City Council - City of Bethlehem

Bethlehem Council MInutes

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
10 East Church Street – Town Hall
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 – 7:00 PM

INVOCATION

PLEDGE TO THE FLAG

Pastor Melvin Tatem, of Grace Deliverance Church, offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to the flag.

1. ROLL CALL

President Evans called the meeting to order. Present were Jean Belinski, David T. DiGiacinto, Karen Dolan, Robert J. Donchez, Michael D. Recchiuti, J. William Reynolds, and Eric R. Evans, 7.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

First Public Hearing - Intermunicipal Liquor License Transfer – Corked Wine Bar Inc.

President Evans called to order the First Public Hearing on the Intermunicipal Transfer of Retail Restaurant Liquor License Number R-8246 owned by Crystal Jade Inn, Inc., traded as DaVinci’s Italian Restaurant, formerly licensed to conduct business at 5000 Bath Pike, Bethlehem, Hanover Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania to Corked Wine Bar, Inc., 513-517 Main Street, Bethlehem, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.

Attorney George Baurkot advised that this is a transfer from Hanover Township to the City of Bethlehem. Attorney Baurkot notified the assembly that the principal has owned two other liquor licenses for over 12 years and has never had a citation issued by the Liquor Control Board, and never had any offenses at either establishment.

Council Comment

Mr. DiGiacinto commented he was thankful that the paperwork for the Liquor License application was reviewed again following the point raised at the September 19, 2012 City Council Meeting concerning the distance of the restaurant from churches, schools, non-profits, etc., in Item 23 of the application. Expressing he is sure that the owner will receive the liquor license, Mr. DiGiacinto communicated it is a good business for Main Street, and wished the restaurant owner success.

Mr. Reynolds inquired about the schedule for the restaurant if the liquor license is approved. Attorney Baurkot stated that with approval from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board it will open very quickly. Guiseppe Grisafi, the owner who requesting the transfer, noted that it will open in February or March. Mr. Reynolds echoed Mr. DiGiacinto’s comments in that it is a good project and he also wished the business the best of luck.

Mr. Recchiuti, commenting that he thinks it is a good project because the building has been vacant for a few years, also wished the restaurant operation the best.

Public Comment

Bill Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, expressed concern that there is no mention of food being served.

Attorney Baurkot informed him that in order to get the license they have to serve food and that this is a requirement of the Liquor Control Board.

President Evans stated that Resolution 11 A is on the Agenda this evening.

The First Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:08 pm.

Second Public Hearing - Intermunicipal Liquor License Transfer – Envy, LLC

President Evans called to order the Second Public Hearing on the Intermunicipal Transfer of Retail Restaurant Liquor License Number R-20881 owned by P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., traded as P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, formerly licensed to conduct business at The Summit of Lehigh Valley, 4300 Freemansburg Avenue, Bethlehem Township, Northampton Country, Pennsylvania to Envy, LLC, 217 Broadway, Bethlehem, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.

Attorney David Berger informed the assembly that he is the attorney for Envy LLC and confirmed that he handed to the Members of Council the plans of the proposed premises, as well as an affidavit from Attorney Matthew Nichols stating that the 500 foot notification requirement to each of the property owners in the area has been sent. Attorney Berger continued on to say that the family of Greg Salomoni, who is part of Envy LLC, has owned numerous restaurants. His family also owns Mama Nina’s restaurant on Main Street. Mr. Salomoni had a liquor license at a different restaurant for the past 5 years and has not had any license violations whatsoever. Attorney Berger explained that this will be mostly a restaurant atmosphere, the menu has not yet been solidified, but it will be for the most part seafood, burgers and things of that nature. It is planned to open around Thanksgiving, pending approval.

Public Comment

None.

President Evans stated that Resolution 11 B is on the Agenda this evening.

The Second Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:11 pm.

Third Public Hearing - 2013 CDBG and HOME Programs

President Evans called to order the Third Public Hearing on the Proposed 2013 CDBG and HOME Programs.

5A. Housing and Community Development Planner – Revised 2013 CDBG Budget

The Clerk read a memorandum dated October 11, 2012 from Irene Woodward, Housing and Community Development Planner, to which was attached the revised fiscal year 2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) budget, and the HOME Program budget. Revisions were made as part of the Community Development Committee meeting held on October 8, 2012. Ms. Woodward pointed out that the changes include reducing both the Employer Assisted Housing Program and Housing Rehabilitation Grants/Loans by $5,000. The $10,000 was then put toward a new activity, Bethlehem Area Public Library. The Library proposes to renovate the Southside Branch. Also attached was a copy of the renovation budget for the Library.

Ms. Woodward informed the assembly that the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget includes an anticipated budget allocation for the CDBG Program Fund of $956,000. The Department did budget a reduction of the current allocation that was received based on what they have seen over the past few years. Ms. Woodward affirmed that the Department also included reprogrammed funds for both the CDBG Program and the HOME Investment Partnership Program from older activities, since those funds have not been spent, that they felt needed to be moved forward to keep things moving. Stating there is an extensive description of each of the activities, Ms. Woodward summarized the proposed activities to receive funding, as follows:

CDBG Program:
Southside Recreation Coordinator - $32,295
Southside Parks and Playgrounds – 75,000
Street Overlays - $106,000
Lynn Avenue Bridge – $73,526
Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem (CADCB) - $20,000
Community Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley (CACLV) - $15,000
Lehigh Valley Center for Independent Living (LVCIL) - $15,000
Embrace Your Dreams - $6,000
ShareCare - $4,000
Health Bureau Dental - $5,000
Rising Tide - $25,000
Community Policing - $60,000
Drug Surveillance Overtime - $10,000
Employer Assisted Housing - $25,000
Housing Rehab Grants and Loans - $254,000
Housing Rehabilitation Staff/Delivery - $127,413
Program Administration - $150,000
North Penn Legal Services – $20,000
Community Development Consulting – $20,000
Bethlehem Area Public Library - $10,000
Total - $1,053,234

HOME Program:
Housing Development Corporation (HDC) - $189,000
Habitat for Humanity - $150,000
LVCLT – Hayes Street - $49,500
HOME Administration - $20,000
Total - $408,500

President Evans inquired about the drop from 2012 to 2013 in the CDBG funds and what is the percentage that the City expects.

Ms. Woodward responded that the Department budgeted a drop of 20% which is consistent with what was received this year.

President Evans commented that from 2011 to 2012 it was a 20% reduction and the projection from 2012 to 2013 is another 20% drop. President Evans commented that are all appreciative of the dollars awarded to the City for projects, which are excellent projects. However, it is becoming more difficult to allocate a smaller amount of money.

Mr. Reynolds thanked Ms. Woodward for her work in view of this budget as President Evans alluded to. Mr. Reynolds observed that the Federal Government unfortunately has made further decisions to cut back on this valuable tool for communities. The reality is that the City may be looking at further cuts in the future, and it is unknown where this type of discretionary spending will go. Mr. Reynolds expressed his concern about the future of the CDBG budget in the future years.

Mr. DiGiacinto affirmed that at the Community Development Committee meeting on October 8 Ms. Woodward extensively went over these projects. Mr. DiGiacinto added that he, Ms. Woodward and Joseph Kelly, Director of Community and Economic Development, met before that meeting to discuss the projects as well. Mr. DiGiacinto stated that one of the things he asked for was that Ms. Woodward be as specific as possible on some of the activities where she could be. He expressed concern that the budget can be maintained as best it can so that the City does not arbitrarily move money around when certain things are earmarked. He noted there was also discussion about the reprogrammed funds. Mr. DiGiacinto commented that, going into the October 8 Community Development Committee meeting, he was not very big on the Employer Assisted Housing Program. Originally, it was budgeted at $30,000 and it is the use of public funds. Of the original $30,000, the Committee moved $5,000 from that program and also $5,000 from the Housing Rehab Grant for the Bethlehem Area Public Library now shown at $10,000 at the bottom of the revised list.

Ms. Dolan, noting that some Members were not on Council when Embrace Your Dreams was originally funded, affirmed it is still on the CDBG program. She acknowledged it is a great program but asked what kind of studies have been done on the outcomes, where does the $6,000 go, is it still expanding, are the children tracked, and is this a good use.

Ms. Woodward replied that the Department does have the organization provide information on the number of people assisted. There are approximately 250 youth that will take part in the program with this funding. Some does go for the teachers and the staff to operate and guide. Ms. Woodward affirmed that the Department does track it and she can look through some of the information provided to see where the children go. Part of it includes taking some tests along the way to see that they are learning.

Ms. Dolan commented it would be interesting to see some of that documentation because it is an unusual program.

Ms. Dolan, pointing out that the City has watched over the years the struggling with less and less money, wondered what the big picture is, the extent to which these organizations are hurting, and how long will they be able to go on with this level of CDBG funding.

Ms. Woodward confirmed that from the time she started the amount of funding that many of the non-profits are receiving has gone down tremendously. The City struggles with where to assist for the Bethlehem residents but also realizes what is going on, and with many it is a challenge to find other funding. Ms. Woodward added this is a part of the overall funding that the City hopes to realize and work with and leverage to get additional funding from other sources as well.

Ms. Dolan asked about the success and will potential cuts have a greater impact on these programs next year.

Ms. Woodward, expressing the hope that there is not a greater cut, acknowledged it is a challenge. The Department will review the activities because it is limited as to how much can go to public services. If the City receives an additional cut then the Department will have to reexamine all of the public services and make adjustments.

Ms. Dolan commented that, when looking at the program next year, she will remind Ms. Woodward of the interest in seeing statistics behind some of the more programmatic allocations, so it can be seen which ones are actually working with having less money.

Mr. Donchez, echoing what he has heard from his colleagues, noted that he remembers when the CDBG Program was over $2 million and now there are cuts down to $1 million. He emphasized this is obviously hurting agencies that serve the needy, and things do not look too bright. Mr. Donchez, turning to North Penn Legal Service, noted it was budgeted at $20,000 last year and at $20,000 this year and asked how many citizens in Bethlehem are served by the agency.

Ms. Woodward replied that HUD has made a tremendous effort into focusing on fair housing issues, in looking at the policies that are out there, education, and outreach. Affirming she does have a list of the organizations, Ms. Woodward confirmed that she can provide where there has been education outreach seminars done with the housing authorities so they understand potential fair housing issues that could cause issues for their own HUD funding. Ms. Woodward explained that one of the big components is doing outreach and education, in addition to working with individual clients, and she can get this information to Council. Mr. Donchez asked if she could provide copies for all of the Members of Council. Ms. Woodward stated that if the $20,000 from last year is not fully used those funds would be reprogrammed as well. Mr. Donchez commented that one of the services they do provide from the offices of Representative Steve Samuelson, Representative Joseph Brennan, and Senator Lisa Boscola is legal services with perhaps a $15 payment, but he was wondering what other agencies serve the people.

Mr. Reynolds added that when he worked for Representative Samuelson and they referred people to North Penn Legal Services there was a waiting list. Most of the people on the waiting list were City of Bethlehem residents. Mr. Reynolds advised that much of the budget reconciliation will go on in November and December after the election. That will determine the budget for extensions so it will be seen what happens. Focusing on the Employee Assistance Housing Program, Mr. Reynolds said he does respectfully disagree with Mr. DiGiacinto in the importance of that program. He stressed it is important when one looks at the potential to leverage that into people being vested in the City. Mr. Reynolds noted the fact has often been bemoaned that people would like have more City of Bethlehem employees living in Bethlehem. When those tax dollars go somewhere else that is a family sustaining job that often leaves the City’s neighborhoods. Mr. Reynolds stated what needs to be thought about is the money the City gets back as far as taxes are concerned plus the involvement in the community. Mr. Reynolds believed that there are some limits as to where the City can be able to use that funding.

Ms. Woodward advised that the Department is going to target the census tracts as to lower or moderate income as part of the program to encourage some of that. She added that will be designed into the program guidelines.

Mr. Reynolds advised that the practicality would be that if CDBG funds are used and if City of Bethlehem employees will buy homes and have family sustaining jobs which most of the City jobs are, and move into neighborhoods that can use this, it of course is a worthwhile source.

Public Comment

Aurea Ortiz, 1628 E. 6th Street, noted she is a member of the Bethlehem Area School Board, and advised that she came to this Meeting to support a CDBG application made by the South Side branch of the Bethlehem Area Public Library. Ms. Ortiz communicated that opportunity and equality are words that public servants hear on a daily basis but they need to fight for the things that create opportunities. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that the South Side community Library provides a safe place where children can go and do their homework. Ms. Ortiz added when she was working as a recruiter many of the employees who came in did not have a computer at home they were told to go to the Public Library to fill out the application. Ms. Ortiz highlighted the fact that the South Side Branch of the Library is providing opportunities for these people to go use computers, and this is where the residents of the South Side go if they do not have a computer at home. She continued on to say this is where they fill out applications for jobs and housing, and this is vital for daily living. Ms. Ortiz stressed that the Public Library on the South Side provides opportunity and equality to residents. While noting the Library needs $100,000 but this cannot be all provided by the City, Ms. Ortiz said if the City is going to support a sustainable program this is one that should be supported.

Deborah Benjamin, 225 E. 4th Street, Apt. A 12 said she is at this meeting to support the funding for the South Side Library. Ms. Benjamin reported that she goes to South Side Library at least twice a week, and she takes her grandchildren to the programs that they have. She goes to this Library to get videos because she does not have cable. Ms. Benjamin emphasized that she would really miss the Library if it would go away so she is at the Meeting to support the South Side Library.

Dana Grubb, 2420 Henderson Place, observed that after the first funding of the Lynn Avenue Bridge with CDBG funding which was 1991 he is happy that this will be done by 2014. Mr. Grubb observed that the entitlement of the City has never been this low in the history of the CDBG Program. He noted that the Community Development Act of 1974 created this program and the City has never received less than $1.1 million. Over a period of years that the entitlement dropped, Mr. Grubb noted that Mr. Donchez and Mrs. Belinski may remember that prior Members of Council enacted a moratorium on funding non-profit organizations. He commented that, as Ms. Dolan had mentioned, City Council felt that the CDBG funding should not be used in lieu of United Way funding and non-profit agencies should not become reliant on CDBG funding. Mr. Grubb said the federal allocation of this program has not changed and has remained stagnant. However, the problem is that many more communities are getting a piece of the pie and more money is being set aside for other uses that meet the intent of the use of the money. Mr. Grubb predicted that within 5 years it will be gone as happened to Federal Revenue Sharing. Mr. Grubb asserted the main reason this will happen are the regular abuses of communities across the nation including the City of Bethlehem when they took economic development revolving loan fund money and used it to meet everyday operating expenses. He did not believe that Congress will continue to sustain this program. Mr. Grubb felt this is a shame because it is one of the best federal initiatives that ever happened to communities like Bethlehem. As far as the allocations, Mr. Grubb acknowledged this is a tough job, and it is not easy. Mr. Grubb stated that one allocation he feels is problematic is the allocation for the first time homebuyer program. Mr. Grubb thought it is very difficult to justify taking public funding and dedicating it to public employees who many not even live in the City of Bethlehem, and not giving that money to the residents of the City. Stressing this is a huge precedent, Mr. Grubb pointed out there were first time home buyer programs in Community Development and HOME funding and those programs were offered City-wide for any resident. Mr. Grubb asserted that targeting City employees and using public funding to do it sets it up for cronyism and favoritism, and no one in the public will ever know the difference. Mr. Grubb thought that $25,000 would be much better spent on the residents of the City of Bethlehem if it were dedicated to the South Side Branch of the Library. Mr. Grubb continued on to say the residents for whom it is intended would benefit and it would eliminate the opportunity for any malfeasance with a City employee first time home buyer program.

Peter Crownfield, 407 Delaware Avenue, said he is at the Meeting to speak about the importance of the South Side Branch of the Bethlehem Area Public Library and the services it provides to people. Mr. Crownfield stated those funds that are spent within the Administration of the City as opposed to the non-profits are the ones that should take the cuts when funds are cut. Saying he knows how tight the budget of the City is, Mr. Crownfield stressed the pressure is on reducing public spending rather than reducing funding to those non-profits that serve people. Mr. Crownfield observed that if 2% or 3% is taken out of those allocations it would be up to the match that Ms. Ortiz mentioned. He highlighted the fact that it is a tiny amount to some of these programs but it is huge amount for the Bethlehem Library. Mr. Crownfield queried if the City can spend $100,000 on recreation for kids on the South Side can it not spend more than $10,000 for the Library.

Olga Negron, 1306 E. 5th Street, explained that the Bethlehem South Side Library is more than just a Library. With so many other programs closing down and disappearing on the South Side, she emphasized that the Library is a place where people feel comfortable going. They have a knowledgeable staff, programs for children, adults, and youth. Ms. Negron noted she has raised her three daughters here and the Library was a great help. Commenting it does take a village to raise a child, Ms. Negron said the South Side Library is part of this village. Affirming she is thankful for the $10,000, Ms. Negron said she also knows that St. Luke’s Hospital, Lehigh University, and Just Born have created programs to help employees and these are not government bodies. She noted that the program for home buying for the employees did not go that well especially when one thinks about lower income neighborhoods. Ms. Negron expressed her surprise that this a new program now when there is not a lot of money to spread around. Ms. Negron thanked City Council for considering the money for the Library, but commented she wants the Members to think about the new programs at a time when there is not as much money to spread around.

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, recalled that many years ago when he attended parochial school he would go from the school to the Library on the South Side that was new at that time. When he was able to go to the North Side he would go to the Library there and it was an older Library. On occasion when he stops at the south Side Library to rent videos, Mr. Antalics said he is impressed with the number of children in the Library. He pointed out these children are in the Library because it gives them a service to learn with computers which they do not have a home. Mr. Antalics stressed that the Bethlehem South Side Library is a community service and this should be a priority over everything else. He continued on to say what the Library needs they should get and if anything is left over that should go to other things because funds are supporting the South Side children in their education. Communicating he has never met a librarian who was wasteful with a penny, especially taxpayer money, Mr. Antalics asserted that if the Library feels it needs something and comes to Council for that need, the need cannot be questioned. Mr. Antalics noted when he visits the North Side Library he rarely sees children there, and it is mostly adults. He thought this is because the children on the North Side have computers at home. Mr. Antalics wondered if the City can afford to deprive a child visiting the South Side Library by not giving it the funds for something that they essentially need.

Mary Pongracz, 321 W. 4th Street, affirming she lives on the South Side, pointed out there is Lehigh University that is a world class university, and there is a community college funded by a philanthropist of great renown. Ms. Pongracz added that there will be a National Museum of Industrial History that is an outreach of the Smithsonian. Ms. Pongracz stressed no one can tell her that the South Side does not have potential and does not have need for a Library. Communicating that everyone should have a personal library, Ms. Pongracz commented that is not possible for young people today because they are burdened with the cost of living and with trying to be a first time homebuyer. Ms. Pongracz asked if the City is making a choice between two homes or a choice between thousands of children. She stressed if we do not educate our youth we do not have a community. Ms. Pongracz asked that City Council please support the South Bethlehem Library.

Liza Holzinger, 301 Carver Drive, advised that she has worked for the Bethlehem Area Public Library for over 25 years. Ms. Holzinger thanked City Council for considering the application for the CDBG funds for the renovations to the South Side Branch. Ms. Holzinger pointed out that, as has been heard tonight, the Library is a very important part of the South Side community. The reason the Library applied for the grant was because it felt that the criteria of that grant fit into what the Library was doing in that particular building and what they have been doing for 82 years. Ms. Holzinger said the Library has outgrown the original furniture. Ms. Holzinger added that over the years the South Side Library has taken care of the outside concerns and now is looking at the inside so it can expand the services to the South Side community. Ms. Holzinger pointed out that these services are more necessary than ever as has been already heard. There are other agencies that have closed their doors and now the South Side branch continues to serve patrons. Ms. Holzinger informed the assembly that the Library has expanded services to pick up where other agencies have had to curtail some of their activities, so it is a valuable resource. She thanked City Council for considering carving out the $10,000 and expressed the hope that Council will consider raising that amount.

Bill Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, advised that he is philosophically opposed to using CDBG money for anything that goes to City employees. He is not against helping City employees but he is opposed to this. He urged Council to take $25,000 from the City’s Employer Assisted Housing Program and add that to the Library request. Mr. Scheirer, affirming he is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Library, pointed out that the request is not for operating funds so a dependency is not being created. He emphasized this is for capital projects. Mr. Scheirer added it is a symbol that the City of Bethlehem cares about the South Side, and it serves to mitigate some other symbolism that architecturally exists in the City. Mr. Scheirer urged City Council to delete the $25,000 for the first time homebuyer program for City employees and add it to the request for the South Side Library for capital expenses.

Ms. Dolan, expressing concern about some of the issues that were raised, asked if Council Members could have some of this information by a week before the next meeting when the Members have to vote on the CDBG Program. She wondered if there is a repeat request for CDBG funds is there something that analyzes the use of the funds the prior year.

Ms. Woodward replied yes and advised the Department gets quarterly reports from all of the sub-grantees that receive funding and it is summarized at the end of each year.

Ms. Dolan asked when organizations reapply do they lay out what they plan to use the money for in the coming year. Ms. Woodward responded that is correct.

Ms. Dolan, inquiring about the Community Development Consultant, asked who does this and how that is different from other consultation like the Community Action Development Corporation, and is there any redundancy.

Ms. Woodward responded that the Community Development Consultants are consultants to the City that the Department uses. They help the Department develop the annual Action Plan. She continued on to say the Department also has to do an environmental report on all of the activities for which extensive information has to be pulled together, and the consultants provide assistance. Ms. Woodward added the consultants help the Department with the year end report that has to be submitted to HUD annually, and in addition technical assistance is provided by the consultants throughout the year.

Ms. Dolan asked if last year $20,000 was also budgeted and if it was used. Ms. Woodward affirmed that the budget was $20,000 and as of now they are in the middle of that contract. There was some delay in doing the contracts because the funding did not come through until almost June, so it was somewhat delayed in spending the new money.

Ms. Dolan asked are there any items on the list where organizations have been dealing with the City in the past and had difficulty in spending the funds or justifying the expenditures. Ms. Woodward replied no, and advised the Department looks at all of that when it makes the recommendation for the budget.

Ms. Dolan wondered how the Health Bureau Dental program interacts with what is done in the schools. Ms. Woodard replied that mainly the Dental Program focuses more on adults with the CDBG funding because there is other funding available for children, so this works with seniors and older adults. She added that it goes directly to pay the dentists.

Ms. Dolan asked about Rising Tide and where they stand in terms of effectiveness. Ms. Woodward replied the Rising Tide organization is administrating the small business loan funds and is the administrator of that program.

Ms. Dolan, noting that the Community Action Development Corporation (CADC) also does small business loan funds, asked is Rising Tide underneath CADC. Ms. Woodward pointed out that Rising Tide is separate in that they are doing some of the City’s economic development loans. CADC does start new business classes and Vision 2014, and these are different aspects. She affirmed this is defined in their contracts and their applications that are submitted to the City.

Ms. Dolan asked about the Share Care Program and how the $4,000 is applied. Ms. Woodward replied these are operating funds and the public services generally go to operating funds. The end result is that they provide a number of individuals that they serve, they collect data on each one of those, and provide that information to use when they submit billings. The Department goes through and receives those quarterly reports, and monitors the programs to make sure that this all aligns.

Ms. Dolan questioned which ones can be stated equivocally that they provide services exclusively to the citizens of Bethlehem.
Ms. Woodward responded that with all of the services the only funds provided are those that go to Bethlehem City residents. The organizations have to provide the City with a list and document who they are serving and confirm that they are Bethlehem residents. Ms. Woodward said the City does not pay for anyone outside of the City of Bethlehem.

Ms. Dolan queried whether the budgets are created by the organizations themselves and submitted as their wish list, or what they request that year. Ms. Woodward stated that the organizations submit a request to the Department and the staff reviews it.

Ms. Dolan asked if the requests are higher than what the City ends up giving them. Ms. Woodward replied generally yes.

Ms. Dolan inquired whether the Drug Surveillance Overtime funding is given to the Police Department. Ms. Woodard stated that this is correct.

Mr. Reynolds wondered if there is a total cost of the project for the South Side Library. Ms. Woodward believed the total cost is about $500,000.

Mr. Reynolds asked for a breakdown of the individual costs. Ms. Woodard noted she provided a copy of the budget for the Library to City Council at the request of Chairman DiGiacinto after the last Community Development meeting, and believed that all Members have received a copy of the entire budget.

Mr. Reynolds communicated there are some tough decisions to make before the CDBG budget is approved on November 7, and whether or not there will be any motions put forth to move money. He wondered if there is an estimate yet of what Library expenditures will look like as far as coming forward from the City next year, and whether or not it will be lower or the same.

Mark Sivak, Director of Budget and Finance, replied that the Administration is still working on the Budget that would apply to the Bethlehem Library.

Mr. Recchiuti, noting that the Library is a Municipal Library and it covers more than just the City, asked is the Library applying for any other grants from Hanover or Bethlehem Townships.

Ms. Woodward, responding she is not aware of any, noted the information she was provided was a list of some foundations and donations, and there were no other government funds going towards the South Side Library renovations.

Ms. Dolan observed that, generally speaking with a big capital project like the Library’s, there is a certain amount of money needed in order to look serious to other funders. Noting that often it is the soft costs for which a plan needs to be approved, such as architect and engineering plans, wondered if anyone has determined what that figure is, and what would need to be to parlayed into additional matching funds. Mr. Recchiuti commented that is in the budget handout that Council has. Ms. Dolan, affirming it says soft costs, noted it does not say what it is considered to be.

Mr. DiGiacinto thought that it stated $489,000 for the South Side Library project, and $400,000 of that has been earmarked by private donators so $400,000 of the $489,000 is already in and not related to CDBG, public, or government money. Ms. Dolan mentioned then that someone lined up to pay for everything except for $89,200.

Janet Fricker, Executive Director of the Bethlehem Area Public Library, advised that for the South Side Library project it is estimated to be about $500,000 but is coming a bit below that at around $489,000. Ms. Fricker affirmed that the Library has raised through grants, private donations and fundraising events over $400,000 at this point. She confirmed the money is there for the project but the Library is short right now of about $75,000-$80,000. While communicating it is expected to reach that amount hopefully through some help with a CDBG grant, Ms. Fricker stated if not the Library will seek further private donations.

Ms. Dolan advised that if the City could provide only half of $75,000-$80,000 would that be more helpful than just $10,000.

Mr. Fricker replied that it would absolutely help the Library, and added that people do like to see matches and challenges. Ms. Fricker highlighted the fact that the main Library on the North Side was built with a match besides government funding. It also received private funding from Roland Adams from the Bethlehem Globe Times. It was set up as a challenge in 1966 and 1967, and Mr. Adams said he was going to donate $150,000 if the City residents would raise another $150,000 within a month and they did.

Mr. DiGiacinto, referring to the Resolution passed by City Council in 2000 that states the maximum amount percentage-wise for this type of program, noted there is a maximum of about $38,000.

Ms. Dolan noted it would have to be ensured that the money allocated, if it is $10,000, is specifically used for certain things that fit within the regulations of the Resolution.

Ms. Fricker explained what is not accounted for so far is the outside handicapped entrance, the new doorways and ramp that have to be created. It was planned to do the project after the majority of the inside work was done, especially because it is better to do it in the spring. Ms. Fricker communicated it would be the type of portion of the project that would be excellent for something such as the CDBG Program.

Mr. Recchiuti inquired if the budget for the Library project is firm. Ms. Fricker replied those are estimates as close as can be obtained through the Library’s architect and designer for the interior.

Mr. Recchiuti queried whether the Library would have to go through a public bid process if the Library would use an amount as may be approved by City Council. Ms. Fricker responded yes, and further responded to Mr. Recchiuti that it would increase the cost for that portion of the project.

Mr. Recchiuti asked Ms. Fricker if CDBG funds could be used for the Library’s handicapped ramp. Ms. Fricker replied yes. Mr. Recchiuti asked if there is an estimate for the handicapped ramp. Ms. Fricker said she does not believe it is included in the Library’s budget but would have to look at it again, although she thought the doors were included. Ms. Fricker thought the amount may be possibly around $20,000-$30,000.

Mr. Recchiuti wondered whether the $200,000 listed for Library furniture is the set amount. Ms. Fricker, commenting it is not, said she would like to address the matter as she received the same question this week from another Member of Council. The designer who is working with the Library is a Library furniture design consultant and only does Library furniture. The designer has done at least a dozen Public Libraries in New Jersey, and some University Libraries in Pennsylvania. The designer did the first part, phase one of the project at the North Side Library, which was completed last year and had to do with hard costs, like the roof, that the City very graciously paid for through stimulus funds, and a second elevator. Ms. Fricker continued on to explain that three departments worth of people had to be moved from the area that will be the children’s area on the second floor to the other side of the building. Those people had to be consolidated into an area that was at that time being used by a department of six people. The firm designed what the interior would like with the furnishings and partitions. Remarking it is beautiful, Ms. Fricker emphasized that it was not top dollar, and she worked hard to keep it at a reasonable amount. Ms. Fricker noted that this is not furniture bought at a consumer store because Libraries that do that find that the furniture does not last because the furniture for the Library has to stand up to hard use. Ms. Fricker informed the assembly that the furniture at the South Side Library has not been replaced since the building opened in 1929. Ms. Fricker advised that much of it she is trying to salvage for the historical aspect. All of the shelving is being salvaged and refinished and that is part of the cost of the project. Ms. Fricker added that the tables and chairs for the most part, with the exception of maybe two tables that are splintered and broken, are not salvageable. Ms. Fricker pointed out that the South Side Library also needs computer tables that were not of course a needed item when the South Side Library was first built. She communicated that quality furniture is needed so that the Library does not have to come back to Council in 10 years and ask for another grant to replace it again. The Library is interested in an overall look in that the people who donated $400,000 want to see something lovely in the South Side Library, and something historical that brings out the 1930’s period. They do not want to walk in and see cheap or poor furniture and be told that their money went towards fixing a leak. Ms. Fricker continued to say it is proposed to make a beautiful Library where there is a beautiful building. Communicating she does not think it would be fair to nickel and dime the project, Ms. Fricker observed that the South Side Library deserves a good renovation, not an extravagant renovation, but an excellent one.

Mr. Recchiuti asked if Ms. Fricker has gone to Hanover, Lower Saucon or Bethlehem Townships and asked about their grants. Ms. Fricker replied she has not heard of any of those Townships having any block grant money available, but if they do she will certainly go to them. She hoped the representatives on the Board who are from those communities would have that information and bring it to her.

Mr. Donchez commented there is a limit and a ceiling and that Council passed a Resolution a few years ago on how much in CDBG funds can actually be given and he thinks it is $38,000. He commented there is a possibility that Lower Saucon Township may not be a part of the Library system next year. Mr. Donchez supported deleting the employee housing assistance program, eliminating that for one year, and shifting that money to the South Side Library.

The Third Public Hearing was adjourned at 8:15 pm.

President Evans confirmed that for the First and Second Public Hearings for the Liquor License Transfer Requests City Council is required to act within 45 days of the applications so the Resolutions will be voted on this evening.

President Evans stated that the 2013 CDBG and HOME Programs will not be voted on this evening, but the Resolution will be officially voted on at the next City Council Meeting on November 7, 2012.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of October 2, 2012 were approved.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Library Communities; Bond Issue – Sewer Projects

Dana Grubb, 2420 Henderson Place, commented that none of those communities mentioned in connection with the Library are entitlement communities for CDBG money. Mr. Grubb stated that the South Bethlehem Historical Society did donate $2,000 towards the South Side Library project. Mr. Grubb expressed concern with the General Obligation Bond for $7 million for Sewer Capital projects. Mr. Grubb said, given the prior history of this Administration with borrowing and the use of cash when it arrives on site, he urges Council to place this money in a lockbox so it cannot be spent on anything other than what it is intended for.

Landmarks and Historic Resources Ordinance Proposal

Bill Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue, stated that he sent 18 proposed amendments to Council on the proposed Landmarks and Historic Resources Ordinance. Noting that one of the purposes is economic development, Mr. Scheirer commenting he understands why this is there because historic preservation can promote economic development but he thought economic development should not get equal billing. He stressed that demolition of any landmark should be a last resort only after all three items; i.e., analysis of the building’s adaptable use, evidence that no feasible reuse has been found, and evidence that no sales or rentals have been possible. He asserted that paragraph 1321.07 (c) should not say either, but rather all three should be required. Mr. Scheirer noted where it says demonstrate that the demolition of the building is an unavoidable and integral part of a construction scheme affecting a larger area, he sees this reminiscent of the Supreme Court New Haven decision where an entire working class neighborhood in good shape was razed. It was taken by eminent domain to provide space for a complex of office buildings, retail and upscale apartments. Mr. Scheirer thought the paragraph should be simply eliminated. Regarding the sentence in Section 1321.07 (3) (I) (x) that provides the opportunity for the applicant to prove to the satisfaction of the Commission that he or she will suffer unreasonable economic hardship and should the commission be unable to develop a solution with City Council and the Administration, Mr. Scheirer felt it should be City Council or the Administration. Turning to enforcement where it states that the building official shall have the power to institute any proceedings necessary for enforcement, he said not only should the building official have the power, but the building official should be required to act in enforcement. Mr. Scheirer stated that the penalties are far too weak, and it should be five to ten years as Mr. DiGiacinto has mentioned. He thought the financial penalties are also weak and the proposal should tie the fines to the assessed value of the property.

4. OLD BUSINESS.

A. Old Business – Members of Council

None.
B. Tabled Items

None.

C. Unfinished Business

None.

5. COMMUNICATIONS

B. Business Administrator – 2012 State Aid – Pension

The Clerk read a memorandum from Dennis W. Reichard, Business Administrator, advising that State Pension Aid in the amount of $3,028,695 was received, and the proceeds have been allocated to the Police and O&E – MMO, Reimbursement – Pension Bond Payments 5/1/12 and 11/1/12.

President Evans stated that Resolution 9 D is listed on the Agenda.

C. Director of Budget and Finance – Self-Insured Worker’s Compensation Resolution

The Clerk read a memorandum dated October 11, 2012 from Mark W. Sivak, Director of Budget and Finance, to which was attached a proposed Resolution in order for the City to administer Worker Compensation claims through a self-insured program beginning January 1, 2013. This is being done in an effort to drive down the City’s overall worker’s compensation costs.

President Evans stated that Resolution 9 E is listed on the Agenda.

D. Business Administrator – Five-Year Capital Plan

The Clerk read a memorandum dated October 11, 2012 from Dennis W. Reichard, Business Administrator, requesting that a meeting be scheduled to review the proposed annual Five Year Capital Plan for 2013-2017. The proposed borrowing for 2013 is $5,000,000. The Department Heads will be at the meeting to discuss their proposed capital projects.

President Evans stated a Committee of the Whole meeting is scheduled on Thursday, November 1 at 6:30 PM in Town Hall.

E. Director of Planning and Zoning – Proposed Zoning Ordinance – Establishing Article 1321 – Landmarks and Historic Resources

The Clerk read a memorandum dated October 12, 2012 from Darlene L. Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, to which was attached a draft of the Ordinance Establishing Article 1321 – Landmarks and Historic Resources, that included revisions based on the discussions during the October 8, 2012 Community Development Committee Meeting. They include revisions based on comments by Christine Ussler, Historic Officer, and William Scheirer.

President Evans stated this matter will be discussed under New Business 10 B.

F. Business Administrator – Sewer Capital Borrowing

The Clerk read a memorandum dated October 12, 2012 from Dennis W. Reichard, Business Administrator, stating that at the Finance Committee Meeting on October 16, prior to the Council Meeting, the Administration proposed to proceed with a $6,550,000 Sewer Capital Borrowing with $2,600,000 being used to permanently finance the Line of Credit as listed on page 303 of the 2012 Budget Book. This financing was discussed during the 2012 Budget presentation and approved by Council to move forward. The Administration is requesting that Council consider the proposed General Obligation Bond for the Sewer Capital Borrowing in the not to exceed amount of $7,000,000 for First Reading at the October 16 City Council Meeting.

President Evans affirmed the matter is listed for First Reading as Item 8A – New Ordinance.

6. REPORTS

A. President of Council

None.
B. Mayor

1. Administrative Order – Earl Bethel – Redevelopment Authority

The Mayor appointed Earl Bethel to membership on the Redevelopment Authority effective through March 2016. Mr. Donchez and Mr. DiGiacinto sponsored Resolution 2012-167 to confirm the appointment.

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

C. Community Development Committee

Chairman DiGiacinto presented an oral report of the Community Development Committee Meeting held at 4:30 PM in Town Hall on October 8, 2012 on the following subjects: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Section 1321 – Landmarks and Historic Resources/Demolition; and Proposed 2013 CDBG and HOME Programs.

D. Finance Committee

Chairman Reynolds presented an oral report of the Finance Committee held at 6:00 PM prior to this evening’s Council Meeting in Town Hall on the following subjects: Transfer of Funds – Engineering – Temporary Help; Transfer of Funds – Fire Department – Overtime; Transfer of Funds – Parks Maintenance - Temporary Help; Transfer of Funds – Buildings Maintenance – Overtime; Ice Rink Fees – Revisions; Event Permit Fee – Increase; Transfer of Funds – Tax Bureau - Temporary Help; Amending Article 911 – Water Regulations – Fire Service Fees – Increase; and General Obligation Bond - $7,000,000 (Not To Exceed) – Sewer Capital Projects.

7. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL READING

None.

8. NEW ORDINANCES

A. Bill No. 29 – 2012 - General Obligation Bond - $7,000,000 (Not to Exceed) – Sewer Capital Projects

The Clerk read Bill No. 29 – 2012 – General Obligation Bond - $7,000,000 – Sewer Capital Projects, sponsored by Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Reynolds, and titled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM (“CITY”), LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES OF 2012 (THE “BONDS”) IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,000,000; SETTING FORTH THE PURPOSE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS, TO FUND CERTAIN CAPITAL PROJECTS OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM AND TO REFUND THE CITY’S GENERAL OBLIGATION NOTE, SERIES B OF 2010 (THE “NOTE”) PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DEBT ACT; DETERMINING THAT THE BONDS SHALL BE SOLD AT PRIVATE SALE; DETERMINING THE PROJECTS AND ESTABLISHING THEIR USEFUL LIFE; DETERMINING THAT THE DEBT EVIDENCED BY THE BONDS SHALL BE NONELECTORAL DEBT; SETTING FORTH THE INTEREST RATES, INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL PAYMENT DATES AND FINAL MATURITY OF THE BONDS AND THE PREPAYMENT PRIVILEGES; ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE BONDS; DESIGNATING A PAYING AGENT FOR THE BONDS; SETTING FORTH THE METHOD AND PLACE OF PAYMENT OF THE BONDS; APPROVING THE FORM OF THE BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE BONDS; ENTERING INTO A COVENANT WITH RESPECT TO THE BONDS AND PLEDGING THE CITY'S FULL FAITH, CREDIT AND TAXING POWER THEREFORE, AND ESTABLISHING A SINKING FUND FOR THE BONDS; DESIGNATING A SINKING FUND DEPOSITORY; SETTING FORTH CERTAIN ADDITIONAL TERMS WITH RESPECT TO THE BONDS; AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATE OFFICERS TO FILE UNDER SECTION 8110 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DEBT ACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 8024 OR 8026 OF THE ACT MAKING CERTAIN FEDERAL TAX COVENANTS; DECLARING THE DEBT EVIDENCED BY THE BONDS TO BE WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DEBT ACT MAKING CERTAIN FEDERAL TAX COVENANTS; AUTHORIZING DELIVERY OF THE BONDS; AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE BONDS; COVENANTING TO PAY OVER AT SETTLEMENT SUFFICIENT MONIES TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE NOTE TO BE REFUNDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REFUNDING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS AND APPROVING DOCUMENTATION WITH REGARD TO THE REFUNDING PROGRAM, AND ESTABLISHING A SINKING FUND FOR THE NOTE BEING REFUNDED; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF IRREVOCABLE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PAYING AGENT FOR THE NOTE TO CALL SAID NOTE FOR REDEMPTION; PROVING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RULE 15c2-12; PROVIDING FOR INVALID PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES; PROVIDING WHEN THE ORDINANCES SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.

Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Recchiuti,
Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Evans, 7. Bill No. 29 – 2012, was declared passed on First Reading.

9. RESOLUTIONS.

A. Approving Intermunicipal Liquor License Transfer Request – Corked Wine Bar –
513-517 Main Street

Mr. Recchiuti and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution No. 2012-168 that approved Intermunicipal Transfer of Retail Restaurant Liquor License Number R-8246 owned by Crystal Jade Inn, Inc., traded as DaVinci’s Italian Restaurant, formerly licensed to conduct business at 5000 Bath Pike, Bethlehem, Hanover Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania to Corked Wine Bar, Inc., 513-517 Main Street, Bethlehem, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.

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

B. Approving Intermunicipal Liquor License Transfer Request – Envy, LLC – 217 Broadway

Mr. Recchiuti and Ms. Dolan sponsored Resolution No. 2012-169 that approved Intermunicipal Transfer of Retail Restaurant Liquor License Number R-20881 owned by P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., traded as P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, formerly licensed to conduct business at The Summit of Lehigh Valley, 4300 Freemansburg Avenue, Bethlehem Township, Northampton Country, Pennsylvania to Envy, LLC, 217 Broadway, Bethlehem, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.

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

C. Authorizing Ice Rink Fees – 2012-2013

Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Recchiuti sponsored Resolution No. 2012-170 that approved the following Ice Skating Rink Season Pass fees for the 2012-2013 Skating Season as follows:

2011/2012 2012/2013
Youth (18 & under)
Resident $ 65 $ 55
Non-Resident 70 80
Adult
Resident 75 65
Non-Resident 85 95
Sr. Citizen (62 &over)
Resident 65 55
Non-Resident 70 80
Family Pass
Resident 140 Eliminate
Non-Resident 150 Eliminate

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

D. Approving Allocation – 2012 Pension State Aid

Mr. DiGiacinto and Mr. Recchiuti sponsored Resolution 2010-171 that authorized the appropriate City officials to allocate $3,028,965 of the 2012 General Municipal Pension System State Aid among the City's pension plans as follows: Police – MMO - $4,897.50; O&E - MMO - $114,775; Reimbursement – Pension Bond Payment 5/1/12 - $759,646.25; and Reimbursement – Pension Bond Payment 11/1/12 - $2,149,646.25.

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

E. Approving Self-Insured Worker’s Compensation Resolution

Mr. Donchez and Mr. DiGiacinto sponsored Resolution 2012-172 that approved the City of Bethlehem to commit appropriate funds and dedicate those funds to meet the requirements of its self insurance liability and related expenses. The City has been granted the exception by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act and has been given the privilege to self insure this requirement and will create a bank account within the General Fund which will have a balance of no less then $513,437 as of December 1, 2012.

President Evans advised that the Administration has requested to be recognized to address the matter.

Mr. Reichard explained that Mark Sivak, Director of Budget and Finance, has been working on this situation for the past year. The Department has been looking at the City’s costs and trying to determine how savings could be achieved. Mr. Reichard noted that currently the City’s Workers Compensation Program is a modified self-insured program. The City gets monthly claims and has to pay them. However, overhead costs are somewhat high at about $400,000 a year. Those costs would decrease to about $200,000 by going to a self-insured program. Mr. Reichard added that the full protection the City has presently would still remain under a self-insured program.

Mr. Sivak informed the Members one of the reasons the Administration would like to switch to a self-insured program is to reduce fixed costs. In addition, the City will have control over the administration of the Workers Compensation Program. Under the current pay-loss program, the third party administrator, PMA, dictates the program. With a self-insured program, there would be more flexibility in having employees return to work such as full time employees into a regular job or part time employees on light duty. Mr. Sivak notified the Members that the State stipulates the calculation of the amount that has to be put into the bank account for Workers Compensation. Mr. Sivak affirmed the State law dictates that the amount of $513,437 has to be in the account as of December 1 of 2012, 2013, and 2014. The $513,437 amount can be used by the City to pay any costs associated with Workers Compensation. It is estimated that in changing to self-insured next year, the City’s overall Workers Compensation budget is estimated to be approximately $1,100,000 so the remainder has to come from the General Fund, as well as Water, Sewer, Golf, and 911 Funds.

Mr. DiGiacinto pointed out that the approximate amount of $500,000 has to be in the account as of December 1 but the account does not have to remain at that amount all the time. Mr. DiGiacinto noted the monies can be used to do other things.

Mr. Sivak added that part of the reason the City has not entered into the self-insured program in the past is the change in the State law that now does not require the $500,000 to be in the account throughout the year. From a cashflow standpoint, the City was not in a position to meet that former requirement.

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

Motion – Considering Resolutions 9 F through 9 H as a Group

Ms. Dolan and Mrs. Belinski moved to consider Resolutions 9 F through 9 H as a Group. Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Evans, 7. The motion passed.

F. Certificate of Appropriateness – 429 North New Street

Mr. Donchez and Mr. DiGiacinto sponsored Resolution 2012-173 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the paint from the brick and repaint the trim at 429 North New Street.

G. Certificate of Appropriateness – 77 West Broad Street, Unit 19

Mr. Donchez and Mr. DiGiacinto sponsored Resolution 2012-174 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a hanging sign at 77 West Broad Street, Unit 19.

H. Certificate of Appropriateness – 515 Main Street

Mr. Donchez and Mr. DiGiacinto sponsored Resolution 2012-175 that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to repaint the façade of the building and replace glass panels of the storefront at 515 Main Street.

Voting AYE on Resolutions 9 F through H: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Evans, 7. The Resolutions passed.

10. NEW BUSINESS.

A. Rescheduling First City Council Meeting in November to Wednesday, November 7

Mr. Reynolds and Mr. DiGiacinto moved to reschedule City Council’s first meeting in November from Tuesday, November 6 that is Election Day to Wednesday, November 7 at 7:00 PM in Town Hall. Voting AYE: Mrs. Belinski, Mr. DiGiacinto, Ms. Dolan, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Recchiuti, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Evans, 7. The motion passed.

B. Amendments to Proposed Zoning Ordinance – Article 1321 – Landmarks and Historic Resources

President Evans affirmed that the Amendments were forwarded by Ms. Heller, as was noted in Communication 5 E.

Mrs. Belinski and Ms. Dolan sponsored the following amendments:

1321.01 (a) that reads as follows:

1321.01 Purpose

(a) The City has regulated certain portions of the City by way of designating them Historic Districts. However, the City recognizes that buildings outside the Historic Districts may be classified as Landmarks or historic resources and are important to preserve. It is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to promote, protect, enhance, and preserve historic resources for the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public through the preservation, protection and regulation of buildings and areas of historic interest or importance within the City located outside the City Historic Districts; to safeguard the heritage of the City by preserving and regulating landmarks and property of historical interest which reflect elements of its cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history; to preserve and enhance the environmental quality of neighborhoods; to foster economic development; to strengthen the City's economy by the stimulation of tourism; to establish and improve property values; to foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the City's past; and to preserve and protect the cultural, historical and architectural assets of the City which have been determined to be of local, state or national significance.