City Council

Thursday, July 9, 2026 7:00 PM Williamsport, PA Council President Eric Beiter brought the Williamsport City Council meeting to order on Thursday, July 9, 2026 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: Eric Beiter, Council President Derek Slaughter, Mayor, absent Mr. Willia Vincent Pulizzi, Vice President Valerie Fessler absent Liz Miele, Councilwoman Tracey Harer,, Fire Chief, Adam W Jonah Milliken, Councilman, Justin Ottaviano,, Police Chief, Adam Yoder, Councilman Solicitor Nick Grimes Jon Mackey, Councilman, Janice Frank, City Clerk David Dussinger Jamie Livermore Scott Livermore, S&P absent Absent Kris Black Adam Welt3rroth, Treasurer absent Bill Scott absent Members of the public Approval of the Williamsport City Council minutes of 06/25/26 approved upon a motion by Mr. Milliken and second from Dr. Yoder. All were in favor with a vote of 6 to 0. Ms. Miele had not yet arrived. Mr. Joseph Pawlak Limited Courtesy of the Floor . There was none. Mr. Joe Pawlak Ordinance #6531 Mr. Gary Knarr Mr. Tom Cillo C. Dean An Ordinance Transfer Ordinance (final reading) Dave Young, Police Chief Chief He The City Clerk read the ordinance. Sol. J. David Smith Mr. Beiter asked for a motion and second to adopt the ordinance Janice Frank, City Clerk, absent Mr. Milliken made the motion and it was seconded by Dr. YoderTodd Heckman, Fire Chief , Mrs. Livermore: This is the final reading of the ordinance that we discussed last meeting. News Media Mr. Beiter: Any questions, concerns as discussed last meeting? Seeing and hearing nothing, Mrs. Frank? The ordinance was carried in final reading with six yes roll call votes. The vote was 6 to 0. Dr. Yoder voted yes, Mr. Milliken voted yes, Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Dussinger voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Mr. Beiter voted yes. Ms. Miele had not yet arrived. Members of News Media |Resolution #Members 10091of the news media Resolution Specific Findings Setting Forth the Declared Invalidity of the Zoning Ordinance & Making References to Specific uses which are either not permitted or not permitted in sufficient Quantity The City Clerk read the resolution. Mr. Beiter asked for a motion and second. Dr. Yoder made the motion and it was seconded by Mr. Milliken. Mr. Milliken Thank you, Janice, saying it so I do not have to. Essentially two weeks ago, Council passed a resolution stating that our planning code in Williamsport did not adequately prepare or plan for data center development and in fact it could essentially be read to ban data centers. This resolution is now the second part of that. The state of PA and the municipal code in PA requires this second step. Essentially we declare that our planning code was invalid, because it essentially mandated data centers and this confirms that and says specifically, we don't have any mention of like cooling towers or power supply. Long story short, this resolution is intended to allow us and give Williamsport the opportunity to revise our planning code or zoning code I should say to allow for appropriate development and protect quality of life in Williamsport. We will have 180 days from the last council meeting to draft, discuss and vote on a curative amendment to fix our zoning. So, that is what this is about. I will leave it out that even though I like words. So - Mr. Beiter I trust that you have been texting Scott Williams every day, 179, 178 - Mr. Milliken: Yes, to be clear this will be a curative effort and not something that I am equipped or you know we can work on it together, but we need to call on our friends like Scott Williams and people at the county and work with our solicitors to do this the right way. Mr. Beiter: I appreciate you bringing this forward. This is a very hot topic. Specifically in Pennsylvania we have communities not very far from us that are experiencing some woes of data centers being built and it has taken them by surprise. So, being proactive about this so we can at least be prepared that something like this should happen, I cannot even begin to think where they would put something like that in the city, but still I would rather be prepared then get caught. Any questions from members of counsel regarding this item? Doctor Yoder? Dr. Yoder: Just one comment. If Scott watched the playback, I would encourage you to talk to the local government services group at DCED, they have a really good toolkit. I feel like they are supporting some of the regions across the state with this similar effort and they probably have a lot of good Intel and best practices, etc. I think Justin Hauser and solicitor Weiss, I sent some stuff over to him and encourage them to reach out to DCED. No disrespect to the county, but I would guess that DCD has more resources that even the county may benefit from. Mr. Milliken: I 100% agree with Doctor Yoder on this and although my name is next to this, I know that Adam, you raised some good points on this topic. So - will do. Mr. Grimes: President Beiter, your third whereas clause has a blank in it, I would clarify from your motion and your second that that is intended to be the 25th or probably a better procedure would be to have a motion to amend that to include the 25th in the blank of that third whereas clause spirits. Mr. Beiter: Yes, I make a motion to add the 25th on the third whereas. Dr. Yoder second.. The resolution was carried with six yes roll call votes. The vote was 6 to 0. Dr. Yoder voted yes, Mr. Milliken voted yes, Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Dussinger voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Mr. Beiter voted yes. Ms. Miele had not yet arrived Resolution Authorizing the Solicitation for Bids for the Sale of Real Estate – City Hall (tabled) The City Clerk read the resolution. Mr. Beiter asked for motion and second. Mr. Mackey made the motion and it was seconded by Dr. Yoder. Mr. Milliken What we have before us is a resolution I guess authorizing city administration to open the door to solicit bids for a sale of City Hall. This is something that we talked about two weeks ago. I will start by saying some things that we are not voting on the night. We are not voting to sell City Hall tonight. This is again a resolution to seek bids. Or authorize the city to start to seek out bids for potential sale of City Hall. We are not voting on a proposed use of City Hall tonight. Importantly we are not voting on a RFP or a IFB or any kind of language about how we are going to sell City Hall. It is my opinion and belief that on city Council that our function in government is to help direct the city as to what we should do and I would answer that we are directing the city to seek out proposals and bids for the sale of City Hall and I would say that the city administration and its function to figure out then how we are going to do that. And I see that as a drafting of a RFP. There was some debate and back-and-forth two weeks ago and concerned about specific language and I want to recognize that everyone here cares about not screwing this up, right? We want to do the best we can for our city and I guess that I personally believe that this resolution allows us to move forward tonight. As a resident of Williamsport, I don't want my city Council drafting a legal document. I guess I see that as the role of administration working with the solicitor. I think that counsel can and should provide input and I think that we have made good progress on that. And I guess I will leave it at that. Tonight we are again voting on I want to specifically read part of the resolution. Now therefore it is hereby resolved that the city of Williamsport as follows the city of Williamsport holds that the real property commonly known as City Hall located at 245 W. fourth straight Williamsport Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, generally identified as tax parcel 60 300-7100 and as more particularly described as the deed recording in Lycoming County at 832 page 28 shall be exposed for sale by solicit bids in accordance with 11 PA CS on and on. The city of Williamsport reserves the right to reject all bids received in its sole discretion. So, again this resolution is a two-page resolution 488 words and is just authorizing the next step in the process. So, I will leave it at that. I know that there are some people who have strong feelings about this as they should. Mr. Beiter: I will open it up to comments and questions and concerns. Doctor Yoder? Mr. Yoder: So, when we had dialogue on this two weeks ago where we tabled this because of some public comments about some accuracies of what was given to us by you two weeks ago and it was delivered to us and the actual document on the day of the meeting and the other part when we tabled this was we had questions and I thought we were moving towards redoing the RFP to reflect a different story system. I know that some of that work has happened. So, what am I missing? With your dialogue? Mr. Milliken: I can say that and I know Councilwoman Miele and Councilman Dussinger may want to this as well and I am under the impression that they took the original IFB and then had a meeting and revised it and added language for a scoring system that was sent may be yesterday I think? In an email? And solicitor Chris Kenyon had some legal concerns with that. He stated that we cannot do a scoring system and we are not able to based off of our own code and that is why he wrote the IFB as he did. And not to put you on the spot, but you are a part of that call today. And so then Dave took that feedback and revised the revised RFP, IFB, whatever we want to call it. And I guess and I will shut up in a second, but I want to make a point to say that I think that is a good document. And I do not think like we are not in any way voting on that document or any document tonight. We are voting on a resolution. So, that conversation about language within that or concerns in the IFB can continue and should continue. I think that we have made solid progress on this. But, I guess my whole point is that it is not our role as a counsel of seven people to dictate the specific wording on this and I think that we can provide feedback and we can provide you know our thoughts and it is our job to decide what we are doing. And I am personally of the opinion that we have a building that has been vacant for five years and that is continually in worse condition and the city of Williamsport is paying $50,000 a year to keep the city administration and police have expressed no desire to go back into that building that we have paid for proposals that state it will cost tens of millions of dollars for us to renovate and so here we are today. And again - again I just feel like that is why this resolution is 400 some words and it is not a RFP because we are not seven lawyers up here. And even if we were we would not agree on it. Mr. Dussinger: I have two comments. It is not our job to write the document. We have solicitors that do that, but it is our job to make sure that that building is repurposed in the best interest of the city. To where it is used to benefit the city the most. Through the history that the building carries with it. With that being said, yes we did receive counsel from one solicitor today on how the building should be put up for sale. And what that wording looks like. I will say though that we are still looking into all possible avenues on how the conveyance of that building can lead this city and go into the private sector to where it will be utilized the best for the city. And we have not yet gnashed that process. We are still looking into all auctions of transferring that building and what that may look like and with that being said we are not done with that process yet. So, we still need about another seven days to finish that process to figure out what all the options we have are for that building and then be able to bring that back to counsel with a proposal on the best way to convey that building from the city to another sector. Ms. Miele: I think that it does not need a lot of belaboring, urban planning 101 would dictate any structure that large that is in the heart of the central business district needs to ideally continue to have a street-level use to continue to be a vibrant part of the city. And we know from the last time we attempted to sell this building that at least one of the three proposals we received if not two were really street-level proposals that included engagement. So, we know that there is every possibility that if we were to decide to sell it to the highest bidder, they would not have a use for it that is conducive to maintaining the fabric of downtown and I think from a financial perspective what we need to look at is when I talk about maintaining the fabric of downtown it is a livability concern for the city and walk ability for downtown. And it also is tax dollars in our pockets over the next 40 or 50 years and we do something with that building that creates additional revitalization in that neighborhood and that brings us money for decades to come. We screw up the repurposed thing of that structure and that screws over downtown for decades to come. There is just no other way to look at it. And while I would agree it is a building that needs to have a new purpose now, I wholeheartedly agree with that, I think that this is not a we need to get rid of it, we need to get rid of it fast, this is a we need to do it and we need to do it right because the decision we make and if we pass it to another owner that reuse becomes the reuse that it has for the next several decades. And I don't want to be the council member who lets it become a warehouse and that is trying to explain to people why downtown Williamsport is a dead zone. And so that is kind of basic urban planning in order to have a walkable city UNIDO to be a use in that space that makes people want to walk past and around it to interact with the structures there and around it. And I apologize - I entered this meeting a little bit behind the eight ball late of course and I apologize for that and also because I was not a part of the call this morning with the solicitor and I was not invited to that conversation. And so I missed the opportunity to ask the solicitor who made the decision that we could not show a RFP question about our process and my understanding from the limited research I have done is that there are mechanisms for us to issue something more geared toward choosing the best puzzle and left geared towards the financially immediate financial benefit. But, I need to flesh that out with the solicitor and since I did not have the opportunity today I am looking forward to do that over the next week or so. It is I mean - Adam, take it, take it! Mr. Yoder: Back to what I was trying to figure out what I'm missing here - I would agree with that. I am not privy to the opinion of the solicitor. And when I hear what you are talking about Jonah, I am like this is different than what we kind of went off on with the last meeting. So, I am not privy to the opinion of the solicitor and I would be interested in understanding what that is, because at the end of the day and this is not about City Hall. This is not about the intricacies of the issue. And we can get to that if we want to tonight. This ties back to me about the debate that we had with term limits. We are not a third class city. We are a optional third class city. And what that actually means and Bruce is back there and you will correct me if I'm wrong, but we are and I'm serious, Bruce knows - Ms. Miele: Please do not come up for public comment! Nick can do it! Mr. Yoder: But, that means that we are to a extent a quote unquote level of home role from a operational perspective and if you read their charter, there are clear things that we still have to abide by city code, but other than that we have autonomy to execute operations in ways that are advantageous to us. And I have not brushed up on the charter, but I do not recall offloading procurement or selling of property to be one of those specific things that we have to follow the state law four. Right? And I would be interested in understanding what the opinion is. And why I think it is important beyond the issue of City Hall is we are not going to take that autonomy seriously with an issue like this, are we really prepared as an institution of the city to take it seriously if the local government study commission deems that home rule makes sense and if the public deems that it passes and they accept it. That is a bigger question than City Hall, right? That is why I'm interested in that opinion. Same argument that we had with term limits, right? We as an institution of the city do not utilize that in my opinion culturally you know we have room for growth there. And where that comes into play to the City Hall issue and Liz, to your point, look - this is a big issue for a number of different reasons, but most importantly this is a very sizable building that has a lot of historical significance to the city and if it is not how do I phrase this? We potentially have an opportunity to get it into other hands in a much more innovative way that can really positively impact the community and the downtown and our local economy etc. And I do not see us having that ability and I see us losing their control if we follow the traditional process that I without understanding am of the opinion that we should have that autonomy to do what we talked about doing two weeks ago. And so look, to me with this resolution now and trying to get off of my soapbox here - I respect your perspective on this and generally I would agree with you. But, with a big issue like this and with an issue that has been a struggle for the city to work for and through my entire time on counsel, 6 and a half years and at the end of the day, my individual vote can impact what can happen and more importantly what the ripple effects are in the community and I individually feel more comfortable still having all of that worked out and reflected in the resolution so that process is clarified and can be executed accordingly when we pass the resolution. And I appreciate where you're coming from, Jonah. I respectfully disagree and it seems to me that there is probably still some things to work out. I think the plan that we left off on two weeks ago was a good plan and I think that we still have the runway to execute that plan and frankly I do not know what waiting two more weeks is going to do in the grand scheme of things in selling City Hall. That is just my individual opinion. Ms. Miele: I would also add that until we have a RFP or IFP document that it cannot go out for bid and saw us passing a resolution without the document existing is no different than us waiting two weeks. And so we need to have the finalized document before the bid can happen. And so I don't think that we dramatically lengthen the amount of time before it happens by waiting to pass the resolution two weeks from now. Secondarily, the resolution like I said, I would like to see us try to find a mechanism that allows us to not just solicit bids for the sale of the property which is what it says in the resolution. And in the hope that that continues to be a possibility to do something other than just solicit bids for sale I would be hesitant to pass this as written, because I want to see us have the broadest range of possibilities until we know for sure they have to be closed down. Anyway - I think that is about all. But, yes, I will say that I both agree and I largely agree with you, the owner. We have any credibly talented community development staff and I think that they should be leading because this is a community development initiative and our staff and because they have so much experience in precisely this sort of project collectively not all of them with the city but in the various places they have worked and I do think that they should be leading this charge. But, I also think that counsel should have input into it above and beyond just voting on a resolution because like I said I think a project like this that could potentially determine things within the city for years to come is something where we need as many smart people thinking about it as we can find. And if we have some that smart people throw them in there as well and this is not a judgment, but I think that we all need to be thinking about this and trying to make it the best project that we can. But, I definitely would agree that this should be led by community development, because they are the people with the expertise here. Mr. Mackey : I will just point out that the City Hall has essentially been a warehouse for five years and that is still very vibrant and has not died and I will just put that out there. And maybe I am misunderstanding what is being said here and it sounds to me like we are back to square one and two weeks ago we had a document that we table because we did not like some of the language and correct me if I'm wrong, you just said that it is now the job of the administration to write this document. Ms. Miele: We did write another document. There have now been two or three drafts and we have been asked to work on it. Mr. Mackey: I saw that document. But, did you not just say tonight that we are passing this resolution to instruct the administration to write the RFP? Or did I misunderstand? >>SPEAKER: I guess what I mean is that it does not include the specific item or RFP. It is not work that is lost and I don't personally believe that if we were to vote yes on this tonight - we are not starting at zero. We have that document and everything you're talking about t collaborating with our planning department and community development department, that can still happen I guess. And go ahead - Mr. Mackey: Thank you for clarifying. Because, the document that I recently saw the updated version I thought was really - several steps in the right direction. I liked a lot of things that I saw. I just wanted to make sure. And so I feel way more comfortable now with what you are saying. Mr. Yoder: And two points, Jon, for you. Individually I think that we should have the resolution reflected that document. I may be the minority and that and that is fine. But, more importantly I think Jonah, what I was interpreting at the beginning of this was hey - we cannot do what we tried to do in two weeks and I disagree with that because of the soapbox that I had five minutes ago. And so for me I think the resolution needs to reflect what our intent is and I frankly do not think that we have - I think the resolution does not reflect our intent coming in here. I think that we need to get clarity on what the process actually is going to look like and what we are legally allowed to do. That is what I am saying. Mr. Beiter: If I may interrupt and I have a direct question for you, Mr. Grimes. Paragraph number two, the city of Williamsport shall be able to place any and all conditions and/or restrictions on the sale of the above referenced property as the mayor may deem reasonably necessary. My question for you and also other members of Council - if we were to amend that and add in the mayor and city Council may deem reasonably necessary, would that be something that would then allow us to take the work that has been done by Liz and others, Mr. Dussinger and so on to get that document to be a part of what we are agreeing to, sell the building. In the future. And is that something that other members of Council would see as a valuable compromise? This evening? Mr. Grimes: The direct answer is yes. Unless there are no conditions placed on it, but if conditions require city Council approval, obviously city councilmembers cannot act individually and would have to come back to the Board for a vote for any conditions which would then require the invitation for bid to be improved by counsel before it is issued. As it is written, that is not required. This does give the administration authority to go out and seek bids as they see fit and obviously counsel would have to approve or reject bids that come in. But, adding that language would require any invitation for proposals that would have conditions on it to be before counsel. Mr. Beiter: Is this something that everybody would be amenable to? I think it is a step in the right direction. Ms. Miele: I would still prefer because I don't think that we are going to make enough progress to get something - a bid document drafted and put out in the next two weeks I do not see a reason to wait and I'm totally amenable to adding in city Council in that paragraph and I would feel countable with that and I think that is a solid idea. And I would still prefer to see us table is for two more weeks. I am happy to make the amendment and amend it and we can see how it falls out. Mr. Beiter : What I'm going to ask is I would like to propose the amendment to add the language of the mayor and city Council to paragraph number two. Ms. Miele : I second that. . The amendment to the resolution was carried with 6 yes roll call votes. The vote was 6 to 1 . Dr. Yoder voted yes, Mr. Milliken voted no,, Mr. Mackey voted yes,, Mr. Dussinger voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Mr. Beiter voted yes. Mr. Grimes: If I could just clarify that there is a little nuance to that language where it says conditions or restrictions on the sale of the property. It could be argued and I don't think that this is a strong argument, but you can still allow administration to get bids without putting any restrictions on the sale of the property and of course functionally if you pass for bids without any restrictions and after the bids come and try to take a big number and address returns to a sale after the fact, the buyer is not going to go for that. But, technically as it is written the administration can ask for bids and then city Council afterwards can say that we will accept this with these conditions, these reasonable conditions, but that would make the sale fall apart most likely at that point. Mr. Beiter: Which I don't think any of us want to see beyond that. Mr. Grimes: And I'm happy to clarify the solicitor position on proposals as you work through this for the next few weeks. The third class city code specifically has provisions on how to sell surplus property which I think you will see the next item on the agenda tonight also has a specific sections on how you sell real estate or real property. There is a requirement in there that it is either done by accepting the highest bid going out for bids and accepting the highest dollar bid or through public auction. Doctor Yoder is correct and out suggest even that Mr. Hoffman may disagree with me, but the solicitor position is that if the third class city optional code does not reference a specific power that is given under the optional third class city code then you have to fall back on the third class city code and that is how the local government addition to DCD and how they view the code to work., Doctor Yoder and Mr. Hoffman can probably speak better to it than I could in that there is some older case law that views the city charter as a more home rule charter which would sort of turn that interpretation in verse to say the optional third class charter is defining what powers you are restricted to otherwise in all other categories you can react however you would like to as long as there is not a generalized statement on it. That is not the solicitor position. The solicitor position especially if you're looking at selling a property that you don't want to get into if you give a marketable title after the fact during proper bidding would have to be that you have to required the requirements of the city code would require you to go out to bid and accept the highest bid. Mr. Pulizzi : Does it necessarily how to be the highest monetary amount or is it the highest responsible bidder? Mr. Grimes that cannot prove to you that they have the finances available to make a purchase that you don't need to get into an agreement of sale with that individual or the organization, but if the suggestion is that you can play some of these other conditions on how the property is used as a qualifier for a responsible bidder, you would not be able to do that under the language of the third class city code. Councilwoman Miele 's point she said that we cannot even put any requests for bids out unless we had the accompanying RFP. We need documentation before we put it out to bid, is that correct? Mr. Grimes: With the change to the ordinance that is probably close to correct and away the resolution was written, that is not true. The mayor at the direction of city Council to go and solicit bids could draft and issued the invitation for bid document and then bring them in that are back to counsel at that point. Ms. Miele: My point is that we don't have a document done and what are the chances that that is going to happen? Mr. Pulizzzi: If we vote on this and pass this tonight with the new language that would allow the mayor to put out for bid and then we can bring it to counsel and counsel can go yes, we will accept that, but here's our list of demands or here is our list of what it has to accompany. And I guess that is they hang up. Why vote yes to this if we don't have everything else? Mr. Grimes : The change to section 2 would allow the mayor to go out and solicit bids if there are no restrictions with them. I would suggest however that if city Council is going to take the approach that you all want to approve in the actual invitation for bids that go out, then there is really no reason to do it in two parts whether you accept this tonight and then accept what the invitation for bid looks like in two weeks or you just accepted the invitation for bid and what that looks like in two weeks if you go to draft it and bring in front of counsel anyways it would end at the same - this document would be unnecessary if in two weeks you're going to say here is the invitation for bids that we have drafted and we want the mayor to solicit bids based on this document. Mr. Pulizzi: Thank you. And that is what I was hoping we could get to. As much as I appreciate Mr. Milliken pushing this out and pushing it forward and not losing momentum on something that the Doctor Beiter or Doctor Yoder, I apologize - Doctor Yoder, I am sorry. But, 6 and a half years we have been dealing with this. And Mr. Milliken and I appreciate the desire to not lose momentum on this project again as we visit this over a year ago and then we lost momentum on it and as such to councilmen Mackey 's point, essentially a warehouse downtown that cost us 50 or $60,000 a year annually to keep up. And I appreciate the desire to not lose momentum on this and keep it rolling. But, if Mr. Grimes is saying even if we pass this tonight and we put out a request for bid, it will not do anything if counsel also has contingencies that we want to add to it. Mr. Milliken: I do understand and I guess that is my note not to take power away from us even though that is what my note date, it is my belief that this building has sat vacant for five years and we have spent over 1/4 million dollars on it without even thinking about planning and our own salaries and so probably over half $1 million for five years, because this counsel is operating like we need to have the unanimous seven vote agreement on a very complex thing. So, that is why again I may be taking the philosophical easy path of saying our job is to decide whether or not we want to sell or not. And if the decision is to not sell it, okay. But, if we are going to sell it, I guess my position is let's be serious with ourselves and it has been five years not to just keep saying that, but it has been five years. And so I do have hesitation. Just one of seven seats. When I look at this counsel and I think we are going to make progress in seven days? And we just added a clause that says any of us - any of us can add additional restrictions or opinions to a legal document and so that is where I'm coming from. It sounds like some members would like to make a motion to table or not, that is fine. I will vote no on that. Mr. Pulizzi: If I may, it sounds like you don't want us to get in our own way. Mr. Milliken: I think that we have sufficiently got in our own way for years. And I think now I'm getting on a soapbox and this will be a bigger soapbox. I think there exists a real trust issue within the city of Williamsport government like we have to work alongside city administration. In good faith. Like not just say the words, but actually want to work through the challenge and conversations and I know that I'm saying this as the new guy and I know that you got to put in a lot of time. But, we need to do better at that and that is why - I am afraid of this sitting stagnant for another five years. That is truly how I feel. And it is not the end of the world if it does. But, it is sad. Mr. Beiter: I will tell you, Mr. Milliken, this will not - I will not allow this to drag on anymore. I understand everyone is concerned and we want to be sure that everything is done correctly, but this is not something that we will be talking about a year from now like hey, let's sell City Hall. Mr. Milliken: It is in the minutes, now. Mr. Beiter It is on YouTube, as well! And I completely agree with you and a lot of the points that you make. So, what I would ask and I know Liz, you would like to say something and I will allow you to speak and then FMA after you. Ms. Miele : Okay, sure. No - alone to say is that part of the reason the building is still sitting vacant is that several years ago now we did go through a bidding process and we received bids that we found unsatisfactory and that is what I'm trying to avoid here. Going through the effort and the time of our staff to show people the building and request bids and have them draw up plans so we can make a decision and find the responses we get our things that we don't feel are adequate uses for that structure. It just seems better to me to figure out what we want there and to flesh out a little bit whether there is law and I have been getting a handful of texts from the solicitor saying that he is going to look into the possibility of transferring the building to someone who can issue a RFP instead of just the highest bidder. And if there is a path that allows us better flexibility in who we choose I would like to find that out before and not after we receive a whole bunch of bids for a building that we find that we have to reject because they simply are not what we need there. And it just seems to me like we need a couple more weeks. We understand a little bit better all of the ramifications and moving parts and then you know if we have to take it out for bid and hope the highest bidder is also something we want and reject bids if not, then so be it. But, that is what happened however many years ago and I would like to see a not happen again and I would like to structure it so that we are asking for what we want and we do not need to vote in consensus, all seven of us at one time. We in fact just voted to amend this resolution without you. And in two weeks what we are looking at is something coming up and if four of us think it is a good idea then that is what we will do, and if not then that is not what happens. And that does not mean that we are not a all or nothing body and we never have been. And that has made all of us upset at some point or another and we will continue without a doubt moving forward. I am done. I stopped talking and I was staring at your hand. Mr. Mackey: I might respectfully disagree what happened the last time we tried to sell City Hall, but what I'm hearing Liz, maybe specifically from you is that in two weeks we are going to have a document to vote on - Ms. Miele: We will have a clear path forward in two weeks and I would like to see us execute a RFP and if there is a mechanism to do that that is not this mechanism then I'll try to have that done with or without the help of the solicitor. And it sounds to me like most of us feel as though a RFP that prioritizes the specific nature of the development over the purchase price is probably a better way to guarantee good development down there. Right? And so if I would prefer to try to figure out if that is a possibility if we tackled this another way then the city issuing a IFP. If it is not, then we come back and we have a IFB and we see what shakes out. Mr. Mackey: In your head, what does that timeline look like? Ms. Miele: If we are putting out an invitation for bids and we do in two weeks and hopefully anything want take two weeks, but that does depend a little bit on the complexity if there is another solution then we will have to look at the conversation and what that is and whether or not we want to move in that direction. So, it may take longer than two weeks to get the general - to be able to solicit both the administration and counsel on what they think about a different path. But, like I said the problem is that until this morning I was under the impression that Dave and I were working with the administration to write an RFP and we can move forward that way. And I learned from days after the call happened that Chris Kenyon said that we could not and I have not even been able to talk to Chris Kenyon had determined that this was not a path that we could do. Mr. Mackey: You could not proceed in the method - Ms. Miele: In the way that we organ on it. I just don't know that we would have a document ready to vote on tonight either, but we were a lot closer to it before we got the last little bit of counsel that said we could not do it. And now I can try to look at other avenues, but because I did not get that word until today at 1 PM, it was hard for me to track down any alternatives between them. Mr. Mackey: I also don't think that if we passed this resolution tonight that the administration is going to go out and accept bids and bring them to us to try and - that is not going to happen, right? Obviously from what I'm hearing tonight any of those would get voted down really quickly, right? And so I don't know. This to me - I could go either way on this. But, what I can say is if we vote to table this specific resolution as it is worded tonight and we get back here in two weeks and we are still having the same conversation, I will be the first to take it off and make a resolution to take it off the table and vote on it because I agree with Jonah, we cannot get out of our own way. We need to sell the building. And in my opinion we had a fairly legitimate offer to sell the building last time, right? Unfortunately we had a handful of residents who decided to come and express their opinions on that and that led us to take a step back. And so yes. I do not know - I don't know what else to say really. But, we do need to sell the building, right? Ms. Miele: We are not going to take care of the building, we have not done it since 1972 - Mr. Mackey: I like the things that you are saying, but the longer you speak the more I hear more time passing and more time passing and then the next thing that you know it is February and we are still paying to heat up City Hall. And what I'm saying is that cannot happen. Ms. Miele : I think all of us are interested in finding a better use of the building before it gets into the kind of shape that would make it hard to find an adaptive reuse for it. But, I am also concerned that I don't want to make it such a hasty decision and I don't want to being something that we regret. And I am not - it is hard to say what the final outcome of the last round of bids may have been. But, I also don't want to wind up in a situation where we are sitting out on another three or four bids and we are trying to decide whether we can make peace with any of them in having some sort of public debate that I would rather be looking at a really good quality proposals. Mr. Mackey: I'll just warn everybody no matter how minute -- how good this is, we will vote on it and most people will be yelling about it, okay? And I want to be sure everyone is prepared for that this time. There will be people that are upset about this and they are going to tell you about it before the meeting starts. And so I just want to make sure that we are all ready for that. Ms. Miele: I think some of those people have also made peace with the idea of selling City Hall. Mr. Beiter: And so if I may. I think that we are at a crossroads here. And I can ask for a vote or I can ask if somebody has a motion that they would like to make. >>ELIZABETH MIELE: I make a motion to table this until July 23. Dr. Yoder seconded it. . . The resolution was carried with 4 yes roll call votes. The vote was 4 to 3 . Dr. Yoder voted yes, Mr. Milliken voted no,, Mr. Mackey voted no, Mr. Dussinger voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Mr. Beiter voted no. Resolution Authorizing the Sale of Surplus Personal Property of the City of Williamsport The City Clerk read the resolution. Mr. Beiter asked for motion and second. Mr. Mackey made the motion and it was seconded by Dr. Yoder Ms. Livermore: Good evening and hopefully mine is easier than the last one. This is a standard sale of surplus property that we plan to sell a 2021 Dodge Durango and the new Durango went into play and so the 2021 are going out and we are just selling one of those because we got a new one. Mr. Beiter: Any questions or concerns or comments? Protests? Willingness to offer - Ms. Miele : What are we selling it for? Ms. Livermore I have no idea on both of those. The people who are selling and have the idea - it is at least more than $2000. I can tell you that. The resolution was carried with 7 yes roll call votes. The vote was 7 to 0 Dr. Yoder voted yes, Mr. Milliken voted yes, Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Dussinger voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Mr. Beiter voted yes. Certificate of Appropriateness - HARB Item 2. Susan Cioffi 756 West Third Street A. Remove existing asphalt roofing from front porch. Replace sheathing as needed. Install Architectural Shingles, gray shade and dark drip edge. Reinstall existing gutter system Mr. Beiter asked for motion and second. Dr. Yoder made the motion and it was seconded by Mr. Mackey. The certificate of Appropriateness was carried with 7 yes roll call votes. The vote was 7 to 0 Dr. Yoder voted yes, Mr. Milliken voted yes, Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Dussinger voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Mr. Beiter voted yes. Accept for filing HARB Minutes 06/23/26 WMWA & WMSA minutes Dr. Yoder made the motion and it was seconded by Mr. Mackey. The minutes were accepted for filing in carried with 7 yes roll call votes. The vote was 7 to 0 Dr. Yoder voted yes, Mr. Milliken voted yes, Mr. Mackey voted yes, Mr. Dussinger voted yes, Ms. Miele voted yes, Mr. Pulizzi voted yes, Mr. Beiter voted yes. Announcements The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting will be held on Thursday, July 23, 2026 at 7:00 PM, Trade & Transit II 144 West Third St, 3rd floor, Williamsport, PA. Upcoming Meetings: Wednesday, July 15 10:00 AM Blighted Property Thursday, July 16 10:30 AM Zoning Hearing Board Tuesday, July 21 1:00 PM Committee of the Whole 6:30 PM HARB Thursday, July 23 7:00 PM City Council Meeting Comments: a. Members of the Public Mr. Mackey, : Hello, my name is Kevin Mackey of Memorial Avenue, I timed myself for two minutes and 30 seconds and I will use those 23 seconds to comment on city Council real quick at about six years we will be looking at $300,000 and that property is only supposed to bring in about $14,000 in tax revenue. I cannot wait for 23 next year. Good evening, Council. First off I would like to say thank you to the Williamsport police for the quick action during their shooting last month and I have family members that were at the port and I was almost there myself if I was not running for errands at the time. Between this incident and the ones I have said earlier, I am still concerned for the safety and well-being of my own family. Talking with friends and neighbors there is a desire to create a committee alliance of sorts that will help keep people informed and provide free resources as we organize. Some of what we hope to see done are civil things such as helping set up cameras, keeping folks updated on the neighborhood and coordinating with other resources that we do not cover. As the mayor recalled for action in all levels of this community, this is my part in that. Those interested in learning more about this have created an email called together williamsport@gmail.com where we'll be meeting at St. Paul cavalry at Memorial Avenue at noon on July 25. I'll be here in two weeks as a reminder. My second concern has to do with the operation of the treasurer's office, my old office as is public knowledge I left this position because counsel determined that it was needed for this position. In the time I left I've heard a few things that I will not repeat and something that do need to be repeated as is our taxes are not being enforced. I will wait for an answer as I go through these because I think it is necessary to have this on public record. Article 333 of Williamsport ordinance states that counsel authorized and empowered the license tax office which is the treasurer to collect the mercantile and market privilege tax and to give direction to the treasurer on the enforcement of this tax. I'm waiting for an answer. Mr. Beiter That is a independent elected official. Mr. Mackey: He works in that direction and that was told when I worked in that position. I will take that as a no. I'm not seen any resolutions on record nor have I seen anything else talking about this. Aside from what I've done right now. Under article 333.99 a licensed tax officer is to find offenses in the amount of $300 per offense or as per 90 days imprisonment. Counsel, has your treasurer taken any action to ensure tax laws into Williamsport are being enforced? Just waiting for an answer again. Mr. Beiter: The answer is still the same. Mr. Mackey: The answer to this one is none, I checked the courts today. It is public information and previous treasurers can confirm that selling the information is public once it goes to the court. Counsel, did you know that I left interactions on how to file complaints and enforce this tax before I left? Dr. Yoder: Mr. Mackey aisles they are not required -- I don't know if we are prepared for your questions. Mr. Kevin Makcey I emailed them to HR before I left. Do you have any violations that are in backlog? Mr. Beiter: Your one minute left and I will gladly sit here in silence or you can continue. Mr. Mackey : I'm just making sure it is on record. The answer is numerous and I cannot give an official number, but I know the official number and this tax which is over a time of years is not something that can be fixed quickly or without constant effort. You happen to have two of your previous treasurers here tonight who gave a tremendous amount of effort to write this tax. I would like to hear the resolution from the Council in two weeks calling for the enforcement of this tax or its revocation. On enforced taxes are unpaid taxes which would be no different than what is happened in the past and what is being allowed to happen again now. Your solicitor can provide information of what can occur if your tax base is the one to enforce this issue. Because of the efforts of five individuals on this counsel to stop the mayor for being elected to another term they were shot in the foot and it holds the residence accountable for not paying taxes while we try to enjoy the summer without gun violence. Thank you. Mr. Beiter: You are welcome. Any other comments from members of public? Comments from members of counsel? Mr. Pulizzi : I do if I may real quick I would just like to speak to resolution number seven again about the sale of City Hall. I voted to table only because I did not want to convolute the situation. However I mirror Councilman Mackey 's sentiment that if we don't have something in two weeks I am also going to take this off the table and vote to pass it provided that we don't allow city Council or the City Hall building to turn into a illicit massage parlor or a vape shop or whatever it may be. But, we have to try to take action to get things in order that is great. But, let's not hold it down for so long and get in our own way. I know that we all care greatly about it and so let's keep the momentum going. That is my only comment, thank you. Dr. Yoder: I will piggyback off of that when we talk about getting in our own way and the biggest challenge with this issue is that there has never been a long-term plan of where we will be on this issue. We did not talk about it tonight and I hope the mayor is here in two weeks to talk about it assuming that we will take some action on this resolution and they were right to table it so that more ducks can get in a row. And I look forward to participating in that conversation in two weeks. Mr. Jon Mackey: I would just like to remind our former treasurer that the final ordinance that we passed says that the mayor can run for a third term, 12 years and that your formal office and still run and be elected for 12 years and it is unfortunate that you have decided to resign while we were still deliberating over eight vs. 12 because I'm pretty sure you wanted it to be 12, but you resign before we could even get there. And so it is 12 now just like the mayor is and I just wanted to point that out. I am sorry? We don't have to talk to you about that ordinance. And if you would like to speak - Dr. Yoder : Comments from the public is over and let's follow the agenda, please. This conversation can happen after the meeting. Mr. Jon Mackey: Mayor 12, treasurer, 12. City Council, 12. Yes, everybody is 12. I am not going to be 12, I can tell you that right now. Mr. Beiter Go right ahead. Mr. Jonah Milliken: (AWAY FROM MIC) not to shift the tone, but I had a couple residents of Williamsport reach out to me within the last two days with concerns regarding a video that circulated online of - and I will begin by saying I don't have the context of this and I don't know the details, but it was a law enforcement individual who we are determined is not a member of the Williamsport police and what appeared to be was following a teenager in a hoodie and the teenager happened to be black and he was following him and saying that it looks like - it is a little warm out to be wearing that jacket and it was not a good look. And that video has been circulated over 10 million times online. And I know that the city of Williamsport police put out a statement today just confirming that it was not one of their employees and I guess I want to say that it is a shame because I know that our city police work really hard to build trust within our community and when something like that happens, we go down a couple notches and I hate to see it. So, with that being said there is an event, a community event in Williamsport that is unrelated to this video and it was already in existence. But, there is a community walk on Saturday and it is called justice for juveniles peace walk or you can find details of it on Facebook. It will be taken place and starting at 11 AM and people will be gathering outside of the Family Dollar on fourth Street and the event is decided to going to stand for our youth and bring awareness to the challenges so many teens are facing today. This walk is about showing our children that they are seen, heard, love and supported by their community. Every step we take is a reminder that their lives matter and that they are not alone. I'll be there and this is what I want to see in my community and Mrs. people coming together not even as a protest, just to come together in solidarity and support a community. And so yes, 11 AM, Saturday, this coming Saturday outside of Family Dollar on West fourth Street. b. Council Comments c. Administration d. News Media Adjournment Meeting adjourned upon motion by Mr. Mackey and a seconded by Dr. Yoder. Meeting adjourned 8:05 PM with unanimous ayes. Submitted by: Janice M. Frank City Clerk