Council - Regular Meeting

Council to my left, are you guys ready? Council to my right, are you ready?

Good evening, everybody. We're going to call this meeting to order. I ask that everybody rise for the pledge to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. with liberty and justice for all. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Raymond. Present. Mr. Callahan. Present. Mr. Colon. Present. Ms. Daniels. Present. Ms. Kwiatek. Present. Ms. Laird. Present. Ms. Leon.

Present. We have one citation tonight for Peter from Public Works and Engineering. I do not see him here, so we will make sure that he gets it and thank him for his years of dedicated service. Moving on to the approval of the minutes, do any council members have any comments or questions about the minutes? Okay, the minutes stand approved. Moving on to public comment. Our first public comment section is on subjects not being voted on this evening with a five-minute time limit. I don't have anyone signed up to speak in advance, so I'm going to go around the room. So anyone in the center, does anyone want to make public comments on something not being voted on this evening with a five-minute time limit? Ms. Mary Jo? All right, where am I here?

Mary Jo McCool, 449 Grandview Boulevard. At the last council meeting, council voted to approve a resolution for monthly reporting to council under the COA with DEP. This was done to ensure transparency and keep council abreast of any issues regarding water and sewer department. Kudos for that. I would like council to consider another resolution. This is not meant to berate another department, but to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and prudently. This I feel is especially pertinent as budget hearings are set to begin soon. As I have stated numerous times in the past, my concerns about flooding near my home. The problem lies with the discrepancy in diameter of the underground stormwater pipe between Allentown and Bethlehem, running the length of Ritter Streets intersecting with Grandview Boulevard. This problem is not new. It's over 40 years old. The city is aware of the problem and has not rectified it. I was informed that since it is the city pipe, it is the city's problem and not the developer. Grandview Boulevard is in the process being repaved as UGI has finished its work. in december 2024 a fourth storm basin was installed at the intersection of ridder and grand view boulevard these four storm drains are the only ones along the entire length of grand view boulevard they collect storm water from broad street as well at the last meeting i brought to mr al call's attention that the other three storm drains had sunk they've since been rectified today He was unaware of the issue and said it would be looked at, but would delay the pavement project. The city is also upgrading handicap cutouts at the same time. From my perspective, and I'm not an expert, I think it would be more prudent and logical sequence if upgrades would be first thoroughly researched and inspected anywhere in the city. in any area prior to where the expense such as repaving or replacing handicap cutouts as such prior to start of any project. This, I believe, would reduce tax dollar expenditures to correct issues that should have been completed in a more logical order. The issue of the underground storm pipe should be rectified prior to the developer beginning any work on the former Benetoyota lot. Once construction begins, the city will be unable to correct the problem fully. I don't believe it's necessary to hire an outside consulting firm to complete the research prior to the project. such as I am proposing. Residents should also be consulted as they may reveal additional concerns because of their firsthand knowledge. I believe city engineers and workers within specific departments are qualified to complete the study without adding additional costs to taxpayers. I hope this council can respond to this idea with transparency and view it as a logical and sensible way to approach any project city departments undertake. Too often priorities are addressed in the wrong order, resulting in unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds. No one wants a project unnecessarily delayed. But in this case, I truly feel tax dollars may have been spent out of order. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss McCool. Does anyone else in the center want to make public comments? Mr. Shire.

Those are hey, that's OK. Thank you.

1898 and Avenue. I'm gonna close out my remarks on housing affordability tonight. Going to Wisconsin again next Monday. I hope I've established the thought in your minds that a significant part of the problem, if not the most significant part of the problem, is the involvement of Wall Street. seeing a chance to once again to make money out of what used to be largely or significantly transactions between ordinary people. uh and as i i said that the clue is in the housing bill that was recently passed by congress overwhelmingly vote in the senate was 82 to 15 and there was a similar vote in the house that limited the number of Housing, houses, I don't know if it's housing units or single-family houses. I haven't read the bill. After 30 years in D.C., I don't read bills any more than I have to. But the limit is 350 for any one constitution. That's a pretty big number. I think, and tonight I want to talk about actions you might want to take. One, obviously, that could be taken would be to urge our federal representatives, Senator Fetterman, if you can get a hold of him, and the other senator, possibly, our congressperson, to bring that number down. Seems to me like 10 would be a good number instead of 350. There is a potential problem, though, that this might be the limit on each subsidiary, in which case these Wall Street firms could set up subsidiaries, each one with 350, and perhaps one subsidiary devoted completely to Bethlehem, PA. And if they own 350 homes in the city of Bethlehem, they might control the market so that they could charge any rent they wanted to. So this is something to be concerned about. So what can we do about it other than urging our federal representatives to do something? Well, there's two ordinances that the city could pass, which would almost certainly end up in court, but it would be a way of stating defiantly and conclusively that the city of Bethlehem was concerned about this problem, which was not of its doing. The first ordinance would be to simply establish that no one could own more than five properties in the city of Bethlehem, no single person or institution. And the second would be another alternative attack would be to decree that any person owning property in the city of Bethlehem would have to live within 10 miles of the property. Both, as I said, will probably end up being challenged in court. but at least it would be a way of publicizing some basic issues here and might inspire others to do similar things around the country or other people to find ways to do similar things that would pass judicial muster So that's my suggestion for whatever it's worth. It's nice to see the full council here tonight for a change. And I'm going to stop early. When I come back, I'll talk about pennies. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Shire. Does anyone else in the center want to make a public comment on something not being voted on this evening? Turning to my right, does anyone? Mr. Antalex?

Mr. Miller, thank you. Stephen Talix, 77 Ridge. In the city of Bethlehem, rather in the Lehigh Valley, there are three water authorities, Allentown, Easton, and Bethlehem. And two are equal and one is not. Equal one is Bethlehem, and the two equals are Allentown and Easton. Why? Because Allentown and Easton are independent authorities. And Bethlehem authority is a three-legged stool, one leg being the authority itself, the second leg city council, and the third leg the administration. And in the past, this concept has created problems because the problem that came up was who was minding the store? By that, I mean is this. It took someone on the authority, Dave DiGiacento, a superior individual, to find out that the city was taking monies out of the water fund into the general fund to make the general fund look better and give them a better image. which is not illegal, but it's not proper. This wouldn't happen in an independent. The second was this. Quite some time ago, the timber pulled the city of Bethlehem that they will gain $5 million from tree cutting. So when they went to cut the trees, they weren't there. They were gone. And who discovered that? A member of consul, Jean Blinsky. She was on top of everything. And highly respected person. And she was in touch with people in that area, in Tunkhannock area. And she was told that An individual with a helper and a truck could cut down a black cherry tree and make $600. And also in winter at winter time, everyone was selling firewood. And that was Bethlehem's black cherry trees. Meeting before last on the resolution was the consent order of agreement. because of a violation of the city water department. And this was like news to council. So the next meeting on the resolutions was a monthly report from water to the city, to council rather. So after how many years of the formation of the Bethlehem Authority is the third leg getting into the act? I mean, communication is zero. And who pays for that? The people of Bethlehem because the Bethlehem Authority is not operating at efficiency. So what's the solution? make the authority a totally independent agency very simple but it was killed in the past why because the mayor didn't want to lose control of the water money And the unions were objecting out loud because from a city employee to an authority employee would affect standing in their unions. And also what it would do is, council complains about having too much work and not getting paid enough. So the councils in Allentown and Easton don't have the problem of dealing with the water, but Bethlehem does. So it's a winner. If you have the courage to take action. I got eight, nine minutes over the trap door opening here, anyway.

I APOLOGIZE ABOUT THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE COMPETING STARTED. YEAH, THAT WAS CRAZY. DOES ANYONE ELSE ON THE RIGHT WANT TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SOMETHING NOT BEING VOTED ON THIS EVENING? WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THINGS BEING VOTED ON THIS EVENING. SO DOES ANYONE IN THE CENTER WANT TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON SOMETHING BEING VOTED ON THIS EVENING?

Bill Sharigan. Just a quick note. Didn't get the usual email this time about the agenda. So I have, I usually check then on the documents that are attached and so I have some idea of what's coming up. And I wasn't able to do it this time so that I hope that there is sufficient discussion tonight. I'm particularly interested in three communications, all of which I believe show up in the resolutions. One on the cost allocation plan. As an economist, I have a particular interest in that. uh the other on an mou from the chief of police on homeland security investigations uh that's coming up and there's a just heard an npr there's another scare which i should have thought of earlier but FBI, after the election, seizing ballots and machines. This is another thing that we got to try to be prepared for. There is a group, a nonprofit group, I forget the name. They're going around the country, educating local election officials on things to be prepared for. They are scheduled to visit 100 localities. That's not nearly enough. So this is something else to be concerned about. And it reminds me of what they did do in Fulton County, Georgia. After the 2020 election, after Biden won, after Biden was no longer president, the FBI went to, and accompanied by the Director of National Intelligence at the time, Tulsi Gabbard, they went down to Fulton County, Georgia, and seized all the ballots from the 2020 presidential election. And maybe the machines as well, but I only heard about the ballots. We haven't heard anything about it. So why did they do it? The election was over. And all of a sudden today it hit me. It was a test case to see if they could get away with it. So it's something else to be concerned about. the attack on our democracy. And the third thing that I have a particular interest in is the Linden Street two-way construction, because I have been told that it's going to cost a million and a half dollars. It's hard to understand. I used to live almost on the corner of

industry growing up so i'm hoping for some elucidations during the business part of the meeting thank you thank you mr anthony sorry mr shire does anyone else in the comment or in the center want to make public comments on something being voted on this evening does anyone to the right want to make public comments on something being voted on this evening ALL RIGHT. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS EVENING. MOVING ON TO OLD BUSINESS, DO ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE OLD BUSINESS THAT THEY NEED TO ADDRESS? OKAY. MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS, DO ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE NEW BUSINESS THAT THEY NEED TO ADDRESS? COUNCILMAN CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN.

NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. NEW SPEAKER CALLAHAN. in september of 2025 i had asked administration after the rest of that called borgi if they would look into the um i i had said it at the september council meeting that i had police officers telling me that he was accessing the police records do you guys remember that and i'd asked if we could look into it and nobody did anything uh you know i got kind of brushed off on it then in april of 2026 i asked again and i got brushed off again and this time i wrote a letter to the district attorney in lehigh county i heard nothing back from him and apparently i found out that uh if it if it happened here it would have been under They thought it would have been under Northampton County's jurisdiction because the crime would have happened here. I don't know if that's true or not. So then I wrote another letter to the district attorney, DA Barada, asking him if he could look into it. And I copied the mayor and chief cod on it. And he got back to me. A few weeks later. And told me that if it did happen, these were the violations of the order, the laws that had been broken if he did do that. And again, I was kind of put off on it. So. One day he replied back to me. Copy the mayor and chief on it. And then a day after. the city received that letter and Chief Kott then called the district attorney's office that day that the letter came in. I bring this up because this, a few days ago, just over the weekend, there was information in the news that, and again, I had asked if the city administration would investigate The accessing of confidential daily arrest records and any other confidential police records outside the scope of his jurisdiction and his job duties of a right to know officer. Everything was put off, never heard anything. It was, oh, I'm sure it'll be looking into it. When I, when I had asked at that time that we start looking into it and nothing was done. And I guess the system that he was going into was the Mark 40. Is that, is that what it's called? The Mark 43 system chief. So I had asked if it was investigated and I was told by the administration, I'm sure it will be looked into by the DA. And I had asked specifically for our department to look into it and also our solicitor to look into it. Nothing was being done. And I was told at the time that there was an event, an ongoing long-term investigation, which was not true because there wasn't a phone call made to the district attorney's office until the day after, according to DA Brada. The first time he had heard from the city was the day after he replied to my letter to him in which I copied the mayor and the chief. So now the story comes out. and I'll read from the morning call, because I obviously don't have the information from the DA's report. Numerous photos of Bethlehem police reports that he was not permitted to access were found in his iCloud data, according to court records. A review of the reports revealed that many involved his family members, including his mother, who was a suspect in multiple theft reports, and according to the affidavit, Cole Borgy allegedly accessed the records in 2022, three years before he was arrested by Lehigh County for selling drugs, apparently, according to the charges, and cocaine. Apparently, some of it was being done here in City Hall, down in the basement. It is believed that Zachary Colborghi intervened in an official police investigation to keep his mother from being arrested by exceeding his access and authorization to the police records and the police database. I guess my question is, is why we didn't start looking into it earlier when I had asked and nothing was done until I had sent a letter to the district attorney's office asking for him to look into it And then I copied on that letter, the mayor and the chief, and nothing was still done until the reply message came back from the DA, which copied the mayor and chief. So there was not a phone call made to the district attorney's office to the next day after that letter was received. That's what I'm being told by the DA. So my question is, why didn't we start looking into this months and months and months ago when I had asked to just look into it? And I said at the time, if nothing happened, no problem. At least we know that our police records were secure. But nothing was done, and the mayor didn't direct anybody to do anything either.

So I'm not done yet. OK, well, whenever you want me to respond, please, by all means, sir. Right. But I have plenty to say in response to your.

Go ahead.

These meetings are all recorded. If we go back and watch those recordings, we have been very, very vocal as to what's been going on in regards to this investigation involving Zach Cole Borgi. the Lehigh County District Attorney's Office brought forth these charges for the longest time. And I don't have it in front of me, so I apologize. But for the longest time, it was an open and active investigation to the point where we, myself, my deputy, the command staff had no idea what was going on in that investigation. And we were cooperating and providing information as needed. So at that time, I believe, and again, I don't have the date in front of me, but I know that we were letting council know that it was an open and active investigation, that we were fully cooperating with Lehigh County. I'm not sure about the letters you received from DA Hallahan, but I know that there came a point after several weeks to possibly months where he let us know that he is not going to be looking into this matter any further. And it was at that point then that DA Barada got involved and did send that letter to you, sir, about the various charges that could be enacted if they were found to have occurred here in the city of Bethlehem in the North Hampton County side. There is substantial amount of time that went past from that Lehigh County investigation to the North Hampton County point. And when DA Barada reached out and provided us with that information, and I had that information from DA Hallahan that they would no longer be investigating this on their end, it was at that point that the decision was made to reach out to North Hampton County and have them independently look into this. That is standard procedure when it involves a city employee to not necessarily have the city of Bethlehem police department investigate it, but to reach out and give the opportunity to an outside independent agency so they can come in with fresh eyes. So there could be no allegations of impropriety and look into the matter. And we have been as close as we can transparent as we can be in this. I wish I can provide more information as to what just transpired last week. With Zach Kolborge, I can't because it's not our investigation. It's the North Hampton County District Attorney's Office investigation. I looked on the public docket The affidavit of probable cause is not listed yet. The only thing I was able to find is what you referenced, sir, the morning call article. And I don't feel comfortable talking about another agency's investigation. But I am confident that since this came to light, we have been nothing but transparent and cooperative with these outside law enforcement agencies into looking into this matter.

Chief, so when I had asked in September when he was arrested, no one in the city was looking into it at the time. Nobody.

We were. We absolutely were.

Well, according to Mr. Spark, we weren't. If you listen to the tape from the meetings back then, he wasn't looking into it.

We had to provide it to the Lehigh County District Attorney's Office because it was their investigation. It was a grand jury investigation.

So why didn't we reach out if Lehigh County wasn't gonna do it? Apparently, because from what I was told, and I'm not saying this is true, this is what I was told. If it happened, it happened in North Hampton County and Lehigh County wouldn't be looking into it. So that's when I reached out and sent a second, I sent a first letter to Lehigh County DA. Then I sent a second letter to the North Hampton County DA and nothing got done. You didn't reach out and the mayor didn't ask you to reach out. And this is where my concern is, that at no point did the mayor direct you or anybody else to start looking into it to make sure it didn't happen. And you didn't call the district attorney, Barada, until the day after you and I and the mayor received the letter from him stating that these were the violations and the laws that would have been broken if he was accessing confidential police reports outside of his duties as a right to know officer. You didn't call him until the next day. Correct?

Correct.

OK. So my only question is, why the seven month delay? Why couldn't we have started looking into this prior to? Why didn't the administration, why didn't the mayor? Because the mayor hired him. We had a right to know officer that was there for many, many years, did a great job, had no problems. This was a political appointment by the mayor. Because he had helped, Zach Coborg, he had helped him on his campaign. And he brought him in as a political appointee, which was his right to do. But the whole issue of drugs being sold in City Hall, according to the documents, Lehigh County District Attorney's Office, lies on that chair there. And I think I'm not blaming you. I'm blaming him that he should have directed you at the time when I found out from you can order. Excuse me.

Point of order.

Go ahead.

I believe we're not supposed to be attributing, there was just a direct activation. It's my opinion. We were just having a sidebar about attributing motives.

I know, but it's my opinion, and I'm allowed to have an opinion.

Let's discuss it, please.

Yeah, we were just having the conversation about what is attributing motive versus what is an opinion. as long as we're within the realm of allowable, which it seems like we are.

So it's allowable, the comment, I wasn't thinking that until the comment about drugs being sold sits in one particular chair.

And we were having a conversation during that, and I didn't quite hear that. And I would say that that goes beyond the parameters. And I would ask you, I think that this is your time to ask questions. And if I could encourage you to keep your questions going. Correct.

Solicitor, I am also allowed to have an opinion, and this is strictly my opinion. I'm stating things that are factually presented in a court of law by the district attorney's office and things that I was told by the Bethlehem police officers. I understand that.

I would say just be careful with... Opinion can very quickly slide into attribution. So I would just ask you to...

Thank you. So... Who hired him? Mr. Reynolds did. That's not an opinion. That's a fact. Why was he brought in? I don't know, but we had a guy who was a long-term right to know officer that an unbelievable job, you know, actually had, uh, um, a degree, uh, or certification in, in that field. And, the mayor made a decision to replace him with Zach Holborgy. So that person was put into the position in the city hall due to the mayor's appointment. And I was asking back in September for the mayor to instruct the police. Chief, I'm not attacking you. I think you should have been directed at that time to start researching it in September. Why do I have to find things out from other people and bring and bring it up i don't know why you know but i was just i all i asked at the time if you go back and you look at the video which i did the first time i brought up i was just politely asking can we just look into it this is what i'm it's what i heard you know from from a couple police officers i don't know if it's true but if it is i i think we should know and i think everybody would agree with that and all i was asking is can we look into it and if if nothing happened i actually went like this in the video then then we're all good but knowing that he he got caught doing what he was doing according to the charges I was just asking, hey, why don't we start looking at why don't we start? Why don't we just do an internal investigation to see if he was accessing? And, you know, it can't be that difficult. You look at the times he he he he went into his he logged into the. The Mark 43 system and then match it up to the number of of of every right to know request that he had, if he was in any other time, he's in there illegally and breaking a law. I mean, I think that could have been done every time someone logs in, correct? You have to log in and you can bring that data up. Isn't that correct?

Yes, but it's not that simple. He's been the right to know officer for a number of years at that point, and we receive hundreds and hundreds of right to know requests. So it's not as simple as going in and just matching A and B. There's a lot of data that had to be gone through and what was gone through by our detectives. That's why I'm not giving you attitude back. I know. I take offense when I know my people worked very, very hard on this.

I'm not saying they didn't. And again, I'm not attacking you. I'm upset at the head of our administration for not directing you to start the process earlier because nothing got done in September, October, November, December, January, February, and it kept going on and on.

We were absolutely cooperating with the Lehigh County District Attorney's Office at that point.

On this subject?

Yes, on this subject. We were absolutely cooperating.

Well, that was never brought up when we talked about it. And I'll go in and I'll get Mr. Spirk's exact words. Go ahead.

During the 15 years or so that I was an assistant DA and a prosecutor, I worked on a lot of criminal investigations. But as a solicitor, we don't do criminal investigations. As a mayor, as an administration, we don't do criminal investigations. So I said repeatedly to you during the many, many, many times you discussed this that we weren't going to mess with the ongoing criminal investigation. They arrested 41 people. They brought hundreds of counts of felonies against various people, including Mr. Cole Borgy. They seemed like they were pretty thorough folks. Seemed like it was pretty widespread, several states, a number of counties. I'm not going to do anything to step on a criminal investigation. I wouldn't have liked that when I was a DA, and I'm sure they don't like it anymore now. said repeatedly that i was sure that the criminal investigations were going to look into all these things and then you said to me well if there came a point when they don't would you at least internally as a city investigate it then i said yeah if it gets to the point where the da's offices are done and don't want any part of it yeah then we would go traipsing around in the records if you wanted us to and i think it would be a good idea too although i did point out If they didn't bring any criminal charges related to it, and then we went ahead and looked and found that he had violated city procedures, I guess we could fire him. Oh, that's right. We did that a year ago already. But I did say we would when the DA's offices were done. And now they're done and they've brought the charges.

Mr. Sprague, I wasn't asking for us to get involved in the criminal investigation of the drug dealing. What I was asking was whether he was going in our records, which is an internal thing, okay? We could have found this information out a year ago.

But don't you think prosecutors looking at drug dealing would want to look... At the guy who had access to police reports. They weren't. To see if perhaps.

They weren't.

He was using that ability that he had to somehow benefit the widespread.

Well, when I had conversations with the DAs. they were not looking into that they weren't even aware of it and i had asked i asked judge burrata at an event if this happened if x y and z happened is this illegal 100 i said okay i'm going to be sending you a letter in the next few days and that's when i i wrote up the letter and i had my lawyers look at it and then i sent it over to Not our solicitor, my lawyers look at it. They cleaned up some language and I sent it to the DA. A few weeks later is when I got in and I purposely copied the mayor and the chief so they knew I was asking these questions again. Because for months, nothing happened. All I'm saying is this. I wasn't asking you or anybody else to start looking into the investigation of the drug dealing in City Hall. I wasn't asking that. All I was asking is, can we please start checking our own personal records in City Hall? And I don't think it'd be that hard of a deal. From what I'm told, and if I'm wrong, I apologize. From what I'm told from the police officers, every time they log in or someone logs in, you have a code that you have to log into. And it's very easy to pull up when it was accessed. So I think all we had to do was take all the right to know requests and cross-reference the right to know requests that he got. And anything on that right to know request that he logged in on, that's all legal. Anything left over is illegal. And I think that could have been done in a matter of days. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like that long of an investigation to cross-reference two different lists. And from what this says now, he was doing it in 2022 when he first got hired. So I'm asking for some accountability on the administration's part that, hey, we hired this guy. We messed up. We shouldn't have hired him. And this has been a black eye on the city of Bethlehem, but we're doing this and this and this to move forward. That's all I was asking. And I'm kind of pissed that nothing came out or nothing was even being looked at until i had to follow up on it a third time with a letter to the district attorney's office after i talked to several people about it so i you know chief i'm not blaming you and i'm not blaming the police department i'm not blaming the detectives that looked into this i'm upset at the administration and the mayor because i think at the beginning when it was brought up by city council i mean we're not just normal people here i have people I find out things like everybody else does. Hey, we hear this, we hear that. I didn't know. That's why I was asking, hey, I had two police officers tell me this. Can we just look into it? That's all I was asking. And I felt like that was brushed off. And I don't want to get into it anymore because I know everybody wants to get home. But I'm just telling you, I was upset about it when I saw this in the paper. And I had several calls from a lot of people saying, hey, this isn't right. And I just felt like, you know, originally, I was blown off on it. And that's all. And Chief, and Mrs. Burke, I'm not mad at you either. The person that hired the guy should have at least asked the police department to start looking at it. That's all I'm saying. And I'm sorry it got into this long, drawn-out thing. So I apologize for that. But I'm just saying, you know, looking back on this now, there was a lot of stuff going on here. That I, you know, I think we should have known earlier. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Callahan. I accept your apology. Thank you. Councilman Cologne.

I just will follow up on some of this discussion, and I'll try to be sensitive, recognizing this is an ongoing trial. So, Chief, Mr. Spirk, Attorney Stewart, anyone, feel free to interrupt me. But, Chief, did I hear correctly that you acknowledged that for something like this involving a city employee, the Bethlehem Police Department, so that there is no... Sense of conflict that the police department would kind of let let an outside agency in this case, potentially a district attorney's office handle any kind of investigation. Correct.

Okay.

So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear that there is a sense of conflict. kind of looking into our own in this case i guess it's probably a law enforcement norm for any department when there's something involving an an officer or potentially a employee who a professional colleague of officers to let another agency whether it be state police uh ag's office district attorney's office handle it correct okay And then in your professional experience, is the length of this overall process as it relates to this individual atypical in any sense? Or is this sort of par for the course in what a criminal investigation of this sort with the other variables, personnel matters, things like that? Is anything in your professional experience atypical involving this case?

Because it involves a grand jury investigation, all bets are off the table. a grand jury investigation, it takes time. It's very secretive. There's very limited information that is shared with parties, with the public. So because it's involving a grand jury investigation, no, I am not surprised by the length of time by Lehigh County to come to the decision that they came to.

and then i did not read uh i'll acknowledge i didn't read the morning calls report i didn't i didn't see it over the weekend or whenever it published but whatever was shared in there um did the bethlehem police cooperate in whatever investigation uncovered anything that was reported publicly by the morning call we cooperated completely with the northampton county district attorney's office and we will continue to do so Those were my only questions, thank you.

Okay, any other, Councilman Kelly?

Chief, I'm not, I think Mr. Cologne's mistaken here. We weren't investigating another police officer, right? We were investigating- I never said we were investigating another police officer.

Well- Just a member of the administration.

Right, but when the business administrator, the former business administrator was caught stealing, We got involved in that investigation, didn't we?

We first offered the county to take that, and we were granted permission to do that investigation by the district attorney at the time.

All right. So it's not unprecedented for us to, I mean, is it out of the ordinary if we find out a right to know, not a fellow police officer, an employee of the city of Bethlehem is breaking the law. Is that out of the scope of the realm of the Bethlehem Police Department to look into?

We would absolutely offer the district attorney, whichever county it is, the opportunity to determine who they would like to handle that investigation.

And we wouldn't have done any investigation prior to notifying the district attorney? were cooperating with the investigation no i'm saying it without any prior knowledge we would have done some prior research into it correct we were doing research yes right thank you and and just for the record mr clone at the time you also said that you had no problem with the pace and what was going on with the investigation and and and you didn't feel any reason to question anybody And that's one of the reasons why I think I was elected here for three terms, because I'm not afraid to ask questions to the administration. And so part of our job is to be not only the fiscal watchdog, but also be the watchdog of the city of Bethlehem. and the things going on in the administration. And all I was asking for was our police department and chief, again, I'm not blaming this on you. I was asking the administration to have our police department at least look into it because the DA is not going to start looking into it unless, and even the letter that came back to us, DA Brada told me when I had talked to him that He wasn't going to start looking into it unless there was some type of evidence of that from our department. So at some point, we looked into it, and we presented that evidence to Chief Brada or the Lehigh County District Attorney's Office. So what Mr. Colon's saying is totally out of line. There's definitely a role for the police department to initially start an investigation, just like we did with the prior business administrator when there was things being stolen, right? or whatever happened with that situation. We looked into it first before we notified the district attorney's office. And this is the same situation. It wasn't a police officer. It was a Bethlehem City employee.

I would point out that I just look like you want to say something, Attorney Stewart.

I defer to you.

Feel free to. I would point out the difference in the situation is that this was something that was caught internally when it came to Mr. Sivak as opposed to a multi-state thing. So there is a bit of nuance here. I don't want to get into too much of a back and forth. We are not a jury to kind of adjudicate this right now. There are nuances to the situation. I think the breach of trust was egregious to everyone, not just the city of Bethlehem. All of Lehigh County should feel aggrieved. There was a massive breach of trust. So I just, Mr. Cohen, if you want to say something, you can, but I do want to move on from this topic.

And I'll briefly conclude by remarks, and I recognize there may be a difference of opinion, you know, that I'm out of line to kind of confirm with our chief of police, with our solicitor who work as, wear badges, served as criminal investigators in this department. We, as often as the case, when we want to state our opinions, you know, some of us, all of us, whoever, we oversimplify and we're superficial and we want to act like what happened to the previous business administrator is the exact same nuance, variable circumstances that happened here. The chief explained there was a grand jury investigation. The chief explained this came from the Lehigh County District Attorney's Office. The chief explained, I didn't say this was a police officer, but this is a colleague, someone who worked, in more capacity than any of us do with the police department and explain why an outside agency would be involved in a potential investigation if someone agrees or disagrees with that that's fine i don't have an opinion of it other than i believe i said at the time and it was a while ago that i trust that however whoever is tasked with investigating this will and shall investigate it we're referencing things that were discovered in an investigation What are we talking about? We're talking about that something didn't happen suitable to a timeline that none of us work as investigators. And if we want to attribute that to being watchdogs for saying, I will let the process play out to a criminal investigation, a grand jury investigation, our police department's involvement, the local media reporting what came of it, we're not pleading to turn over stones. We're talking about stones that have been And I recognize some people may not be happy with that, but I think we all need to, again, recognize this isn't as simple as, well, the last time X happened or the last time Y happened, so I want Z to happen here. And we have to be mindful of the nuance of it. And I defer to our police chief, not to, as Council President Leon had mentioned, and I agree and I think we all agree. No one condoned what happened. No one is justifying any of the reported allegations in criminal activity. But as it relates to wanting to talk about what has come forward publicly, whether it's been talked about at these meetings, which again, I recognize this is an ongoing trial. that the process has been playing out. We're talking about a terminated employee. We're talking about news articles that reported what's been discovered in the investigation. We're talking about the coordination and collaboration of both Lehigh Valley District Attorney's offices, our own police department, whatever other agencies were involved in the broader conspiracy that's talked about. So I just think it's worth mentioning. Yeah, if we want to nitpick the certain certain things of that of course everyone's entitled to your opinion but to categorize you know me or any other member of council for not speaking to the microphone with the same fervor of demanding answers when answers have been saw and reported i just think that's disingenuous thank you mr clone the only thing i want to say i don't i don't want to i know i just want to make it a very quick comment very quick because the third time takes a vote yeah so this this um

This situation had absolutely nothing to do with the investigation and the apparent crimes that the district attorney's office is claiming happened. This has nothing to do with it. The accessing of the police records has absolutely nothing to do with the drug charges or the drug dealing or whatever he's being charged with in Lehigh County. Totally separate issue. And so at any time, you know, if someone, I don't want to name who said this, but at some point, someone in the administration or outside an elected official went to Chief Cott and said that the business administrator, what might be doing this and then we looked into it and that's exactly what happened and that's what should have happened here in this case i wasn't asking anything about the drug case had this has nothing to do with the drug case i was asked it's a totally separate issue that i was informed about and all i all i'm asking or all i was asking for at the time was i think we should be looking into this and that did not happen and chief i'm not blaming you again

The administration has stated very clearly, as you stated your position, the administration has stated very clearly the reasons why they did not actively investigate this particular matter and how it's distinguished from the other matter that you're raising. So I think you can be satisfied that you got some very complete answers here this evening.

Yeah, solicitor. The problem was the days weren't looking into it until I brought it up to their attentions. Thank you. That's all I'm saying.

Thank you. Does any other Council member have a comment or something to address under new business that is not pertinent to this topic?

Thank you.

Councilman Daniels.

Yes, thank you. Mr Evans. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR SENDING OVER THE DOCUMENTS TO COUNCIL THAT I REQUESTED IN REFERENCE TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT STUDY. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS REGARDING THOSE DOCUMENTS. The first being with the notice to proceed. At our September 1st council meeting, you had provided a timeline of when the notice to proceed was issued to CPSM. Of course, I've since received the actual notice to proceed, and it's dated for February 17th, along with the fully executed contract. And that notice to proceed started the time clock for the 120-day completion date, so to speak. My question is, why is the documented notice to proceed date a month and a half plus earlier than the date that you had provided to council at our last meeting?

Now, when I was sitting here, I wasn't prepared for the question. I had nothing in front of me. So as we tried to recollect what happened through last year, that was my guesstimate of what happened six, eight months ago, whatever the timeline was.

Well, you seem pretty confident that the notice to proceed was sent separately from the actual contract and that it wasn't sent until April.

What? Now, ask the question again. Could you please ask the question again?

No, I'm just stating that you seemed pretty spot on with your date of April or month of April.

April is when they came to visit.

No, April is the date that you gave or the month that you gave us for the notice to proceed.

I don't remember saying that. I remember after the turn of the year, because we did our interviews, we made a decision. We came to council. I remember it was after the budget. It was after the new year, the change of the council. I remember that frame, but I was not prepared. If you gave me that list of questions, I would have all the facts typed up for you. But you were asking me and I had nothing in front of me. So my attempt to recollect is all. So I apologize if I was off. It was not on purpose.

Well, I understand that you just seem pretty firm in that, that it was April timeframe where the notice to proceed was sent. You mentioned in the letter that the email that you had sent over from CPSM, that there were five outstanding items, verbatim, CPS and the city continued to work through five items that were included in the scope of work. When did the city first determine that these five items were either incomplete or missing altogether?

When they started sending the drafts over, there were parts that we matched up that we were specifically looking for that were not in it. So if you match up what was in our request, as you start to read through segments like this, these pieces are missing. So we specifically asked for them.

okay and you may not right now that's we're right now getting parts of that the attempt to complete it okay um so you may not have this handy but do you recall the date that cpsm notified um that was notified that additional work needed to be done it's probably in july maybe okay and do you know what the status of those items are if they've been completed

We're reviewing them now as we can. So to do it, I can read it, but we meet with different people to do that. So it doesn't happen every single day. You know, there's a lot of things that work on any given time. So we meet as we can, we set up invites, we put the group together, we'll talk about it wherever we need to, where I may ask more questions to the consultants about what they can send, or if they have time for a discussion about what it is.

OK, so the items missing or incomplete were alternative shift schedules, leave utilization and staffing impact, financial impact, nuanced analysis and alternatives and false alarm trends outside of maybe the fire chief. I don't know who else which you have meetings with in regards to those items.

And let's only come in. Maybe human resources, maybe the fire chief. Maybe the mayor.

So collectively, the four of you would need to get together to review each one of these items.

Deputy Chief. She's still here. Could be Deputy Chief. Yeah.

Okay. Mm-hmm. And I may have just asked this, I don't recall. What's the status of each of those five items?

They're in the works.

Now, when you say in the works, and I have to be specific, and I apologize.

When you say in the works... We have a date set. We keep relitigating the process. We're working on it. We have a date set. We're going to present the entire report to you on...

October 21st, October 20th.

So everything's going to be there. It's going to be laid out. The example is like, for example, the schedule. When we ask for alternative schedules, we're looking through the report, which is extensive and lengthy. There's nothing to do with it. So we ask for them to present reports. And they need to explain it to us. We need to gather people together to listen to what it is. So there's communication going on back and forth. But it's not like we have all day, every day to sit and just, this is the only thing in front of us. I think each of the people we mentioned have a lot going on. I understand that, Eric. It's going to be done in time, as we promised. We keep visiting this every meeting and talking about the status of the study. And we told you, it will be ready. It will be presented in its entirety at a meeting we have agreed to.

October 21st.

For a date.

October 21st. And the extension, the contract was extended.

October 20th by 30.

The contract was extended to the 31st. Yeah. And what was the reason behind that?

I just picked the 31st, but 20th, I could have picked the 20th. I was asked to do the 31st, signed off.

Well, I'm just looking at the agreement for the extension. It's dated for October 31st. Yeah.

That's just one. Yeah. As we process it, it's a date, but it could have been the 21st. I don't know. 31st was enough to make sure everything is complete, submitted, signed off. And then there's a payment left on it. We made two payments and a There's a final payment based on the completion of the report.

Okay. So you mentioned just a minute ago that you had started to receive drafts from CPSM. Do you know when those drafts were submitted?

No.

I don't want to be misquoted again or give you something wrong.

Can you forward those over as well?

The drafts? The drafts, no. Why?

Huh?

It's a draft. Yeah. I mean, what?

Exactly.

If it's just a draft. Right. Then why can't we see it? Because you're going to have a full report. We're not going to set parts and pieces of things that are not complete. We're going to have a complete report like every other consultant report in the history of the city will be presented in its entirety to the council. or the date that's been agreed to.

Now that just concerns me because you've been kind enough to send everything else over and I appreciate that. So if you've received one- I think it's standard.

If anyone can name a report that's been sent over in draft form and made public in a draft form.

Well, it's not public for one thing, it's within council.

Anything that's given within council is automatically assumed to be made public.

Regardless, it's within council. Has CPSM, well, I just asked that. So you said no. So you're not willing to send over any drafts of the study?

No, because you're just going to open up further this dialogue before next question, next meeting. I know I'll have 50 more questions from you before the meeting is set for us to get it.

Why are you upset, Eric? Why are you getting upset? I'm just asking you questions.

We've been through this three times. No, we haven't.

No, we haven't. This is my second time in front of you, in front of council, asking questions regarding the study. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. SINCE RECEIVING THE MOST RECENT DRAFT, WHENEVER THAT WAS, HAS THE CITY REQUESTED ANY ADDITIONAL WORK, ANALYSIS, DATA COLLECTION, ET CETERA? NO. WHEN WAS THE NEED FOR THE EXTENSION FIRST IDENTIFIED?

PROBABLY IN SOMEWHERE IN JUNE WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK THAT WAS NEEDED DONE, THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO GET THERE.

AND THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL COST BASED ON YOUR EXTENSION AGREEMENT. OKAY. So CPS currently, or I guess I should phrase this as a question, and I believe you've already answered it, so excuse me, but is CPS currently required to perform any additional substantive work, or is completion now dependent solely upon the city's intervention or internal review process? Yes. Yes to what?

Is it substantially complete from CPSM?

Yes. Yes. So it's substantially complete. So we're just waiting on the city's internal review.

And based on the review, any questions or follow-up that comes from that, but there's no segments or divisions that was in the original RFP in the agreement that have not been included at some level inside the draft. okay so again cps's side is done what they've worked on thus far is complete and we're just waiting for the city to review for us to take a look at what has been submitted understand it and any questions that come from that from what we see or read of the from all the segments that they most recently submitted which was like in august okay that's all i have eric thank you

Thank you, moving on.

I have a couple of comments on that subject. Okay. Eric, has the draft, I mean, I wasn't going to talk about this at all tonight, but I'm a little concerned about the reaction to some of her questions. The drafts that we got, has the city manipulated, changed, or asked to have anything in the drafts changed? that they originally gave us? No. Did we ask for anything to be removed?

Nothing's been taken out, no.

That's all I want to know. So is it possible if we had executive session? I mean, we have confidential emails.

I will say, I just want to be, and I know that you know this, Councilman Callahan, but even within executive session, okay, so prior to executive session, we wouldn't get anything in draft form because anything that is given to council is assumed to be public. except for outside of executive session. This wouldn't fall under the purview of what executive session would be used for, which is for personnel issues. So we wouldn't have an executive session on a draft.

But we have received before from the administration confidential emails.

There are certain categories of business that can be conducted in an executive session that do extend beyond personnel under Sunshine, but this would not be one of those.

How about as far as a confidential email or letter to city council, which we've received before from the administration?

I think that even if they did do that, I think the hesitation would be even when emails are sent in a confidential form, confidentiality is never maintained.

We're talking about a study. We're not talking about the nuclear codes.

Exactly, but it's a study that we set the date to receive the study. So what we're talking about is the draft form. We're not talking about the study.

I know, but I'm just a little concerned at the defensiveness when the questions were asked about receiving the drafts.

I think the frustration is at a high point on both sides of this aisle when it comes to this specific thing. And specifically when it comes to drafts, receiving draft forms of these kind of documents is just outside of the norm. So I think that we will get the study. And I think that the tenor of the conversation all night has been a little hype. So I think it's just given the tension in the room. I don't think that there is... malfeasance on either side. I don't think there's anything meant by your tone when you were questioning the chief or your tone when you were questioning Mr. Evans. We're a little tone deaf here is what I'm saying. I think it's a matter of tone in the room. I think that this is, we have an end date for when this is going to be sent to us because it is still in draft form and we're not going to receive it in draft form because we do not receive things in draft form.

And the reason for that, I would say that you will receive the study when the study is complete and only then can it be fairly processed and evaluated when you have a complete study.

So can I ask one quick question? Are you stating that as counsel, we are not allowed to receive a study that has not been finalized?

No, I'm not saying that we're not allowed to. I would have to go and look and see what the rules are about this. I'm saying as of my four and a half, five years being on council, paying attention to these things, we have never received a thing in draft form. We usually receive them when they're complete. That's when we have the committee meeting. That's when we discuss these things. Because when it's in draft form, it's not just Mr. Evans that's doing the information. He has to meet with fire. He has to meet with HR. He has to meet with all of them. So the draft form is still their internal working documents. It would be like us sending a draft resolution without really getting to the end of So we are going to move on to communications. Communication 6A.

The September 8th, 2026 memorandum exhibit and proposed resolution from police chief Michelle Kott. Chief Kott recommends increasing certain fees to obtain police records as set forth in the attached exhibit A.

Resolution 10A is on the agenda, communication 6B.

The September 1st, 2026 memorandum and proposed resolution from Director of Budget and Finance, Lenny Lazarchek. Ms. Lazarchek recommends an agreement with Maximus U.S. Services Incorporated of Richmond, Virginia to prepare the fiscal year 2026, 2027, and 2028 full cost allocation plans for the city of Bethlehem. The annual cost is $13,900. The total three-year cost for the life of the contract is $41,700. There are no renewals.

Resolution 10B is on the agenda. Communication 6C.

September 8th, 2026 memorandum and proposed resolution from Police Chief Michelle Cott involving a memorandum of understanding with Homeland Security investigations. Chief Cott explains the scope of the permissible activity under the MOU and aspects such as immigration enforcement that are not covered.

Resolution 10C is on the agenda. Communication 6D.

The September 9th, 2026 memorandum and proposed resolution from Director of Health Kristen Wenrich. Ms. Wenrich recommends Amendment 1 to an Agreement with Capacity for Change LLC of Westchester, Pennsylvania to prepare a communications plan in addition to the original contracted work. The additional cost is $49,000, which will be covered by a grant. It is requested that the contract be extended to June 30th of 2027. There are no renewals.

Resolution 10D is on the agenda, communication 6E.

The September 9th, 2026 memorandum and proposed resolution from Public Works Director Michael Alcol. Mr. Alcol recommends an agreement with Greenman Peterson Incorporated of Allentown to provide engineering and construction inspection services for the Linden Street two-way conversion project. Cost is $197,144.62. Contract is to be completed by October 31st of 2027, and there are no renewals.

Resolution 10 E is on the agenda. Communication 6F.

September 9th, 2026 memorandum from City Solicitor John F. Spirk Jr. with an attached use permit agreement and a resolution. Permittees ArtsQuest and the event will be the 2026 Oktoberfest. Events will be at specified times on October 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th, and 11th. Premises will be First Street from Founders Way to Polk Street and Founders Way northbound lane from First Street to Second Street.

Resolution 10F is on the agenda. Communication 6G.

September 9th, 2026 memorandum from City Solicitor John F. Spirk Jr. with an attached use permit agreement and resolution. Permittee is Pennsylvania Running Company and the sub-permittee is ArtsQuest. The event will be the 2026 Bethlehem Running Festival. Specified times have been set for various races on October 16th, 17th, and 18th. Premises for the races will be East First Street from Polk Street to the Eastern Terminus and Founders Way between First and Second Streets.

Resolution 10G is on the agenda. Communication 6H.

September 2nd, 2026 Memorandum and Proposed Ordinance from Assistant City Solicitor Matthew Deschler. Attorney Deschler recommends amending Article 1733 by adopting the 2021 version of the International Property Maintenance Code with certain city specific modifications.

ORDINANCE 9A IS ON THE AGENDA. MOVING ON TO REPORTS, THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WILL MEET AT 6 P.M. ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6TH IN TOWN HALL TO DISCUSS THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2027 THROUGH 2031. THE PROPOSED 2027 NONUTILITY CAPITAL PLAN THAT IS INCORPORATED IN THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WILL BE REVIEWED BY COUNCIL AGAIN DURING THE UPCOMING BUDGET MEETINGS AS PART OF THE PROPOSED 2027 NONUTILITY CAPITAL BUDGET. And that concludes the President's report. Turning to Mr. Evans for the Mayor's report. Nothing to report. Turning to Councilwoman Kwiatek for committee reports.

Thank you. The Community Development Committee met at 6 p.m. earlier this evening in Town Hall. There was one agenda item which was postponed during the August 11th Community Development Committee meeting. The committee earlier this evening considered proposed amendments involving, it says yard setbacks here, but it's actually buffer yards, which is not the same thing. In the result of this meeting was a motion to move the proposed amendments to Council without a recommendation. That's the report.

Hilary Kwiatek, Chairperson. Thank you, Councilwoman Kwiatek. Moving on to ordinances for final passage. Ada.

An ordinance of the city of Bethlehem, counties of Lehigh and North Hampton, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, listing cartway and right-of-way widths for certain city streets. Bill number 2026 is sponsored by Ms. Kwiatek and Ms. Leon.

Discussion? The clerk will call the roll.

Ms. Daniels? Aye. Ms. Kwiatek? Aye. Ms. Laird? Aye. Mr. Amen? Aye. Mr. Callahan? Aye. Mr. Colon? Aye. And Ms. Leon?

Aye. Passes 7-0. Moving on to new ordinances. The clerk will read 9A.

An ordinance of the City of Bethlehem, Counties of Lehigh and Northampton, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, amending Article 1733 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Bethlehem, titled International Property Maintenance Code. Bill number 27-2026 is sponsored by Ms. Leon and Ms. Kwiatek.

Discussion? The clerk will call the roll.

Ms. Daniels? Aye. Ms. Kluetek?

Aye.

Ms. Laird?

Aye.

Mr. Raymond? Aye. Mr. Callahan? Aye. Mr. Colon? Aye. And Ms. Leon?

Aye. Passes 7-0. Moving on to resolutions. Resolution 10-A.

Be it resolved by the Council of the City of Bethlehem that the police records fees listed in Exhibit A are hereby established and shall be effective January 1st of 2027. Resolution is sponsored by Ms. Leon and Ms. Kluetek.

Discussion from Council. Councilman Amon.

Thank you so much. Chief, do you have a moment? Thank you so much. I completely recognize the need to raise some of these fees in terms of just coming up to 2027 and the cost for the team to do what they need to do. I recognize that. The one area that kind of caught me off guard was just the $125 fee proposal for audio and video recordings. And just wanted to know if you could speak a little bit specifically to that line item.

Absolutely. So that's consistent with other law enforcement agencies locally, what they charge as well. Since I spoke to Captain Odello, who is our professional, our... support services captain and he handles all the act 22 requests that come in since may we received 27 requests and oftentimes these requests ask for all video from a police incident All video is all the body camera footage from the involved officers. So it can be multiple officers. All involved video includes the in-car camera footage as well, in addition to the city street cameras that we have. So Captain Odello has to painstakingly sit and watch every single video from every single officer, every car video, and every city camera to one see is insane. there anything that has to be redacted um and then if something has to be redacted after viewing all that footage has to actually go in and redact um victim information uh or other confidential information that can't be released because of the criminal history information act So it is a very, very complex, timely process. And we are not a big enough police department that has a civilian staff that can just handle this as their primary duty. So that $125 fee goes into the retrieval of all that video footage. the watching and vetting of all that video footage, the redaction of the video footage, and then getting that file or those files to the individual that's submitting the Act 22 request.

Yeah, I recognize the time and the opportunity cost. So I imagine for some of them, the $125 probably doesn't even come close to paying the time that it took Captain Odello to go through all that information. So I recognize that, and I empathize with that. One of my concerns, while I think it puts some stake in the game in terms of asking for some of this data, which I think is important, I just... I am worried about dissuading folks from being able to access some of this information with this cost associated with it. That's my biggest concern is just folks that can't afford it but want or need access to some of these recordings, the barrier that's in place for them to be able to do that then. That's the concern I have looking at it because I recognize there's probably folks that ask for it because they can just do so and there's no cost associated. But for the people that might need it, those are the people that I'm thinking about when I see this cost go up.

Any other discussion from council?

Yes.

Vice President Laird.

Um, yeah, my questions are also on that, that particular fee. Um, so the fee would be per request, not per file. Is that correct? Correct. So if someone came in requested one video, it would be the same fee as if someone's requesting, um, I forget what term you just used for multiple, the body camera footage and car footage. Correct. Um, And would this apply? So let's say that I'm, I'm in a car accident, and it is not my fault. And I am trying to get the, you know, I know I've had to get like a vehicle accident report, which I see is $15. If there's video associated with a vehicle accident report, is that included with the accident report? Or would that be a separate? So that would have to be a separate request. So even as the person

i recognize i guess it wouldn't be determined if i'm asking for the video that i'm not at fault but like a victim could have to come and pay 125 dollars to get video to support their case is that correct no no so if there's video of that accident it will be utilized as evidence by the officer during the the uh um the hearing the in front of the mdj

Okay. So, so there wouldn't be a fee associated to have it used in that case.

Correct.

There would not be a fee against the, uh, it would just be if the victim wanted it for their own personal record.

Yes.

Okay. Um, and would there, um, I have two more questions. Uh, thinking about, you know, people with limited means in the barrier, that that is a hefty fee. And I understand the fee is by design to cut down on extraneous requests and to pay for the time. But it could, would it be possible to implement some sort of like weaver or sliding scale or something where if someone had That might put so much more work on the system that it wouldn't be feasible. Do you understand where I'm going with this?

I do understand where you're going, and it could be more of an undertaking. I understand. But again, the fee that we're asking is consistent with other law enforcement agencies across the state of Pennsylvania. Act 22 itself, I even looked it up before we came, says that an agency can charge a reasonable fee. It doesn't determine what is reasonable in the statute. So, you know, in regard to your last question, I don't think it would be possible to do it on a case-by-case basis. I think that would open up a can of worms. You know, we would have to talk to the solicitor's office about that, but.

Okay. And are press included in that? I'm not familiar with the details of Act 22. So my apologies if I should know that, but like, so if the press were looking for footage from an incident, body cam footage, et cetera, they would also have to pay to access that information. Absolutely. Okay. All right. I think that's all my questions.

Any other questions from council members regarding 10A?

Sorry, yeah. I imagine, though, and perhaps this is a question for Mr. Spirk, I imagine that this doesn't apply to a criminal case in which this would be subject to the evidence that the city would have, for instance.

No, no. Victims would not have to pay for the body camera footage or for any city camera footage to go down in court.

Note additionally, lots of times it's the insurance company too. In an automobile accident or something like that, it's oftentimes the insurance company that's paying the fee and requesting the video.

So in those 37 or so requests in May, are some of those insurance, like do you have a breakdown of are they, that's probably oddly specific, but do you have any idea of the type, the nature of those requests? Like are they accident, are they for accident purposes? Are they for?

I think across the board.

Okay.

I think that it's just a smattering of all different reasons.

37 since May. Do you have a yearly count on them?

I do not. Okay. No.

Thank you. Yeah.

Sorry, I have one more. The press, I know some of these things are handled through right to know and the press utilizes right to know a fair bit. Are there fees that they pay for that? Yes, there are. So the press is used to encountering fees to get the information that they are looking to report from the city. That's correct. And that would be the same in other municipalities surrounding as well.

We are late to the game with the Act 22.

Okay. Yeah, I'm just wanting to think through making sure that the press still has transparent access to things like that. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you very much.

Any other questions from council members? The clerk will call the roll.

Ms. Daniels? Aye. Ms. Kwiatek? Aye. Ms. Laird? Aye. Mr. Raymond? Aye. Mr. Callahan? Nay. Mr. Cologne? Aye. And Ms. Leon?

Aye. Passes 6-1. Moving on to 10B.

be resolved by the council of the city of Bethlehem that the mayor and controller and or such other city officials as deemed appropriate by the city solicitor are hereby authorized to execute an agreement with Maximus U.S. Services Incorporated to prepare the fiscal year 2026, 2027, and 2028 full cost allocation plans for the city of Bethlehem. Resolution is sponsored by Ms. Leona Misquietek.

Discussion? Councilman Kvitek? Thank you. Mr. Evans, I just want to, we've talked about during budget, we talk about the Maximus study. Is this the Maximus study?

This is the Maximus study, yes.

So just for the purposes of the fact that we are heading into budget season and there are some folks on council who haven't been here during budget season, can you explain what the cost allocation study is and what it does?

The cost allocation study is a, well, Maximus is a company that performs cost allocation studies. It is required for a number of uses. What it does is calculates the true cost of providing a service or for a department to deliver their product. One way it is used, it was referenced earlier, is the water department. The water Ed's not here this evening, but he looks over the water and sewers as a separate fund and then the general fund. They pay their fees, but there are a number of expenses that are paid to the general fund. For example, the pensions, the medical, social security, a lot of things under the 0801, which is a general expenses that they're lumped together for accounting purposes. and efficiencies, but there needs to be some payment from the water fund to cover all those services for all the employees in the water fund itself. And we look to the Maximus to make sure it's justified that we know the actual, because the actual, another one would be a good, Example would be the golf course. The golf course is its own fund. They pay the direct expenses. That's simple. They can pay their electric bill, the gas bill. They can pay their employees. However, they are supported by the general fund through the human resources when they go to hiring, HR. A golf course doesn't have that. So some services are provided by HR. Some are provided by financial services. Some are provided through IT. So there is a cost being absorbed by the general fund. And through that study, they – They will collect how many hours are provided by the people in those bureaus to help support the golf fund. And that's something we don't have the internal expertise or time or capacity to do. So that report will tell us how much the golf course should be paying to the general fund so that we're square. And we check to make sure. And if it's not close to that or if it's off a little bit, we're going to move it up or down accordingly to make sure each group or bureau or fund is paying its fair share towards the general fund. It's also used with regard to grants or any other time when we're going to need to justify something to an outside agency about how much we are spending, what the true expenses are to a bureau. If the medical insurance for each of the bureaus is not under each individual bureau, it's under one lump sum of millions of dollars. So if we need to know how much it costs to deliver products with regard to police, roster duty, or public works covering music fest, we use a Maximus study to find out if there are workers there, it's not just their direct salary, but what are their fringe benefits, and that's also Maximus. So that's examples.

So in the nonprofit world or in higher ed, we call that indirect cost.

Soft cost, yep.

Yes. So I just want to make sure that we all have that common understanding of what it is. This seemed like a good opportunity to do that.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Ms. Daniels? Aye. Ms. Kwiatkak?

Aye.

Ms. Laird?

Aye.

Mr. Amen? Aye. Mr. Callahan? Aye. Mr. Colon? Aye. Ms. Leon?

Aye. Passes 7-0. Moving on to 10C.

It resolved by the Council of the City of Bethlehem that the City Council approves and ratifies an Intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations and that the Mayor and Controller and or such other City officials deemed appropriate by the City Solicitor are hereby authorized to execute the MOU on behalf of the City and its Police Department. The resolution is sponsored by Ms. Leon and Ms. Kwiatek.

Thank you for coming up, Chief. I see you are ready. Before we open this up to discussion, just give us a little background on this MOU and why you're bringing this to council at this particular moment at a time of such distrust with our federal counterparts.

So I understand that, and I do know that it was a few months ago when I brought a similar MOU to council for their review as well, and it failed to be accepted. But I come here again because it is going to provide us with tools that are necessary for my officers to do their jobs. Gone are the days where Crime is landlocked and limited to city block. Because of our geographic location, because of the Lehigh Valley being a metro area, we need to utilize partnerships and collaborations with agencies to effectively enforce the law and protect victims. And this MOU will enable us to collaborate with HSI, with Homeland Security on complex investigations that require additional funding, which require additional training, which require additional resources that although, and I'm very biased, we have the best damn police department in the state of Pennsylvania, probably in the country in my regard, we're doing the best we can, but we need these resources to further these investigations. I have to be a little limited in the information that I provide because there is an active investigation going on right now, but it involves a very, very serious offense that our officers have been doing the best they can with. but we're in need of that federal funding. We're in need of that federal resources to continue and see out this investigation to make sure that these victims are safe. Because unfortunately, because again of our location, there are individuals being trafficked in our area. There are children being exploited and we have multi-jurisdictional needs that need to be addressed. And that is why I am bringing this in front of you again after it was stricken down a few months ago. It's because even though we did not enter into that MOU, we continue to do the hard work and investigate these offenses. And we are at the point right now, we're at the... pressure mark where we need to have additional resources available to help us succeed in this investigation. And that is why I'm bringing it towards you. As the memo states, it clearly states in the MOU that this is not a 287G. This does not give Bethlehem police officers the ability to enforce immigration law. That is not what this is. This is for human trafficking, sex trafficking, child exploitation cases, drug smuggling, financial fraud, and export violations. I understand that there are people within our community that are distrustful of the federal government. However, I know our department, I have faith in our department and I believe in the men and women of the Bethlehem Police Department and what we're going to utilize this MOU for. And there are going to be clear boundaries regarding the scope and the purpose of this MOU that are going to be taking place. And I am 100% confident in our ability to be in this partnership with HSI and do so by maintaining the trust of our community members.

All right, so I'm going to open it up for a council for discussion. I will say it wasn't a couple of months ago. I think it was like a couple of years ago. Was it? Yeah, I think it was one of the first. The Biden administration. Time blindness is real. I'm surprised you guys have been able to go on this long without bringing this back up. But yeah, it was a couple of years ago at this point. So turning to my left, starting with... I THINK WE WILL HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS UP HERE, AND LET'S CONTINUE TO BE RESPECTFUL OF EACH OTHER AS WE CONTINUE TO DISAGREE AND AGREE ON IMPORTANT THINGS, STARTING WITH YOU, COLE.

THANK YOU, PRESIDENT LEONG. MY COMMENTS ARE BRIEF. CHIEF, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS TONIGHT. THERE'S BEEN IN RECENT HISTORY CASES INVOLVING CRIMES OF THE NATURE THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT INVOLVED LOCAL AGENCIES AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES TASKED WITH Sometimes even across multiple countries. So some of the articles that I've read. So I'll be supporting this and all the best to the department. The only question I had was, should this collaboration not go as you envision? Is there an opportunity to opt out of the MOU? Absolutely. Okay. That was my only question. Thank you.

Any other council members want to make comments on starting with Vice President Larrick?

You've had a lot of time up here at the podium. Thank you. Thank you for all of your dialogue tonight. So I have a few questions about this. One, I do see that it is not for immigration enforcement. However, it also says investigations may include but not limited to a list of heinous things that obviously we don't want to have happening in our community. Are there items beyond immigration enforcement that are completely off limits in this agreement for us to be investigating?

So I'm just off the top of my head. I, I know immigration is off the table, but I'm, I'm not sure of anything else that, that would be applicable. Are there reproductive reproductive rights?

Is that off the table?

That would be off the table. Yes. We, we are written out in it. We, we would not, it's not a, it's not a crime here in the state of Pennsylvania.

Okay.

So we would not be, and, and I'm sorry if I didn't mention this before the officer that would be designated as a task force officer would not leave the city of Bethlehem police department to, you know, go to another state, go to another area. Their main job function would still be as a Bethlehem police officer. They would just be sworn in as a, as a task force officer that would be handling, um, those, um, more serious, more complex offenses.

But if there's a crime that is illegal in another state and the person came through here, took up residence here, whatever, um, could they be pulled in on that investigation in that role?

That is, so that is something that would have to come through the office of the chief of police. Um, so that's something that we would review. Uh, but I'm just trying to think off the top of my head with the reproductive.

There's others in my mind too, but that's a good example since it does vary state by state so much right now.

An arrest warrant is an arrest warrant. So, you know, if it's signed by a judge, like an officer would need to take the proper action.

That's with or without the SMIU, correct?

Right, correct, correct.

With the MOU, are we allowed to decline an investigation? If the federal government would come in and ask for something to be investigated?

Again, that would come through the Office of the Chief of Police.

And you have the authority to say, no, we are not going to work on this, even though we're in partnership with you.

We can absolutely do that. They would probably end the MOU on their behalf. Like the councilman said, there is an out for both parties. Okay.

And is there an end date? I didn't see one. So it's good for two years, I believe. So this would expire... shortly after the next administration would come in?

I believe so. Termination by either party upon a 30-day written notification to the other party. Forgive me. I'm trying to, I appreciate that. You're taking, I hadn't seen it. Um, in what it's not in the MOU, but I know with the individual task force officers, a task force officer has to be, um, resubmitted every two years to be on the task force.

But if we sign this, we would be saying that in perpetuity we've authorized someone to be appointed every two years?

Correct. I believe so.

Do we have the opportunity to redline this document?

The MOU may be amended by written concurrence of both parties.

So it could be written in that it has to be reviewed and renewed at some certain interval?

All parties, she said. Okay, there it is. Yes, so yes.

So all parties, meaning the chief and theoretically this special agent in charge. Correct. Has there been any negotiation thus far, or is this as it came from?

This is as it came so far. It was reviewed by legal, but...

Excuse me.

Bless you.

Thank you.

Do we typically have open-ended MOUs?

We do with the other federal agencies, with the FBI, the Marshals, and the DEA.

Excuse me. I hadn't thought of that before. Okay. You referenced an ongoing investigation. Is there a, there's obviously a time sensitive in some sense of the word. Is there something so time sensitive that in your personal opinion as chief, your perspective as chief, taking the time to ask if an end date could be added in would damage an active investigation? I don't believe so. I'm pausing for a second just to think if I have any other questions.

I think that's all of my questions.

And again, I do very much appreciate all of the dialogue tonight. And I am sorry that you encountered some what I felt was disrespectful behavior up here tonight.

First of all, this person is going to be, according to the TFO status that is on this agreement right now, co-located with HSI, working directly for an HSI first or second line supervisor for a minimum of 30 hours per week and significantly contributing to investigations. And it says they'll have an ICE or DHS email. So that is a little bit more, I think, than I had expected in terms of the level of authority that HSI will have over this position. That's a concern for me. This is a little, this is broader than the one that we did not support several years ago. And I want to be clear that that was during the Biden administration. This has nothing to do with the particular person in that seat. However, I will say that if anything, my mistrust of the Department of Homeland Security has only grown over the last year and nine months, and I think with great justification. This is one of those cases where it's like, you know, when you're talking to your kid who's like a new driver and they're like, why don't you trust me? And it's like, no, I trust you, but I don't trust the other drivers out there. So that's where I'm at with this. I trust you, Chief. I do not trust the Department of Homeland Security. During some of the raids that happened earlier in 2025 locally in Bethlehem Township, There was Homeland Security investigations. It was a car wash. And it was clear that one of them was a task force officer, an HSI, not from Bethlehem. Police, clearly, obviously not. But you can see that these task force officers get dragged into things. They are working directly with a first or second line supervisor for a minimum of 30 hours a week. And, you know, they are granted authority to make arrests, you know, seize property, etc. We have seen the use of accusations of crimes to perform immigration activities without judicial warrants with, you know, supposedly administrative warrants and, you know, not... not properly done. Um, and, uh, I just have huge problems with this. I still have huge problems with it, I would say. Um, and, um, again, no offense to you or to your officer who will be tasked to this, but I will be a no. Thank you.

Any other council members with vice president learn, um, the question for our solicitor, um, if there's a request to put a, a renewal date or a review date or however that would be worded, would that be a straight up no vote tonight or would it be a tabling or a, like, cause it would have to, it would be a new thing that we'd be looking at. Correct.

Like if that change were made, I don't know what kind of, where you are in your, um, communications with the department and when they need this by whether there's room for there is room okay if if it's the will of council so there could be a motion to propose an amendment okay to propose yeah that's what it would be okay um essentially

Okay. President Leon, you may want to ask if there's any further conversation, but I would like to make a motion, I believe.

Is there any other discussion on this specific topic?

I have one little question.

Go on, Councilman Daniels.

is there any reciprocity language within the contract meaning not a quid pro quo type thing but i guess to some extent are they able to request whatever information they want from dpd in return

So none of that is in the MOU. It comes down to that collaborative approach to law enforcement where... If they had an individual that was trafficking firearms and they wanted to go into our report management system and get information as to who that individual is, what kind of prior law enforcement contact they had, yes, we would participate in that. If they asked us for another reason, immigration, no ma'am, we would not. We do not do immigration enforcement. IT IS NOT A LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTION HERE IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA.

NEW SPEAKER HOW OFTEN DO YOU COME ACROSS THESE CRIMES WHERE YOU NEED THE ASSISTANCE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

NEW SPEAKER TOO OFTEN. TOO OFTEN. AGAIN, BECAUSE OF OUR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, WE HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL AREA HERE IN THE CITY, YOU KNOW, AGRICULTURE IN THE LEHIGH VALLEY, AS WELL AS SOME ENTERTAINMENT AREAS HERE WHERE HUMAN TRAFFICKING MAY OCCUR, SEX TRAFFICKING MAY OCCUR. SO UNFORTUNATELY ALL TOO OFTEN WE HAVE COMPLAINTS THAT WE RECEIVE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WE HAVE TO INVESTIGATE. WE'LL RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO LOOK INTO VARIOUS INCIDENTS THAT MAY OCCUR. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, MY ANSWER IS ALL TOO OFTEN.

NEW SPEAKER OKAY. ONE MORE QUESTION. IF YOU COULD, JUST GIVE ME A RANGE, IN A YEAR'S TIME, HOW MANY OF THOSE TYPE CASES WOULD YOU COME ACROSS?

Off the top of my head, I would say approximately 10. But again, we're talking about 10 complex investigations.

Okay. It's difficult, and it's only difficult for me because of who you're potentially partnering up with here.

I realize that.

And... I ALREADY HAVE TRUST ISSUES. SO WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THEY'RE COMPOUNDED. I DON'T KNOW, CHIEF, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE FOR ME. YOU CAN.

Thank you. With whomever the officer is with the City of Bethlehem in X amount of hours, when it comes to reporting structure, I imagine they ultimately report to you regardless of their designation.

Yes, they would report to the City of Bethlehem supervisors. There would be the individual through HSI that they would report to as well, but ultimately they are still Bethlehem police officers and we're the parent agency.

And what level of, what rank of city of Bethlehem police department would you envision this person being?

Detectives. Okay. Detectives.

Yeah, I think it's obviously incredibly challenging. Again, I think to Councilman Daniel's perspective, I share that almost exactly in terms of the mistrust of who we're working with. I know that's been said by several council people. And at the same time, crimes like human trafficking and child exploitation and really modern cybercrime, just horrific. And I think it To your point, Chief, you mentioned it goes well beyond municipal borders. And to me, if I had to make a decision right now, I certainly think giving your department the resources to be able to do their job comes to my mind as the most pressing matter. And I'll tell you what helps to inform some of my thinking, and pardon me for going too much on a tangent here, but the last couple of years, maybe two or three years, I've had the really the honor and the privilege of attending the police awards and which, which happened and pardon me for not getting the right term, but the yearly awards that the police department does and getting a little bit more of an intimate understanding while still surface level 40,000 foot view of the incredible challenges the department faces and the crimes that we are faced. And we, we, a lot of us, I I'll speak for myself, lived a somewhat privileged life where we, We don't know probably 95% of what you guys are dealing with on a daily basis. And you go to that event and you see the honors that many of our police officers and sergeants and lieutenants, City of Bethlehem Police Department employees are receiving commendations for and the crimes by which they have stopped or participated in avoiding or ended up investigating because they happened and ranging from child sex trafficking and all the way down to helping make sure a citizen of Bethlehem had a deadbolt that worked on her front door. And so you hear about the things that our police department face. And when you're talking about the crimes we're talking about, the support is really needed because we just don't have the ability to do it ourselves. I am comforted you know, by immigration being specifically mentioned as something that we wouldn't participate in. I also feel much better knowing that the person in this role has an ultimate direct report to our people and recognition that Homeland Security could also say, you know, we're done if we're not going to, you know, follow through with something they would want us to do. And I would trust that you and your people would be able to make that decision. I also, again, and I will respect any motion that comes forward. So I'm not pushing either way. If there is a motion to look further into this, I would support that as well. I would say, you know, on the floor that I would put a lot of faith and trust in you to choose the right person and the person that you know is loyal to the city and loyal to the chief of police and the city of Bethlehem's ideals and beliefs. And to Councilwoman Kwiatek's point of someone being in an impossible position, I would hope it's somebody that you know will stand up in a time where they're being asked to do something they shouldn't be involved with in terms of our own principles in the city of Bethlehem. Absolutely. I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Any other, Vice President Laird? Your opinion, I'm looking for as I think through what to propose here. Do you feel most comfortable, wait, do, actually, first a question for the solicitor. In the motions I make, would it be suggesting specifically what that amendment is or authorizing Chief to go have a discussion about the appropriate length of time for the MOU and come back with whatever her team determines is best?

I would recommend the latter.

The latter. Okay. Then I don't need to ask your opinion right now. Okay. Okay.

Any other discussion before we make motions? Councilman Cuiza. Thank you.

And I just want to say that, you know, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is in the Department of Justice, you know, the Drug Enforcement Agency. We partner with the DOJ, the FBI. We had this discussion several years ago when the first one came before us. And that to me is appropriate and it seems to have worked. I have, you know, read, done a little research on these and the task force officer program is intended to you know, kind of get the DHS fingers into local law enforcement in a way that I'm not comfortable with. And again, it's, you know, I'm sure someone will say that I'm voting against, you know, fighting human trafficking. That's not true. It's, I'm not, you know, in favor of the things that this purports to work on. But it does say right here that this person is working directly for an HSI first or second line supervisor for a minimum of 30 hours per week and significantly contributing to investigations. And so I just I want to emphasize that while we're saying that ultimately they report to chief, there is a supervisory. The word is for not with. supervisory relationship between a Department of Homeland Security supervisor and this officer so it truly is a 30 minimum of 30 hours per week of our officer being a Homeland Security investigations officer and so that I just want to be clear where I am on that and again I We work with the FBI. We've worked with the DOJ. We had these conversations about disrupting crime. If it's a federal gun trafficking, gun offense, ATF is involved. It's part of the Department of Justice. So I just think that this particular type of relationship is the one that I just can't bring myself to vote for. And I understand it could pass, and that's fine. But that's just where I'm at on it. Thanks.

All right, any other, Councilman Callan?

Chief, so if at any time you should find out or anybody in the administration finds out that our officer was being asked to provide help or assistance in immigration, we would be notified, correct?

We as in?

council, the mayor's office, so we could end

Yes, we would end the MOU.

That's why I just want an assurance from you in your term here that if any time that you find out that this individual, whoever is appointed, is asked to help or assist in any way in immigration issues, that we will be notified immediately to be able to withdraw from the agreement.

Yes, sir.

All right. I take you on your word, and I do trust you on that. Thank you. I will be supporting it because I think the memo that you sent to us talking about the different financial transactions and uh and networks and the sophistication of the child predator investigations uh the drugs smuggling the cyber crime and the financial um fraud and export um violations i will be voting for it because i think in the grand scheme of things that's probably more important right now as long as the assurance is from you that at no time at no time will anybody in employed by the city of bethlehem or under your supervision will be participating in any type of immigration activities i'll be voting yes for it thank you

Sorry, I thought of one more thing. What access would Homeland Security have to our systems short of the officer who's in this position or detective, excuse me?

So that's a great question. They would not have access. It would just be the officer as the TFO, the task force officer. Thank you.

Any other questions for members of council before we make motions? I have some questions. So if we were to put a end date on this where it would have to be renegotiated, do you think that with whoever you've been talking with, would they be agreeable to that? Or is that something that would cause them to not want to pursue the MOU?

I think they would be agreeable to that.

This is a question for the attorney. So you have clarified that we can give the chief the authorization to negotiate all of that. Can we can we make an amendment that would allow her to negotiate that and execute the MOU? Or would the MOU then once again have to come back to us? Or can we just say, end it here, negotiate it, there you go.

My recommendation, if you are inclined to request that the chief pursue a change in the terms to the MOU, which would be a request, that In that event, I would recommend a motion to table pending the outcome of that request as the cleanest way to move forward.

If we are disinclined to acquiesce to your request, Pirates of the Caribbean, can she negotiate and execute the MOU? Can we just say, go do this as it stands? if council wanted to go that route anyway.

My only hesitation would be that you're essentially authorizing some undefined termination date and not giving counsel an opportunity to consider the MOU with whatever that unknown term is, I wouldn't recommend it, just procedurally.

I just have one quick question for Chief Kott. Chief Kott, in your communication with the federal agency, what kind of time do you think you need to respond back to them? Should it be the will of counsel? I mean, this is a five Tuesday month, so we don't even meet again for three weeks. Is three weeks enough time, do you think? And I don't want to hold you to that. I just, whatever action council may decide to take.

I don't want to speak for HSI and no offense to our lawyers here, but obviously we're going to have to get attorneys involved and have them work up the MOU again. It could happen. be done in three weeks. But I don't want to I don't want to say that, you know, yes, definitively, we will be here in three weeks with a, you know, an updated MOU. But it's something that, you know, again, just because we have an open and active investigation going on right now, it's something that I will work very, very hard to to achieve.

Thank you, Chief. And I'll just state and give the floor back over President Leone. I'm comfortable with it as is because there is a 30-day opt-out in there. There's sort of a built-in sunset date that should the city, should the department choose to end the agreement, even if it terms in two years. You could term it in three months, six months, whatever interval you saw appropriate. But that's my perspective. Thank you.

That's an excellent point that that's right there in the MOU that it's terminable upon 30 days notice.

Any other questions or comments from council members before we entertain any, uh, vice president alert? Was that a question or a comment? Cause I have a couple more statements. So are you going to do the, are you gonna make a motion?

No, uh, I, uh, I mean, I do plan to still. But in clarifying my concern about having an end date specified, is thinking forward to what is left up to the will of administration and the unknowns in the future, both on local elections and federal elections. I think that as much as we can put in writing the better we are for our community. So that's where I'm coming from with it. And I take that with the weight of understanding that there is, I do trust Chief Cott and I would not ask for the term to be before the change in city administration that's coming, which I hope says a lot for my trust in you and your department, but there's unknowns out there that I think we need to account for as we plan for the future of our community.

So Chief Kott, when it comes to, we've talked about the fact that the majority of this is used specifically for trafficking. What kind of budget would I need to give you to fill a hole like this? If I said, no, you can't do this, how much money would I need to give you to give your department? Don't worry, Mr. Evans, I'm not suggesting anything. Feel free. I can see him sweating over there. But I am curious as to what's the size of the budgetary increase for you to act independently and not use those specific resources?

It's difficult, but the investigations are very, very timely, oftentimes involving surveillance to gather investigative leads, evidentiary items, Off the top of my head, you're looking at a substantial amount for a investigation this size. I can't speak for every investigation that we've partaken, but I know the one we're working on right now is very labor intensive. It's very time constraining and it's adding up because right now it's on the city's dime.

So this would shift the financial responsibility from our overtime budget to a federal agency?

It would, yes.

Okay. I remember four years ago when we were having this initial discussion, my no was contingent on a couple of things. Mainly, I wanted more time to understand what the partnership looked like and what our police would benefit from it. Because to me, that's the most important. I get that there are grander things, cross-jurisdictional things. My responsibility is to the 76,000 people in the city of Bethlehem. Over the past couple of years, I've gone to every police award ceremony and I'm always shocked by the amount of times that trafficking comes up. We live in a very, very safe city in part because of all of the hard work that you do. But I think so much of it kind of goes unnoticed because it is these types of investigations. And I think I have enough information having watched the department over the past four years to understand how quickly they can respond, how well they respond, and how quickly you can come down when you see something that you think is inappropriate. So my mind has changed over the past four years. I'm pretty confident in how you run the department, how the police officers work, and I like the 30-day opt-out. I like the ability to say no. Granted, I hope that we do not have to use that because that means something has gone really wrong and all of our trust that we have worked years to develop has gone straight out the window. But that's where I am with it. I'm not inclined to table because I'm I'm fine with this. I trust what we have going on. I trust in not any external department, but the internal department to pull the trigger if we need to to get out of it. So that's where I'm at with it. So if council doesn't have any other discussion, I would open it up to Vice President Laird to make her amendments.

Okay, so I would like to take a motion. I believe the motion that procedurally I'd like to make first would be to table this MOU vote. Does that allow for, if there's not... response if if there hasn't been because it isn't just dependent on our internal staff can it move to another meeting or does it have to be voted on at the desk next meeting it's 9 25 at night off the top of my head i'm going to say it can be moved to another meeting but you can you can say you can condition your tabling

to a response.

Okay, great. So I'd like to make a motion to table this decision until there's been the opportunity for negotiation and response regarding setting an end term on the MOU that ideally would not extend beyond the current administration in our city.

So there's a motion on the floor. Do we have a second?

Second.

So we have a motion and a second discussion.

There's no discussion on a motion to table.

No discussion on a motion to table. Thank you. All right. The clerk will call the roll on the motion to table.

Ms. Daniels?

Aye.

Ms. Kwiatek? Aye. Ms. Laird?

Aye.

Mr. Raymond? Nay. Mr. Callahan? Nay. Mr. Cologne? Nay. Ms. Leon?

Nay. The motion to table fails. Did you want to make an additional motion or anything or was that the entirety of it?

Well, my second motion was going to be to authorize the chief to seek the addition of an end date. But I don't know that there's any way to do that now.

may i yes councilman cologne i know you have four years of experience on this i don't believe that there's a um whatever that buys me it buys you the floor but the i think then it's a motion to postpone like the vote itself because what are we like ultimately the action in front of us is to vote on the resolution approving the city to engage the mou i believe so the giving the chief the authority to change the terms of the MOU requires than us to table or postpone. I'm kind of thinking out loud, but do with that what you will. I just don't know what that action looks like in terms of what's being asked for us to do, what's in front of us.

Is there a substantive difference between tabling and postponing? To a degree.

Okay.

Make that motion.

Understanding that we've been discussing this for a while and it's 930. What can you briefly explain what the difference would be?

Postponing and tabling.

Postponing, you have to set a date, is my understanding. I don't have my Robert's Rules for Dummies in front of me, but postponing, you have to set a date. So hypothetically, a motion would say, I motion to postpone until set date. And then that does allow for debate. There is discussion for that. A motion to table takes it off, puts it on the table, and then if it's on the table, it automatically goes to the next council meeting. I see Mr. Spirk giving me two thumbs up as one of our in-house parliamentarians. So I won't speak with absolute confidence, but I know something. So that would be the difference. But again, that goes back to the will of council. So I think there's a... in terms of procedurally to to miss laird's stated wishes and i don't speak for you councilwoman but potentially your second motion that you just visited being step one with the if there's an appetite for that if that's the will of council followed by

step two to postpone to a later date to give time to execute what you're what you're motioning for all right sound reasonable or fair yes i'm gonna give this a whirl uh okay so i uh would like to make a motion to authorize chief cott to seek an end date in uh addition to the mou uh that would not extend beyond the current city administration.

There's a motion on the floor. Do we have a second to postpone?

Nope, it's not a second to postpone. It's a second to authorize Chief Gott to amend the MOU.

Is there a second to authorize? Seeing no second, the motion dies. Do we have any other motions on the floor? Seeing no other motions and concluding discussion on this, I will ask the clerk to call the roll on 10C.

Ms. Daniels? Nay. Ms. Kwiatek?

Nay.

Ms. Laird?

Nay.

Mr. Raymond? Aye. Mr. Callahan? Aye. Mr. Cologne? Aye. And Ms. Leon?

Aye. The resolution passes 4-3. Moving on to resolution 10-D.

Be resolved by the council of the city of Bethlehem, the mayor and controller and or such other city officials is deemed appropriate by the city solicitor. They're hereby authorized to execute amendment one to an agreement with capacity for change LLC to complete an additional communication plan for the health bureau. Resolution is sponsored by Ms. Leon and Ms. Kwiatek.

Discussion? Clerk will call the roll.

Ms. Daniels? Aye. Ms. Kwiatk?

Aye.

Ms. Laird?

Aye.

Mr. Raymond? Aye. Mr. Callahan? Aye. Mr. Colon? Aye. Ms. Leon?

Aye. Passes 7-0. Resolution 10-E.

It resolved by the Council of the City of Bethlehem that the mayor and controller and or such other city officials as deemed appropriate by the city solicitor are hereby authorized to execute an agreement with Greenman Peterson Incorporated to provide engineering and construction inspections for the Linden Street two-way conversion project. Resolution is sponsored by Ms. Leon and Ms. Kwiatk.

Discussion? The clerk will call the roll.

Ms. Daniels? Aye. Ms. Kuitak?

Aye.

Ms. Laird?

Aye.

Mr. Raymond? Aye. Mr. Callahan? Aye. Mr. Colon? Aye. Ms. Leon?

Aye. Passes 7-0.

Resolution 10-F. Be it resolved by the council of the city of Bethlehem that the mayor and controller and or such other city officials as deemed appropriate by the city solicitor are hereby authorized to execute a use permit agreement with ArtsQuest for the 2026 Oktoberfest. Resolution is sponsored by Ms. Leon and Ms. Kuitak.

Discussion? The clerk will call the roll.

Ms. Daniels? Aye. Ms. Kluetak? Aye. Ms. Laird? Aye. Mr. Raymond? Aye. Ms. Callahan? Aye. Mr. Colon? Aye. Ms. Leon?

Aye. Passes 7-0. Resolution 10-G.

be it resolved by the council of the city of Bethlehem that the mayor and controller and or such other city officials deemed appropriate by the city solicitor are hereby authorized to execute a use permit agreement with the Pennsylvania Running Company as permittee and ArtsQuest as sub-permittee for the 2026 Bethlehem Running Festival. Resolution is sponsored by Ms. Leon and Ms. Kwiatk.

Discussion? The clerk will call the roll.

Ms. Daniels. Aye. Ms. Kwiatek. Aye. Ms. Laird.

Aye.

Ms. Draymond. Aye. Ms. Callahan. Aye. Mr. Colon. Aye. Ms. Leon.

Aye. Passes 7-0. That concludes city business for this evening. Get home safe, everyone. Good night.