Council MInutes

February 15, 2011

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
10 East Church Street – Town Hall
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 – 7:00 PM

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

President Robert J. Donchez called the meeting to order. Reverend Cody Sandahl, of First Presbyterian Church of Bethlehem, offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to the flag. Present were Jean Belinski, David T. DiGiacinto, Karen Dolan, Eric R. Evans, Gordon B. Mowrer, J. William Reynolds, and Robert J. Donchez, 7.

CITATIONS

Honoring Sandra L. DeLeon

President Donchez presented a Citation to Sandra L. DeLeon on the occasion of her retirement after 31 years of service to the City in the Fire Department.

Honoring John W. Hrusovsky

President Donchez presented a Citation to John W. Hrusovsky on the occasion of his retirement after 55 years of service to the City in the Public Works Department.

Honoring Lowell E. Glaser

President Donchez presented a Citation to Lowell Glaser on the occasion of his retirement after 24 years of service to the City in the Public Works Department.

Honoring Rita Sparrow

President Donchez presented a Citation to Rita Sparrow on the occasion of her retirement from the Police Department and her 17 years of service to the community.

The Members of Council applauded the retirees and wished them well in their retirement.

President Donchez stated that the Citations honoring Edward J. Barth, Jody Dutt, Helen M. Fox, Phyllis A. Hummel, and Charles F. Krenos, Jr. on the occasion of their retirements will be sent to them since they were not able to attend this evening’s City Council Meeting.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of January 18, 2011 were approved.

5. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

Bill No. 50 – 2010 – Approving Refunding General Obligation Bonds and Notes
Bill No. 51 – 2010 – Approving Guaranteed Lease Revenue Bonds - $16,000,000

President Donchez announced that Bill No. 50 – 2010, Approving Refunding General Obligation Bonds and Notes, and Bill No. 51 – 2010, Approving Guaranteed Lease Revenue Bonds - $16,000,000, have been withdrawn, and will not be considered this evening.

Bill No. 2 – 2011 – Amending Article 1325.02 – Zoning Hearing Board – Majority Vote

William Fitzpatrick, 732 Center Street, member of the Zoning Hearing Board, said it was distressing for members of the Zoning Hearing Board to learn of the proposal concerning the concurring vote of a majority of the Zoning Hearing Board from the media rather than having had consultation. Mr. Fitzpatrick continued on to say members of the Zoning Hearing Board appreciate that they have had the opportunity to speak to a number of the Members of Council individually. Noting that a vote was taken on the proposal by the Planning Commission and comments were published in the media, Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the members concur with the Planning Commission’s unanimous vote in opposition to supermajority concept in the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Fitzpatrick questioned whether it is the intention of Council to mandate a supermajority on all Authorities, Boards, and Commissions or is it directed only to the Zoning Hearing Board. Expressing that the Zoning Hearing Board has been a point of discussion over recent hearings, Mr. Fitzpatrick noted that in a contested hearing it is quite normal and acceptable that a party that has not prevailed would be unhappy with the outcome. Expressing what does trouble him is when the fairness and integrity of the proceedings are challenged, Mr. Fitzpatrick communicated his assurance that under the guidance of the Chairman, Gus Loupos, nothing but the ultimate in fairness has been the watchword at all of the proceedings. Mr. Fitzpatrick believed it is the common practice of all Authorities, Boards, and Commissions to set their rules for conducting meetings, including rules for a quorum. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked that the same privilege be reserved for the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Fitzpatrick, affirming that an Ordinance has been passed previously increasing the number of members on the Zoning Hearing Board from three to five voting members, stated the Zoning Hearing Board unanimously concurred with that action. Mr. Fitzpatrick added it was an action that had been considered for a number of years under Michael Schweder, the then President of Council, and since that time. Mr. Fitzpatrick highlighted the fact that under the Ordinance three votes would virtually always be cast. If one were to look at the Zoning Hearing Board’s decisions over the last three years, Mr. Fitzpatrick pointed out the Zoning Hearing Board has rendered 91 decisions of which 83 or 91% have been with a three vote majority either in the affirmative or a denial; and, 8 decisions were rendered with a 2 to 1 majority. Mr. Fitzpatrick questioned who is to say that a 2 to 1 majority vote is improper, incorrect, or in some way circumvents the ability of the appellant or the protestants to appeal a decision, to have the case continued, or any other recourse available. Mr. Fitzpatrick urged Council to review the competency and commitment of the individuals presented by the Administration as the Zoning Hearing Board is increased to five members. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated under no circumstances and never has the Board been approached by the Administration on any of the issues. Focusing on increasing the Board membership to five, Mr. Fitzpatrick expressed his concern about the cases whereby through either professional, family, or other conflict of interest issues the quorum may be reduced to as low as three, and rendering one person the ability to kill any particular motion. Mr. Fitzpatrick said it seems fundamentally unfair that the people who sit, listen to testimony, and examine exhibits would not be entitled to render a decision whereby those not in attendance would have a vote cast in the minority. Mr. Fitzpatrick strongly urged City Council to defeat the Bill.

Gus Loupos, Chairman of the Zoning Hearing Board, stated he is at the meeting tonight to speak against the proposal on the majority vote, and to ask City Council to vote against the proposal. Mr. Loupos pointed out that the issue has been discussed by members of the Zoning Hearing Board, all four members are on record as being against the proposal, and the members feel it would have a detrimental affect on decisions they have to make. Highlighting the fact that the Board has always been in favor of a five member Zoning Hearing Board, Mr. Loupos commented that at times the Board has been accused of not being in favor but their approval was related to Darlene Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, months ago. Mr. Loupos expressed what is disheartening is that the majority vote issue was never discussed with the Zoning Hearing Board and came from some outside sources. He added that more interaction on this issue would have been appreciated. Recalling that a former Member of Council had said on occasion that there is trouble with the Zoning Hearing Board, Mr. Loupos said the members never found out what that trouble was. Remarking that the Board members are tired of being used as political footballs, Mr. Loupos stressed that the Board has been demeaned during Courtesy of the Floor at City Council meetings, in the newspaper, and at Zoning Hearing Board meetings. Explaining the role of the Zoning Hearing Board, Mr. Loupos stressed that the members have a difficult job. If someone comes to the Zoning Hearing Board with an appeal referred by the Zoning Officer, or wants direction on something, and the neighbor does not want him to have it, then someone is going to go away angry. Mr. Loupos said people do not understand that there are two ways to look at the problem. The Board uses the law, the Ordinances, and the facts, they ask questions, listen, and let everyone speak their peace. He added that the Board has listened as much as 10-12 hours on one particular issue. Then the members come to a decision. Because the system is a just one, if someone disagrees with the decision they may appeal to either Lehigh or Northampton County courts. Mr. Loupos pointed out that the Board has gone to court at least 10 times and won all the cases. Mr. Loupos stressed he does not think the Board has been wrong or abused their powers, as has been advocated. Mr. Loupos highlighted the fact that the courts have proven the Board right. The second way a decision can be adjudicated is by a motion. Mr. Loupos explained that if an objection is overcome by a motion, someone may condemn and ridicule the decision of the Board that is based on decisions of law and not emotions. Mr. Loupos enumerated some of the Board’s decisions that he said have made many neighborhoods better places to live without having disrupted the neighborhood. He continued on to enumerate some of the larger projects approved by the Zoning Hearing Board, in addition to advancements on the South Side. He added that all of these projects have added tax revenues to the City. Mr. Loupos recognized and commended the Zoning Hearing Board members and the Solicitor who he said are people of honesty, integrity, and are hard working people whose concern is for the betterment of the City and the citizens. Mr. Loupos commented that the Board members have agreed to disagree when making decisions after a decision is made, and they move on as a united board.

Mickey Thompson, 238 W. Goepp Street, Solicitor to the Zoning Hearing Board, stated he is speaking against the proposed Ordinance to have a majority vote of the Zoning Hearing Board. Attorney Thompson explained that, in looking over the cases for the past 11 years, 90% of the cases are not controversial and some cases involve houses that are 100-150 years old. Attorney Thompson expressed that, to have a supermajority look at the cases, and to have one person given the ability to deny the majority vote, would be in contradiction to the majority vote in society. Attorney Thompson, affirming there are presently three members of the Zoning Hearing Board and one alternate, noted the Mayor is currently searching for individuals to fill two seats that were added under the previously adopted Ordinance. Attorney Thompson highlighted the fact that the Board does not know who will be at a meeting as an objector or interested party, and sometimes there are conflicts that require a Board member to excuse themselves from the case. Attorney Thompson stressed, in that case, since under the present system a decision must be rendered within 60 days, there is a chance that some cases may be deemed approvals if there is not a quorum in attendance at the Zoning Hearing Board and he did not think anyone wants that situation. Attorney Thompson assumed that these will not be issues when all five seats are filled. Attorney Thompson, urging Council to take a pragmatic approach, communicated that perhaps a supermajority may be the best thing, but he did not think it is right now. Attorney Thompson suggested that, with development being what it is today, and the need for the growth of the economy, putting any more roadblocks in front of people coming into the City who want to invest their money and time to develop and make the City better would yield a negative outcome.

Resolution 11 D - Certificate of Appropriateness – 128-130 West Fourth Street

Eddie Rodriquez, 1845 Linden Street, regarding 128-130 W. Fourth Street, asked that the area be made safer for people, and advised he sees wood piles on the street, no cones for safety, dirty sidewalks, and nails.

Zoning Hearing Board - Compensation

Dana Grubb, 2420 Henderson Place, noting that the compensation of the Zoning Hearing Board members of $25 has been at that amount for many years, thought it was time to look at a higher amount.

Zoning Hearing Board

Mary Pongracz, 321 W. Fourth Street, stated she has been in front of the Zoning Hearing Board several times and has found them to be caring, following the letter of the law, and willing to give advice needed to complete a project. Ms. Pongracz added they are trying their best, they are limited by law, they make difficult decisions, and are in a bind many times because of buildings that have been grandfathered.

Bill No. 2 – 2011 – Amending Article 1325.02 – Zoning Hearing Board – Majority Vote

Ken Kraft, 1707 Markham Drive, member of the Zoning Hearing Board, stated he is in opposition to the proposed Ordinance for a majority rule. Mr. Kraft commented that the Zoning Hearing Board works fine the way it is.

Bill No. 8 – 2011 – Establishing Article 112 – Campaign Finance Reports

Tony Simao, 1135 E. Third Street, advised he is delivering comments on behalf of Robert Pfenning. Mr. Pfenning and Mr. Simao are in favor of the proposed Ordinance for Campaign Finance Reports. Mr. Simao and Mr. Pfenning think that the signatures that would appear on the website could be manipulated and are asking they not be included on the website.

Bill No. 2 – 2011 – Amending Article 1325.02 – Zoning Hearing Board – Majority Vote

Larry Krauter, 727 W. Market Street, Chairman of the Planning Commission, affirmed that the Planning Commission at its January 13 Meeting voted unanimously against the supermajority proposal. Mr. Krauter explained that the Planning Commission felt it would set a bad precedent for all Boards and Commissions to which trust has been delegated for those members to exercise good judgment and that good self-governance is needed. It was also questioned whether the proposal would affect the willingness of citizens to serve on Boards and Commissions, and there could be negative consequences of this action. It was felt that requiring almost mandatory attendance is inappropriate. Mr. Krauter pointed out that absenteeism needs to be addressed by the Chair, and by the Mayor and Council, if necessary. Mr. Krauter respectfully requested that City Council vote against the Bill.

Bill No. 3 – 2011 – Replacing Article 735 – Emergency Alarm Systems and Fees

Meg Holland, City Controller, affirmed that the first version of the Emergency Alarm Ordinance was presented to the Public Safety Committee and the Finance Committee in November 2010, and the second version consists of the suggested amendments from Mr. DiGiacinto. Ms. Holland advised there are certain sections that she and Sgt. Hoffman do not want changed, and they agree with other certain amendments. Focusing on the annual registration fee, Ms. Holland advised it would generate over $75,000 and defray the costs of the Police Officers related to the matter of alarm systems, help with registration of the data base, including annual renewals, unregistered alarm systems, consulting services to users, and administrative costs. Ms. Holland stated she objects to the change in Section 735.11 (b).

Sgt. Donald Hoffman objected to the change in Section 735.04 (4) regarding the alternate keyholders. He explained the alarm system owners need to have keyholders who are capable of responding, and there would not be an automatic citation if a keyholder could not respond in 30 minutes. However, the Section as presented included the word capable to mean that a keyholder cannot live two hours away and consequently would not be able to respond in 30 minutes. Sgt. Hoffman explained that a keyholder should be able to shut off the security system. Sgt. Hoffman stated that Section 735.99 (b) as presented referred to the fact that other State law penalties may apply, and should remain in the Ordinance to make alarm owners aware of that fact. Turning to Section 735.99 regarding tripling of penalties for those who violate the Ordinance after the license has been suspended, Sgt. Hoffman pointed out it pertains to situations when those individuals still continue to use their alarm systems and ignore the laws, and should remain in the Ordinance. Sgt. Hoffman informed the Members that there are 3,000 alarm systems in the City and last year there were 3,000 false alarms.

Bill No. 2 – 2011 – Amending Article 1325.02 – Zoning Hearing Board – Majority Vote; and
Bill No. 3 – 2011 – Replacing Article 735 – Emergency Alarm Systems and Fees

Bill Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, stated that Robert Pfenning has expressed his support for Mr. DiGiacinto’s amendments to the Emergency Alarm Ordinance, and Mr. Scheirer also supports them. Mr. Scheirer, regarding the proposed Ordinance for a supermajority vote of the Zoning Hearing Board, expressed that he does not agree with the previous speakers, and added the thought that these things should be done on a case by case basis. Mr. Scheirer observed that a problem could come up when two members would have to recuse themselves or are absent. Mr. Scheirer said the concept for the expansion from three to five members of the Zoning Hearing Board is that no two people should have the power to change the character of a neighborhood. Mr. Scheirer stressed that to not require a supermajority is to undermine that concept. Mr. Scheirer noted that appealing a decision of the Zoning Hearing Board comes at considerable expense. Mr. Scheirer affirmed he has been at meetings of the Zoning Hearing Board when only two members were present and applicants were told they would need approval from both members and have the option of coming to another meeting when there are three members. Mr. Scheirer noted this could also be applied when there is a supermajority. Mr. Scheirer urged Council to support the Bill.

Bill No. 3 – 2011 – Replacing Article 735 – Emergency Alarm Systems and Fees

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, related that his son felt that fire and burglar alarms are deterrents to break-ins or quick action on a fire and the citizens who do not have alarms should either pay or install alarm systems. Mr. Antalics highlighted the fact that quick response to a fire reduces the seriousness of a fire and amount of time spent to put out the fire, and a fast response to an emergency alarm provides the opportunity for apprehension of the burglar. Mr. Antalics communicated that responsible citizens who have alarms are the ones who are being penalized.

Bill No. 2 – 2011 – Amending Article 1325.02 – Zoning Hearing Board – Majority Vote; and

Al Bernotas, 1004 Johnston Drive, asked Council to vote in favor of the majority rule. Mr. Bernotas thought the Campaign Finance Report proposal is a good direction. He thought the website should also have additional financial information for the City. Mr. Bernotas thought there is not a lot of neighborhood impact from dimensional variances while some are tantamount to use variances. Mr. Bernotas, stressing he is defending his neighborhood, stated the genesis of the Elias Market case was that the Zoning Officer said this particular situation is in opposition to a law and said no you cannot do it but the Zoning Hearing Board exceeded their discretion and did it. Mr. Bernotas thought the bias of extra revenue to the City is in the back of the minds of the Zoning Hearing Board. Mr. Bernotas did not believe the majority rule will impact residents volunteering their services. He thought the website should be used to invite people to apply for various authorities, boards, and commissions.

Ronald Lutes, 1516 Levering Place, alternate member of the Zoning Hearing Board, said he is against the supermajority proposal. Mr. Lutes pointed out that the Zoning Hearing Board members take their jobs seriously, they listen, deliberate, review the evidence and the laws before they make their decisions. Mr. Lutes stressed that dealing with an old Zoning Ordinance makes it difficult for the members.

6. OLD BUSINESS.

A. Old Business – Members of Council

None.

B. Tabled Items

None.

C. Unfinished Business

1. Establishing Article 1716 – Landmarks and Properties of Historical Interest
(Assigned to Preservation Plan Task Force)

7. COMMUNICATIONS

A. President of Council – Proposed Ordinance – Campaign Finance Reports

The Clerk read a memorandum dated January 27, 2011 from Robert J. Donchez, President of Council, to which was attached a proposed Ordinance requiring that copies of campaign finance reports for candidates running for the offices of City Council, Mayor, City Controller, and City Treasurer be filed with the City Clerk’s Office before or on the due date such candidates must file with the County of Northampton as mandated by State law, and that such reports be posted on the City Website no later than five working days after the due date. The proposal is to list contributions and expenditures, and will not set any limits on contributions as had been discussed in 2008.

President Donchez stated that Bill No. 8 – 2011 is listed on the Agenda.

B. Housing and Community Development Planner – Fair Housing Officer Resolution

The Clerk read a memorandum dated January 26, 2011 from Irene Woodward, Housing and Community Development Planner, to which was attached a resolution designating Jennifer Swett as the Fair Housing Officer for the City of Bethlehem who will provide fair housing advisory services and assistance and referral advice to persons requesting such assistance from the City of Bethlehem.

President Donchez stated that the Resolution will be placed on the March 1, 2011 Council Agenda.

C. Bethlehem Authority Executive Director and Water and Sewer Resources Director – Water Service
– East Allen Township

The Clerk read a letter dated February 9, 2011 from Stephen Repasch, Executive Director of the Bethlehem Authority, and David Brong, Director of Water and Sewer Resources, requesting consideration for the City to provide water service to East Allen Township, including the transfer of all assets currently owned by the East Allen Township Municipal Authority to the Bethlehem Authority for operation by the City. Discussions between East Allen Township, East Allen Township Municipal Authority, and the Bethlehem Authority have led to approval of a Term Sheet which was attached.

President Donchez referred the matter to the Finance and Public Works Committees.

D. City Solicitor – Use Permit Agreement – American Association of University Women, Bethlehem
Branch – 2011 Book Fair

The Clerk read a memorandum dated February 9, 2011 from John F. Spirk, Jr., Esq., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed Resolution and Use Permit Agreement for Public Property between the American Association of University Women, Bethlehem Branch, and the City of Bethlehem for use of the Memorial Pool Building for the 2011 Book Fair.

President Donchez stated that the Resolution will be placed on the March 1, 2011 Council Agenda.

E. City Solicitor – Use Permit Agreement – Star of Bethlehem Festival – Riverside Wine Festival

The Clerk read a memorandum dated February 9, 2011 from John F. Spirk, Jr., Esq., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed Resolution and Use Permit Agreement for Public Property between the Star of Bethlehem Festival and the City of Bethlehem for use of various City properties for the Riverside Wine Festival.

President Donchez stated that the Resolution will be placed on the March 1, 2011 Council Agenda.

F. City Solicitor – Use Permit Agreement – Celtic Cultural Alliance – St. Patrick’s Day Concert

The Clerk read a memorandum dated February 9, 2011 from John F. Spirk, Jr., Esq., City Solicitor, to which was attached a proposed Resolution and Use Permit Agreement for Public Property between the Celtic Cultural Alliance and the City of Bethlehem for use of various City properties for a St. Patrick’s Day Concert.

President Donchez stated that the Resolution will be placed on the March 1, 2011 Council Agenda.

G. Parks and Public Property Director – PPL Right of Way Request – Applebutter Road

The Clerk read a memorandum dated February 9, 2011 from Ralph Carp, Director of Parks and Public Property, requesting consideration of a Resolution granting a right-of-way to PPL in the vicinity of Applebutter Road.

President Donchez stated that the Resolution will be placed on the March 1, 2011 Council Agenda.

H. Bethlehem Authority Executive Director – Wind Energy Project

The Clerk read a letter dated February 9, 2011 from Stephen Repasch, Executive Director of the Bethlehem Authority, to which was attached a Project Presentation for a wind energy project. After discussing the idea of developing this project in its watershed properties for over two years, the Bethlehem Authority has chosen Call Mountain Wind, LLC, to negotiate a license agreement with to build and operate a wind energy project.

President Donchez referred the matter to the Finance and Public Works Committees.

8. Reports.

A. President of Council

None.

B. Mayor

1. Administrative Order – Tomacene Nickens – Civil Service Board - Police

Mayor Callahan reappointed Tomacene Nickens to membership on the Civil Service Board - Police effective until February 2015. Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Reynolds sponsored Resolution 2011-23 to confirm the appointment.

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

2. Administrative Order – Dino P. Cantelmi – Bethlehem Parking Authority

Mayor Callahan reappointed Dino P. Cantelmi to membership on the Bethlehem Parking Authority effective until January 2016. Mr. Evans and Mr. Reynolds sponsored Resolution 2011-24 to confirm the appointment.

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

3. Administrative Order – William Kounoupis – Bethlehem Parking Authority

Mayor Callahan reappointed William Kounoupis to membership on the Bethlehem Parking Authority effective until January 2013. Mr. Evans and Mr. Reynolds sponsored Resolution 2011-25 to confirm the appointment.

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

New Zoning Ordinance – Update

Mayor Callahan informed the assembly that a public meeting on the new Zoning Ordinance update is anticipated in March, followed by review by the Planning Commission in April, and review by City Council in May.

Zoning Hearing Board – Membership and Proposal for Supermajority Vote

Mayor Callahan affirmed that increasing the membership of the Zoning Hearing Board from three to five members was supported by the Administration for several years, and was advanced by the Administration years ago, but was put on hold with the anticipation of the completion of the new Zoning Ordinance. Mayor Callahan notified the Members that the Administration is not in favor of the supermajority proposal.

C. Finance Committee

Chairman Reynolds presented an oral report of the Finance Committee meeting on January 31, 2011 at 7:00 PM in Town Hall. The Committee recommended that Council adopt Ordinances for the following: Amending General Fund Budget – Compliance Officer Salary and Health Bureau Adjustments; Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – Skate Park Grant and Year End Adjustments; Amending CDBG Budget – Year End Adjustments; Amending Article 121 – Bond Issues, General Obligation Notes, and Lines of Credit. The Committee approved of the following: Fire Department – Temporary Increase – Firefighters. The Committee tabled a proposal regarding Salary and Step Increases – 2011. The Committee reviewed the following Bills that were read on First Reading at the December 21, 2010 City Council Meeting: Refunding GO Bonds and Notes (Bill No. 50 – 2010); and Guaranteed Lease Revenue Bonds (Bill No. 51 – 2010 - Sales/Lease Back Ordinance) – Pension Funding.

9. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL PASSAGE

A. Bill No. 1 – 2011 – PMRS Ordinance – Early Retirement

The Clerk read Bill No. 1 – 2011 – PMRS Ordinance – Early Retirement, on Final Reading.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Bill No. 1 - 2011, hereafter to be known as Ordinance 2011-1 was declared adopted.

10. NEW ORDINANCES

A. Bill No. 2 – 2011 – Amending Article 1325.02 – Zoning Hearing Board – Majority Vote

The Clerk read Bill No. 2 – 2011 – Amending Article 1325.02 – Zoning Hearing Board – Majority Vote, sponsored by Ms. Dolan and Mr. Mowrer, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
ARTICLE 1325, TITLED ZONING HEARING BOARD, SECTION
1325.02, MEMBERSHIP, TERMS OF OFFICE, COMPENSATION

Ms. Dolan explained that the expansion of the Zoning Hearing Board from three to five members was not advanced in connection with any trouble on the Board, or any disagreement but was prompted by a citizen suggestion. Ms. Dolan stated that the supermajority rule makes sense, and sometimes decisions are too important to be made by a small percentage of a membership. Ms. Dolan thought it may be something to consider for all the authorities, boards, and commissions. Ms. Dolan estimated that 6/10ths of the Zoning Hearing Board cases per year would face a three member or supermajority. Ms. Dolan, communicating that is why the rule is needed, stressed that a vote on one perhaps very important decision deserves better than two members out of five. Ms. Dolan encouraged the Members of Council to support the Bill, and added the proposal is not meant in any way to be disparaging, and the importance of what the Zoning Hearing Board does is recognized. Ms. Dolan apologized that the Zoning Hearing Board had not been consulted and advised it was an oversight. Ms. Dolan stated the proposal is a very good change.

Mr. Evans asked when there will be five members on the Zoning Hearing Board. President Donchez affirmed it would be up to the Mayor to bring the membership up to the full complement of five. Mayor Callahan advised he is in the process of meeting with prospective candidates and expressed the hope that in the near future he will forward the names of two members for approval.

Mr. Evans expressed that, while he sees the strength of the proposal and what it can do, he also sees it does not have the support of the Zoning Hearing Board, the Planning Commission and the Administration. Ms. Evans observed the proposal is not consistent with other boards. Mr. Evans thought the five member Zoning Hearing Board should play out and would provide what is being sought. Mr. Evans, stressing it is not an issue of trust, pointed out that the important decisions made by the Zoning Hearing Board is recognized. Mr. Evans continued on to state that having five members involved in discussion, debate, and voting is better than three. Mr. Evans thought the five member Zoning Hearing Board should be allowed to go to work, and the proposal can be reevaluated at some future time.

President Donchez explained that, as a former alternate member of the Zoning Hearing Board, it was sometimes frustrating that alternates did not have the opportunity to cast a vote. President Donchez stated he will not support the supermajority because there is an inconsistency in that it would need to be done for the Planning Commission, and the other authorities and boards. President Donchez thought the five member Zoning Hearing Board should start in order to see how it works, and that a five member Board is the right way to go. President Donchez noted that the seven member Council needs four votes to pass an Ordinance and a supermajority of five is needed to override a veto of the Mayor or to make an addition to the Mayor’s proposed Budget. President Donchez thought it would be too restrictive with a supermajority vote of the Zoning Hearing Board.

Voting AYE: Ms. Dolan, 1. Voting NAY: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 6. Bill No. 2 – 2011 failed on First Reading.

B. Bill No. 3 – 2011 – Replacing Article 735 – Emergency Alarm Systems and Fees

The Clerk read Bill No. 3 – 2011 – Replacing Article 735 – Emergency Alarm Systems and Fees, sponsored by Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Evans, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
ARTICLE 735 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES
ENTITLED EMERGENCY ALARM SYSTEM.

Amendments to Bill No. 3 – 2011

Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Evans sponsored the following Amendments:

SECTION 1. That Sections 735.04 (1) and (4) which read as follows:

735.04 ALARM SYSTEM USE

In order to assure proper response to an Alarm Site and to minimize False Alarms, an Alarm User shall:

(1) Notify the Alarm Administrator with any changes to the information contained on
the Alarm Registration form including emergency contact information and Responder information within [three (3)] business days of the change;

(4) [ Have at least two (2) Responders available and capable of responding
within thirty (30) minutes to the Alarm System's location when requested by the Police Department in order to: deactivate an Alarm System; provide access to the Alarm Site; and/or provide alternative security for the Alarm Site ]

shall be amended to read as follows:

735.04 ALARM SYSTEM USE

(1) Notify the Alarm Administrator with any changes to the information
contained on the Alarm Registration form including emergency contact information and Responder information within seven (7) business days of the change;

(4) The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least two (2) persons who
are authorized to respond to an emergency and gain access to the address where the device is installed.

SECTION 2. That Section 735.05 A. (1) which reads as follows:

735.05 ALARM INSTALLATION AND MONITORING

A. The Alarm Company performing Installation shall also:

(1) Apply for and obtain a valid Alarm Registration from the Alarm Administrator [(3) three days ] prior to the installation;

shall be amended to read as follows:

735.05 ALARM INSTALLATION AND MONITORING

A. The Alarm Company performing Installation shall also:

(1) Apply for and obtain a valid Alarm Registration from the Alarm Administrator seven (7) business days prior to the installation;

SECTION 3. That Section 735.09 B. which reads as follows:

735.09 APPEAL FROM DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF AN ALARM
REGISTRATION

B. The Alarm User, or the Alarm Business on behalf of the Alarm User, may appeal the decision of the Alarm Administrator to the Commissioner of Police by filing a written request for a review setting forth the reasons for the appeal within [ twenty (20) ] days after receipt of notice. If a request for appeal is not made within [ twenty (20) days ], the action is final;

shall be amended to read as follows:

735.09 APPEAL FROM DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF AN ALARM
REGISTRATION

B. The Alarm User, or the Alarm Business on behalf of the Alarm User, may appeal the decision of the Alarm Administrator to the Commissioner of Police by filing a written request for a review setting forth the reasons for the appeal within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice. If a request for appeal is not made within thirty (30) days, the action is final;

SECTION 4. That Sections 735.11 A, B, and E which read as follows:

735.11 FEES

A. The fee for an Alarm Registration is Twenty-five ($25.00) Dollars for a residential alarm and Fifty ($50.00) Dollars for a business alarm. No refund of a registration will be made. The initial Alarm Registration fee must be submitted to the Alarm Administrator not less than [ seven (7) ] days before the Alarm System installation or at the time of an Alarm System Takeover. New Alarm registrations fees after March 31 will be prorated.

B. [ The fee to renew an Alarm Registration is Fifteen ($15.00) Dollars for a residential alarm and Thirty-five (35.00) Dollars for a business alarm. This fee along with a ] registration update form must be submitted no later than December 31 so that the registration may continue for the following year. Alarm Registrations not being renewed by January 2nd shall be subject to suspension and/or revocation. Renewal Alarm Registrations will be subject to a late fee of $25.00 if not renewed and paid before February 1 of each succeeding year.

[ E. Fees will be reviewed by the city administration and adjusted accordingly as needed. ]

shall be amended to read as follows:

735.11 FEES

A. The fee for an Alarm Registration is Twenty-five ($25.00) Dollars for a residential alarm and Fifty ($50.00) Dollars for a business alarm. No refund of a registration will be made. The initial Alarm Registration fee must be submitted to the Alarm Administrator not less than fifteen (15) days before the Alarm System installation or at the time of an Alarm System Takeover. New Alarm registrations fees after March 31 will be prorated.

B. A registration update form must be submitted no later than December 31 so that the registration may continue for the following year. Alarm Registrations not being renewed by January 2nd shall be subject to suspension and/or revocation. Renewal Alarm Registrations will be subject to a late fee of $25.00 if not renewed and paid before February 1 of each succeeding year.

SECTION 5. That Section 735.99 which reads as follows:

735.99 PENALTIES

A. Any Person who violates any provision of this Article shall be subject to the following penalties:

(1) First violation – A fine of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars [ , or thirty days imprisonment, or both ] ;

(2) Second violation - A fine of [ Three Hundred ($300.00) ] Dollars [ , or sixty days imprisonment, or both ] ;

(3) Third and each subsequent violation - A fine of [ Six Hundred ($600.00) ]
Dollars [ , or ninety days imprisonment, or both ] .

[ B. Other Commonwealth of Pennsylvania state fines and penalties may also apply.

C. If the Department responds to a False Alarm at an Alarm Site where the Registration has been revoked the penalties shall be tripled. ]

shall be amended to read as follows:

A. Any Person who violates any provision of this Article shall be subject to the following penalties:

(1) First violation – A fine of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars;

(2) Second violation - A fine of Two Hundred ($200.00);

(3) Third and each subsequent violation - A fine of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars.

Mr. DiGiacinto summarized the explanation of the amendments. Mr. DiGiacinto advised he wanted people to have more time to respond. Mr. DiGiacinto thought that the concept of being capable to respond in 30 minutes might be a difficult timeframe within which to have a person respond.

Mrs. Belinski expressed her agreement with Mr. DiGiacinto that it is not enough time to respond as written in the proposed Ordinance.

In response to Ms. Dolan, Attorney Spadoni affirmed that a motion can be made to split the Amendment into separate Amendments if so desired.

Ms. Dolan moved to split the Amendments in to separate Amendments. Mr. Evans seconded the motion.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, and Mr. Reynolds, 6. Voting NAY: Mr. Donchez, 1. The motion passed.

President Donchez asked the Clerk to call the roll on each Amendment individually.

Amendment 1 A

That Section 735.04 (1) which reads as follows:

735.04 ALARM SYSTEM USE

In order to assure proper response to an Alarm Site and to minimize False Alarms, an Alarm User shall:

shall be amended to read as follows:

735.04 ALARM SYSTEM USE

(1) Notify the Alarm Administrator with any changes to the information
contained on the Alarm Registration form including emergency contact information and Responder information within seven (7) business days of the change;

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 1 A passed.

Amendment 1 B

That Section 735.04 (4) which reads as follows:

735.04 ALARM SYSTEM USE

(4) [ Have at least two (2) Responders available and capable of responding within thirty (30) minutes to the Alarm System's location when requested by the Police Department in order to: deactivate an Alarm System; provide access to the Alarm Site; and/or provide alternative security for the Alarm Site ]

shall be amended to read as follows:

(4) The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least two (2) persons who are authorized to respond to an emergency and gain access to the address where the device is installed.

Mr. DiGiacinto confirmed to Mr. Evans that what came out of Committee was what was originally written including capable of 30 minutes response.

Attorney Spadoni noted he met with Mr. DiGiacinto in December 2010 and that is the origination of the various amendments that are Mr. DiGiacinto’s amendments as a result of the meeting with Attorney Spadoni.

Mr. Evans observed that the existing law asks for two people to be able to respond and gain access. Mr. Evans expressed his agreement with Mr. DiGiacinto about the 30 minutes timeframe about which he also has a concern, and he thought the word capable takes out the teeth. Mr. Evans stated he would like to have language added so that responders should be able to deactivate the alarm.

Amendment 1 B – Additional Amendment

Mr. Evans moved that Section 735.04, Alarm System Use, (4) be amended to add the language “and deactivate the alarm system” to read as follows: The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least two (2) persons who are authorized to respond to an emergency and gain access to the address and deactivate the alarm system where the device is installed. Mr. DiGiacinto seconded the motion.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 6. Voting NAY: Ms. Dolan, 1. Amendment 1 B and the Additional Amendment passed.

Amendment 2

That Section 735.05 A. (1) which reads as follows:

735.05 ALARM INSTALLATION AND MONITORING

A. The Alarm Company performing Installation shall also:

(2) Apply for and obtain a valid Alarm Registration from the Alarm
Administrator [(3) three days ] prior to the installation;

shall be amended to read as follows:

735.05 ALARM INSTALLATION AND MONITORING

A. The Alarm Company performing Installation shall also:

(1) Apply for and obtain a valid Alarm Registration from the Alarm Administrator seven (7) business days prior to the installation;

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 2 passed.

Amendment 3

SECTION 3. That Section 735.09 B. which reads as follows:

735.09 APPEAL FROM DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF AN ALARM
REGISTRATION

shall be amended to read as follows:

735.09 APPEAL FROM DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF AN ALARM
REGISTRATION

B. The Alarm User, or the Alarm Business on behalf of the Alarm User, may appeal the decision of the Alarm Administrator to the Commissioner of Police by filing a written request for a review setting forth the reasons for the appeal within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice. If a request for appeal is not made within thirty (30) days, the action is final;

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 3 passed.

Amendment 4

That Sections 735.11 A, B, and E which read as follows:

735.11 FEES

[ E. Fees will be reviewed by the city administration and adjusted accordingly as needed. ]

shall be amended to read as follows:

735.11 FEES

A. The fee for an Alarm Registration is Twenty-five ($25.00) Dollars for a residential alarm and Fifty ($50.00) Dollars for a business alarm. No refund of a registration will be made. The initial Alarm Registration fee must be submitted to the Alarm Administrator not less than fifteen (15) days before the Alarm System installation or at the time of an Alarm System Takeover. New Alarm registrations fees after March 31 will be prorated.

Mr. DiGiacinto confirmed that he feels there should be an initial registration fee. Mr. DiGiacinto thought a specific subset of the population is being addressed that are homeowners and business owners who are paying for an alarm system, installation, and maintenance in order to protect their property for which they should be commended and not necessarily have to pay annual fees on top of what they do to maintain their alarm. Mr. DiGiacinto believed the registration could be renewed annually and if people fail to renew annually there is a penalty.

Mr. Evans commented there has been a concern about how outdated the Ordinance has become and how outdated the alarm information is. He continued on to point out the City is trying to keep the information updated and maintained, and provide protection for people using the alarms. Mr. Evans, observing there is a cost to the City, thought the fees are fair and justified.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 5. Voting NAY: Ms. Dolan and Mr. Evans, 2. Amendment 4 passed.

Amendment 5

That Section 735.99 which reads as follows:

735.99 PENALTIES

A. Any Person who violates any provision of this Article shall be subject to the following penalties:

(4) First violation – A fine of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars [ , or thirty days imprisonment, or both ] ;

(5) Second violation - A fine of [ Three Hundred ($300.00) ] Dollars [ , or sixty days imprisonment, or both ] ;

(6) Third and each subsequent violation - A fine of [ Six Hundred ($600.00) ]
Dollars [ , or ninety days imprisonment, or both ] .

[ B. Other Commonwealth of Pennsylvania state fines and penalties may also apply.

C. If the Department responds to a False Alarm at an Alarm Site where the Registration has been revoked the penalties shall be tripled. ]

shall be amended to read as follows:

A. Any Person who violates any provision of this Article shall be subject to the following penalties:

(1) First violation – A fine of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars;

(2) Second violation - A fine of Two Hundred ($200.00);

(3) Third and each subsequent violation - A fine of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars.

Mr. DiGiacinto commented that the Amendment brings the fines more in line and more reasonable by lowering the second and third violations. Mr. DiGiacinto communicated that if there are State laws then he is not sure why paragraph B has to be in the Ordinance.

Attorney Spadoni noted that the City’s law cannot affect what the Commonwealth law states or does not state. Attorney Spadoni, in response to Ms. Dolan, advised it does not hurt to have the paragraph remain or to take it out as the Commonwealth law speaks for itself. Ms. Dolan asked for some clarity on the matter before Final Reading, noting the Police Department thought it was important to have the phrase in the Ordinance. President Donchez asked that Attorney Spadoni review the matter prior to Final Reading.

Ms. Dolan expressed her concern about lowering revenue, after the Budget has been set.

Mr. DiGiacinto stated that he hopes the City is not budgeting violations, and allowing for the registration fee to come into effect for this year would affect the Budget if it were put into the 2011 Budget.

President Donchez noted that a response could be provided prior to Final Reading.

Mayor Callahan affirmed that the violations were not budgeted, but it was known that the renewal fee, that was eliminated under the Amendment, would generate $75,000 based on the number of alarm systems. Mayor Callahan continued on to say there are a certain number of violations per year which can be a budget number prediction.

Mr. DiGiacinto expressed the hope that something that was not passed was not budgeted. Mayor Callahan pointed out that the Administration brought the proposal before City Council as part of the Budget package and it carried over beyond that, and it was part of the package along with all the other fee increases. Mr. DiGiacinto observed the City will be covered for 2011 because it will collect the alarm registration fees, and affirmed that the renewal fees of $15 for a residential alarm and $35 for a business alarm was taken out by the Amendment.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 6. Voting NAY: Ms. Dolan, 1. Amendment 5 passed.

Mayor Callahan affirmed that, as the Ordinance was amended, there would be no fees for those approximately 3,000 people who already have alarm systems and the $75,000 would not come this year.

Amendment 6

That Section 735.11 Fees, Paragraph C, which reads as follows:

735.11 FEES

C. In the event of a third or fourth False Alarm activation at an Alarm Site, within any calendar period, beginning January 1st, the Alarm User shall be charged a fee for service from the City. This fee shall be Seventy-five ($75.00) Dollars for each of those false alarm activations during that calendar period. The fifth and subsequent False Alarm or inadvertent activations, within this same [ semi-annual ] period will necessitate a Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollar fee for service for each occurrence of a False Alarm activation during said period;

Shall be amended to read as follows:

C. In the event of a third or fourth False Alarm activation at an Alarm Site, within any calendar period, beginning January 1st, the Alarm User shall be charged a fee for service from the City. This fee shall be Seventy-five ($75.00) Dollars for each of those false alarm activations during that calendar period. The fifth and subsequent False Alarm or inadvertent activations, within this same calendar period will necessitate a Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollar fee for service for each occurrence of a False Alarm activation during said period;

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Amendment 6 passed.

Voting AYE on Bill No. 3, as Amended: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Bill No. 3 – 2011, as Amended, was declared passed on First Reading.

C. Bill No. 4 – 2011 – Amending General Fund Budget – Compliance Officer Salary and Health
Bureau Adjustments

The Clerk read Bill No. 4 – 2011 – Amending General Fund Budget – Compliance Officer Salary and Health Bureau Adjustments, sponsored by Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Reynolds, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR 2011.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, and Mr. Donchez, 6. Bill No. 4 – 2011 was declared passed on First Reading.

D. Bill No. 5 – 2011 – Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – Skate Park Grant and Year End
Adjustments

The Clerk read Bill No. 5 – 2011 – Amending Non-Utility Capital Budget – Skate Park Grant and Year End Adjustments, sponsored by Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Reynolds, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE 2011 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR NON-UTILITIES.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, and Mr. Donchez, 6. Bill No. 5 – 2011 was declared passed on First Reading.

E. Bill No. 6 – 2011 – Amending Community Development Budget – Year End Adjustments

The Clerk read Bill No. 6 – 2011 – Amending Community Development Budget – Year End Adjustments, sponsored by Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Reynolds, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
COUNTIES OF LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUDGET FOR 2011.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Bill No. 6 – 2011 was declared passed on First Reading.

F. Bill No. 7 – 2011 – Amending Article 121 – Bond Issues, General Obligation Notes, and Lines of
Credit

The Clerk read Bill No. 7 – 2011 – Amending Article 121 – Bond Issues, General Obligation Notes, and Lines of Credit, sponsored by Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Evans, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 121 OF THE
CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM,
PENNSYLVANIA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED FINANCE,
BY ADDING NEW SECTION 121.12, BOND ISSUES,
GENERAL OBLIGATION NOTES, AND LINES OF CREDIT

President Donchez asked about the recommendation of Christopher Spadoni, City Council Solicitor, contained in his February 11, 2011 letter pertaining to penalties that was discussed at the January 31, 2011 Finance Committee meeting.

Attorney Spadoni, recognizing the comments of President Donchez and Chairman Reynolds, explained that with respect to the Ordinance having “teeth”, the goal of this and previous lock box type Ordinances is to demand compliance with the Ordinance to ensure that the revenues and expenditures are dealt with appropriately. Attorney Spadoni noted he reviewed several other Ordinances and the previous Ordinances advanced by former Council Member Joseph Leeson. Attorney Spadoni, highlighting the fact that those Ordinances do not have any penalty provisions, pointed out that a monetary fine or imprisonment or other “teeth” would not ensure the integrity of the Ordinance being followed. Attorney Spadoni affirmed the way that is handled as set forth in his letter of February 11 is by mandamus action via a court where a judge would be issue and client sensitive to meet the terms of the Ordinance. Attorney Spadoni stated he is recommending strongly that Council be consistent with its lock box Ordinances and enact Bill No. 7 – 2011 as drafted without change.

President Donchez inquired if what Attorney Spadoni is saying is if there were to be a violation that City Council through Attorney Spadoni could initiate a writ of mandamus.

Attorney Spadoni said yes, and noted he would also state that one of the people he talked to about the matter was John Morganelli, Northampton County District Attorney, who was formerly the City Council Solicitor. Recalling that Mr. Morganelli had sued the Governor of Pennsylvania to sign death warrants, Attorney Spadoni advised he had a discussion with Mr. Morganelli as to how that public official was charged to do his duty. Commenting it is the same type of analysis, Attorney Spadoni explained if there were a Member of Council, or the Administration, or an employee of the City that did not do what the Ordinance said and it was egregious enough for Council to act, the appropriate action could be filed to either compel them to do it or not do it depending on what the remedy would be.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Bill No. 7 – 2011 was declared passed on First Reading.

G. Bill No. 8 – 2011 – Establishing Article 112 – Campaign Finance Reports

The Clerk read Bill No. 8 – 2011 – Establishing Article 112 – Campaign Finance Reports, sponsored by Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Mowrer, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE ADDING NEW ARTICLE 112, CAMPAIGN FINANCE
REPORTS, TO THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA BY REQUIRING THAT COPIES OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS FOR CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR THE OFFICES OF CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, CITY TREASURER, AND CITY CONTROLLER BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE BEFORE OR ON THE DUE DATE SUCH CANDIDATES MUST FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON AS MANDATED BY STATE LAW, AND THAT SUCH REPORTS BE POSTED ON THE CITY WEBSITE NO LATER THAN FIVE WORKING DAYS AFTER THE DUE DATE.

President Donchez affirmed that he asked Attorney Spadoni to review the Ordinance regarding the question that had been raised by Robert Pfenning at the previous City Council Meeting concerning signatures being posted on line.

Attorney Spadoni explained that Campaign Finance Reports are public documents and there is no sensitivity to their being published, or there being redactions.

Mr. Evans, referring to Attorney Spadoni’s February 6, 2011 letter, asked if Campaign Finance Reports are or will be posted on Northampton County’s website.

Attorney Spadoni noted he spoke with John Conklin, Northampton County Director of Administration, and Dee Rumsey, Northampton County Chief Registrar, and they thought it was a good idea for Campaign Finance Reports to be posted on Northampton County’s website and it will be added starting this year in the municipal election. Attorney Spadoni credited President Donchez for bringing this matter to the County’s attention.

President Donchez affirmed that Lehigh County does post Campaign Finance Reports on line, and the City of Allentown previously passed an Ordinance for posting Campaign Finance Reports on Allentown’s website. President Donchez agreed that people are more likely to go to a City’s web page than a County’s web page looking for information.

Mr. Reynolds noted it was a few years ago when he, President Donchez, and another Member of Council had talked about campaign finance reports at the City level. Mr. Reynolds stated this was one thing with which they agreed. Mr. Reynolds commented that the transparency will make it easier for City of Bethlehem residents. Mr. Reynolds said he will support the Bill.

Ms. Dolan affirmed she had worked previously with former Council Member Schweder on trying to move towards campaign finance reform, but there was not agreement on fund-raising limits. Ms. Dolan advised they strongly agreed with language similar to what is in the Bill. In that process, Ms. Dolan noted she did research and pointed out that Common Cause discovered that this is the most simple and effective type of reform that makes it easy for the public to see who is giving. Ms. Dolan expressed her support for the Bill and said she is glad President Donchez is bringing it forward.

President Donchez explained that he discussed the proposal with the City Clerk’s Office, and the proposal is an extension of what is already submitted to the City Clerk’s Office. President Donchez advised he is a strong believer in transparency and added the public has a right to know who the candidates get their contributions from and how it is spent. President Donchez affirmed that the report will be posted on the City’s web page for public review.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. Bill No. 8 – 2011 was declared passed on First Reading.

11. RESOLUTIONS

A. Approving Records Destruction – Controller’s Office

Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Reynolds sponsored Resolution 2011-26 that authorized the disposition of the public records from the Controller’s Office as listed in Exhibit A, according to schedules and procedures for the disposition of records as set forth in the Municipal Records Manual approved on December 16, 2008 and Resolution 2010-6.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolution passed.

B. Approving Records Destruction – Financial Services Bureau

Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Reynolds sponsored Resolution 2011-27 that authorized the disposition of the public records from the Financial Services Bureau as listed in Exhibit A, according to schedules and procedures for the disposition of records as set forth in the Municipal Records Manual approved on December 16, 2008 and Resolution 2010-6.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolution passed.

C. Certificate of Appropriateness – 201 Broadway

Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Evans sponsored Resolution 2011-28 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove and replace the sign panels on the convenience store at 201 Broadway.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolution passed.

D. Certificate of Appropriateness – 128-130 West Fourth Street

Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Evans sponsored Resolution 2011-29 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to revise the previously approved façade design for renovations at 128-130 West Fourth Street.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Evans, Mr. Mowrer, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Donchez, 7. The Resolution passed.

12. NEW BUSINESS.

None.

13. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR

Snow Plowing Operations and Parking

Angel Hernandez, 210 Eighth Avenue, noted when the streets are plowed a lot of snow is plowed to the side of the streets preventing people from parking on that side of the street. Mr. Hernandez pointed out that some residents have multiple cars and sometimes block the sidewalk, or double park in their driveways due to the plowing which is an inconvenience to pedestrians. Mr. Hernandez explained he is bringing this situation to Council’s attention so that perhaps there could be a way to address the problem when it snows a lot so that people are allowed to park at the sidewalk and driveway until they can park at the side of the street again. Mr. Hernandez commented that several people have been ticketed. Mr. Hernandez expressed the hope that some consideration could be given to the situation.

Snow Plowing and Leaf Removal Operations; and Handicapped Ramps

Nancy Matuczinski, 716 Sixth Avenue, expressed that no one has compared to Anthony Sacarakis, former City Council Member, in cleaning of streets for leaf collection and snow removal. Ms. Matuczinski explained that the crews started as soon as the leaves fell and continued until they were all collected, and as soon as there was a snow fall all the streets were cleared curb to curb down to the macadam as well as the secondary streets, and alleys were cleared, and they worked around the clock. Ms. Matuczinski graded the snow removal this season as deplorable, and asked if Mr. Sacarakis could do it why can it not be done today. Ms. Matuczinski stressed that the slope of the handicapped corners is very dangerous and they cannot be used when there is snow, ice, and heavy rains. Ms. Matuczinski asked when the City will put the curbs back to they way they were.

Bond Rating; Skate Park

Chuck Nyul, 1966 Pinehurst Road, referred to a Morning Call newspaper article of February 11 on the City’s bond rating, and said the Members of Council brought this on, and the City will get a bad interest rate when bonds are issued because they do not know how to handle money and they are the ones who vote yes or no. Mr. Nyul said what is needed is a balance sheet from the Controller every month. He asserted that if the Mayor does something wrong Council will not do anything about it. Turning to the Skate Park, Mr. Nyul pointed out that he sees skate boarders skating on Main Street.

Various Issues

Eddie Rodriquez, 1845 Linden Street, commenting that whoever is to blame for what is going on in the City has to do with both sides, communicated that something went wrong and the City needs to move on. Mr. Rodriquez noted that curbside trees are being cut down, the traffic lights at W. Fourth Street at Wyandotte Street are not working correctly, and are blinking red and yellow. Mr. Rodriquez asked if cameras can be moved to where they are needed that in this case is a drug-infested area.

Elias Market - Zoning Appeal

Guishu Fang, 1318 Marchant Drive, noted she has been before Council many times to talk about the issue of the Elias Market. Ms. Fang, stating that the Zoning Hearing Board does a good job, but expressed they did not do a good job in the case of Elias Market and refused to enforce the Zoning law and allowed Elias Market to go above the law. Ms. Fang stressed that the situation is ruining her quality of life, she has to live under these conditions, and the diesel emissions are poisoning her and her neighbors. Ms. Fang recounted details surrounding the case, noting they went from 3,000 sq. ft. to more than 8,000 sq. ft. that is too big, and the setback is only 40 ft. to her fence and next to her bedroom, the warehouse is very close to her home, utilities are on the roof and above 24 feet tall, and they want to build three loading docks. Ms. Fang asserted that the Zoning Hearing Board is standing on behalf of Elias Market and not her. Ms. Fang explained she wants to talk to the people who are here to protect the residents of Bethlehem and to have the decision repealed because it is a quality of life issue.

Snow Plowing Operations; Furniture in Street

Vince Paden, 521 Ninth Avenue, referring to a Morning Call February 9 newspaper article, remarked that people probably know that placing furniture in the streets and recycling containers to save a parking space is against the City’s law. However, Mr. Paden remarked that with one incident and one complaint all of a sudden the City could muster its resources to collect the furniture from the streets. Mr. Paden questioned why the City did not do the right thing and have the snow removed from the streets and alleys on the West Side. Mr. Paden explained that every time it snows he has to call City Hall and explain where the alley called Jones Street is located. He explained that he had to ask someone to plow it so his wife could get to work. Mr. Paden further informed City officials that Raritan Valley Sanitation cannot pick up the garbage in the alley due to the snow.

Snow Plowing Operations; Other Issues

Dana Grubb, 2420 Henderson Place, highlighted the fact that the City did not call a snow emergency, and on snow emergency routes the snow should be plowed from curb to curb. Mr. Grubb continued on to say that site triangles are obstructed by the high snow banks, and the City used to shovel the sidewalks on the bridge. Pointing out that driveways are plowed shut as a result of the snow plowing procedures, Mr. Grubb questioned why the City cannot alternate the sides of the streets being plowed so that this does not happen. Mr. Grubb asked who is going to pay for the retreat at Starter’s Pub this Friday for the Administration, and why were those resources not put into snow removal. Mr. Grubb said the City is paying someone acting rank for a position that no longer exists. Mr. Grubb further questioned how a technical specialist in Housing Rehabilitation can be paid without a line item in the Budget. Mr. Grubb remarked it is time to turn the City right side up.

Snow Plowing Operations; Elias Market - Zoning Appeal

Bill Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, said he is parked two feet from the curb because of the ice and snow on New Street. He expressed he is sympathetic to the comments about West Bethlehem. Mr. Scheirer, acknowledging that blocking the sidewalk is a hardship, questioned where are those people going to park. Turning to withdrawal of support by Council on the Elias Market appeal, Mr. Scheirer said that would be inconsistent with the Resolution because it did not say to the Court of Common Pleas and no more, and also with the thought behind the Resolution which is that the neighbors are right. Mr. Scheirer stated that neighbors have not prevailed so Council should keep supporting them.

Snow Plowing Operations; Furniture in Street

Mayor Callahan, acknowledging that the issue of placing furniture on the streets to save parking spaces and recycling bins is a difficult one, observed there is a sense of ownership on the part of those who shovel out a space. Mayor Callahan noted there is a delicate balance in urban neighborhoods, and added there was more than one incident although one had been reported. Mayor Callahan advised that the effort to remove the furniture was undertaken about a week and a half later so there was some flexibility. Noting he was not aware that was taking place until he received a call from a reporter, Mayor Callahan thought it could have been handled better. Mayor Callahan advised that the matter of not giving the furniture back upon request has been corrected. Mayor Callahan observed it was a tough winter for snow removal and expressed it is a lesson learned for the future.

Michael Alkhal, Public Works Director, assured Council that all available resources were employed. Mr. Alkhal confirmed that during any significant snow event he drives around the City to view the snow plowing efforts during and after the operations. Advising this year has been a difficult one, Mr. Alkhal explained there were long-standing freezing temperatures, and one of the snowfall amounts was 12 inches. Mr. Alkhal pointed out one of the issues that caused a lot of problems was that it was not possible to get to every street as soon as the City would have liked to. The alleys and side streets were plowed after traffic traveled on them and the snow became compacted. The macadam is not visible after the first pass with the plows that have rubber blades, and after salting the roads appeared as if they were not plowed. Mr. Alkhal affirmed that as late as a few hours after the snow ended the forecast was still for 3-6 inches of snow but turned out to be at least double that prediction. If the forecast had predicted the large amount, then the City would have declared a snow emergency that does involve more resources than a snow plowing operation. Mr. Alkhal, explaining that he also checks the nearby municipalities, stated most cities such as Allentown had very similar difficulties, while the townships were a different situation.

Elias Market - Zoning Appeal; Time Limits for Speakers; Zoning Hearing Board

Al Bernotas, 1004 Johnston Drive, expressed appreciation for Council’s consideration of Bill No. 2 – 2011 and Ms. Dolan taking the lead on the issue. Affirming that the neighbors appealed the Elias Market case back to the Court of Common Pleas, Mr. Bernotas stated they will appeal it to the Commonwealth Court since they feel the law was violated, and the Zoning Hearing Board exceeded their discretion. Mr. Bernotas said first they are going to try to negotiate and ask the Elias family to sit down with the neighbors, but afterwards will ask for Council’s continued support if the family does not want to negotiate. Mr. Bernotas commented he would request that Council consider addressing the 5 minute time limit so that if Council would like to hear more a motion could be made to allow someone to speak longer than five minutes. Mr. Bernotas explained that objectors have ten days to discover what is occurring at a Zoning Hearing Board meeting and to decide what to do. Mr. Bernotas observed it might be helpful if objectors were given the opportunity to ask for a continuance in certain cases so that the record could be left open for a time to allow more testimony and for objectors to bring in legal support.

Council Members

Craig Weisman, 460 Carlton Avenue, observed that Council Members take a lot on the chin and thanked the Members for serving the citizens.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.

Language Translation Disclaimer

Council MInutes