of his retirement from the Fire Department after 25 years of service to the City.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of March 2, 2004 were approved.

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

None.

6. OLD BUSINESS

Hirko Case - Settlement

Mr. Donchez, with reference to an article in the Morning Call edition of March 23, 2004, noted it states that Attorney Karoly may pursue civil action in Federal court. In addition, Mr. Donchez related that news was also the story on television Channel 69 this evening. Noting that he received an e-mail of the television news story, Mr. Donchez read the e-mail from WFMZ Channel 69 for the record, as follows: “The attorney in the John Hirko wrongful death trial is now asking the United States Attorney to look into filing criminal charges. John Karoly wants murder and criminal conspiracy charges to be brought against police involved in the shooting death of Hirko back in 1997. Karoly said he wants a more independent entity to look over the handling of the raid on Hirko’s home. Pennsylvania’s Attorney General has already found no criminal wrongdoing by Bethlehem officers.” Mr. Donchez, expressing he believed that City Council was told Sunday night that this settlement was over, said his question is based on the story and the e-mail did the plaintiffs execute a release to the City that there would be no further civil or criminal action to be brought against the City and was that part of a written agreement.

John Spirk, City Solicitor, replied he does not think one can release criminal action. Attorney Spirk continued on to communicate there was a release of all civil action, and the end of all litigation related to this case in terms of lawsuits. Attorney Spirk, in response to Mr. Donchez’s question about whether it was written, advised there was a written agreement between Attorney Ledva who is representing the City and Attorney Karoly and they drafted and executed appropriate releases. Attorney Spirk stated that covers lawsuits and is different from criminal investigations.

Mr. Donchez asked, if Attorney Karoly is going to file, where does that leave the City. Mr. Donchez further queried, if criminal actions were to be taken, who provides the legal aid to the Police Officers. Mr. Donchez remarked he was shocked when he heard this was on the television news at 5:00 PM today. Mr. Donchez inquired how does such a filing affect the City.

Attorney Spirk, explaining that anyone can ask law enforcement to investigate, exemplified that the City asked law enforcement in the northern part of the State to investigate timber theft, and added that the City did not file anything but rather made a request. Attorney Spirk commented that, from what Mr. Donchez read, Attorney Karoly is asking people to investigate a criminal matter which is different from lawsuits, from things that get filed, and from things that get released at the end of litigation.

Mr. Donchez expressed his understanding was that he “thought this was over meaning over, and now I read this that he’s asking the U.S. Attorney to review this, and is that going to end up for more litigation for the City if it were to go that far…[W]ho will provide the legal defense…”.

Attorney Spirk, responding it is up to the U.S. Attorney, recounted that already the State Police have looked at it, and the Attorney General has looked at it. Attorney Spirk communicated he would be very surprised if the U.S. Attorney would look at it more than to determine that the Attorney General and the City have already looked at it. Attorney Spirk restated that is not litigation and is more like asking somebody to investigate. Attorney Spirk continued on to say, under the City’s collective bargaining agreement, the City is obligated to provide counsel when someone is sued for something they did in the line of duty.

Mr. Donchez observed that, under the worst case scenario, if the U.S. Attorney’s office feels this is justified, even though the State’s Attorney General’s office said no after the event, the City will provide legal counsel.

Attorney Spirk replied yes to Mr. Donchez’s observation, and added that under the collective bargaining the City is obligated to provide a defense.

Mr. Donchez asked if there was a written agreement that there would be no more civil action.

Attorney Spirk said that is right. Attorney Spirk continued on to say he thinks, legally, a person cannot be stopped from filing a criminal action as part of a civil case. He said anybody can go complain about a criminal case.

Mr. Donchez asked if Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, would like to make any additional comments.

Attorney Spadoni stated this is appropriate for the Administration to report to Council as to the status of the matter that was just brought to his attention this evening, and it is something that should be looked into.

Mr. Leeson stated, when he heard the news report today about Mr. Karoly referring this case to the Federal authorities for murder charges, the question that came to his mind is “did you make a request to the plaintiffs in exchange for payment of close to $8 million to not do this.”

Attorney Spirk replied no.

Mr. Leeson asked why not.

Attorney Spirk responded “because within the context of civil litigation we asked for a release of all suits, claims, or anything as a result of this investigation. I don’t know that I can bind the United States Attorney appointed by the President of the United States from investigating criminal wrongdoing. I don’t think there was criminal wrongdoing here. I think the Attorney General was right but I don’t believe it’s within my power as a City official to bind the United States Attorney appointed by the President of the United States.”

Mr. Leeson said his question is “did you not seek to ask the plaintiffs. I’m not asking if you made a request to bind the Attorney General. I’m asking you why didn’t you make this request to the plaintiffs seeing as how we’re spending so much money on this and we wanted to conclude everything.”

Attorney Spirk replied “because I was in the court room where we were in civil litigation involving lawsuits for money damages, and within the context of the authority of the court in civil litigation it was my desire to end the civil litigation. I don’t believe I can stop anybody legally from reporting what they think is a crime. Mr. Karoly can’t bring criminal charges. No one on his side of the case can. The only one who can bring criminal charges is the United States Attorney in this case.”

Mr. Leeson said, “in reviewing the stipulation which is the agreement that the parties made, which I’ve had a chance to receive yesterday, and looked at today, it appears that the findings of the jury and the judgment of the jury were not vacated in the context of the settlement, but rather the City allowed a judgment to be entered against all of the defendants, to be entered on the docket of the court. And, I have to tell you I am concerned about this latest development with [Attorney] Karoly’s statement today because the entry of a judgment means there is a binding judicial finding of the jury that has not been vacated, and will be examined by the U. S. Attorney as a binding judicial finding. Did this occur to you before you made this agreement?”

Attorney Spirk commented “as you know, there is a different burden of proof in a civil lawsuit criminal prosecution. This jury found, painful and unfortunate as it was, that the City and a particular [police] officer by a preponderance of the evidence used excessive force. The definition of preponderance of the evidence is that if one were to take the scales of justice and pile up all the evidence favoring the plaintiff’s side, all the evidence favoring the defense side, the scales need tip ever so slightly and once they do the plaintiff wins…The criminal matter, on the other hand, the State must prove someone guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, a tremendously higher burden, as it should be, when the State seeks to take someone’s life or liberty. So, therefore, the jury finding that by a preponderance of the evidence the police used excessive force compared to what would have to be proven to show that the police committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is a significantly different standard. So, if there were ever to be, despite the rulings of the local [District Attorney], despite the rulings of the Attorney General, that there [were] ever to be criminal charges brought, the finding by this jury would not by any stretch of the imagination result in automatic criminal liability for these officers.”

Mr. Leeson, commenting he does not think it is any secret that he has expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome, said he needs to reiterate it and express dissatisfaction that this case is not concluded.

Ms. Szabo said she, too, was quite shocked when she read the remarks in the newspaper that the case may be investigated because she left the meeting on Sunday evening with the information that she heard from both the Mayor and Attorney Spirk, and the Judge, that there has been an agreement between all parties that this would be the end of the case. Ms. Szabo continued on to say “well this is not the end of the case…”. Ms. Szabo stressed “what’s being reactivated is exactly what [the City] was charged with at the very beginning, and the remarks, the accusations that there was a conspiracy between the State Police and the State Attorney General to cover up what happened, that’s continuing the case. And, what happened to the agreement between all parties that we’re finished, forever.”

Mrs. Belinski, remarking that Attorney Spirk skirted around Mr. Leeson’s question, said the fact is “wouldn’t you think you would have anticipated, in view of what happened in the Rodney King trial in Los Angeles…that this is exactly what happened there what we are going to now experience with Mr. Karoly, these criminal charges. Wouldn’t you have anticipated that this might have happened and put something in the agreement…to indemnify us against something like this happening before we gave him $8 million…”.

Attorney Spirk responded there are not criminal charges here. Attorney Spirk said Attorney Karoly cannot bring criminal charges here, only the United States Attorney can. Attorney Spirk commented he cannot make anybody do anything to stop Attorney Karoly if he wants to. Attorney Spirk thought after the District Attorney and the Attorney General did not, the chances of the U.S. Attorney somehow saying that the local District Attorney John Morganelli and the Attorney General of Pennsylvania somehow missed it seems very unlikely, but he could not stop the U.S. Attorney if he wanted to do it.

Mrs. Belinski stressed but he could stop Mr. Karoly by including that in the agreement.

Attorney Spirk restated he cannot preclude criminal charges.

Ms. Szabo said “we were told that the case was over, that the whole case is over, and this was all behind us. Well, that certainly sounds like there was an agreement to not continue the case.”

Attorney Spirk commented “there was no agreement not to write a letter. The man has written a letter to the United States Attorney, and the case is over. His ability to write letters isn’t…The litigation after seven long years is over…”.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

A. Business Administrator – EIT Rules and Regulations - Revisions

The Clerk read a memorandum dated March 8, 2004 from Dennis W. Reichard, Business Administrator, to which were attached revisions to the City’s EIT Rules and Regulations as required as a result of Act 166.

President Schweder referred the matter to the Finance Committee.

B. City Solicitor – Purchase of Village View Water Company by Bethlehem Authority – Operation and Indemnity Agreement

The Clerk read a memorandum dated March 12, 2004 from John F. Spirk, Jr., City Solicitor, to which was attached an Operation and Indemnity Agreement, along with a proposed Resolution authorizing the Agreement, in connection with the purchase of the Village View Water Company by the Bethlehem Authority.

President Schweder stated that the authorizing Resolution can be placed on Council’s Agenda unless the Public Works Committee wishes to review the matter.

C. City Solicitor – Property Exchange – Saucon Park Vicinity – Joan Marie Ronca

The Clerk read a memorandum dated March 12, 2004 from John F. Spirk, Jr., City Solicitor, to which was attached a copy of the revised Agreement of Sale for a parcel of land in the vicinity of Saucon Park to be sold to Joan Marie Ronca and developed as a condominium development rather than a townhouse fee simple development which was discussed at the Parks and Public Property Committee meeting on February 24, 2004.

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

8 . REPORTS

A. President of Council

None.

B. Mayor

1. Administrative Order – Nereida Villanueva – Fine Arts Commission

Mayor John B. Callahan appointed Nereida Villanueva to the Fine Arts Commission, effective until March 2007. Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,311 to confirm the appointment.

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

2. Administrative Order – Lee F. Snyder – Civil Service Board – Engineers’ and Electricians’

Mayor John B. Callahan reappointed Lee F. Snyder to the Civil Service Board – Engineers’ and Electricians’, effective until February 2008. Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,312 to confirm the appointment.

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

3. Administrative Order – Joseph Kelly – Assistant City Solicitor

Mayor John B. Callahan appointed Joseph Kelly as Assistant Solicitor, effective as of March 15, 2004. Mr. Mower and Mr. Donchez sponsored Resolution 14,313 to confirm the appointment.

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

C. Finance Committee

Mr. Donchez, Chairman of the Finance Committee, presented an oral report of the Committee meeting held on March 15, 2004 on the following subjects: Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – (A.) Additional Funding for Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), (B.) Route 412 Capacity Improvement Project; Amending Liquid Fuels Fund Budget – Carryovers from 2003; Amending General Fund Budget - (A.) LATCH Grant, (B.) Permits and Housing Inspections – Overtime; Transfer of Funds – Planning and Zoning Bureau – Zoning Hearing Board Expenses; Transfer of Funds – Community and Economic Development Department – Overtime; Transfer of Funds - Community and Economic Development Department – Equipment; Amending Community Development Budget – (A.) CDBG Program – 2003 Final Amounts; (B.) HOME Program – 2003 Final Amounts; Sewer Fund Budget – Prior Year Encumbrance – Change in Justification; Transfer of Funds - Sewer Capital Budget – Collection System – Fourth Street Utility Improvements; Amending Water Capital Budget – Funding Decrease – Bethlehem Authority Projects; and 2004 Bond Issue – (A.) Sewer Capital Projects - $2,000,000, (B.) Non-Utility Capital Budget – General Fund Equipment – $366,120.

9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL PASSAGE

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

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

President Schweder announced he will be moving shortly that Bill No. 1- 2004 be tabled until the first City Council Meeting in April. President Schweder explained the reason is that, in discussions with Dennis Reichard, Business Administrator, it has been noted that a report on the funding for the settlement of the Hirko case is anticipated to be received tomorrow. Afterwards, a Committee of the Whole meeting will be scheduled as soon as possible to discuss funding of the settlement.

Tabling Bill No. 1 - 2004

President Schweder moved that Bill No. 1 – 2004 be tabled until the first City Council Meeting in April. Mr. Leeson seconded the motion.

Upon receiving the approval of President Schweder, Mr. Reichard stated he wanted to go on record to express concern about the importance of the bond issue for the Sewer Fund. Mr. Reichard, advising there is $17,000 in the Sewer Fund as of today, stressed there are projects that need to be done at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mr. Reichard, explaining that the Sewer Fund would not be affected by the financial settlement of the Hirko case, pointed out that the Sewer Fund is a separate fund. Mr. Reichard reiterated his concern about the sewer projects.

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

B. Bill No. 2 – 2004 - Acquiring Right of Way – Paint Mill Bridge Replacement

The Clerk read Bill No. 2 – 2004 – Acquiring Right of Way – Paint Mill Bridge Replacement, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 2 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4239, was declared adopted.

10. NEW ORDINANCES

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

The Clerk read Bill No. 3 – 2004, Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus and Route 412 Project, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski, and titled:

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

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 3 – 2004 was declared passed on First Reading.

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

The Clerk read Bill No. 4 – 2004, Amending Liquid Fuels Fund Budget – 2003 Carryovers, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski, and titled:

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

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 4 – 2004 was declared passed on First Reading.

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

The Clerk read Bill No. 5 – 2004, Amending General Fund Budget – Permits and Inspections Overtime and LATCH Program, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski, and titled:

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

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 5 – 2004 was declared passed on First Reading.

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

The Clerk read Bill No. 6 – 2004 – Amending Community Development Budget – CDBG and HOME Programs – 2003 Final Amounts, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Ms. Szabo, and titled:

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

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 6 – 2004 was declared passed on First Reading.

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

The Clerk read Bill No. 7 – 2004 – Amending Water Capital Budget – Funding Decrease – Bethlehem Authority Projects, sponsored by Mr. Donchez and Mr. Arcelay, and titled:

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

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

11. RESOLUTIONS

Motion – Considering Resolutions 11 A through C as a Group

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Leeson moved to consider Resolutions 11 A through C as a group.

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

A. Certificate of Appropriateness – 136 East Market Street

Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,314 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to modify the previously approved rear addition at 136 East Market Street.

B. Certificate of Appropriateness – 535 Main Street

Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,315 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair and or replace the flagstones and slate in front of the building at 535 Main Street.

C. Certificate of Appropriateness – 29 East Wall Street

Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,316 which granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint the exterior at 29 East Wall Street.

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

Motion – Considering Resolutions 11 D through G as a Group

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

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

D. Transfer of Funds – Planning and Zoning Bureau – Zoning Hearing Board Expenses

Mr. Arcelay and Mr. Donchez sponsored Resolution 14,317 which transferred $10,000 in the General Fund Budget from the Unforeseen Contingency Account to the Planning and Zoning Bureau – Zoning Hearing Board Expenses Account to provide funding for legal services in support of the Zoning Hearing Board.

E. Transfer of Funds – Community and Economic Development Department – Overtime

Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,318 which transferred $1,000 in the General Fund Budget from the Community and Economic Development Department – Administration – Temporary Help Account to the Community Development Department – Administration – Overtime Account to provide additional monies for secretarial overtime.

F. Transfer of Funds – Community and Economic Development Department – Equipment

Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 14,319 which transferred $800 in the General Fund Budget from the Community and Economic Development Department – Administration – Other Expenses Account to new Community Development Department – Administration – Equipment Account to provide funding for the purchase of a file cabinet.

G. Transfer of Funds – Sewer Capital Budget – Collection System – Fourth Street Utility Improvements

Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 14,320 which transferred $132,000 in the Sewer Capital Budget from Control Box 5 and 6 – Gates and Actuators Account to Collection System – New and Renewal Account to fund a portion of the Fourth Street utility improvements required as a result of the PennDot road project.

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

H. Authorizing Execution of Right-of-Way and Easements – Relocation of Paint Mill Bridge

Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,321 which authorized the Mayor and the Controller and/or such other City officials as deemed appropriate by the City Solicitor, to execute Agreements of Sale and/or Easement Agreements with Bethlehem Racquetball Club, Inc., Sharkan Realty, Inc., and Gail M. Beitelman in connection with the purchase of additional right-of-way and easements associated with the relocation of the Paint Mill Bridge, according to the terms and conditions of the Agreements.

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

I. Authorizing Alternative Procedure for Sale – Land Exchange – Saucon Park Vicinity – Joan Marie Ronca

Mrs. Belinski and Ms. Szabo sponsored Resolution 14,322 which authorized an alternative procedure for sale of the parcel of land in the vicinity of Saucon Park owned by the City of Bethlehem located at the Northeast corner of Arden and Ravena Streets, 16th Ward, Northampton County Tax Map Q7NW1C, Block 2, Lot 3, designated as Parcel “A” outlined on Exhibit A, to Joan Marie Ronca at a purchase price of $50,000 in exchange for the parcel of land located at the Southeast corner of Arden and Henry Streets, 16th Ward, Northampton County Tax Map Q7NW1C, Block 2, Lot 4, designated as Parcel “B” outlined on Exhibit B, to be sold to the City at a purchase price of $1.00, as authorized in Section 10 of Resolution 9939, as amended by Resolution No. 11,679 - Sale of City Owned Property.

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

12. NEW BUSINESS

South Side Clean Up

Mr. Arcelay noted that at a recent block watch meeting he saw a flyer for the annual South Side clean up. Mr. Arcelay, recounting there have been complaints about littering from block watch groups, advised that his research revealed there have been no citations issued in January, February or March for littering. In light of the fact that money is being spent on efforts to address the problem of littering, Mr. Arcelay asked how this matter will be pursued and reinforced.

Francis Donchez, Police Commissioner, recalled that last year Mayor Delgrosso instituted a program to address littering. Police Commissioner Donchez, while saying he cannot answer why no citations have been issued in the last three months, pointed out that since littering is a crime that is difficult to see a Police Officer cannot make an arrest if he does not see littering occurring. Police Commissioner Donchez stated that he will reiterate to the Officers that littering is a crime, is a concern, is a quality of life issue, and if possible citations would be issued.

Police Commissioner Donchez confirmed to Mr. Arcelay that the Police Department receives copies of the minutes of the block watch meetings. Mr. Arcelay pointed out that one can read the complaints in the minutes. Mr. Arcelay suggested it be reiterated that littering is a crime before the force goes out.

Dangerous Dogs

Mr. Arcelay requested the status on the dog ordinance.

Attorney Spirk affirmed that he issued a memorandum to City Council today requesting a Committee meeting to discuss the brochure developed by the Department of Community and Economic Development to inform the public about what to do in the event of dangerous animals and dogs. Training would be set up for Police Officers since they are empowered by law to enforce the ordinances. Attorney Spirk advised that the Administration would discuss with the Committee its wishes as to the dangerous animals ordinance since legally it cannot apply to dangerous dogs.

Water Filtration Plant - Capacity

Mrs. Belinski asked the Administration for an explanation as to how the Executive Director of the Bethlehem Authority can say as he did recently in the newspaper that the Water Filtration Plant is capable of filtering 29 million gallons of water. Mrs. Belinski pointed out that the summer before last the top capacity was 20 million gallons, and it was just barely within the new, stricter EPA guidelines for clean water. Mrs. Belinski added that the filtration plant is working at half capacity.

Mayor Callahan noted that the Executive Director is not at the meeting this evening.

Mrs. Belinski remarked if the water cannot be filtered she does not know how the water base can be expanded.

Michael Alkhal, Director of Public Works, commented he would assume that the reference is to the peak treatment rate at the plant. Mr. Alkhal, noting he has not been looking at that issue specifically, communicated that, even if the average were 20 mgd, there is a clear well that stores water and, as long as the storage keeps up, the demand is at about 15-16 mgd so it is not a pressing issue at this time. Even if there were to be an agreement signed tomorrow for sale of water, Mr. Alkhal advised it would take some time before the water could actually be tapped. Mr. Alkhal pointed out that the City is diligently working on the aging filters over ten years old that have exhausted their useful life, one will be replaced this year, and the program is to replace two each year. Mr. Alkhal expressed the belief that the City is in a good position to serve water beyond what is currently being served. In further response to Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Alkhal pointed out that the plant is designed to handle 42 mgd.

Promotion of City Employee

Mrs. Belinski said it has recently come to her attention that an employee has been promoted to a position for which he is not qualified. The position calls for a State certification, and a class A license. Mrs. Belinski continued on to say the person was promoted to that position and is receiving the salary according to the payroll printout. Mrs. Belinski said she would like an explanation how someone could be promoted when they are not certified. Observing if something happens and this person does not react in the proper manner, Mrs. Belinski questioned how does the City answer to the State letting someone who is not certified be promoted to that position.

Mayor Callahan, noting there are 642 employees, expressed he would be happy to discuss the matter after the meeting.

Hirko Settlement - $5 Million Police Grant for Training

Mr. Donchez commented he personally believes, as he said in the newspaper, that $8 million is too high in the matter of the Hirko case settlement, and he had hoped it would be in the $2 million to $5 million range if there were an award against the City. Mr. Donchez stated that he does respect the Mayor’s decision. Mr. Donchez reiterated he was under the impression that this matter was over and he did not expect any requests to be made by Mr. Karoly to the U.S. Attorney’s office for possible further investigation. Mr. Donchez stressed what troubles him, in addition to what he just said, is that if this case did go to the jury and the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs it would have been only a financial settlement, and no conditions would have been attached to the settlement. Mr. Donchez stated that, as a strong supporter of public safety and especially the Police Department, he believes that some of the settlement conditions will be viewed as an indictment against the entire Bethlehem Police Department. Mr. Donchez observed that the Police Department is a Department of highly trained and professional individuals who put their lives in jeopardy every day. Mr. Donchez commented he is not against reform and not against in-services. Mr. Donchez communicated that applying for a $5 million grant to train and educate every officer in the Fourth Amendment and constitutional rights in his opinion is an indictment against the professionalism of 147 men and women. Mr. Donchez stated that the Police Department will continue to move on and to provide excellent service to the City’s 72,000 citizens with a high degree of professionalism. Mr. Donchez stressed that he will continue to be a very strong supporter and advocate of the City’s public service areas, especially the Police Department.

Mayor Callahan, with reference to his prepared statement delivered yesterday, noted that he made it very clear that he believes the City has an excellent Police Department and has made significant changes in procedures since 1997. Mayor Callahan advised that he welcomes the opportunity to have the Police Department accredited by CALEA, and thought it would be a badge of honor for the City. Mayor Callahan added he does not view that as punitive in any way. Mayor Callahan pointed out that, as was reported in the newspapers, with accreditation from CALEA there is the likelihood that it would be harder to bring suit against the Police Department which he thought was a reasonable response to this situation. Mayor Callahan continued on to say it would likely lower the City’s insurance rates, and, most importantly, to the best of the City’s ability, assure that this will not happen again. Mayor Callahan expressed he is proud that it was able to be included in the settlement in order to get the dollar amount down. Mayor Callahan thought that the City should always try to improve its Police Department. Mayor Callahan, noting that he made the FOP aware of the settlement, stated they support the settlement. Mayor Callahan stated that he thinks the City has an excellent Police Department and he stands behind the Police Department. Mayor Callahan expressed the hope that with a CALEA accreditation the City will have an opportunity to show how good its Police Department is. Mayor Callahan noted the City would be one of less than 10% of the police departments in the country with CALEA accreditation.

Hirko Settlement – Attorney Karoly - Fees

Ms. Szabo, with reference to a newspaper article today, noted it was stated that Mr. Karoly declined to give a breakdown of awarded money. Ms. Szabo recalled that, when Judge Gardner met with Members of Council on Sunday, it was said this is not a malpractice suit where the insurance companies refuse to give out information about agreements. Rather, this is a tax-based agreement. Remarking indeed it is, it is the taxpayers who are going to be paying for this, Ms. Szabo said “we as Council have to account for every nickel and dime that we spend.” Ms. Szabo requested that Attorney Spadoni investigate, before City Council has any hearings on the financial settlement, whether or not it can be held secret how the money is going to be spent. Ms. Szabo queried “what indeed are the taxpayers paying for.”

Attorney Spadoni advised that the relationship of counsel with their clients is governed by the rules of professional conduct and ethics, there are a number of ways that can be handled, and that is done by contract between the attorney and their client. In some cases, it is done on an hourly basis. In some cases, it is done by a flat rate where there is a set number no matter how little or how much work. There are other cases that are contingencies, and that is based on the success of the action and can range from negotiation of 20% in a workmen’s compensation case to 40% and higher depending on the complexity and type of case. Attorney Spadoni stated that is a question for private citizens with their counsel. Attorney Spadoni said he “would be hard pressed to tell you that we will be able to find that out because that is a matter that is private between counsel and the plaintiffs. As I understand it, there has been a stipulation that we reviewed on Sunday evening, and have made available to us by the Administration with a gross number, and that has not been broken down. However, it does say…that the amount of $7.39 million which is our exposure…or payment is inclusive of attorneys fees and costs. And, if you will recall the discussion by…Judge Gardner, there was significant discussion about that as to what those numbers were and could be. Now, do we have verification of that other than his indication, the answer is no. And, I think that we would be not permitted to get that because that may be a private contract between counsel and their client.”

Ms. Szabo remarked “in other words, the taxpayers pay to sign a blank check.”

Mrs. Belinski, noting that supposedly Mr. Karoly said he had a million dollars in legal expenses and then an additional million dollars in costs, asked is that $2 million set aside and he gets his percentage on the difference as his contingency fee in addition to the $2 million he says he is already owed.

Attorney Spadoni stated that the document he reviewed which was presented to City Council setting forth the settlement has a gross number of $7.39 million and it states inclusive of costs and fees. Attorney Spadoni pointed out there is no breakdown and no distribution of that amount in the document.

Mrs. Belinski recalled that Judge Gardner said the costs should be investigated and made sure they are legitimate costs and legal fees. Mrs. Belinski asked how does the City check and ensure those expenses are truly the expenses.

Attorney Spadoni thought the Judge indicated there was an open-ended perspective in that regard that they may need to be reasonable and may need to be justified but that was part of the settlement discussion that the Administration negotiated and handled as to the gross number. Attorney Spadoni stated he thinks the City is “stuck with the settlement document and the stipulation as made before Judge Gardner on Monday morning.”

Mrs. Belinski noted it was indicated to her in discussions with a lawyer who lives out of the City that most likely Mr. Karoly would get 40%.

Job Status – Police Officer Riedy

President Schweder queried what is the current job status of Officer Riedy.

Mayor Callahan replied he is employed by the Police Department of the City of Bethlehem.

President Schweder inquired whether there will be any disciplinary action taken towards him.

Mayor Callahan responded there are no plans for disciplinary action for Mr. Riedy at this time.

President Schweder asked if it could be explained why.

Mayor Callahan replied “we’ve been working on this settlement, we’ve been working our way through this case and the conclusion of this case, and is something that I will discuss with Commissioner Donchez.”

President Schweder observed that the officer is currently working and is not suspended with pay since the finding of the jury in the Hirko case, and has been working actively.

Mayor Callahan explained that, for the bulk of the last six months, Mr. Riedy has been in court and it has not been a question that the City had to address up until the conclusion of the Hirko case because he was paid to be in court during those times. In between, he was basically taking care of administrative issues. Mayor Callahan added that is a situation that is something that needs to be looked into now that the case is over and he will no longer be in court.

President Schweder asked if there is a policy in place or one that is collectively bargained for that covers this, or what is the City policy that exists currently with respect to this. President Schweder wondered what does an officer have to do to be suspended.

Attorney Spirk responded any number of kinds of misconduct can warrant a suspension and there is no finite list.

President Schweder inquired does this fall under it or off of that list.

Attorney Spirk replied it is not specifically addressed in the collective bargaining agreement. In other words, it is not listed as a specific item of cause for discipline.

Police Commissioner Donchez explained if an officer were to violate State or Federal law that could be a cause for discipline. Police Commissioner Donchez continued on to say that if an officer were to violate City policy or Police Department policy as laid out in the general orders or SOP’s that could be a cause for discipline. Police Commissioner Donchez noted, however, as was stated earlier, the investigation by the District Attorney’s Office and by the Attorney General’s Office found no wrongdoing on the part of Officer Riedy, and therefore there has not been nor is there planned any disciplinary action. Police Commissioner Donchez pointed out that the finding by the jury was based on testimony within the confines of the courtroom, which he felt did not tell the whole story. Police Commissioner Donchez said, however, “the whole story having been told to the District Attorney’s office, the Attorney General’s office, and to the Police administration I see no cause at this point for any disciplinary action.”

Hirko Settlement – Funding

President Schweder commented that, with respect to the settlement, Council is willing, ready and able to go to Committee of the Whole at any point within twenty-four hours notice. President Schweder noted that he spoke with the Business Administrator and expressed the belief that the Mayor would be providing a written proposal to City Council tomorrow on the payment procedure so that deliberations can begin. President Schweder noted that, since Bill No. 1 has been delayed until the first City Council Meeting in April, he would like to be able to have City Council meet as a Committee of the Whole to review what would be the procedure for funding the Hirko settlement.

Mayor Callahan, affirming that will be done, said he wants to make it clear that the Administration attempted to share that information with Council on Sunday evening during the Executive Session. Mayor Callahan added there is a clear financial model that the Administration will be recommending to Council in order to fund the settlement, but Council did not want to see it at that time. Mayor Callahan expressed the hope that Council would fund this settlement consistent with the way that the Administration has outlined. Mayor Callahan expressed the belief that the financial model is the right balance, minimizes the financial pain felt by the taxpayers in any given year by stretching the payments out over a 12 year period but does not burden future generations, and importantly takes advantage of the current historically low interest rates. Mayor Callahan stated that Council will have the document in their hands tomorrow, and it will be Council’s decision whether they want to follow the model put forth by the Administration or would like to investigate a different model to fund the settlement. Mayor Callahan communicated that he stands willing, ready, and able to work with Council to come upon a model that Council can agree on.

President Schweder, referring to a newspaper article in which it was stated that Council either refused to look at the business model or the payment in the Executive Session, clarified it was his ruling and in conjunction with the Solicitor that had Council taken the Mayor up on that opportunity to look at the financial model at that point then Council would have been in violation of the Sunshine Law. Consequently, President Schweder explained it was not a refusal on Council’s part. President Schweder continued on to point out it was a legal consideration at that time, the determination was that the meeting was called to discuss litigation, litigation was discussed, and a decision that would ultimately have to be made by Council with respect to the funding was a financial consideration, was not part of litigation, and therefore not part of the meeting, and would have been inappropriate had Council discussed that.

Mayor Callahan, expressing he would agree with that, noted he wanted to mention there was no secret and the Administration wanted to share the information.

13. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

Hirko Settlement – Federal Court

Roger Hudak, 1256 East Fifth Street, saying he is in shock, stated he had no idea that any of the things that were mentioned earlier were about to happen, and that this “nightmare was going to continue.” Mr. Hudak commented there is another lawsuit by this same attorney. Mr. Hudak, stressing that he fully supports the Police and Joe Riedy, remarked if Joe Riedy did anything wrong he would have been found guilty in court by the District Attorney, the State Police, and the Attorney General. Mr. Hudak suggested that, if Attorney Karoly chooses to take the matter to Federal Court to pursue a murder charge, Council consider withholding payment until the Federal Court comes up with a decision whether or not any laws were broken. Mr. Hudak stated that, if the matter gets as far as the Federal Court, the City may not have to pay anything. Mr. Hudak, remarking he is shocked and dismayed, communicated he had hoped to come to the meeting this evening and say “let’s move on. Let’s get to the clean up of the South Side streets. Let’s get Bethlehem Works rolling…But this thing hangs over us like a nightmare…”. Mr. Hudak noted that the South Side is getting cleaner. Mr. Hudak, advising that a lot of people from New York City and Philadelphia are moving to the South Side, explained they throw things in the streets.

Mrs. Belinski informed Mr. Hudak that she followed up on a complaint she received when she attended the South Side Task Force meeting at Concordia Lutheran Church last Thursday. Mrs. Belinski, advising that she took the parking problem of the woman with the flower shop to Michael Alkhal, Director of Public Works, affirmed that Mr. Alkhal solved the problem. As a result, the woman will only be inconvenienced the first week and last week of construction of Fourth Street.

Reading of Legislation

Robert Bauder, 1035 N. New Street, said he found it very hard to hear and understand the legislation passed by City Council tonight.

Hirko Case - Settlement

Mr. Bauder asked why the decision in the Hirko case was made without consulting City Council until Sunday night. Mr. Bauder further inquired about the 10 to 2 decision and penalty phase. Mr. Bauder, with reference to Mayor Callahan’s comments that borrowing $300,000 a year for 12 years means there will not be a tax increase, expressed the hope that the Mayor is right “because I don’t know how we can afford to keep on increasing our taxes when we’re on fixed incomes…”. Mr. Bauder said he wants an answer as to how the City is going to pay for the settlement.

Mayor Callahan responded that, as chief executive officer of the City, it is his responsibility to act on behalf of the taxpayers. Stating he has accepted that responsibility, Mayor Callahan continued on to say he would be negligent if he did not step forward to seek a solution that would neutralize the financial effect on the taxpayers of Bethlehem. Mayor Callahan, acknowledging that the settlement cost of $7.39 million is a lot of money, pointed out it is not $100 million, $50 million, $20 million, $15 million, or $10 million. Mayor Callahan affirmed he will put forth a model that will demonstrate that the City can handle this settlement in a way that could potentially not result in a tax increase. Mayor Callahan explained that the worst case scenario would result in a 1.8% increase in taxes which is less than ¼ mill and would equate to $11 a year or 92 cents per month for a taxpayer whose house is valued at $100,000 and assessed at $50,000. Mayor Callahan, restating that his job as Mayor is to minimize and neutralize the financial risks of the Hirko trial, said he has done that.

James Follweiler, 2222 Main Street, commenting that yes the City must move on, learn and improve, expressed that one must also look at what has happened to make sure the City learns correctly and improve as it moves into the future. Mr. Follweiler said he finds interesting tonight’s comments by the Police Commissioner that the whole story was not told during the trial. Mr. Follweiler queried when would the City present its case if it is not during the trial, and asserted there should be nothing held back. Mr. Follweiler thought the City could have asked Mr. Karoly not to ask for a Federal criminal investigation. Mr. Follweiler, stating that his sympathies go out to Ms. Fodi and the Hirko family, said Mr. Hirko’s death aside, the Administration’s decision-making process through the legal process requires further analysis. Mr. Follweiler said the failed gamble by the newly elected Mayor will result in taxpayers paying the bill for years to come. Mr. Follweiler, questioning why would the chance be taken with a deadlocked jury by gambling that a verdict would have gone the City’s way, asserted that a deadlocked jury is a victory for the defense. Mr. Follweiler wondered why the City was worried about financial risk increasing proportionally if the case were retried a second time and that a future jury would not be more hardworking, diligent, fair, and impartial when compared to the present jury. Mr. Follweiler remarked “all this sounds like it was an excuse after the fact to gain sympathy as the trial entered the penalty phase.” Mr. Follweiler, continuing on to remark that the desire for quick closure was also another odd statement, said “you fight until you win. We surrendered…”. Mr. Follweiler said, after consulting lawyers and laymen before the verdict was announced, “we concurred that a retrial probably would not have even occurred due to the time and investments made by the plaintiff.” Mr. Follweiler communicated that, after a hung jury, negotiations to be fair for a smaller settlement without an admission of guilt probably would have been prudent to agree upon. Saying he does not argue with the guilty verdict of the jury, Mr. Follweiler stated this was the result of a real process. Mr. Follweiler said, following the trial through the media, it was obvious to him that a certain amount of excessive force was used. He questioned how could the City’s legal team and advisors come to the belief that a 10 to 2 jury was favorable to the City’s side, and felt that when it came to the final point on which the City was found guilty the verdict should not have been a surprise. Mr. Follweiler stated that in the end “we have been asked for a guilty verdict against the City and the Police Department.” Expressing his support for proper training and instructing for the Police and Fire Departments, Mr. Follweiler said nothing is more important to the constituency than the City’s protective services “who have now been undermined. The requirement to conduct $5 million worth of constitutional rights training must be monitored. Training of this nature for a Police force of the [City’s] size should not cost anywhere near this amount. I recommend auditors properly track the expenditures to ensure our tax dollars are not wasted. Even though the money might be coming from a State or Federal grant, it is still our tax money. The amount of money that will now be spent on the debt payments until the full costs are paid would have gone far towards additional equipment, training, and personnel. It would have been nice to have conducted these certifications with money and not be forced through settlement costs.” Mr. Follweiler further stated that the settlement required an external probe and hiring of consultants, and questions the credibility of the Police force. Referring to the Mayor’s statements that there will be no need for a tax increase and that the tax increase will be minimal at about 2%, Mr. Follweiler questioned which is it. Mr. Follweiler remarked that the number of $300,000 for twelve years only adds up to $6.6 million not counting interest. Mr. Follweiler asserted that the idea of floating a bond with ballooning payments in the later years will push the responsibility towards the future, straddling future taxpayers, and away from the City’s current financial difficulties. Noting that the City is currently contemplating a $2.3 million bond issue, Mr. Follweiler questioned how it can be argued that the settlement will have no to little impact on the City’s finances. Asserting that the taxpayers are straddled with the recent bad decision in the Hirko settlement, Mr. Follweiler remarked that in the end the taxpayers pay for incompetence. Communicating that leadership is not easy, Mr. Follweiler observed that critical decisions must be made when the pressure is on. Mr. Follweiler felt that Mayor Callahan failed in his first test of leadership and the City residents will pay his price. Mr. Follweiler remarked that Mayor Callahan “grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory.” Mr. Follweiler said “as a citizen and taxpayer of Bethlehem I will pray that Mayor Callahan’s remaining time in office will be as a bureaucratic administrator who poses for pictures while hopefully never being placed in a position to make such a critical decision ever again.”

Ms. Szabo, informing Mr. Follweiler that she attended about 75% of all of the sessions on the Hirko case, said she sat through the agony of listening to the plaintiff’s questioning and statements because the City could not reply and had to sit there silently. Ms. Szabo advised that the City was unable to tell the truth because it was not a criminal trial but rather a civil suit, and evidence was cut out by legal maneuvering. Ms. Szabo, expressing that she dreads to think what it was like for the 14 defendants sitting there and for their wives, stressed that it was not easy for Police Officer Riedy’s wife to hear those things. Ms. Szabo stated that what was cut out was the most important information.

Francis Donchez, Police Commissioner, with reference to Mr. Follweiler’s question why the whole story was not told, explained that “unfortunately we were hamstrung by the Federal rules of civil procedure. For example, we were unable to tell the jurors that the search warrant in question passed muster with the Northampton County Judge in a suppression hearing…”. Police Commissioner Donchez communicated that legal maneuvering and the rules that boxed the City in favored the plaintiffs in this case.

Steve Marshall, President of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) for the City of Bethlehem, said he personally wants to express his gratitude and deepest appreciation to Councilwoman Magdalena Szabo and her sister Louise because they attended the Hirko trial for most of the five months period. Mr. Marshall stated he was also a defendant in the Hirko case. With reference to President Schweder asking about Joe Riedy’s punishment, Mr. Marshall highlighted the fact that at 11:00 on April 23, 1997 he was standing behind Joe Riedy “when we got fired at by John Hirko.” Mr. Marshall remarked that, to bring up punishment at this phase because ten jurors believed that Officer Riedy did something wrong and whether that was an issue due to an error with the City’s counsel or otherwise, “would be almost like trying our troops that were over in Iraq when they come back for the things they did there.” Mr. Marshall, with reference to comments of Mr. Schweder in the media, said if the quotes in the Morning Call are accurate he thinks they are uninformed. Mr. Marshall, saying that the Mayor made a very difficult decision, stated that the negotiations could have been done 7 years ago. However, it came down to the zero hour, the Mayor got involved along with John Spirk, City Solicitor, and negotiated with the family and Mr. Karoly. Mr. Marshall expressed his opinion that Mr. Schweder’s comments in the Morning Call that the Mayor’s decision was one of the most stupid that anyone has made was cowardly. Mr. Marshall felt that Mr. Schweder could have spoken up and advised the Mayor and City Council, but chose not to take a stance. Mr. Marshall stated all that one vote would have given was a hung jury. Mr. Marshall, acknowledging that may have ended it, pointed out “we don’t know that. And, as a defendant, to go through this case, and put my family through this case again, it was a living hell. You can’t imagine what it was like for 14 police defendants…What another trial of this magnitude would have done, not only to the financial burden for the City, but also for the people involved.” Mr. Marshall, exclaiming nobody wanted to go through this again, said he does not think the City or Council wanted to go through it and the defendants did not want to go through it again. Mr. Marshall thought that all Members of Council had their chance to give input into the decision on the 10 to 2 vote. Mr. Marshall said in his opinion he found Mr. Schweder’s comments to be uncalled for and uninformed. Communicating there is a human side to the issue, and expressing his understanding that $8 million is a lot of money, Mr. Marshall said he also understands that what the 14 officers went through during depositions, trial, and the aftereffects of Mr. Karoly now asking for a murder investigation, and added “you can’t understand what that’s like.” Mr. Marshall illustrated the difficulty in telling his son why he did his job and may go to jail for that. Mr. Marshall thanked the Mayor for getting involved and spending the time to negotiate a settlement. Mr. Marshall pointed out that, if it was left up to the jury, it is unknown whether it could have been better. Mr. Marshall thanked the Mayor on behalf of himself and his family, and the other individuals involved in this case. Mr. Marshall, stating that City Council could take a lesson from the Police Department, noted that the Police Department and the Police defendants held together during the trial. There was no blame and no finger pointing. Mr. Marshall said it is time for City Council to put aside their differences and get the City moving forward as it has done in the past.

William Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, suggested this would be a good time to have a public meeting for the citizens to express their appreciation of the Police and their support.

Mr. Scheirer, with reference to the tabulation he distributed to the Members of Council for funding the $7.39 million Hirko settlement, explained if one picks an interest rate and a number of years for the bond to run, one finds the annual payment to pay off the bond. Mr. Scheirer emphasized these are constant annual payments. Noting there has been some talk about how the rest of the City debt will be declining over time and this can be taken advantage of by having a bond issue where the payments would be small in the beginning and larger at the end, Mr. Scheirer said total payments would be greater because there would be more interest cost. Mr. Scheirer further said this would minimize the tax increase so that the total taxes paid over the next 12 years would not be much greater than they are now. However, the situation would still remain that the declining amount of other debt would have, before the settlement award, made possible either tax decreases or providing additional services.

Landfill Debt

Chuck Nyul, 1966 Pinehurst Road, questioning how long will the City be paying on the Landfill debt, stressed that the City is still paying on the debt.

Windmill Energy

Mr. Nyul, with reference to an article in the newspaper depicting windmill energy, explained he researched the company on the Internet. Mr. Nyul advised that every State University in Pennsylvania is now dealing with the company at a lower cost for electricity. In addition, the county of Delaware last year saved $12,000 on its electricity bill. Mr. Nyul expressed that, instead of paying PPL, perhaps the City could utilize this approach to obtain energy and save money.

Proposed Building at East Broad and New Streets

Mr. Nyul, focusing on the relocation of a State Judge’s office to a proposed building at East Broad and New Streets, wondered whether the Mayor considered space available at One Bethlehem Plaza across the street. Mr. Nyul, remarking that a new building is not needed at East Broad and New Streets, contended that the parking lot currently there is paying for itself.

Eighth Avenue – Lowe’s Project

Mr. Nyul inquired whether the Lowe’s project will be built on Eighth Avenue.

Attorney Spirk informed Mr. Nyul that the current status of the litigation surrounding the proposed project is at rounds three and four.

Mr. Nyul noted that when Route 378 was built about 25 years ago it was not just to connect Route 22 with the Hill to Hill Bridge, but also to provide access to locations throughout the Lehigh Valley. Mr. Nyul pointed out it is seven miles and takes seven minutes from Eighth Avenue to either MacArthur Road or Route 191 where Home Depots are located. Consequently, Mr. Nyul questioned “what in the world do we want with a Lowe’s.”

Martin Tower

Mr. Nyul, noting that he found out Martin Tower is for sale, stated that the City should consider buying it and move all the current City offices to that location, and build a restaurant at the top of Martin Tower in order to make money for the City.

Club Avenue – Paving

Mr. Nyul thanked the City for paving Club Avenue.

Windmill Energy

Mr. Leeson asked Mr. Nyul to share with the Administration the article about use of windmill power by State universities. Mr. Leeson further asked Mayor Callahan to assign someone to look into the matter to find out whether it is worthwhile.

Hirko Settlement

Mary Pongracz, 321 W. Fourth Street, with reference to Mr. Follweiler’s remarks, observed that Mr. Follweiler is a military man and has been trained to kill. Ms. Pongracz said she is at the meeting to defend the Police Department, and added they have done the best they could under the circumstances. Ms. Pongracz communicated that no one has talked about the victims of Mr. Hirko’s drug dealings. Ms. Pongracz highlighted the fact that when a fireman, policeman, or teacher has been killed they do not get a settlement of $ 8 million. Ms. Pongracz, with reference to Mr. Karoly’s statement in the newspaper that it is not about the money, said she wants to know what Mr. Karoly is going to do with his share of the money. Ms. Pongracz, expressing her thanks to the Police Department, commented their job is thankless and sometimes they make mistakes. Ms. Pongracz, noting that Mayor Callahan is new at the job, queried why he should take the blame for everything. Ms. Pongracz asserted that, if Mr. Karoly is really sincere that it is not for the money, “let him not take his share of the settlement and let him give it to the City so the lifelong people…don’t have to have our taxes increased.”

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, commented he was impressed with what Officer Marshall had to say. Mr. Antalics, stating he has been concerned with the situation, remarked that Ms. Szabo said it succinctly that ultimately it is up to the taxpayer. Mr. Antalics, expressed the best way to be objective would be to use an analogy, and said he keeps coming back to the idea of the corporation with Members of Council as the board of directors, the Mayor as the president, the taxpayers as shareholders, and the City which is incorporated as a Third Class City as the corporation. Mr. Antalics continued on to say that the corporation of Bethlehem was faced with a very profound and difficult decision to make on a problem that could result in dramatic financial costs. The outcome would fall primarily on the stockholders. The stockholders would vote based upon shares which could be the real estate tax as to who would be the board of directors. Mr. Antalics further said the president is faced with a very difficult situation of having to make a decision based upon something that will have a financial impact on the welfare of the corporation. Mr. Antalics felt that it took courage for the president to use the wisdom of the board of directors chosen by the stockholders because, although he had legal counsel to advise him, he thought he might want more input to make the best decision. Mr. Antalics said, as a stockholder, it bothers him that the president was refused comment by the chairman of the board of directors. The mission of the stockholders, its CEO and president is to look out for the welfare of the corporation and act as a team. He added that whether the input would have changed the decision or not is not known but it should have been there. Mr. Antalics said the board of directors, CEO and president have a responsibility to the stockholders and to act as a team in the best interests because they asked the stockholders to appoint them to their responsible position. Mr. Antalics stated that, in his estimation, dialog should be free and easy because personalities should be out of it but that did not happen. Mr. Antalics suggested that, for the best welfare of the City as a corporation, the board of directors, CEO and president act as a team in the stockholders best interests.

Garbage Hauler - Unlicensed

Dave Sanders, 69 E. Goepp Street, noted that over the past few months he has talked about a garbage situation, especially with Mr. Donchez. Mr. Sanders explained that a hauler was picking up garbage at 4:00 a.m. that was most disturbing. Mr. Sanders called Mr. Sterner and Mr. Steward of the Health Bureau who contacted John’s Hauling. Not only was the hauler in violation for waking everyone up but had no City license, paid no mercantile tax, and was not permitted to haul in the City. The situation was also turned over to Al Timko, Tax Administrator. Mr. Sanders reported that John’s Hauling is no longer operating in the City.

Hirko Settlement

Dean Bruch, 625 Hawthorne Road, said he finds it quite difficult to understand the amount of money the City has to pay for the Hirko settlement. Mr. Bruch felt that the Mayor did the right thing. Mr. Bruch felt there has to be better administrative fiscal responsibility. Mr. Bruch exclaimed people have to understand if they accept money for the payment of their duty and they do not do it “you don’t work here no more.” Mr. Bruch highlighted the fact that when he calls the Police they come right away. Mr. Bruch questioned why the police academy does not incorporate into their training something that needs to be done.

Police Training

Frank Donchez, Police Commissioner, explained that most of the officers attend the Allentown Police Academy, however some go to Scranton and Montgomery County. Police Commissioner Donchez advised that the standards for the academy at which officers are trained for 20 weeks are set by MPOETC, the Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission that is appointed by the Governor and headed by the head of the State Police. Police Commissioner Donchez stated he is trying to get on the MPOETC commission as he would like to have input because he does not agree wholeheartedly with some of the training. He added that when the officers return from academy training they get additional training in areas specific to the Bethlehem Police Department.

Liability Insurance

Mr. Bruch, focusing on liability insurance, questioned why the Police do not have some of their own, and also asked if all City employees are under the City’s liability insurance.

Police Commissioner Donchez replied the insurance that covers the Police Officers is set by the City. Police Commissioner Donchez said he does not believe anyone has any personal insurance on their own. He further informed Mr. Bruch that the agreement with the police bargaining unit is that punitive damages are covered by the City.

Hirko Case

Anthony Rybak, 408 Adams Street, expressed his understanding is that the liability of the insurance company was $500,000 and also to defend the City in the suit.

Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, affirmed it is correct that the policy has a cost of defense.

Mr. Rybak noted that the attorney fees of the lawyer who defended the City were paid by the insurance company, not by the City.

Attorney Spadoni affirmed that is correct.

Mr. Rybak said the City did not save anything by taking a non-unanimous jury except putting people through another trial which he would not wish on anybody. Mr. Rybak, questioning why the City would go with a non-unanimous verdict, stated that a hung jury or a mistrial is a victory and the City was the defendant.

Mr. Hudak said when he spoke earlier he was speaking on behalf of the task force and the block watches in South Bethlehem and now will speak on behalf of himself. Mr. Hudak felt that John Hirko was a criminal and was the enemy in the war on drugs, in war people get killed, and John Hirko was killed. Mr. Hudak felt that the lawsuit should have never come to pass. Mr. Hudak remarked that John Hirko did not have to answer to his aunt whose son was one of his customers and has since gone off the deep end to finish his life in the gutters of Philadelphia. Mr. Hudak pointed out that the police killed the enemy “and now we’re going to pay his parents who haven’t talked to him for years, and now we’re going to pay his girlfriend, and now we’re going to pay the guy who owns the house all this money…but that’s the way the law is.”

14. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
ATTEST:

City Clerk