City Council

Thursday, October 2, 2025 7:00 PM Williamsport, PA Council President Adam Yoder brought the Williamsport City Council meeting to order on Thursday, October 2, 2025 at 7:00 PM.at Trade & Transit Center II, 144 W. Third St, Williamsport, PA. This meeting was duly advertised in the Williamsport Sun-Gazette. Council members present: Also, Present: Adam Yoder, President Derek Slaughter, Mayor, absent , President Mr. Willia Eric Beiter, Vice President Valerie Fessler Liz Miele, Councilwoman Sam Aungst, Fire Chief, Adam W Randy Allison, Councilman, Justin Snyder, Police Chief, absent Vincent Pulizzi, Councilman Solicitor Austin White Jon Mackey, Councilman, Janice Frank, City Clerk Bonnie Katz, Councilwoman Jamie Livermore Absent: Scott Livermore, S&P absent Kris Black Bill Scott Members of the public Approval of the Williamsport City Council minutes of 10/02/25 approved upon a motion by Mr. Mackey and second from Mr. Allison All were in favor. Mr. Joseph Pawlak . Limited courtesy of the floor Mr. Joe Pawlak Scott Miller 822 Tucker Street, item 4. Mr. Miller, welcome, if you just for the Mr. Gary Knarr record announced what item. Scott Miller, 822 Tucker Street, Williamsport. Good evening CouncilMr.President. Tom Cillo I want to speak about the 2023 budget. C. Dean Dave Young, Police Chief Chief He The federal website where the city has to report some of its spending shows Sol. J. that the city of Williamsport for 2023 did David Smith Janicebut not report its federally guidelines spending nor for 2024 by that matter, Frank, I'm Cityvery Clerk,bothered absent that we are not meeting Todd Heckman, Fire Chief , our obligation to report our spending. I am not even going to tell you the website that I found this on or didn't find it on, because I want you want to spend a couple hours looking around and figuring out like I had to, a private citizen. But, News Media what concerns me most is what is going to happen when the federal government says give us our money back. Are my taxes going up? Or what happens when the federal government says there is a penalty and a fine. My taxes go up. I want to know who in the city is responsible for not following policy and procedure and reporting our financial spending and like you can even do budget transfers from one year to the nextMembers without reporting of News Media it. So, who is doing this? And Members who is responsible? Whose head should be on a pike two have a wonderful evening of the news media Demolition 3537 W. Fourth St Mr. Knarr What I bring before you is a request from I steel at the property 3537 W. fourth Street. It is the former veterinarian clinic that moved across the street and what they are requesting to do a demo it and it will be green space, they are not developing a and I do have a representative here if you have any questions. Mr. Yoder: All right, thank you very much. Any comments or questions? Hearing and saying none, item 12, Mrs. Frank. The demolition was carried with six yes roll call votes. The vote was 6 to 0. All were in favor. Mr. Allison voted yes, Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes. Mr. Beiter voted yes, and Mr. Yoder voted yes. Mrs. Katz had not yet arrived. . Demolition 832 First St : Mr. Knarr, What we have for you is requesting to tear down a house, having seen pictures of it is a older home and his plan is that he does have several vacant lot next to it and he will be placing homes on their, as well, but 832 will be the first one that he will go before to pare down another one and replace a new home in his place and I do have representatives here. Mr. Yoder: All right. Any comments or questions, Ms. Miele? Ms. Miele: Is this single-family homes or condominiums or townhomes? Mr. Knarr: There are several different styles, it will be a single or a family -- double family home, but this will be a single-family home. Ms. Miele: Timeline? Mr. Knarr: As soon as we get demoed, he is not required to go through any other process and he will present us with a building permit. He is eager to move on with that as well as the other property, as well. Ms. Miele : Excellent, thank you. Mr. Yoder: Any other comments or questions? Glad to see some housing happening. I appreciate you know kind of what you are doing and it is a big issue in the city, specifically. So, grateful for it. It is great. It is very great. Mrs. Frank, item 13? . The demolition was carried with six yes roll call votes. The vote was 6 to 0. All were in favor. Mr. Allison voted yes, Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes. Mr. Beiter voted yes, and Mr. Yoder voted yes. Mrs. Katz had not yet arrived. . Way’s Garden Stephen Petro is appointed to a lifetime term starting 10/02/25. He will replace Paul Nyman Mr. Petro was not present and neither was the Mayor to present so this item was not addressed. Ordinance #6512 An Ordinance Transfer #7 (final reading) The City Clerk read the ordinance. Mr. Yoder asked for a motion and a second. Mr. Beiter made the motion and it was seconded by Mr. Pulizzi. Ms. Livermore , I have all my stuff here. This is the final reading of ordinance number seven that we discussed at the last council meeting. I do not know if anybody has any questions since then? This was for the - removed $21,000 from the young Woods Park improvement in act 13 to the flood levee to pay GPI for some flood services. Mr. Yoder: Any comments or questions in second reading? All right. Mrs. Frank, on the motion for item 6? The Ordinance was carried in final reading with six yes roll call votes. The vote was 6 to 0. All were in favor. Mr. Allison voted yes, Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes. Mr. Beiter voted yes, and Mr. Yoder voted yes. Mrs. Katz had not yet arrived. An Ordinance Designating Buck Run Alley (first reading) The City Clerk read the ordinance. Mr. Yoder asked for a motion and a second Mr. Pulizzi made the motion and it was seconded by Mr. Beiter. Mr. Bill Scott . We have a first reading of an ordinance to present for your consideration. This is an ordinance designating Buck Run Alley. This is currently a unnamed alley. It is between and when it runs east and west between Penn Street, Mary Street and then over to another unnamed alley on 11 and is between Elder Street and Lyons Avenue North and South. The resident had contacted Lycoming County, Tyler Landis and notified us that the national emergency number Association standards we should not name this alley Lyons place as we originally thought we would because you have Lyons Avenue and Lyons alley, but because they are in the vicinity we don't want to do that, because we may have infusion with the emergency services response or delivery service as he suggested to go another route and it just so happens that the resident there which is 351 Lyons Avenue they suggested that we call it Buck Run Alley. We think it is a good fit and the resident was notified as of this meeting and the next meeting. On October 16 and this was reviewed by Nick Grimes at McCormick. Mr. Yoder: Any questions, comments for Mr. Scott? Ms. Miele? Ms. Miele: I just wanted to know if we have ever actually seen any box on the alley? Have we ever seen any box on that alley? It is a nice name one way or another. Mr. Scott: A come from the one resident, the property is owned by Buck Run estate and that is kind of where the name came. Mr. Mackey : How many unnamed alleys remain n in Williamsport? Do we even know? Mr. Scott : This is number 112 - Mr. Mackey: There could be 111 more? Mr. Yoder: Remaining? Ms. Miele: As a rule we have to name the one when there is an address on them. Mr. Knarr: One of the reasons this came up is obsolete their house burned down and they didn't have an address and so it took a little bit for emergency services to get there and so the house just recently had a fire. Mr. Mackey So, there were residents in the home whose entryway was off of this unnamed alley? : How are they getting mail prior to this? Mr. Scott: The current address is 351 rear Lyons Avenue. And that is what I was told was a lot of confusion you know they were thinking it was the back of 351, but it is not. It is a totally separate house, way in the back. They were not getting their mail and deliveries and things like that. Mr. Mackey : So, my follow-up question to that is do we have any other scenarios like that in the city where we have people in that situation, because if we are going with Buck Run Alley because this is a public safety issue, then maybe we should be paying attention to other residents who may be in the same situation and I will leave - I mean I don't know how we accomplish something like that. Mr. Yoder: That is a legit question. If it happened here, are there other instances where it could happen in the city and if so, how like how do we identify them and how do we mitigate it? It is a element of not finding a needle in a haystack, but finding a couple of particular things in a big area. It is difficult. Are we thinking of that? Is there a mechanism to do that? I think that is what you're asking. Ms. Miele: I think we can ask for immediate self reporting in this context, you know what I mean? If you live in a home that is not adequately addressed or if you own a piece of property, it is not like a shameful or illegal thing if you have a piece of property that doesn't have an address, but we should designate one for you and we have done this before. We have named a handful of other alleys during my time on counsel, because there were physical addresses there and it is a huge conflict for 911. And in terms of the mechanism we are reporting, get in touch? The little thing like on the city's website? Mr. Mackey : That is one way to do it, sure, but when you ask people to self-report certain things you know they just forget about it or it doesn't happen. So, my question is is this a larger conversation we should be having about a way that we can go forth and identify any other issues that there might be? Mr. Scott: I can start by asking Tyler Landreth, the coordinator like if he is aware of anything like this like this in the city. Mr. Mackey: That would be great, thank you. Mr. Pulizzi: I have a quick question. What is the process, if I have a unnamed alley behind my house, can I call it the county and then call up you and say hey, I would like to name this alley the Eric Beiter Memorial alley, can I do that? Ms. Miele: He is gunning for you! Mr. Pulizzi I am just thinking ahead! Mr. Scott: It started with the County and again Tyler Landis he is the addressing coordinator at the County and he approached us and it came to Gary and then came to me and yes. Mr. Pulizzi: Okay, good to know, thank you. The Ordinance was carried in first reading with six yes roll call votes. The vote was 6 to 0. All were in favor. Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Mrs. Katz voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes. Mr. Beiter voted yes, and Mr. Yoder voted yes. Mr. Allison was not able to vote because of computer. An Ordinance Setting Term Limits of Elected Officials (first reading) The City Clerk read the ordinance. Mr. Yoder asked for a motion and a second Mr. Mackey made the motion and it was seconded by Mr. Beiter. Mr. Mackey :before us we have a ordinance to establish term limits for elected officials. So, for the record that would be the mayor. City councilmembers, the city treasurer and in the city controller. As is currently written, those term limits would be 12 or three consecutive terms for city Council and no more than two consecutive terms for the mayor and no more than two consecutive terms as treasurer or controller. I have talked to many of you privately about this, but obviously I would love to hear everybody's thoughts and opinions on this ordinance here tonight. I think it is a good conversation to have in a public meeting, obviously. There is language in here based on some conversations we have had with the city solicitor Austin White, in terms of and often, you can probably explain this better than I can, basically not stopping people who are currently seated officials from running again to avoid any type of image and to not create the image that we are trying to stop anybody from seeking future elections and Austin if you would not mind, before I continue to butcher - Mr. Yoder: Just to clarify, I don't think that language is in the version that is in front of all of you. Austin brought this up to us yesterday afternoon as he was going through the case law I think of a state Supreme Court decision related to that. And he has recommended language that is not what is in front of you. We have that should we need to amend it either later in this reading or in second reading. Ms. Miele: Or if somebody agrees to drop out of the race it doesn't matter anymore, right? Mr. Yoder: No, there is multiple that fall into that. Anyway - sorry, Austin. Mr. Austin White: I think that the legality of imposing term limits was something that did go up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and I think it was 1986 and it was the city Council of Bethlehem. They at that time at least were a third class optional city and they passed a two-term limit for mayor and the state Supreme Court in 1986 said you are allowed to do that. The caveat being in that case that the Supreme Court indicated that because the mayor at that time was elected to his first term after the city had passed the term limits, it was okay to apply to that mayor, that elected official to prohibit them from being elected to a third term. The Supreme Court felt that it had the city of Bethlehem been trying to stop a incumbent from being elected to a third term, a different result would have been reached by the court, at least that is what they said in the opinion, essentially. So, given that that case is the reason the city is allowed to even have term limits past, it is the Solicitor's office opinion that there should be added some language to indicate that is an exception that this ordinance would not prohibit a present incumbent from being reelected one time, really, because it is the third class city code itself that says the elected officials, the same elected officials through which this ordinance would apply have the right to be reelected and it just says reelected so then based on that case, city Council has the right because we have under the law, the strongest form of self-governance, at least that is how the general assembly put it when they created the optional charter law and you have the right to impose how many times they can be reelected which is you could not put a one term limit on any office. That is clear because it would conflict with the third class city code which says elected officials are allowed to be reelected. But, you can say that you are only allowed to be reelected once and so at least from a Solicitor's office the recommendation is to put something in here to cover that. Now, what that language is is really up for you all to decide, but given that you have two readings you can accept the ordinance in the form that is presently before you in that it does not have language to address that and then over the next week or two work with the Solicitor's office to try and find a solution to resolve that issue within the ordinance whether that is by means of changing the language, putting in the preamble or the intent of an city Council and what the intent of the law is, there is a whole host of other things that we could accomplish, but it is certainly something that can be accomplished between the first and second reading if this is something that you indeed decide to go with. Mr. Jon Mackey: That was a way better explanation that I was -- then I would trying to give. I did not bring up the idea of this and I did not ask Councilman Yoder to help me craft this, because any of us here are trying to stop anybody from being reelected and I genuinely think term limits are important and that is why I am trying and suggesting that we pass a form of this ordinance between now and two weeks from now. And I feel that the number of terms that we have outlined in this ordinance are the correct terms for these and I say that at the risk of offending some of my own colleagues who have served for more than three terms and that is again nothing against any of them. It is just that I personally feel that really nobody needs to be on city Council for more than 12 years. And again, I opened it up now to the rest of the group for conversation and discussion, thoughts. Mr. Yoder: Thank you, Jon. And the only other thing I would add is that there is a mechanism in here for city Council to appoint term limited individuals to fill vacancies. They clearly would not be able to run again, but just think about you know I am aware of two vacancies in the Treasurer's office and our member Council President Williamson resigning and Councilman F feeling that and just sitting in the chair for six years now I see the benefit of having some experience coming in that could kind of help in the term of a vacancy and I think that is written in there, as well. So, open floor, sorry. Just another open port. Ms. Miele? Ms. Miele: I just want to clarify, the preamble or the language that you are referring to, clearly one of the intent of what you were saying is that I am currently running for a fifth term, somebody under duress and it would be on me to continue to run for that fifth term and potentially be reelected? Well, who else does it impact aside from me? Would it be like the mayors next campaign? Mr. White : You are talking about running as in this year? Ms. Miele: Yes. Mr. White : So, given the time that we are out to pass this, I am looking as far as the limitations beyond that for instance for yourself even if this were passed today as is and then on second reading you know two weeks from now I don't even think at that point it could not prevent someone who has already filed a petition and is already on the ballot and is already about to go up for election this November. So, this November it has zero relevance. Ms. Miele: Moving forward, then - Mr. White : As is presently written and I think. Mr. Yoder: Mayor, treasurer, controller and Councilman Katz. They are the four. Ms. Miele: That is what I'm asking. So, it would not affect Derek's ability for run for a third term or Bonnie's ability to run for a fifth. Mr. Yoder: That is the precedent that he is talking about. It is people that are in office that are in between cycles. Mr. Austin White : Anybody, if the ordinance is passed, anybody who after the effective date of the ordinance then wants to run should be at least based on the Solicitor's office view of the law able to be reelected at least one more time just because the third class city code does have that language and we cannot retroactively stop someone by changing legislation midterm. Ms. Miele: I just wanted to be sure it did in fact roll that way. Thank you for the clarification. And one of my primary concerns with this is actually not in my ability to run for office again, but was that - if it were me I would say we would limit the mayors office to two terms and the controller and the treasurer to three and Council to four and in part because it can take a long time to get experience in a part-time job and it could be that it is valuable to have and that is to say yes while I feel like I'm jaded and sometimes not the asset to counsel in other ways, it has taken me a long time to get the level of knowledge I have and I don't know - I think that a four term arc may be better in that context. I am not saying five. And - and treasurer and controller one of my other fears with this ordinance is that we have struggled to fill elected official positions not so much within the city but certainly within the school board positions. And I want us and I think turnover is a very positive thing and all of these positions and I also want us to leave some sort of a mechanism by which if we do not have other people running that we can potentially allow someone to run for reelection who you know has already hid the end of that term limit. And we do a little bit of that, you're right. The language that allows somebody to fill out somebody also term is helpful there. And theoretically Austin could interpret that to mean that if nobody ran for a seat, counsel could appoint someone who was term limited, correct? Mr. Austin White: I think that - I don't know who wrote - I don't know if it was Mr. Mackey wrote the first draft or whoever, there is present language in there to allow the appointment. So, nothing - the third section in there is any person who is ineligible for election to do the term limits may still be appointed to fill the vacancy and that language is present in each section. Ms. Miele: That would not just be a vacancy left by somebody leaving a position, but a vacancy - Mr. Yoder It is the same thing and honestly and correct me if I'm wrong, but the way that it works, if there is a vacancy because of that, the person would be appointed, but they would have to run in two years. So, they would have to run again anyway. I get what you are saying. Ms. Miele: But, in the context of Summit who is term limited you could run into the same situation over again. I don't see city Council doing that, but on the school board I am nervous about it making a little bit of a mockery of the system. Mr. Yoder : Yes. Fair point. And I mean look like not to get too far down the rabbit hole, but I'm not sure how much of that is really a city government issue as much as a political issue and a civil society issue, right? And if so Fairpoint and I mean we are not going to cure it and I don't know that it is city governments role to cure, but to be candid I had not thought about that element and it is a good point to consider. Ms. Miele: None of this is me standing in the way of what I think is a good concept. I do think term limits will serve government and turnover serve government and a lot of ways and so I think this is a exceptionally positive thing and my disputes are with some of the nuts and bolts with it. Mr. Yoder: That is why we have debate and discuss it in open like this. Any other comments or thoughts, Mr. Pulizzi, please. Mr. Pulizzi : I heard language that it would be consecutive terms, right? So, if Councilman Mackey, he could not hold office for three consecutive terms and more so if you pick a term off and then run again you can potentially go for three more? Mr. Yoder: I think that was modeled directly off of the Bethlehem language that is currently in the ordinance. Austin can you the legal interpretation of that, because if that is a technicality like all right, you can do three for city Council for example and then take a term off like I think that is what you are asking, right? Mr. Pulizzi I: Yes, if we put a term limit on their and it says you cannot hold office for three consecutive terms and okay, you have? And then you take one often somebody fills the sea in the following you run again and you get reelected. Mr. White : Presently as it is written it is to avoid more than two executive terms and that legally would not prevent somebody from having a break in services with any of the services that may be elected. So, if you want to have somebody from having two or three total terms that would require different language. Mr. Beiter : I personally do not think it is necessary and if they decide whether it is two terms and they come back and want two more or anything like that - you know John, the point that you are making I think that this is absolutely a good idea and to Liz 's as well for that turnover in these elected positions, because we don't want to see turnover in government in the sense that are doing day-to-day jobs, because we need you there, especially with transitions. You know how things get done on a day-to-day basis and I appreciate that. And I also want to say as well that this is something at a city level and local government level, this is a grassroots movement that I would hope to see across the rest of the United States because this is something that is desperately needed on the national level and Beasley report Congressman limits and the president of the United States yet they refuse to do it for themselves and it gets us into situations that we as a nation should not be in. So, Jon, thank you for bringing this forward. Mr. Pulizzi : If I may, I still had a couple more questions. I like the idea of term limits, I sincerely do, we need fresh new ideas and more people to get involved and it is great. I certainly would not want to restrict anybody who may have served early on in their lives and if we decided that we wanted to run and serve again I like that it is open to us. Regarding the treasurer and the controller, do they have to remain elected positions or could they become appointed positions. Mr. Yoder: They have to remain appointed other if it was home role process. Mr. Pulizzi : And the only reason I bring that up is some of these positions are difficult to fill these positions you know like it is hard to have somebody even want to run for that and then be capable of fulfilling that role and I think we have been very fortunate for Mr. Mackey, Kevin Mackey in this case to be in that role and to be effective as he has been in it and I would hate to see us put some sort of term limit on it and you know because of these it is like you can no longer do your job and you are effective at it. And so I kind of wonder if we should look at Council and Mayor for term limits initially and then maybe omit treasurer and controller or a part of that back I am just putting it out there. I completely agree and understand why we need fresh people in there, but I would not want to see us lose somebody who is very good at their job for those purposes. Mr. Yoder : Yes, that is something to think about. Mr. Beiter : The concession that I would be willing to make on the point that you are making is what Liz had said. We up those two match what counsel is so they would have 12 years in those positions vs. eight years in those positions. Mr. Pulizzi : I think Liz proposed? For counsel, two for Mayor and - Mr. Beiter: And you said three for the offices? Mr. Yoder Just to kind of stagger it out. Ms. Miele: It does make you a little less likely to wind up with a whole slew of people. And I comment really quick about Vince 's point on hired vs. Elected? Because I think that is key. We have appointed the last two treasurers. Part of the reason I think that they have been asked other as they have been and I think the difficult thing about the way that their class code operates, we also don't have any metrics for qualifying run for those positions. Which is to say any elected official position is effectively a popularity contest. And that in a financial role to me is a less than strong argument for voting for someone. And likely in every elected role, but certainly anything where you have specific responsibilities that deal with day-to-day responsibilities for the city and I think that one of the many reasons why I think we should move on home role is to contemplate whether those things should become a hired position instead of elected. But, in the meantime I don't have a beef with term limiting them. Mr. Pulizzi : I agree, Liz. Right people, right seat. Mr. Yoder: Randy, Bonnie, any comments from you two? I want to be sure you have an opportunity to chime in the dialogue on this one specifically. Mrs. Katz For me I've always said that there should be term limits. The problem is what would happen in the last election year is nobody was running against any of us. And that in itself is kind of scary, because you do want new blood and I was really excited the last time I ran, because we were getting you know newbies coming on because of these new ideas and I've often said that sometimes these ideas are presented to us and maybe the timing is off and maybe we are not looking at things in the total picture and new eyes can bring more excitement and more ways of dealing with things. But, again at times we have problems filling committees and I am more frightened of that at this point, because it just doesn't make sense that nobody you know don't people want to be involved in what is going on in their community? And I have always loved what I'm doing and to me that is where it is. But, yes, I am for term limits, because there are people that get stuck in the mud and don't want to budge and we are seeing that with government offices either state or federal. And it makes life difficult at times instead of progressing. We have been very lucky with who we have on counsel because we are moving forward and trying to do the best we can with the city. But, we do need term limits, we really do. And so that is my two cents. Mr. Yoder: Thank you, Bonnie. Randy, anything that you want to chime in on? Mr. Allison I don't have anything beyond what has been said. I really appreciate this discussion and it has transpired so far and I think we have a lot to consider between first reading and second reading to adjust whatever Nuance we need. I hear like a real give and take here and not confrontational, but the more I hear people sharing and just more clarity I think and the possibilities sound even stronger than the initial presentation which is nothing against anything you have said, Jon. I think you have done us a great service in bringing this up. So, personally I have some thinking to do about some of the things that were possibly proposed tonight and how we are going to complete that. So, that is all I have to say about it right now. Mr. Yoder: Thank you, Randy. I agree with Randy, good dialogue and good perspective across the board. Some things to definitely think about between readings. Ms. Miele, something else to chime in on? Ms. Miele: Just to Bonnie 's point about the last counsel when nobody was running except for the incumbents and that is one thing that you can eliminate with the term limit ordinance and really people don't necessarily step up to the plate, because if they are incumbents, they figure why bother? So, loosening up the playing field would certainly be helpful. Yes. I think we have seen you know a flood you know people flex into the race this year because Randy is stepping down and that would lead me to believe that if there are open seats, there will be people to run for them. Especially if everyone knows in advance that those seats will be open and especially because they are term limited or because you know everybody has done the favor of going out there ahead and be like I'm not running, please find somebody else to run for my seat. So, anyway - I hope that will be the case. And that is all. Mr. Yoder: Fair point, Mr. Mackey, please. Mr. Mackey : Yes, I will - excuse me, I second Councilman Miele. It does loosen up the incumbent in management, right? Because last election, all four of us ran and nobody ran against us and who was the top go-getter in that last election, I cannot remember - it doesn't matter. But, I will point out that when I ran the first time for city Council there were essentially five open seats and look at what happened. There is 12 or 13 of us up here on a day as having a really great debate. So, that is what will happen in my opinion. If there is an opportunity for people to run when they know that it is a level playing field, you know? Mr. Pulizzi, to your comment about the consecutive terms you know I can go one way or the other on that. I think if you run for three consecutive terms and want to take four years off and come back and try again. You are probably a masochist, but okay, go ahead. Go for it. And as far as the numbers are concerned, I myself am pretty solid on eight, 12, eight and eight. That is just my personal opinion. Obviously we can have these discussions again in two weeks over the course of the next two weeks, but yes - and I think the other important discussion that we need to be having is this issue that Austin brings up albeit it is a 40-year-old case, that is the only one you could find? That is it? Mr. White : I tried and did my best. That is all I have. Mr. Mackey : Something to take into consideration and I don't like to operate from a position of fear to say like let's make it 16 for city Council because we are nervous that people may not run or look, I have been here for six years and if you can get your feet in front of you and under you in any elected position then there is a good chance you should be in that position and that is what this is trying to may be curtailed. And so there is a flipside to that argument. You know concern over the fact that maybe nobody is going to run, if we are not going to do it, who is going to do it? That is not a great place to operate from when talking about this type of thing. Anyway, I appreciate everybody's opinions here tonight. And yes, just thank you for even entertaining this idea. I appreciate everybody here. And the folks online, too. Mr. Yoder: Ms. Miele, anything to add? Ms. Miele: It seems like Austin, we can cure the issue heart B of 123, term limits for the mayor, could we simply insert after the first comma, anybody serving as mayor as of the effective date may serve the remainder of their current term and may choose to campaign for a following term? Isn't that basically like doesn't that take care of the issue? Mr. Yoder: Yes, but it is also you know like - Ms. Miele: That clause is in every one of these statements. Mr. Yoder: Two Austin 's point, but I think like picking sure and I don't know if it is something that we need to struggle through tonight which is all I am saying. Okay, Jon, I appreciate you spearheading this, definitely things to work through and think through between Austin and other members, that sort of thing, but between now and two weeks we are on a good track to do something big here. So, I think it is great. Any other comments or questions before we wrap up the discussion here? Okay. Mrs. Frank, on first reading of item 9? The Ordinance was carried in first reading with seven yes roll call votes. The vote was 7 to 0. All were in favor. Mr. Allison voted yes, Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Mrs. Katz voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes. Mr. Beiter voted yes, and Mr. Yoder voted yes. Resolution # 9962 Resolution to Accept the Fiscal Year 2023 Audit Reports The City Clerk read the ordinance. Mr. Yoder asked for a motion and a second Mr. Pulizzi made the motion and it was seconded by Mr. Mackey. Ms. Livermore: This is actually very exciting. We have the resolution in front of you through approved the 2023 audit reports that were prepared by Axelrod and we do have him Stank and Justin Bell and I will say that this was a long time coming and it was a very good audit and I'm glad to present this to you today. Mr. Yoder: This was reviewed in finance and a pretty lengthy presentation about it or at least a discussion about it, maybe? Ms. Miele: I actually advised that she defer most element of the presentation on the assumption that you know I think we got a relatively apprehensive -- comprehensive, but in this city hopefully by catching up by 26 so that we are going forward calendar year to calendar year and then there is some important discussions to be had about this piece specifically that the parking authority will not be catching up anytime soon on their audits it does not look like. Mr. Yoder: Why? We laughter them a voicemail about this and I did not get a chance to circle back. Ms. Miele: They have not had an audit since 2018 nor the have - Mr. Beiter: The parking authority has not picked up the ball. Ms. Miele: As in - anyway, that is a small part of the audit. It seems like - we should hear a fair amount about it tonight, too. Mr. Yoder: We have a representative online from Zalenkosky. Two of them. I will turn it over to you to kind of go through what you deem appropriate. Ms. Stank: Hello, thank you for having us. I am Kim Stank and with me is Justin Bell and we would like to say thank you to Jamie in the finance office for their assistance as Jamie had said, we do have very good news. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. So, I am pleased to share with you that we are finally able to give the city a unmodified opinion on the primary government. So, as was stated there is still a adverse opinion over the component units since they are behind on their audits, however the city has come a long way and we are very excited to share this great news of a unmodified opinion. So, we are going to stay pretty high level, but we can dig deeper if you would like us to. So, overall this ends the year, December with a net deficit in their position of about $104 million. That deficit is driven by the data and pension and liabilities. That is something that we have seen for the last few years and we have talked about, but overall the net change in the position was positive by $21 million. So, that is very good news. The fund level statements, that is digging a little bit deeper into the current year picture and the general fund itself ended the year with about 11 and a half million and 5.7 million was unassigned. The other funds also had positive fund balances for the most part the general fund had a positive change of about 4.2 million and the city as a whole had a positive change of $8 million. And when we compared the budget to the actual, the city had a positive net variance of about 3 and a half million dollars. So, all very good things. The digging deeper into the footnotes, very similar to prior years and we did do a single audit this year and the major program was ARPA. Hopefully you have had an opportunity to look through the statements, but it has been a long road and we are very pleased to give you a unmodified opinion over the primary that we are in. Mr. Yoder: Any questions by members? Ms. Miele? Ms. Miele: Perhaps not a question but acknowledgment that the city suffered kind of a serious setback in 2020 when we Lico a chunk of our finance staff and discovered that we did not really know where our book were at. And that in turn led to several years of clawing ourselves to a point of having a unmodified opinion and I think that we should acknowledge the really hard work that went into it by Jamie and also by Tracy and a handful of other people in the finance department. It took a long time to reconstruct and kind of rebuild our books and institute an entirely new financial software and change a number of things. And that has left us in a place perhaps not financially, but at least fiscally within the financial office that is much better than we were in before 2020 and I think it would be appropriate to say thank you to Zalenkosky because we also abandon our auditor at the same time and we stopped doing audits there for a while and they picked up the thread and we were trying to figure out what was going on. So, I think it has been a challenging couple of years and I really appreciate the hard work you have been doing. I know it has been a lot of time and effort. I would as I always say in regard to the net position, that negative $104 million which is a terrifying number really is in large part to our other postemployment benefits which we are funding on a pay-as-you-go basis right now. Other than that there is also a small chunk related to pension liability which we are more caught up on. Correct me if I'm wrong actually, Kim, the city is in a pretty good position as far as pensions, right? Ms. Stank: Your pension liability is about 17 million at this time. Ms. Miele: And while that sounds like a lot of money it puts us in the upper chunk and I don't actually - we are not outliers on others, but it is worth and it is a sobering thing to look at a balance sheet that shows you $104 million. But, the important thing is year-over-year as a rule we have a habit of budgeting more than we spent and end up in a slightly better financial position than the one we anticipated being in. Unfortunately that will the room usually drinks a little bit with each passing calendar year. But, the financial picture is perhaps not quite as dire as the one we were paying a couple weeks ago. Anyway those would be my observations from finance. Anybody who is not an finance who has questions about the documents I would say get out there and ask them. Kim is here because I cannot answer them. Mr. Yoder Any comments, questions from other members on the 2023 audit? Remind me, I did not catch if this was said and this could be repetitive, so what is the timeline for the next, for 2024? And then getting caught up like when is the estimated time? : We are supposed to have them done by no later than October 1 of next year and we plan to be in line with that. Mr. Yoder: So this time next year we anticipate being caught up completely? Ms. Livermore: Yes, we currently have an RFP out that the bids are due by Monday for the 2024 through 26 audit and once that is awarded we have all of the preparation done for whoever gets the bid. And that takes a couple months and so hopefully - beginning of the year 24 should be done. Mr. Yoder: Any other comments or questions? Good to see. All right, Mrs. Frank, item 10, please? The Resolution was carried with seven yes roll call votes. The vote was 7 to 0. All were in favor. Mr. Allison voted yes, Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Mrs. Katz voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes, Mr. Beiter voted yes, and Mr. Yoder voted yes. Resolution #9963 Resolution to Approve the 2025 James David Robinson Cultural Arts Grant Program The City Clerk read the resolution. Mr. Yoder asked for a motion and a second. Mr. Pulizzi made the motion and it was seconded by Mr. Mackey Mrs. Livermore That is okay. The resolution before you is for the James David Robinson cultural arts grant and I think this is something we do every year. We received four applications and we have always done $3000 divided equally between the four organizations will be 750. The organizations are community art center, Symphony Orchestra, RPPA and the Art league here it. Mr. Yoder: Any comments or questions on the resolution? Mrs. Katz : First of all, everybody has always stated that we would like to see this grant be approved much earlier than the end of the year, because a lot of these groups could use the money sooner than later. The other thing that I would like to know is this was also supposed to be monitored with the money that was given out as little as it is. We are supposed to monitor how it is used and if it is used correctly. And I do not know how it has been done in the past, because it is another thing that get swept under the rug that we completely forget about until it is presented to us the following year for the grant itself. I am happy to see you know the four entities that are being included in this. Mr. Yoder: Did she mute herself? Bonnie, we cannot hear you. Mrs. Katz I am sorry, I don't know what happened. I would like to see this be presented to us earlier if at all possible. And if you can get to us later with how this is broken down of what they plan on using this for I can assume that some of it is maybe for some new programs and a free pass and so many different things that you can think of that they use it for, but I just want to make sure that we are aware of what the money is used for. That is all. Mr. Yoder: Thank you Mrs. Katz. Any other comments, questions from members? All right. Hearing and sing on, Mrs. Frank, item 11. The Resolution was carried with seven yes roll call votes. The vote was 7 to 0. All were in favor. Mr. Allison voted yes, Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Mrs. Katz voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes, Mr. Beiter voted yes, and Mr. Yoder voted yes Ordinance transfer ordinance number 11 2023 budget first reading. The City Clerk read the ordinance. Mr. Yoder asked for a motion and a second. Mr. Pulizzi made the motion and it was seconded by Mr. Beiter. : Mrs. Livermore. The 21 transfer ordinance is the 2023 budget numbers and the next item on the agenda is for the audit and each time we do an audit approval we always do the budget adjustment along with it and that is what this is. The items to make. Mr. Yoder: This is first reading, any comments or questions, we may very well have some after the second one? Ms. Miele? Ms. Miele: How long did it take you to put this together? Be 21 it takes a long time. We try to take the items that go over will retake the funds from the same department, but sometimes that is very challenging and this was all over the place peered. : It looks incredible time consuming. We just have to put out that Once upon a time Tracy when she was in the finance apartment when she suggested that we should shift from a complete line item budgeting scenario to a more department by department budgeting scenario which would save a lot of time on things like this that should not necessarily need to be a matter of ordinance. Mrs. Livermore: I will say that PFM did suggest the same. Ms. Miele: That is to say the departments are in charge of apportioning their own budgets as they see fit and we canonically acquire to spending on training and things like that outside of the budget process, but it would not be a part of the formal budget process and revisions like this would not be required as long as we were moving within departments. Just putting it out there. That is a observation, because it looks like Jamie probably spent 20 hours on this! And it is not a change that we are likely to make anytime soon, but I do think that if we are trying to approach a slim unit civil government, one of the things, it is important to track our expenditures and nobody would ever not say that, but there is tracking and then there is sort of micromanaging and it could be that we are viewing a little bit into that territory. Mr. Yoder: Any other comments, questions? What I would say with a line item, from what I would tell it is very common from looking other cities budgets. Ms. Miele: According to Tracy it is not. It is the lesser of the two paths. Mr. Yoder : I have not looked at the other 51 cities budgets of the state but we can look at like the other optional ones and the other seven or eight or nine that I have looked at. So, just some food for thought. Any other comments or questions on item 7? Hearing The Ordinance was carried in first reading with seven yes roll call votes. The vote was 7 to 0. All were in favor. Mr. Allison voted yes, Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Mrs. Katz voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes. Mr. Beiter voted yes, and Mr. Yoder voted yes. Certificates of Appropriateness – HARB Item 2. 800 Park Place LLC 800 W 4th Street A. Remove steeply pitched iron exit stair on east side. Construct new stairs similar width but with a lesser rise. Build with P.T lumber stringers and risers and composite treads. Finish with custom made wrought iron railings that match other rails on the building. See attached drawing. B. Paint-colors: Same as previously approved, existing. Item 3. Transitional Living Center 900 West Third St. A. Prep and paint as needed with previously approved colors (COA June 21, 2011) Benjamin Moore HC-172 Revere Pewter, Green HC-133 or HC—135 Lafayette Green (trim) Item 4. Mark Marino 1052-1054 Vine Avenue A. Remove existing 3-tab asphalt roof. Repair any damaged soffit, fascia, eve trim with wood to same as original appearance. Replace all damaged underlayment and include shingled roof vent, a dark drip edge and all weatherproofing per code and manufacture specs. Install Landmark or GAF Timberline NS, Architectural Shingles, of a slate or slate-gray color on all roof areas. B. Remove existing gutter system. Install ½ round gutters and round downspouts. Brown or painted brown. Aluminum or galvanized material. Mr. Yoder asked for a motion and a second. Mr. Beiter made the motion and it was seconded by Mr. Mackey. The Certificates of Appropriateness were carried with ven yes roll call votes. The vote was 7 to 0. All were in favor. Mr. Allison voted yes, Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Mrs. Katz voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes. Mr. Beiter voted yes, and Mr. Yoder voted yes. . Accept for filing WMWA & WMSA Minutes, May, June & July HARB Minutes September 2025 Announcements The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting will be held on Thursday, October 16, 2025 at 7:00 PM, Trade & Transit II 144 West Third St, 3rd t floor, Williamsport, PA. Immediately following this City Council meeting will be a Police Pension Board meeting. Upcoming Meetings: Monday, October 6 12:00 PM Planning Commission Tuesday October 14 11:30 AM Public Safety Committee 1:00 PM Finance Committee 2:30 PM Public Works Wednesday October 15 9:00 AM ERC Thursday, October 16 10:30 AM Zoning Hearing Board 7:00 PM City Council Meeting Comments: a. Members of the Public : Scott Miller, 822 Tucker Street. A couple things I wanted to comment quickly on. One, the term limits. One of the things I would worry about is losing that experience of senior state person, because sometimes the devil is in the details and if you have not run into it, I did sheet-metal work for 20 something years and there are those problems that you run into three times in 20 years and if you have not lived through it, you don't know how to get through it. Two, I have told multiple Council persons over the decades I have been coming that you are not being paid enough. Who wants to put themselves for what you have to go through for basically nothing? You spend more I think on your campaigns than you do get paid for being Council persons. And the last thing that I want to comment about was I believe it was Kim Stank, the auditor, she said in 2023 we had a positive of approximately 3 and a half million dollars. That means we had a extra 3 and a half million dollars. So, shouldn't our property taxes, shouldn't our property taxes come down if we have a extra three and half million? Just throwing it out there, because I don't know about you, but my property taxes are a burden. Have a wonderful evening. Mr. Yoder: Any other comments from members of the come -- of the public? Any comments from members of Council? Mr. Mackey. b. Members of Council Mr. Jon Mackey: Sorry to do this, but this will be a recurring theme for me moving forward. It is October, it is getting cold. We will not be paying to heat up City Hall. We all have the information in front of us. We have had a study. We had a financial management firm layout in very fine detail why we should not be holding onto this building anymore. I think one of the arguments that I have heard is that we have all been operating from a separate set of facts. Well, we all have the same facts now. So, I would ask that we make a decision on City Hall sooner rather than later. Mr. Yoder: Thank you, Jon. Any other comments from embers of counsel? Mr. Pulizzi: I second Councilman Mackey 's statements. We need to make a decision. Mr. Yoder: Well, here's what I would say. One of the big pieces from that study was looking at the concept of leasing back space in City Hall and still selling it. I have tried to you know kind of explore that and it is taking much longer than what I had thought or hoped, but aside from that, frankly when I think of the City Hall issue, to me it seems like leasing space somewhere seems like a good idea. We have gotten feedback from the county that there is space there and aside from leasing City Hall, maybe the Shar will building, but there is not a lot of other options there and the kicker is still police and their space and that is kind of where my individual head is that and in terms of the concept of leasing space from City Hall, we can do a couple different things and we can try to continue to informally see if the economics work on that or not. And if not, maybe we just do a RFP again and get updated price and also include, hey, what would it look like to lease this space back and give us the ability to figure if one or the other and then execute either way. I will throw that out there, but that is kind of where it is at, Jon in my purview. Ms. Miele: I think that is the most solid approach, frankly. Given that we simultaneously know that we do not have the borrowing power or the grid to pursue a new structure, we have to figure something out. So, I think we should probably look at that. Mr. Yoder: What does everybody else think? Mr. Allison : I think we need to move ahead. Yes. And I like that format. Mr. Pulizzi: We all know what our financial situation is for the city and we all know what we are looking at having to expect. It is a matter of wants vs. needs right now. I mean we can want as much as there is, but what we truly need? And we need to get ourselves out of the financial situation that we are very quickly about to face. And those are the hard decisions that we will have to make. Ms. Miele: And out of the physical situation that we are in. That is the thing that we are looking for the fastest and most economical option to go from being a city that is scattered over eight different buildings to a holistic approach and I am afraid that we will throw the baby out with the bathwater if we eliminate the only option that would allow us to consolidate all of those functions in one building again as it seems that we need to. But, I don't know - this could be better for an executive session or something like that or some sort of smaller group discussion. It does not need to be exact depending on the parameters of and what we are discussing. To try to constitute what would be a RFP for something like this to get the issues her once and for all. Mr. Beiter: The question I have is somewhat related and has to do with these particular buildings, trade and transit one and two and I think knowing where we are at with that has helped us make that decision, because we are in the process of dealing with the federal government FTA on how we are going to liquidate these places, potentially. Ms. Miele: If we can come up with those answers simultaneously that would be the fastest route. Mr. Yoder: Absolutely. Mr. Mackey: Just to clarify. You are suggesting selling City Hall and then leasing space back to, in that building again for - right? Mr. Yoder: Yes. So, that was one of the things that the study did not explore. But, yes. Mr. Mackey: I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. Mr. Yoder: No worries. Any other comments or questions about that or anything else from members of counsel? Mr. Mackey: Again and sorry - even that scenario is going to take a long time. Whoever buys that building is looking at a extensive remodel to put it lightly. So, if that is the scenario in which we think is our best option, then the first thing we need to do is put it back on the market and get a fair offer for the building. Just making sure - Ms. Miele: I would say though, Jon and not that this is by any stretch a definition of what would happen this time around, but I have always been and I was shocked when I was a kid and asked my mom the restaurant that I operate was - it went through a pretty horrendous fire and sat vacant in January 1984 they undertook renovations and were completely finished by November 1984 and we moved in and opened a restaurant and have done very few renovations since. So, while you are not wrong that it probably would take time I don't know that that is a preordained conclusion. I think that something like that could be accomplished fairly quickly. And especially because the building is in significant a better shape than a lot of the buildings that we see take a while to renovate. But, it simply depends on the contract and a number of other factors. Mr. Mackey: Condition of the building is up for debate. Ms. Miele It didn't go through a fire and then sit vacant for seven years. Mr. Yoder: Any other comments on Jon 's initiation or discussion going forward? Mr. Pulizzi: Just really quick I'm curious because Councilman Mackey we are getting into a good point of it is getting colder and how many thousands of dollars does it take to keep that place over the winter? I: $20,000 And it is only going to get worse. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Miele: One question on that. Hey, Scott, what do we heat up that building to? Ms. Miele: I could heat up a couple historic houses for a fraction of that! Mr. Livermore: We have thermostats locked around 60. Ms. Miele: Theoretically we could heated up to 50 and be well above the threshold? Mr. Livermore: Knowing the track record of what is in their - Ms. Miele: And either way, until we have another location for property which Jon is a secondary consideration we are obligated to keep portions of the building to 65°, because the one thing we are going in this whole discussion is that we actually are still occupying City Hall. Just not most of it. And I think that the 60 degrees should be for at least the workout room. So the extent that we are laying a bunch of money is because we are still utilizing a bunch of that building and that requires us to heated up to 65°. Mr. Mackey: Utilizing, correct me and refresh my memory that is the gym downstairs that we are contractually obligated to provide, right? And so as far as the rest of the building is inserted there has not been much activity there. Ms. Miele: And what is in storage and I mean I think it takes up a couple thousand square feet at least. I don't know - how much total square footage do you think those two things occupy between - Mr. Livermore could not even spitball. Mr. Yoder: Changing it 5° is talking maybe like five or $600. If we are talking about adjusting the temperature to save a few dollars like it is not going to move the needle. Ms. Miele: That is not what I'm talking about. At this point I'm saying how much of the building and how many thousands of square feet are we currently still utilizing is what I was curious. Mr. Yoder: I would say one third of the basement. Mr. Livermore: With police there we are talking a 40,000 square-foot building and then knocking everything down to 8000. I don't know. Ms. Miele: That is just a secondary curiosity. Thank you. : Any other comments from members or anything else about City Hall? Mr. Mackey: Not about City Hall. I would like to talk about brick Street, now. That is a joke! Ms. Miele: Mackey desperately doesn't want me to vote for his term limit ordinance and he is trying to figure out how to make it a reality! Mr. Yoder: Any other comments from members of counsel on anything? Any comments from administration? c. Members of Administration Mr. Livermore: I'm already up here, I have one. So, past years leaf cleanup usually start the second week of October and we are starting October 6, week earlier due to the fact that it has been really dry. The leaves are falling a little sooner and we have been out and about try to get caught up, but you can put your stuff out on the curb for us to get now. Mr. Pulizzi What are the restrictions as far as what we can and cannot put out. Mr. Yoder : What are the restrictions of like what you cannot put out? It happens every year. Mr. Livermore: Leaves are little bit different than brush, we can swing over up into the grass area with the trucks, but will repeat brush up we cannot, we will destroy the property. But, get them on the curb and we will get to them as fast as we can peer. Mr. Yoder: What should residents not put out? Mr. Livermore: Brush. Just leaves. Mr. Yoder Like not dirt or grass. Mr. Livermore : Do not bury it. Because, we will leave it. Mr. Yoder : Look, I see this every year. I tell people every year and it is in one ear and out the other. And that is why I ask the question. It is out there and everybody heard it from the man, the myth, the legend, Scott Livermore. Ms. Miele : I was just lecturing myself about that yesterday that no, you cannot put those old sunflower plants out by the curb. It is important to point out. Mr. Yoder Any other comments from the administration? John, you're the news media tonight, any questions you are good? Motion and second for adjournment. d. News Media Adjournment Meeting adjourned upon motion by Mr. Beiter and a seconded by Mr. Pulizzi. . Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM with unanimous ayes. Submitted by: Janice M. Frank City Clerk