BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING

November 16, 2004 Meeting Minutes

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

President J. Michael Schweder called the meeting to order. Pastor Melvin Tatem, of Grace Deliverance 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.

Citation – Honoring Jane Brader

President Schweder read a Citation honoring Jane Brader who retired from the Fire Department after 30 years of service to the City. The Members of Council, along with the assembly, applauded Ms. Brader and wished her well in her retirement.

Citation – Honoring Vincent Genovese

President Schweder read a Citation honoring Vincent Genovese who retired from the Police Department after 25 years of service to the City. The Members of Council, along with the assembly, applauded Mr. Genovese and wished him well in his retirement.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of November 3, 2004 were approved.

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

Pension Bond Issue – Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Pension Liability

Jim Smith, 209 Juniata Street, stated he is at the meeting this evening to speak as a City of Bethlehem employee for 30 years. In his years of service, Mr. Smith recounted that he witnessed the large workforce of the 1970’s reduced to a medium workforce in the 1980’s and 1990’s to the small workforce of today. Mr. Smith stressed that the City in the last 30 years has not gotten smaller but has grown with more development. He continued on to say “we have tried to give the citizens the same service that we did when we had a large workforce which is difficult at times. With the technology and equipment we have today, it has lessened the burden of the lack of employees, but it has not diminished the burden. Council has a decision to make on whether this workforce will be reduced to even a smaller amount of employees. If you should decide not to vote yes on the Mayor’s Budget Proposal with the [Pension] Bond Issue, services will be hindered even more so.” Mr. Smith, informing the Members that he supports the Mayor’s Budget with the Pension Bond issue, asked anyone who has concerns with the loss of jobs and services to also support it. Mr. Smith also asked City Council to consider voting yes in support of the Mayor’s Budget with the Pension Bond Issue in order to keep providing the services to our citizens that they deserve.

Funding for South Side Greenway Project – Norfolk Southern Rail Line

Roger Hudak, a member of the 2012 Greenway Committee of the Vision 2012 Steering Committee for the renaissance of South Bethlehem, and chairman of the Mayor’s South Side Task Force, said his purpose in being at the meeting is to address City Council concerning the proposed greenway in South Bethlehem along the Norfolk Southern Rail Line. Mr. Hudak recounted that he attended a Parks and Public Property Committee meeting in July at which the Committee agreed to move forward with planning the short-term lease conditions with an option to buy with Norfolk Southern until such time that the City purchased the property. Mr. Hudak felt that Mr. Leeson’s objections to the original lease had merit, and commented that they were answered by Tony Hanna, Director of Community and Economic Development, in his recent communication. Mr. Hudak notified the Members that the 2012 Committee is ready to contract with a firm that will facilitate the planning, design and engineering of the greenway. Mr. Hudak stressed all that is needed is authorization to contact the planner and apply for the grants in order to obtain funding for the project. Mr. Hudak, expressing observations about an adversarial relationship affecting negotiations, said he knows that the City’s best interests is at the epicenter of all actions of Council, the Mayor, and Administration professionals. Mr. Hudak asserted that “losing grants to prove a political point or gain an advantage to some future Council or Mayoral campaign is unacceptable in my purview.” Mr. Hudak communicated it would be a fantastic gift to South Bethlehem to approve the Resolution and allow all to move forward as a team.

Pension Bond Issue – Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Pension Liability

Chuck Nyul, 1966 Pinehurst Road, questioned whether Council really believes 12 minutes from a taxpayer is recommended as a good policy to speak about a $35 million bond.

Mr. Nyul, turning to page 190 of the 2004 Budget, asked whether $1.2 million listed in pension payments for Fire, Police, and PMRS Pension Funds has already been paid into the pension plans.

Dennis Reichard, Business Administrator, affirmed the amount is the Minimum Municipal Obligation (MMO) and has been paid.

Mr. Nyul inquired what will be funded with the $35 million pension bond proceeds.

Mr. Reichard informed Mr. Nyul that it will fund the Unfunded Liability of the pension plans that totals $35 million, and further notified Mr. Nyul that the pension fund investment losses were $20 million, not $20,000.

Mr. Nyul, with reference to the explanation provided by David Killick, Actuary, at the last City Council Meeting about his reevaluation of the pension plans every two years and determination whether the 7-1/2% rate will be sufficient, wondered whether the City will stand to lose in the future, in view of the stock market conditions. Mr. Nyul, stating that he would like City Council to vote no on the Pension Bond, stressed that having to pay back $70 million on the $35 million bond issue “is an awful lot of money…”.

William Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, referring to the earlier comments of Jim Smith, said “we can’t really afford to cut any services in the City…”. Mr. Scheirer expressed his opinion that it is not just a choice between the Pension Bond and jobs, but there is also the tax aspect, and added that jobs do not have to be cut.

Mr. Scheirer, referring to articles about pension bonds issued by other municipalities that were provided by Mr. Donchez and Mr. Leeson, noted that one contained a table of recent pension bonds by State and said over 90% were in the “blue states”.

Craig Hoffert, 2275 Rogers Street, stated that he supports the Pension Bond. Mr. Hoffert, expressing his agreement with comments of Jim Smith, said the service in the City has gone down since the 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s, and now. Mr. Hoffert, advising he is the Secretary of the Firefighters Union Local 735, remarked “our manpower is pathetic. We need men, absolutely. We need more firefighters. We don’t need less. Our Department cannot afford to lose one firefighter…[S]ome of the engines and aerial ladders in the City run with one firefighter. There’s four seats but there’s only one person driving…”. Continuing on to say it is hard to find any positions in the Fire Department to let go, Mr. Hoffert stressed “if Council does that, it’s just going to be devastating to our Department and to the City.”

Alex Harvey, 1680 Lindburg Road, advising that he spent 36 years in a uniform as a police officer, stated that public safety is in demand and is necessary. However, Mr. Harvey said he spent three years out of uniform working with a great group of men. Mr. Harvey communicated that, when people flush their toilets, or turn on their water faucets, there are employees who make sure the pipes are clear and running, and that the water is flowing, clean, and safe. Mr. Harvey continued on to highlight the fact that when it snows, someone must clear the snow so that an ambulance or fire engine can travel through.

Funding for South Side Greenway Project – Norfolk Southern Rail Line

David Shaffer, Co-President of Just Born Candy Company, 1300 Stefko Boulevard, stated he is at the meeting representing the Open Space Sub-committee of the Vision 2012 Task Force that is charged with the responsibility of facilitating the initiatives that came about as a result of the Sasaki South Side Master Plan and other initiatives. Mr. Shaffer expressed that, on behalf of over 20 volunteer citizens on the committee who have worked for the last 14 months on the greenway in South Bethlehem along with many other issues, it is requested that City Council adopt the Resolution to approve the DCNR grant for the South Side Greenway project along the Norfolk Southern Railroad right of way.

Pension Bond Issue – Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Pension Liability

Dean Bruch, 625 Hawthorne Road, highlighted the fact that a lot of people lost money in the stock market. Mr. Bruch, continuing on to observe “you’ve got everybody’s hand in somebody else’s pocket,” said he wants to make sure that does not happen with the money that the City will be getting under the Pension Bond. Mr. Bruch remarked he does not think it is prudent for City employees to have 4% wage increases in times like this. While affirming that people need protection, Mr. Bruch communicated that people also need to be honest and forthright in saying “we don’t want this. This is too much.” Mr. Bruch highlighted the fact that citizens pay the salaries of government employees and representatives at all levels.

Mr. Bruch, inquiring about the status of the proposed Lowe’s project on Eighth Avenue, noted that the zoning appeal is at the State level. Mr. Bruch urged City officials to get the money that would be generated by the project into the City’s budget rather than borrowing money. Mr. Bruch stressed that he does not like the Pension Bond at all.

6. OLD BUSINESS

None.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

A. Health Bureau Director – Establishing New Article 1113 – Adoption of Title 7 Chapter 46, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Food Code

The Clerk read a memorandum dated November 3, 2004 from Judith K. Maloney, Health Bureau Director, to which was attached a proposed new Codified Ordinance Article 1113, Food Code Regulation, in order to adopt the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Food Code Title 7 Chapter 46. This new Article 1113 would replace existing Articles 1113, 1114, 1115 and 1117.

President Schweder referred the matter to the Human Resources and Environment Committee.

B. Parks and Public Property Director – Dewire Estates – Detention Pond – Golf Course

The Clerk read a memorandum dated November 5, 2004 from Charles A. Brown, Director of Parks and Public Property, to which was attached a proposed agreement representing a request by a developer for the construction of a detention pond on the Municipal Golf Course in conjunction with Dewire Estates, a proposed 14-lot single family residential development located along the west side of the Municipal Golf Course. The developer proposed to pay $50,000 to the City, in addition to paying for all costs involved with the construction including fencing.

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

C. Liquor License Transfer Request – From Tatamy to 102 West Fourth Street, Second Floor

The Clerk read a letter from Attorney Theodore J. Zeller, III, concerning a request for an Intermunicipal Liquor License Transfer, License No. R-19528, from Tatamy Hotel, 200 Main Street, P.O. Box 318, Tatamy, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, to LAJJ Restaurant Group, LLC, 102 West Fourth Street, Second Floor, Bethlehem, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski moved to schedule a Public Hearing on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 at 7:30 PM in Town Hall. Voting AYE: Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, and Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The motion passed.

8 . REPORTS

A. President of Council

President Schweder announced the Budget Hearing schedule and associated dates for the Proposed 2005 Budget.

B. Mayor

None.

C. Public Safety Committee

Mr. Leeson, Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, presented an oral report of the Committee’s meeting held November 16, 2004, prior to this evening’s City Council Meeting, on the following subject: Fire Inspectors.

9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL PASSAGE

A. Bill No. 49 – 2004 – Pension Bond Issue – Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Pension Liability

The Clerk read Bill No. 49 – 2004, Pension Bond Issue – Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Pension Liability, on Final Reading.

Mrs. Belinski quoted from a letter received from a citizen, who has been a businessman in Bethlehem for 30 years, as follows: “I have seen good and bad times and these past three have been some of the worse. However, I would never consider borrowing money with the plan to invest it in the stock market for profit. This is a high risk venture that no prudent businessman nor a person in a fiduciary role such as yourself should ever consider. It is tantamount to buying lottery tickets and promising tax cuts.”

Ms. Szabo, stressing this is one of the most difficult decisions to make, asked when the Administration started to work on the bond issue.

Mayor Callahan replied that the City received the actuarial figures during the March-April 2004 timeframe from David Killick, Actuary, that indicated what the Minimum Municipal Obligation would be for 2005. At that point, Mayor Callahan explained the Administration began to discuss and look at the potential for a pension bond. When the State Aid amount was received in September, then the Administration had a better sense of what the unfunded liability number would be for the City. Mayor Callahan continued on to advise that the Administration then began to develop a plan for a pension bond with four potential debt service proposals, and began to discuss the matter with individual Members of Council, and particularly the Finance Committee members along with individual meetings with the financing professionals.

Querying whether quotes were obtained, Ms. Szabo asked how many people were involved.

Dennis Reichard, Business Administrator, noted the issue was sent to four underwriters.

Michael Setley, of Concord Public Finance, affirming there were discussions about the matter previously, restated that the essence of a pension bond is to borrow funds in order to pay the amount determined by the actuary as the amount required for the pension fund to be fully funded. In this case, Mr. Setley affirmed the amount is about $35 million. He continued on to explain the essence of the transaction is to reduce the implicit interest cost of funding the amounts required to be funded under State legislation. In the case of the City, the interest cost of funding that in accordance with State law is 7-1/2%. Based on actual results of the bond marketing done through Janney Montgomery Scott, the actual true cost of funds borrowed through a pension obligation bond is 5-1/2%. Mr. Setley explained that, so long as the City is comfortable that its returns over the next 20 years will average at least 5-1/2%, and pointing out that historically the funds have averaged almost 9% including the last few years, “then this is nothing more than a home mortgage refinancing where you’re reducing your costs from 7-1/2% to 5-1/2%. In the case of this $35 million issue, that translates to about $5-1/2 million in interest cost savings to the City.” Mr. Setley noted that preliminary numbers based on conservative cost and interest rate estimates for the bond issue reflect interest rates of 5-3/4% to 6% and savings in the range of $2-1/4 to $2-1/2 million. Mr. Setley reiterated that, based on actual results available to the City tonight, there would be a reduction in interest costs from 7-1/2% to 5-1/2% and $5-1/2 million of interest cost savings to the City. Mr. Setley advised that the bond went out to five underwriting firms for proposal with respect to marketing the bonds and fees. The firms were narrowed to three, and then Janney Montgomery Scott was chosen. Mr. Setley informed the Members that William Carlin, of Janney Montgomery Scott, a regional investment banking firm in Philadelphia, is in attendance at the meeting tonight. Mr. Setley confirmed that the pre-marketing of the bonds was able to be concluded yesterday with these results.

Ms. Szabo questioned, if there is optimism on future revenues from development, why is such a large amount being paid the next few years.

Mr. Setley responded that the structure of the financing is constrained by State legislation. The State Pension Law, Act 205, requires cities to pay off their unfunded liability over a certain period of years. Commenting that became unpractical and uneconomical, Mr. Setley pointed out that about ten years ago the State amended Act 205 and the Local Government Unit Debt Act to provide for this type of pension financing. The legislation provides that if a municipality borrows less than all of the unfunded liability then it does not get the same benefits but rather a proportionate benefit. Mr. Setley, turning to a question raised of why the City does not borrow for next year’s payment, advised the State Law does not allow that to be done. Mr. Setley explained, if the City were to borrow just for next year, that would be treated as if the City would have borrowed about 8% and would get an 8% credit for the 30 year period rather than getting full credit next year and going back to the old schedule beginning in year two through year 30. Mr. Setley pointed out that, in order for the City to obtain the stated benefits, the City has little choice but to borrow for the entire unfunded amount.

In response to Ms. Szabo’s question why the borrowing could not be for 20 or 25 years instead of 30 years, Mr. Setley noted the Administration presented four scenarios to City Council including financings for 20, 25, and 30 years.

Ms. Szabo queried whether the City is really going to put all the pension bond money into the stock market.

Mr. Reichard, confirming there is a Pension Board, advised that the Board does not take the entire $35 million or all of its funds and put it in equities. Rather, the investments are 60% in fixed and 40% in equities. Mr. Reichard, noting that the risk is minimal in the fixed income segment, further pointed out that the Board has to be very careful what equities it invests in. Affirming it is a very good Pension Board with a very good consultant, Mr. Reichard informed Ms. Szabo that the fund totals $77 million and the investment loss percentage was not as bad as experienced by some other funds. Mr. Reichard, stressing that the Board is very careful with the pensioners’ money, observed that some risk has to be taken to make money, and the Board minimizes that risk.

Mayor Callahan, affirming that the City has this liability whether it issues the pension bond or not, stated is a debt that the City owes as a result of the pension fund. Mayor Callahan observed the question is whether the City is going to have a fully funded pension plan or an underfunded pension plan, and whether the City is going to pay that debt at 7-1/2% or at 5-1/2%. Mayor Callahan continued on to confirm that the City has a $72 million liability and the question is can the City refinance the debt and make it $66 million. Mayor Callahan pointed out that, over the last 20 years, the pension funds have averaged a 10-1/2% rate of return, and there were only about four years of the 20 years when the pension funds did not experience of return of greater than 6%. Mayor Callahan informed the Members it is assumed that all the dollars in the pension funds will generate 7-1/2%, and the money is being borrowed at 5-1/2%. Mayor Callahan observed “unless you think that over the next 20-30 years that that fund is not going to return 5-1/2% there’s very little risk in this.”

Ms. Szabo asked why is the pension fund underfunded.

Mr. Reichard replied, based on the January 1, 2003 actuarial study, 2001 and 2002 were some bad years in the stock market, in addition to having to provide benefits that employees will receive. Mr. Reichard advised that an unfunded liability of $35 million means if the City shut down today a check for $35 million would have to be written to fund the pensions. Mr. Reichard, affirming that $35 million is on the City’s books as a liability whether or not the pension bond is issued, advised that the total cost of the liability will be $72 million. Mr. Reichard, pointing out that the State helped by amending the pension law to adjust the length of time that the unfunded liability can be amortized from 15 to 30 years, advised that is why the Administration has proposed a pension bond for a 30 year period.

Ms. Szabo observed that, despite all the good years, the bad years put the fund under.

Mr. Setley explained that Act 205 came in place in 1984 because the City of Bethlehem pension plans, along with many other municipalities, was underfunded and was the reason for the State legislation. Mr. Setley noted “the State said if you promise to fund up your pension over a certain number of years, up to 40 years, then we’ll give you a piece of this special tax revenue that we’re going to impose as a part of this. What happened was the City did very well, and in much less than the initial 30 year schedule that the City elected it was…fully funded. Because of 2001 and 2002 it again became underfunded…”. Mr. Setley affirmed that, although the 2001 and 2002 poor investment returns were a setback, they were not the beginning of the problem, and there was a problem back in 1984.

Ms. Szabo, expressing the feeling that she must vote for this bond issue, said it is under duress and not free choice. Ms. Szabo communicated “we lose whether we vote yes or no. Either way the taxpayers lose because they lose the 30 years of paying the tax, and…if we don’t vote for it they lose the services of the community,…and our employees would lose.”

Mr. Donchez asked Attorney Carlucci to go on the record as being comfortable with the pension bond.

Attorney Peter Carlucci, of Eckert Seamans Cherin and Mellot, serving as bond counsel, stated “we’ve reviewed the structure, we’ve had discussions with the Actuary, and we’re comfortable that the issue is consistent with the State law.”

Mr. Donchez, with reference to newspaper articles today reporting that while Standard and Poors retained the City’s A minus rating it indicated a negative outlook for the City, queried whether that has any affect or bearing on the pension bond issue.

Attorney Carlucci said no it does not.

Mr. Donchez observed the City only has option A or B in a sense to either take the pension bonds or a tax increase plus layoffs or a combination of both. Mr. Donchez thought, if Council were not to pass the pension bond, which he said he will support this evening, with an additional tax increase on top of what the Mayor has proposed, and with layoffs of anywhere from 30 to 50 or 60 as reported in the newspapers, that would cut services and endanger public safety. Mr. Donchez commented that the City is past the point in many areas already and just cannot cut any more. Mr. Donchez, restating he will support the pension bond, said he really thinks it is imperative that the Pension Board and investment firms have to be very conservative and exercise tremendous oversight to make sure the City does not have a horror story like a New Jersey, or Philadelphia, or San Diego, or Pittsburgh. Mr. Donchez further reiterated that he thinks very good judgment must be used and a lot of oversight. Noting that many other communities and States are faced with the same situation as Bethlehem, Mr. Donchez stressed the City has to get this right and part of it is that the Pension Board and investment firms have to exercise very good judgment in where they invest the people’s money. Mr. Donchez remarked “if we don’t average 5-1/2% over the next 20 to 30 years America has a problem.”

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Mowrer, and Ms. Szabo, 4. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Leeson, and Mr. Schweder, 3. Bill No. 49 – 2004, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 4287, was declared adopted.

10. NEW ORDINANCES

A. Bill No. 50 – 2004 – Amending Community Development Budget – South Side Greenway

The Clerk read Bill No. 50 – 2004, Amending Community Development Budget – South Side Greenway, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Donchez, and titled:

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

Mr. Leeson, with reference to remarks made earlier, observed that some misinformation has been spread around. Mr. Leeson stated that City Council has always been completely supportive of the South Bethlehem Greenway project, and added he was one of the first people to work on it several years ago. Mr. Leeson, acknowledging that Council is anxiously awaiting responses to some of the items on which the Administration is working, commented he is sure Council will have those responses in the very near future.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 50 – 2004 was passed on First Reading.

B. Bill No. 51 – 2004 – Adopting the 2005 General Fund Budget

The Clerk read Bill No. 51 – 2004, Adopting the 2005 General Fund Budget, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Donchez, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR 2005.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, and Ms. Szabo, 6. Voting NAY: Mr. Schweder, 1. Bill No. 51 – 2004 was passed on First Reading.

C. Bill No. 52 – 2004 – Adopting the 2005 Water Fund Budget

The Clerk read Bill No. 52 – 2004, Adopting the 2005 Water Fund Budget, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Donchez, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE WATER FUND BUDGET FOR 2005.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 52 – 2004 was passed on First Reading.

D. Bill No. 53 – 2004 – Adopting the 2005 Sewer Fund Budget

The Clerk read Bill No. 53 – 2004, Adopting the 2005 Sewer Fund Budget, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Donchez, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE SEWER FUND BUDGET FOR 2005.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 53 – 2004 was passed on First Reading.

E. Bill No. 54 – 2004 - Adopting the 2005 Golf Course Enterprise Fund Budget

The Clerk read Bill No. 54 – 2004, Adopting the 2005 Golf Course Enterprise Fund Budget, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Donchez, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE GOLF COURSE ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET
FOR 2005.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 54 – 2004 was passed on First Reading.

F. Bill No. 55 – 2004 – Adopting the 2005 Liquid Fuels Fund Budget

The Clerk read Bill No. 55 – 2004, Adopting the 2005 Liquid Fuels Fund Budget, sponsored by Mr. Arcelay and Mr. Donchez, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE LIQUID FUELS FUND BUDGET FOR 2005.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 55 – 2004 was passed on First Reading.

G. Bill No. 56 – 2004 – Adopting the 2005 Capital Budget for Non-Utilities

The Clerk read Bill No. 56 – 2004, Adopting the 2005 Capital Budget for Non-Utilities, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Donchez, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE 2005 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. 56 – 2004 was passed on First Reading.

H. Bill No. 57 – 2004 – Adopting the 2005 Capital Budget for Water Utilities

The Clerk read Bill No. 57 – 2004, Adopting the 2005 Capital Budget for Water Utilities, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Donchez, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE 2005 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. 57 – 2004 was passed on First Reading.

I. Bill No. 58 – 2004 – Adopting the 2005 Capital Budget for Sewer Utilities

The Clerk read Bill No. 58 – 2004, Adopting the 2005 Capital Budget for Sewer Utilities, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Donchez, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE 2005 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR SEWER
UTILITIES.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 58 – 2004 was passed on First Reading.

J. Bill No. 59 – 2004 – Adopting the 2005 Community Development Budget

The Clerk read Bill No. 59 – 2004, Adopting the 2005 Community Development Budget, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Arcelay, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ADOPTING
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUDGET FOR
2005.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 59 – 2004 was passed on First Reading.

K. Bill No. 60 – 2004 – Adopting the 2005 9-1-1 Fund Budget

The Clerk read Bill No. 60 – 2004 – Adopting the 2005 9-1-1 Fund Budget, sponsored by Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Arcelay, 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 2005.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. Bill No. 60 – 2004 was passed on First Reading.

L. Bill No. 61 – 2004 - Fixing the 2005 Tax Rate for All City Purposes

The Clerk read Bill No. 61 – 2004 – Fixing the 2005 Tax Rate for All City Purposes, sponsored by Mr. Arcelay and Mr. Donchez, 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 2005.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, and Ms. Szabo, 6. Voting NAY: Mr. Schweder, 1. Bill No. 61 – 2004 was passed on First Reading.

Boy Scout Troop 352 – Notre Dame Church

President Schweder, acknowledging members of Boy Scout Troop 352 from Notre Dame Church who were present at the meeting, asked them to stand up and be recognized.

11. RESOLUTIONS

A. Authorizing Execution of DCNR Grant Agreement – Acquisition of Railway in South Bethlehem
Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,526 that authorized the execution of an application for a grant through the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for the acquisition of the abandoned Norfolk Southern Railway in South Bethlehem.

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

B. Transfer of Funds – South Side Greenway

Mrs. Belinski and Mr. Arcelay sponsored Resolution 14,527 that transferred $50,000 in the Community Development Budget from the East Fourth Street Plaza Improvements Account to the South Side Greenway Account to allocate funds for the design of improvements to the former Norfolk Southern Railroad right-of-way through the South Side.

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

12. NEW BUSINESS

Longevity and Education Benefits

Mr. Donchez, affirming that he sent a memorandum to Mr. Reichard inquiring about longevity and education benefits for the Police Commissioner, Deputy Police Commissioner, Fire Commissioner, and Deputy Fire Commissioner, said he was pleased to see in the Proposed 2005 Budget the inclusion of longevity and education benefits for the Fire Commissioner and Deputy Fire Commissioner. However, Mr. Donchez expressed he was disappointed that it was not included for the Police Commissioner and Deputy Police Commissioner. Mr. Donchez, while noting he did receive a response explaining the reason why it was granted for the Fire Commissioner and Deputy Fire Commissioner according to State law, asked that, out of a sense of fairness, giving longevity and education benefits to the Police Commissioner and Deputy Police Commissioner be reconsidered prior to the final vote on the Budget. Mr. Donchez felt that the Police Commissioner and Deputy Police Commissioner should have these benefits to be on the same plane as the Fire Commissioner and Deputy Fire Commissioner even though it is not required under law. Mr. Donchez asked Mayor Callahan and Mr. Reichard if they would reconsider their decision before the final budget process.

Mayor Callahan, pointing out that his stance is not personal with respect to any of the individuals, commented that individuals give up something to take leadership roles in the City and they know that when they accept those positions. Mayor Callahan also noted there are other Department Heads who would be eligible for longevity or educational allowance who have risen up through the ranks. Mayor Callahan affirmed that the matter was researched and a legal opinion was issued by the City’s labor counsel. Mayor Callahan said his preference would be not to give longevity or educational allowance to anyone at the Department Head or Deputy level. However, Mayor Callahan pointed out that he is obligated, as a result of a law passed by the State, to give longevity and educational benefits to only the Fire Commissioner and Deputy Fire Commissioner. While acknowledging he does not think it is particularly fair, Mayor Callahan highlighted the fact that in the context of the Budget being as tight as it is he does not feel compelled to give more of a benefit than the City is required to give. Mayor Callahan communicated he is not against Council changing that and would not fight against it. Continuing on to point out that he did talk to the Police Commissioner about the matter, Mayor Callahan noted he had informed the Police Commissioner that he would not object to the Police Commissioner’s asking Council to consider it.

Expressing his agreement with the Mayor’s comments, Mr. Donchez also pointed out he is not looking at personalities, and concurred that individuals give some things up knowing that they will be a Department Head. Mr. Donchez said he would appreciate having forwarded to City Council the costs of giving longevity and education benefits to the Police Commissioner and Deputy Police Commissioner.

Mrs. Belinski wondered why the State would grant longevity and educational benefits to only the Fire Commissioner and Deputy Fire Commissioner in view of the fact that both of them in addition to the Police Commissioner and Deputy Police Commissioner are risking their lives every day for the citizens, and asserted what is fair for one should be fair for the other.

Mayor Callahan, observing one could probably look back at the debate of the State legislators and their rationale, restated it is clear that the City is obligated to grant it to the Fire Commissioner and Deputy Fire Commissioner.

Unexpended Year-End Funds

Mr. Leeson, recalling that, when he was the City Solicitor, the Administration annually prepared a report of the unexpended amounts from all of the budgetary line items each year and compared them each year, felt that Members of Council should share in the knowledge of that valuable data. Mr. Leeson requested that the information be supplied for the Members of Council for 1997 to date.

Pension Bond Issue – Apology to City Employees

Ms. Szabo expressed her apologies to the City employees for the undue stress they were put through for the past several weeks with the constant threat of so many losing their jobs if the Pension Bond Issue was not accepted.

Setting Date for Adoption of the 2005 Budgets

Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski moved to set the date for adoption of the 2005 Budgets on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 at 7:30 PM in Town Hall.

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

Proposed 2005 Budget - Process

President Schweder, expressing that the 2005 Budget review would follow the same process as was initiated last year in that the budgets would not be reviewed on a line by line basis, also requested that Department Heads be prepared to discuss any new programs and established departmental priorities along with related workforce requirements.

13. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

Pension Bond

Chuck Nyul, 1966 Pinehurst Road, recalled that at a past City Council Meeting Ms. Szabo voted to continue the LERTA Program that allows businesses 20 years to extend their tax payments. Mr. Nyul highlighted the fact that, as a homeowner, he cannot do that, and if he buys a home then the next day he must pay the full amount of taxes. Consequently, Mr. Nyul pointed out that the taxes on $14 million in economic development that was mentioned at previous Meetings will not come tomorrow but will come very slowly all the while during which the City will still be trying to pay off the $35 million Pension Bond. Ms. Szabo informed Mr. Nyul she is very aware of that.

South Side – One Way Streets

Mr. Nyul, with reference to the recent Committee of the Whole meeting at which a proposal for one way streets on the South Side was presented, noted the newspaper reported that Mr. Donchez and Ms. Szabo did not favor the idea. Mr. Nyul pointed out that, as a person who has traveled in the area of Wyandotte Street and Five Points for at least 10 years, when a garbage truck is parked on a two way street and a motorist is trying to travel around it, and a tractor trailer is also trying to get into McDonald’s restaurant to make a delivery, it is very difficult. Mr. Nyul expressed his opinion that one way streets are good. Enumerating the various one way streets in Allentown, and in New York City, Mr. Nyul remarked it would be chaos otherwise. Mr. Nyul felt that the City should make Fourth Street one way east-west and Third Street one way east-west so that all the traffic is flowing in one direction. Mr. Nyul discouraged the City from accepting the current proposal by exemplifying that would cause a tractor trailer traveling down Wyandotte Street, or a school bus, to have to make a series of turns and then travel up the Third Street ramp.

Conectiv – Unpaid Taxes

Mr. Nyul inquired about $14,000 in unpaid taxes for Conectiv that was mentioned at the last City Council Meeting.

Mrs. Belinski, highlighting the fact that Conectiv has a $600 million plant, advised all the City can tax the company on is the land. Mrs. Belinski affirmed that, as of last week, the company has still not paid approximately $14,000 in taxes and is now in the penalty phase.

FAA Tower – South Mountain Near Star of Bethlehem

William Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, referred to a copy of a letter from State Senator Lisa Boscola to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), asking that the FAA seriously consider an alternative to a ten story radar tower on the top of South Mountain, 0.5 or 0.6 miles east or west of the Star of Bethlehem. Mr. Scheirer informed the assembly that members of the Lower Saucon Township Council are present this evening to ask for the City’s help. Mr. Scheirer advised that the FAA is scheduled to hold a public education workshop in the Township on December 7, the date of the next City Council Meeting. Mr. Scheirer said, as of yesterday, it is unclear whether the FAA will listen to public comments at this event. Mr. Scheirer advised that if anyone wishes to communicate with the FAA on this matter, the person at FAA headquarters to call is Jim Linney at 202-385-8712.

Mr. Scheirer communicated that, with a draft environmental assessment (EA) that is missing the most important parts, some might construe this as somewhat arrogant on the part of the FAA. He felt it would be a mistake to believe that decisions made in Washington are always based on the best information, and only made after careful consideration of all alternatives. Mr. Scheirer, pointing out that the most glaring omissions in the EA are perhaps the site evaluations, confirmed that he placed a copy of the EA on Council’s table with a paper clip on page 16. He said on that page it states "...tables showing the degree to which each candidate site meets the criteria are given in Appendix A...". Mr. Scheirer advised he placed another paper clip on the first page of Appendix A so that it can be verified that Appendix A has only the definitions of the criteria and nothing else. Denoting there is another copy of the EA in the library, Mr. Scheirer stated the Administration finally has a copy through the courtesy of Lower Saucon Township, not the FAA. He continued on to point out that the other glaring omission in the EA is the reason why the FAA wants the new tower to be on South Mountain, while the old tower at the airport may not even be removed. Mr. Scheirer observed the only hint of this is that the new radar would have a range of 60 nautical miles, which is a very large area of almost 15,000 square miles. Mr. Scheirer noted that both the airport and South Mountain sites are stated to have the most complete coverage of the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton (ABE) area and to best satisfy the air traffic control requirements as referenced on page 16. However, Mr. Scheirer stressed that the tower "would not increase the capacity of ABE, change the number of flights in or out of the airport, or affect flight paths", as referenced on page 47.

Mr. Scheirer stated that he will not dwell tonight on the visual impact of the tower and the conflict with the Star of Bethlehem. Instead, Mr. Scheirer stated he will ask City Council to take the following positions: (1) the City greatly appreciates the aid that the FAA has provided to the Lehigh Valley International Airport; (2) the City greatly respects the aviation expertise of the FAA; (3) the City realizes also that in these times of stringent budgetary constraints that the FAA may not always be able to give its undivided attention to each and every local proposal, as when Route 22 is mistaken for I-78; (4) the City asks that the FAA revise the EA to include the site evaluations; (5) the City asks that the FAA revise the EA to include the rationale for a tower to be on South Mountain, and if the reason is national security to say so, and if it cannot be so stated because of the Patriot Act, then advise that fact; (6) the City asks that the resulting EA be called a revised draft rather than a final, so that there will be an opportunity for evaluation and comment by the public and their elected representatives, as intended by the National Environmental Protection Act and the Administrative Procedures Act; (7) the City asks that there be a public hearing. If budgetary constraints preclude the FAA from doing that on such a small project, the City will be happy to conduct the hearing for the FAA and transmit the results, and is sure that Lower Saucon Township would be willing to do the same.

In summary, Mr. Scheirer said “we are only asking for a complete environmental assessment with all the necessary parts and for a public hearing. That's not unreasonable.”

Sandra Yerger, member of Lower Saucon Township Council, and vice-chair of the Lower Saucon Township Environmental Advisory Council, referring to a copy of the draft environmental assessment for the proposed FAA tower, said she would like to concentrate on Appendix A. Ms. Yerger, focusing on Screen Criteria Definitions, noted these are the FAA’s definitions related to selection of a site. Ms. Yerger pointed out that a few of the criteria site selections are in direct contradiction to the definitions. Turning to page A-4, R-1, Ms. Yerger noted it discusses how an FAA tower may not impose on ecological wildlife areas, wildlife conservation preserves, sanctuaries, and so on. Although the South Mountain may not have been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission, Ms. Yerger advised it is part of the Highlands and Forest Legacy Program that is pending in both the Federal House and Senate. Ms. Yerger, pointing to a map, demonstrated that it is designated as one of the critical areas of the Federal Program. Ms. Yerger stated that the FAA is in direct contradiction of their own criteria in that instance. Affirming that South Mountain Park is located on South Mountain, Ms. Yerger explained that the proposed location of the tower would be a detriment to South Mountain Park that is a large hiking and birding area, and it is not supposed to impinge on this section as referenced in R-4. In Section R-5, Ms. Yerger advised it is stated that a tower should not impinge on historical, archeological, or culturally sensitive sites. Ms. Yerger notified the Members that, in her opinion, the viewshed, as well as the impact it would have on visibility, would affect the historical and archeological value of the site. Ms. Yerger remarked it is contradicting R-5. In R-13, steep terrain, Ms. Yerger highlighted the fact that South Mountain is very steeply sloped. Ms. Yerger quoted from the section in which it was stated that areas of steep terrain should be avoided. Ms. Yerger, reading from R-15 containing criteria for electronic facilities and stating there should not be interference with other facilities, informed the Members there is a State Police tower already there. Consequently, not only would the proposed FAA tower constitute interference with the State Police tower, but there would be ecological impact from clearing a 3 acre site on top of South Mountain, not including the roadways to it and the buildings proposed to be attached. In addition, several acres of trees in surrounding acreage would be cut that would result in tremendous ecological impact. Ms. Yerger explained that, in directly impacting the State Police tower, that tower may have to be moved which would cause even further ecological impact. Ms. Yerger requested the help of the City in having the FAA reevaluate the proposed location of its tower on South Mountain because it is in direct contradiction of many of the criteria.

Tom Maxfield, 2595 Dery Lane, Hellertown, a member of Lower Saucon Township Council, stated he is at the meeting representing the Lower Saucon Township Environmental Advisory Council. He informed the Members that a quick reading of the report will point out the contradictions and deficiencies. Mr. Maxfield observed that anyone who is familiar with the area will come to the conclusion that the report was prepared by somebody who is not familiar with the area at all. Mr. Maxfield denoted there are several contractions, mislabelings, and assumptions in the report that are not true. Mr. Maxfield, notifying the Members that among the things planned for the FAA tower site on South Mountain is a 1,000 gallon diesel storage tank, remarked he “can’t imagine the consequences of a spill or leak of a 1,000 gallon diesel tank on top of the mountain.” He advised that the VHF State Police communications tower is about 150 feet away from the site of the proposed FAA tower. If the FAA tower is not supposed to be within one-half mile of another tower, Mr. Maxfield affirmed that obviously is a problem. In addition, Mr. Maxfield thought the proposed location is within one-half mile of an ATT communication tower. Pointing out that the FAA wants to clear a two acre site on top of the mountain, Mr. Maxfield noted there are visual assessments in the book but none of the views to the South in Lower Saucon are addressed where the tower would be most visible, and none of the associated tree clearing is provided for. Mr. Maxfield informed the Members not only would two acres be cleared but it would be covered in stone that would make the surface impervious and which would probably result in water run-off problems. Mr. Maxfield continued on to advise that the FAA reserves the right to put up a building restriction easement with a 1,500 foot diameter perimeter around the site which would allow even more trees to be cut or trimmed to the height of the tower. Mr. Maxfield stressed these are just a few of the things planned for the site that do not take into consideration the entire site. Mr. Maxfield confirmed that the site, by Federal law, is recognized as a migration route for birds, as contained in several manuals and Federal legislation. Consequently, Mr. Maxfield questioned how can the FAA, a Federal Agency, ignore another Federal Agency’s restrictions on the area. Communicating that Lower Saucon Township is very concerned about preserving its resources, limiting the kinds of impervious coverage and disturbance to slopes that cause those types of problems, Mr. Maxfield highlighted the fact that the two acre site is well beyond the 25% cutoff where Lower Saucon Township allows almost no development at all of any kind. He continued on to confirm that the entire site drops 24 feet over a 200 foot length that is well beyond the 25% slope. Mr. Maxfield observed that, when the proposed site is considered with all of the other sites mentioned in the report, it just does not make sense, and the report is deficient. Mr. Maxfield requested the City’s support in opposing this particular application for an FAA tower at the proposed site on South Mountain, the things that it assumes, and the things that it intends to do. Mr. Maxfield asserted he does not think it would benefit either Lower Saucon Township or the City of Bethlehem.

Mr. Leeson, noting the issue of the proposed FAA tower on South Mountain has come up several times, commented there has been some discussion about it in the community. Mr. Leeson concurred that, from a quality of life issue, one of the things that people in Bethlehem take pride in is the beauty of the community, including the skyline, a substantial portion of which is the beauty of South Mountain. Mr. Leeson suggested that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission, with the request that Ms. Yerger and Mr. Maxfield meet with the Planning Commission, of which one of the members is the deputy director of the Lehigh Valley International Airport and is knowledgeable about the FAA. Mr. Leeson requested that the Planning Commission advise whether the City should take a stand on the matter in opposition by way of Resolution, or should abstain from the matter, and advise why.

Mr. Leeson and Mrs. Belinski moved to refer the matter to the Planning Commission. Hearing no objection, President Schweder stated that it is so ordered. President Schweder noted that the Clerk will notify the Planning Commission that will in turn notify Ms. Yerger and Mr. Maxfield of the meeting.

Mr. Maxfield, affirming that since the meeting with the FAA is scheduled on December 7, 2004 and may be the last chance to comment, asked whether the meeting with the Planning Commission could be held before then. President Schweder noted the request can be made of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Leeson added that, if the timing of the meeting does not work out, Mr. Maxfield could tell the FAA that the City of Bethlehem is reviewing the issue and might take a stand on the matter so that the FAA should not consider the matter closed.

Christmas Lights – Five Points

Eddie Rodriquez, 436 Pawnee Street, said there has never been any Christmas lights in the Five Points area and requested that Christmas lights be installed for the area residents. Affirming he has contacted City officials about the matter, Mr. Rodriquez commented he gets the “run around”.

Police Involvement – Five Points

Mr. Rodriquez stated that more Police involvement is needed in the Five Points area, and it is not enough to have a Police Substation in the area. Mr. Rodriquez informed City officials there is increased crime and drug activity in the area that is becoming severe. In addition, Mr. Rodriquez notified the assembly there was a recent suicide, attempted murders and murders, accidents, auto theft, property theft, and so on in the vicinity.

Abandoned Vehicles

Mr. Rodriquez notified the Members that because of an existing Ordinance property owners can have theirs and vehicles belonging to others remain on their properties for a lengthy period of time. Some of the vehicles are damaged, are not inspected, abandoned, not registered, have flat tires, etc. Mr. Rodriquez, confirming he has contacted Police Officer Ladics and Captain Mills concerning the matter, noted that Officer Ladics explained that every means has been exhausted to get rid of the problem. Mr. Rodriquez asked City Council to change the Ordinance so that property owners would be prohibited from having abandoned vehicles on their property.

Gambling – Crime and Other Issues

Mr. Rodriquez remarked, if gambling is allowed in the City, there will be a high level of crime. He continued on to say there will be a lot of people coming to Bethlehem from other States doing their transactions in the City, prostitution will increase, as will drug sales and addictions of all types. Mr. Rodriquez further stressed there will be increased traffic and congestion.

Crime Prevention

Mr. Rodriquez, advising he met with Police Crime Prevention Officer Wade Haubert, explained that he asked for pamphlets about home security, drugs, burglaries, suspicious activity, and where, when, and how to seek advice for public education purposes. Mr. Rodriquez, advising that the Officer received the credit and the matter was televised, communicated that is not right. While confirming that he never asked for any credit in reference to the matter, Mr. Rodriquez expressed that if credit is to be given it should be given where it is due.

Traffic on East Third Street - Redirecting

Mr. Rodriquez stated there is a traffic congestion problem on East Third Street from all intersections around the Five Points area. Mr. Rodriquez continued on to highlight the traffic problem coming off the Hill to Hill Bridge southbound, and pointed out that at peak hours traffic backs up at all intersections. Mr. Rodriquez suggested that, in the area of East Third Street at Polk Street, to alleviate the traffic congestion, East to West traffic at East Third should be redirected at Polk and make a left onto Columbia Street, onto East Second Street, then West Second Street as one travels underneath the Fahy Bridge, to Riverside Drive, making a left and then a right onto the Hill to Hill Bridge, or onto Brodhead, or back on Third Street. Mr. Rodriquez observed that signs should be posted so that motorists can be informed about alternate routes. Mr. Rodriquez suggested that the no turn on red be eliminated northbound on Polk Street so that traffic can flow, and the red light be put somewhere else. He further pointed out that the light at Williams Street takes too long to change.

Bethlehem Transmission Shop

Mr. Rodriquez informed City officials that he had a conversation with the owners of Bethlehem Transmission Shop about the sale of their property at the corner of Route 378 at Five Points, and two residential properties that they also own. Advising that the owners showed to Mr. Rodriquez a letter from about six months ago they sent to City officials in reference to the sale of the properties, Mr. Rodriquez remarked this is nothing new. Mr. Rodriquez continued on to communicate that, if the City wants to build a parking lot in the Five Points area as he suggested, the three properties are for sale. Mr. Rodriquez asked the owners to send a letter to City Council and to Darlene Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, so they would be aware of it, in order to alleviate traffic in the Five Points area, and build a parking deck.

Garbage

Mr. Rodriquez requested that garbage be picked up on a timely basis, and that building owners and renters be obligated to have garbage containers.

Renaming City Center Plaza

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, referred to the October 5, 2004 City Council Meeting concerning the renaming of City Center Plaza. At that time, Mr. Antalics recalled there were two amendments to be reviewed by Council. Mr. Antalics said that the first amendment was to rename it Mayors’ Plaza that was voted down, and the second amendment was to rename it Schaffer-Payrow Plaza that was approved by a 5 to 2 vote. Asking what was the source of the amendment asking for Schaffer-Payrow Plaza that was sponsored by Mr. Mowrer and Mr. Donchez, and when was that amendment made, Mr. Antalics confirmed that he attended the Parks and Public Property Committee meeting and that was approved. Turning again to the October 5, 2004 City Council Meeting, Mr. Antalics recounted the President of Council asked Mr. Mowrer if he wished to have his original Resolution read that renamed City Center Plaza to Payrow Plaza. Stating that Mr. Mowrer said yes, Mr. Antalics continued on to say “it was voted on, and although it had been voted on to approve the amendment, the Payrow Plaza was then approved, and is now Payrow Plaza.” Mr. Antalics, noting he does not know whether the minutes of the September 30, 2004 Parks and Public Property Committee meeting are available yet, advised he had asked about listening to the tape of the Committee meeting. Consequently, Mr. Antalics informed the Members he is going by his recollection. Mr. Antalics confirmed he had a conversation with Mr. Mowrer, the sponsor of the original Resolution, and also checked with a person in the Administration as to their understanding of what happened at the Committee meeting concerning Mr. Mowrer’s original Resolution for Payrow Plaza. Mr. Antalics said “the three of us concurred that to bring it to City Council it might be advised based upon a recommendation of Mr. Donchez to, instead of saying Payrow Plaza, [rename it to] Schaffer-Payrow Plaza. And, Mr. Mowrer was queried as to whether he would accept the amendment to his Resolution, and he said yes…Then, the Committee voted on the Resolution as the Schaffer-Payrow Plaza. I checked with a legal source who is quite aware of city procedures…I said, sir, if you have an initial Resolution and it’s amended by whatever with the acceptance of the person who proposed it, do you have…two Resolutions or one. You have the original Resolution or the amended Resolution. And, the response I had gotten was that the original Resolution no longer existed because now you have the amended Resolution. So, that would then mean that the third amendment was really vot[ed] on again, the Schaffer-Payrow Plaza amendment Resolution, because the original Resolution did not exist which I have here which was looked at and reviewed by the Committee. So, I have a problem here. I feel like I’m in a shell game…From my observation, and I checked with legal sources, City [Center Plaza] is really Schaffer-Payrow Plaza because the Payrow Plaza Resolution doesn’t exist…The bottom line is this. The citizens of the City of Bethlehem do not support this, and I think Mrs. Belinski made this very clear at the Committee meeting, and to take it to Committee it was amended. So, the Resolution was amended with the acceptance of the proposer. So, the initial Resolution no longer exists according to a very reliable legal source familiar with government procedures…What this is telling me is this is some form of pandering to the wish of an individual over the will of the people. The will of the people, which Mrs. Belinski reflected, was to keep it the way it is. But, you are there because you asked us to confide in you to represent our interests, and asked for our vote which we gave you. But, our interests were to keep it the way it was. But, by shrewd maneuvering it went into a shell game…So, it simply ignored the will of the people…and pandered to an individual request, to ask them do you want to go back to Payrow Plaza when initially it was accepted as Schaffer-Payrow [Plaza]. That’s shameful…I feel a class action, it’s just in principal, to keep you people responsible. This bothers me…because I expect good government…”.

FAA Tower – South Mountain Near Star of Bethlehem

Joris Rosse, 1966 Creek Road, focusing on the proposed FAA tower on South Mountain, said unfortunately in the rush to quickly respond to the request from the Federal government for the radar tower, the need for which is somewhat questionable based on statements that were made, pointed out what was not mentioned was that all these towers involve certain emissions, either microwave, radar wave, or radio waves. Mr. Rosse explained that all of those put together affect living organisms and all of wild life. Mr. Rosse highlighted the fact that many of the regulations specifically forbid taking into account health effects. For instance, Mr. Rosse pointed out it is not permitted to take into account the health effects that come from cell towers which, he exclaimed, are major health effects. Mr. Rosse observed, even if health effects were taken into account, one would only be taking into account the health effect from one particular tower, not the accumulative effects such as from several towers that overlap in their energies as they beam up and people are being subjected to that. In such a case, Mr. Rosse explained there is a very increased body load of the burden of the health effects that, he advised, creep up and one is not aware as it is happening. Mr. Rosse, exemplifying when there are thousands of cars in the parking lots of hospitals “you know that something is going on”, continued on to communicate it is discovered that someone has a brain tumor or some other cancer because of these things but there is no label saying it is coming from the towers, or exactly which of other things. Mr. Rosse explained there is an unbelievable crime being committed here, and stressed there is a cancer epidemic in the country with hundreds of thousands of people dying every year, and there is no action. Mr. Rosse, while noting that City officials would express that the FAA is supposed to be taking care of the matter, asserted “well, they don’t, because they’re buddies with the corporations that are doing this to us. Who is supposed to protect us, then. We’re all being guinea pigs to this. This is not a minor item, this is a major item.”

Ms. Szabo asked if Mr. Rosse can advise exactly where on South Mountain the proposed tower is planned to be located.

Mr. Rosse advised that the representatives from Lower Saucon Township Environmental Advisory Council have the maps that have the specific location information. Mr. Rosse explained it is in the area of the Star of Bethlehem on South Mountain. He highlighted the fact that, consequently, when one looks at the skyline, they would see the FAA tower.

Mayor Callahan explained if one were looking from the vantage point at Town Hall towards the Star of Bethlehem it is to the left of the Star about six-tenths of a mile from the Star itself at the top of South Mountain.

Handicapped Parking Spaces and Signs

Anthony Curatola, a South Side resident, notified the Members of the problem with the handicapped parking situation. Mr. Curatola, noting that for a small fee a handicapped individual can obtain a residential handicapped parking spot, communicated if the individual could always have that parking place it would be even better. Mr. Curatola expressed the City can do something about making sure the individual has that spot. Explaining that just putting up a new sign for residential disabled is not quite enough. Mr. Curatola pointed out that people who are disabled and work hard all day, are fatigued at the end of the day, drive around South Bethlehem trying to find a parking space, and finally find one of the disabled parking spots available. However, the following morning they are ticketed because they did not notice there is a new sign. Mr. Curatola suggested when a new handicapped parking sign is put up that a paper sign be installed at eye level stating no parking. Further, Mr. Curatola advised that the blue disabled sign on top of the pole blends with the sky at night, while there is a white sign underneath. Consequently, Mr. Curatola observed that the white sign should be on top and the blue sign on the bottom so that people can see it. Then, Mr. Curatola communicated, people who are struggling with physical problems and are on fixed incomes will not have to be paying parking fines. Mr. Curatola wondered if something can be done about the situation.

Pension Bond

Jonathan Rice, 1433 High Street, a City employee, thanked the Members of Council for passing the Pension Bond.

South Side Greenway

David Shaffer, on behalf of the Open Space Committee and Vision 2012 Task Force, thanked the Members of Council for passing the Resolution this evening that will allow the volunteers of the community who are on these committees to move forward with a very important project for the benefit of the residents in the City. Mr. Shaffer also thanked Mayor Callahan for his help with the projects, and also the staff of the City, including Tony Hanna, Director of Community and Economic Development, Charles Brown, Director of Parks and Public Property, and Darlene Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, who he said have worked diligently to make the project work.

Mayor Callahan thanked Mr. Shaffer and those who are on the open space committee for all their work on the project.

Leaf Pickup

Dean Bruch, 625 Hawthorne Road, thanked the City for picking up the leaves.

Tractor Trailer Parking – Engines Running

Mr. Bruch asked if there is an Ordinance that prohibits diesel engines from running when trucks are parked. Mr. Bruch informed the Members that tractor trailers are parked in the vicinity of Broad and Wood Streets with their engines running all night.

President Schweder stated that the matter will be checked.

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