County Council - Regular Meeting

All right, council members. It's uh 5:46 p.m. I'd like to call the public hearing to order. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. If we could please remain standing for a moment of silence. U in memorial due to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Thank you.

Okay. Roll call, please. Miss Lawrence. Mr. Hod here. Miss Krishnowski here. Mr. Lavage. MD here. Mr. Perry, Mr. Sabatino here, Miss Smith, Miss Stevenson here, Mr. Thornton here, Mr. Willovich here, Mr. Lombardo here, 10 of 11. Thank you. We'll now have public comment on the proposed ordinance to define the qualifications of a responsible contractor. I have uh a bunch of slips up here, so I'll just start calling them out. Uh Derek Sabatini.

Oh, uh just make sure somebody Yeah. Get that mic. Thanks, Jimmy.

I'll make this quick because you I'm sure you got a lot on this today, huh? Um thanks again. I'm I'm Derek Sabatini. I'm I'm resident of Luzern County. Um and I appreciate what you guys do. You guys You guys don't have an easy job here. So, thank you for that. Um I own a company called Dur Associates. We're a plumbing HVAC contractor. Um our office is also within the county. Um we're members of Associated Builders and Contractors and through them I'm able to my own in-house apprentichip program. We employ about 30 employees, most of whom live in the county, uh employees who graduate from county schools and um employees who come from Luzon Countyy's paid uh career link, excuse me. By passing this RCO, you're allowing you're not allowing a lot of those people an opportunity to work on those county projects. The reason why private companies don't have these requirements is because they get best value when competition is open. And by if you do pass this, you're going to limit that. That doesn't make that doesn't sound like a good financial decision for the county. So, please make the right decision for the people of county to vote against the RCO. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have uh Michael Gavin. Uh hello, I'm Michael Gavin from Mountaintop. I'm a first year apprentice. I've been in for roughly two months before the union apprenticeship and whatnot. I had worked in residential for roughly two to three years in which I didn't necessarily have an exact apprenticeship or anything like that. Uh, thus far, I would say I've probably not only learned a little bit more than I had in residential, but I'd also learned it in a safer manner, I would say. Um, and if you couldn't tell, I'm speaking on behalf of the RCO. Uh, I think I've met some good people within the last two months, and some of those that I could even say that they could help me when I need it. Um, and we're all learning together and doing it safely. And I can now look forward to actually having benefits, which I did it in residential, and I could also look forward to learning things the right way. And once again, I did not have in residential or anything like that. So, yeah. Uh, I guess that's all. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have uh Robert uh Galas. Gallas. Sorry if I said your name wrong.

That's okay. It's it's Galis. So, my name is Rob Galis. I'm the general counsel for Hayden Power Group in Hazel Township. And I'm urging each of you to vote no to the proposed responsible contractor ordinance or RCO. I pre I previously spoken out in opposition to the RCO in a past uh council meeting and unfortunately I found myself here again. Um I think the name responsible contractor ordinance is inaccurate. Nothing in it will find responsible contractors or weed out irresponsible ones. Instead of responsible contractor ordinance, RCO should stand for the restraining contractors ordinance. The RCO will exclude contractors from bidding on public jobs because of their apprenticeship model. As part of its contractor responsibility certification, the RCO requires contractors to have a class A apprenticeship program, which is defined as one that has graduated apprentices to journey person status for at least three of the past five years. Having a class A apprenticeship program does not necessarily mean that a company is more responsible, just that it is able to turn out graduates more frequently. And the law does not treat apprenticeship programs equally. The Pennsylvania code requires merit shops to have a ratio of four journeymen to each apprentice, while companies backed by labor organizations are permitted to establish whatever ratio they want to have in their collective bargaining agreement. When you're able to have more apprentices due to lower ratios, you are much more likely to have a graduate, which means that you're much more likely to have a class A apprenticeship program. While Hayden Power Group does have a class A apprentichip program, not every company does. Smaller contractors will be far less likely to meet this requirement due to the ratios and thus the RCO is bad for small businesses and will restrain many contractors from bidding or working on county projects. Because of that, RCO should stand for restricting competition ordinance. When you reduce the universe of contractors who can bid on public projects, you're getting rid of good competition. Ask anyone who has even a basic understanding of economics. Competition

is good for a free market. When you remove competition, you get lower quality, lower efficiency, and higher prices. And that's why RCO should really stand for raising costs ordinance. Less competition will inevitably lead to higher prices which will inevitably be passed on to your constituents, the taxpayers. This RCO is government waste at its finest. In addition to higher job costs, enforcement of compliance with this ordinance alone will result in additional overhead costs to the county. The RCO doesn't find responsible contractors. Instead, it will restrain contractors. It will restrict competition and it will raise costs. And that's why I'm asking you to vote no to the RCO tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Warren Fost.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um before I start, I just want to thank all the council members that did go out and visit with our 70 to 80 apprentices that are out here um that are are right here in Lzaron County. So, I appreciate those that came out and said hello. Again, Warren Fouch, president of Northeast Pennsylvania Building and Construction Trade Council. I would like to address some items. Uh again, I've been here at past meetings myself uh on those who oppose the RCO. Number one, remember the RCO is not exclusionary. There are 496 registered construction apprenticeship programs in PA, 140 union, 356 non-union. This means the ABC has 2.5 times more programs than the building trades. If anything, it will be exclusionary to the building trades. Fact, all contractors can have a class A registered apprenticeship program if they choose to. Number two, excuse me, the RCO is legal. I have provided a letter of support from Northampton County Executive to all of council stating another issue that often comes up is that responsible contracting ordinance are discriminatory and therefore not legal. This RCO is modeled after Northampton County where it has been litigated in federal court in eastern eastern district and won. It was appealed to the third circuit court and won again. Responsible contracting ordinances are legal. Number three, to the argument that an RCO will raise cost on projects, I have provided council with a 22-page study done in Ohio titled, "Do responsible contractor policies increase construction bid cost?" The answer is no. And RCO does not raise price on taxpayers, but it does have benefits to workers, their families, and the community. Number four, we had a council member state, we already have protections for bonding, etc. However, we have had contractors that spoke at prior meetings that have been fined for mclassifying their workers along with class action lawsuits on shortening their workers and on hard-earned overtime. This is why we

need an RCO. We have shared with you the benefits of an RCO, the benefits of apprenticeship training, and the documentation of studies and litigation proving RCOs are legal. I ask that all members support this RCO. The time for preaching apprenticeship has ended, and the time for practicing it is here. I ask council not to focus on the contractors speaking against the RCO. We have many apprentices gathered here with us today. focus on these taxpaying citizens of Luzernne County that utilize apprenticeship training right here in Lzern County. An RCO that utilizes class A certified apprenticeship programs pays dividends both today and long into the future. The following apprenticeship programs are located right here in Lzern County. IBW local union 163 in Nanakoke. The painters and allied trades in drums. The heat and frost workers two blocks from the courthouse. Sheet Metal Workers Local 44 has two facilities in Wilsair. One with an AWS certified welding shop that certifies their welders. We don't even certify our own welders at Luzar County College. We can do it right here with the apprenticeship program. Voting yes for an RCO will ensure that we will have a strong pipeline of qualified construction workers in our county for years to come. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Foust. Uh next up we have Charlie Revit. Uh good evening. My name is Charlie Revit. Uh I live in Wilsberry Township and I am currently a third-year apprentice uh being trained by Smart Local 44 uh here in Wils Bear. Uh as you may know uh we have two training facilities here in Wolsair. And as an apprentice of local 44, you are required to complete four years of apprentice training. uh and due to that training I feel that makes us competent, prepared and most importantly qualified to go do our jobs. Uh and for that I hope you vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you sir. Next up we have Bill Dorward. Good evening. My name is Bill Gorward. I'm the president of the Burks County Building Trades and the business representative for the Sheet Metal Workers Local 19. And I came here to stand before you today in support of this RCO for several reasons. Number one, this is not about union versus non-union. There are plenty of contractors who are capable and qualified who are not union to get this work. This is about quality, not temp agencies. It's about keeping the work here in Pennsylvania, Lzern County, workers from this area. It's about safety, quality of safety through apprenticeship programs. More importantly, if you look up the labor statistics, three people a day die here in the United States on construction projects, not some third world country. Education starts with the apprenticeships. quality apprentices coming out becoming journeymen knowing their craft and I'll get to that at the end a little bit more. the economy, economics, I'm sorry, quality done right the first time, not coming back with extras, not coming back to fix different problems. At the end of the day, the tax base, your tax base, this comes full circle. This bill not only helps that all by paying good wages, but more importantly keeps workers with good pay here instead of leaving this area, whether it be Luzern County or Pennsylvania in general, to go find better work for themselves and their families. Please don't buy the hype that this will cut out contractors from doing work. It

just makes sure that you are getting quality contractors. For an example, you heard about Northampton County where this was challenged. It's one of my areas. There are two jobs that were recently awarded to non-signatory contractors. Cedar Brook Nursing Home, very large job, went to a non-signatory contractor. Key point, had a class A apprenticeship program. One of the things that you should ask yourself is why wouldn't a contractor want a class A apprenticeship program? What's behind it? Is it money? Is it not wanting to get that qualified apprenticeship program? Uh, where am I at here? Oh, safetywise, not only with the safety that I had had reached out on, this bill also protects every building that people reside in, work in, or the construction type. But more importantly, God forbid should something go down where it's a bad case, fire, now you got to make sure that you're protecting EMS, firemen, police with smoke evacuation and all that. At the end of the day, the question you should ask yourself is, if you had a heart attack, would you go see an eye doctor? No. You'd get the education of a heart doctor. The same stands for construction industry in itself.

All right. Thank you, sir. Tonight, I stand here steadfast in support of this ordinance, and I ask you to do the same. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Next up, we have uh Randy Jones. Good evening. Good evening, Council. My name is Rainey Jones, and I'm a proud apprentice with Insulators Local 38. Supporting a responsible contractor ordinance means standing up for quality work, fair wages, and safe job sites. As someone learning this trade, I want to know that the work I'm doing is valued and that my contractors who follow the rules aren't undercut by those who don't. RCOS's protect workers, raise industry standards, and ensure taxpayer dollars go to responsible workers. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next up, we have Ryan Kelly. Good evening. My name is Ryan Kelly. I'm apprentice president for Spart Local 44. We have shown up tonight and filled your halls so that you can put faces to the decision that you're about to make. We stand before you, sons, fathers, and brothers. I hope that you will support us so that we we may be able to support a future for our families. Please vote yes. Thank you. Next up, we have uh Josh King.

How are you, council? Uh my name is Joshua King. I'm a resident Luzern County. Uh I'm with local 84 IUC. That's the elevator constructors. I'm just here to show my support. Wasn't really prepared to say much. Um, but it is a big deal to me. The apprenticeship program, the uh the learning and all the training and the stress on safety, it's made me feel very confident to do my job and in a safely, timely, and good quality manner. Uh, so I ask for your support in this field. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, James Solano. Hi everyone. I'm James Solano, president of A Pika Construction. We're a local general contractor in Kingston, Pennsylvania, right here in Luzern County. We perform and continue to perform work in and around Luzernne County. Our employees live in and around Luzern County. We're also members of the Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors. 90% of the construction workforce is merit shop, open shop. The other 10% is signatory more union. ABC represents that 90% of the construction industry. ABC was never contacted during the creation or the revision of the responsible contractor ordinance. It's irresponsible to contact to not contact an organization that represents 90% of the industry that you're trying to regulate. The RCO, as is written, it excludes most contractors. Fewer bidders will result in less competition and higher costs accordingly. As it's written now, the RCO doesn't achieve the purposes it claims to target. I went over some of the major bullets the last time I spoke. Those haven't really changed. Actually, I added probably about 20 of them that I emailed to everybody because it it needs a major overhaul. It really does. The RCO is too exclusionary to effectively use and still too vague. Nothing is defined and there are no metrics to achieve the RCO. What happens to our more well seasoned workforce that's 55 plus that won't sit

nor should they sit through an apprenticeship training? The RCO can easily be molded to ensure a preferred contractor is the responsible contractor. The RCO is odious at best and flatout corrupt at the worst. Given our county's history of corruption, it should be avoided at all cost. Nothing is wrong with our current system. I ask you, I implore you, vote no on the RCO as it stands now. Thank you, Mr. Solano. Next up, we have Marissa Bankert.

Good evening, council. Thank you so much for your time and your service. I'm the president and CEO of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Eastern Pennsylvania, and it's my pleasure to see the energy that's in the room resulting from this RCO and the proposal here. I'm excited to see that there are so many people invested in accountability and in public works to make sure that they are done safely and responsibly and praising apprenticeship as a viable model. We are a sponsor of several programs as a chapter and we love seeing apprentices graduate and move through our programming in the same way as our union counterparts. I am concerned, however, that enacting this type of policy does not meet expectation and often produces unintended consequences. Out of the 34 plus RCOs that have been passed since 2006, almost half have had to be modified or repealed to address implementation failures. This is often attributed to a lack of policy conversation with key stakeholders. As a leading construction trade group in Eastern Pennsylvania, we were not consulted to provide help, information, or data in the con in the construction of this policy. All qualified contractors, regardless of their labor relations approach, should have equal opportunity to bid and perform public construction with funded by taxpayer dollars. We believe that this policy excludes nearly 90% of the available construction contractors through the requirement designed to favor unionized contractors. We would ask that you vote no on this and instead invite us to the table. We would love to have legitimate conversations surrounding performance criteria applicable to all contractor contractors equally, including demonstrated safety records and OSHA compliance, financial responsibility and bonding capacity, relevant project

experience and technical capability, compliance with prevailing wage and labor law requirements, and quality assurance and warranty provisions. I appreciate your time. I know you have a difficult decision. I ask you to vote no so that we can come back to the table with something that makes sense for Lutheran County. Thank you. Next up, Chris Ballas. Good evening, council members. I rise today in support of the responsible contractor ordinance because it's a common sense policy. It protects taxpayers and it ensures Lzern County gets the best value for every public dollar we spend. I think we all agree that when public dollars are spent on construction projects, we should demand more than the lowest bid. And I hope that we all agree that we should demand quality, accountability, and safety. That's exactly what this ordinance does as it is written. It sets clear, fair standards for anyone who wants to do business with our county. Our standards must be high and they have to be set high because the work is be being done on behalf of every resident. And because at some point every resident depends on the work that is being done. By setting these standards, we protect county finances, improve project outcomes, and strengthen the local workforce. Now, I have heard some people say that this will limit competition. Yes, the RCO ensures that taxpayer funded projects are handled by contractors with

a proven record of safety, training, and compliance with the law. If a firm can't meet those standards, it's okay to recognize that the firm can't or chooses not to compete in the market. That's called accountability. And it's okay to pick winners and losers in the free market in the name of accountability. We're the customer. I'm coming to you as a taxpayer. Others claim the RCO will raise costs, but the cheapest bid is not always the best deal. Responsible contractors deliver projects on time, within budget, and built to last. That saves money in the long term. It doesn't waste it. And if anyone calls these requirements red tape, I remind them that basic expectations like safety, training, and following the law aren't bureaucracy. They are common sense. This is not about shutting anyone out. It's about raising the bar so that every project reflects the values of this in of this community. Values like integrity, safety, and responsibility. We deserve infrastructure that lasts. We deserve workers who are treated fairly, and we deserve public money that is protected. I respectfully ask that you vote yes on the RCO because it's a smart investment in our county's future. Thank you. Next up, we have uh Jont Hudson. Sorry if I said the name incorrectly.

Hello everyone. My name is Jonath Hudson. um member of the National Union Operating Engineers Local 542. I'm a 14-year member. I went through the apprenticeship. Um I can say the apprenticeship is a beautiful thing. Um it's good to learn as you go on the job because the nature of the job is very very dangerous and if you go out there with a little bit of lack of knowledge of is you can get hurt or you can build a project that can hurt someone. So, I will ask that you vote yes on the RCO because it's beneficial to the public and to the worker as well. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have uh Matthew John Micheepsky.

Matthew John. I just want you. If there's a second person available or two people to hold this up for council to be able to overview, I'd appreciate it.

And I will start a timer as soon as I'm ready to speak. So, please give me a moment to prepare. Thank you for being willing, sir.

Good evening, council. My name is Matthew John Mashevki. I am a citizen resident here in Luzer County out of Edwardsville, Pennsylvania. What I have here is what I feel is something that the council should consider before adopting the proposed ordinance. As it has been come to my attention that as a result of previous government uh contracts, I have had an infringement upon my water right access through Toby's Creek beside my house as a result of the failure of the government to properly inform affected citizens of any potential change to the environment. So without further ado, what I feel should be considered for inclusion in the proposed ordinance is that there be safeguards which protect the rights and interest of both citizens and businesses despite the influence of money and the perception of any difficulty in arranging accommodations. I believe that we should have proactive engagement with the community at large and individuals in focus and it should also have uh proof that they have tools for researching and developing any changes such as what citizens might be affected. Businesses should naturally understand who they are going to be changing the life of. We they should have a track record and dedicated procedures for remediating any of the needs of citizens who might be in uh infringed upon and affected by any operations as well as there should be participation in public forums where there is a large conversation going on regarding any criticisms of any proposed operation. So if somebody says there's a best practice and they think they're doing it and some that conversation needs to be allowed to occur so that way we could actually proliferate an appropriate and healthy

response in regard to our work and organization. Uh also the burden should not be placed exclusively on the business or exclusively on government. It should be shared equally among all parties. So when we have these systems, we need to make sure that problem solving is allowed to occur, that conflict of interests are able to be resolved, and that can only occur when you have a truly critical forum of conversation where everybody gets to put forth not just in a county council meeting, but in the dedicated project development forum. Okay. Now, before I finish, I bring all of this up again because my rights as a citizen and the rights of my forebears and my bloodline since 1921 have been negatively affected by the flood protection authority. I should be able to access the waters of Toby's Creek along with all of my neighbors through the chain of title that is associated with my deed. I have right access to the waters and waterways but I have not been able to access that because I and my neighbors have not been included in the conversation. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Um we also have Jerry Naro although he didn't select the public hearing so I'm not sure Mr. Naro. Mr. Naro, is he not coming? Mh. Jerry Naro.

Saw him out there. Mr. Naro, are you speaking on the RCO? Hi guys, how are you? Mr. Naro, are you speaking on the responsible contracting ordinance? Pardon me. Are you speaking on the responsible contracting ordinance? No, I'm sorry. I'm speaking on a non-aggenda item I put on on my forum. Okay. All right. I apologize. You'll come back up at the end of the next meeting. Yep. Yep. I apologize. No problem. Okay. Some people marked the wrong thing, but I figure they were speaking about the RCO. Okay. Uh, we have Is there anybody else in the audience for public comment? Go ahead, Mr. Lindy.

Sorry, I thought I probably filled it out wrong. Um, I'll try not to take all all my three minutes, but I think uh like the devil's always in the details. And there's two things I think that really jump out to me when I read this. And the one is uh number 3F, which is an off-site fabrication provision. All contractors and subcontractors on getting an off-site fabrication. Oh, I'm sorry. I think it's on just Okay. And and it basically comes I don't know if it is. Yeah, it's on. It's on.

It basically comes down to you're expanding this beyond the work site. If you do that, you're just going to run into all kinds of trouble of of a lot of the subcontracts aren't even known when you're bidding these things and they're being put in. So, you you should really take a look at that at that part of it and and who's going to check on off-site fabrication, manholes, everything else, all those things you're starting to include here. That that's way too far. And then the other part that that I think is going to be a real, you know, problem besides, you know, cutting off 90% of the of the contractors is prior to execution for a final contract under this section, the county shall publicly post a notice of intent of award, contractor's responsibility certificates, uh subcontractor list, subcontract responsibility clarifications, and the contractor's responsibility determination uh on the county's website for public review uh for the record uh for five calendar days following the issuance of a contract responsible uh determination that is just going to be a mess but you know what I mean so that's I don't think it's workable but we can try anything

anybody else in the audience for public comment anybody all right we have two on the Zoom we have Mark Mr. Chairman, this is Mark Rabbo of Hazelton speaking. Can you hear me? Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First off, uh I would like to say as somebody who went through uh a rigorous training program, certification program out in the mid an OSHA certified program, might I add, in the Midwest along with uh being in construction myself as a laborer, as a construction owner, and as somebody who also as as you know, Mr. chairman served on public utility board and as a member of the county redevelopment authority board. I think I know this from all sides of the polit all sides of the spectrum whether it comes from construction side bidding side and the government side. This responsible contractor ordinance does not pass muster. Okay. First of all, the state recently tried to pass this in the state legislature. It passed in the House, Mr. Chair, but did not pass in the state senate. And actually, the state senate didn't even put it up for a vote because they were told that this would be massively that would lead to massive exposure in litigation uh to the state because it would not uh pass uh it would be a disc it would be discrimination against uh labor laws, federal labor laws, specifically fair fair labor standards. uh because it would be pitting unionized apprenticeship versus non non-union apprenticeship programs. So that's where the sticking point is, Mr. Chair and members of council. Secondly, as you know, Mr. Chairman, as far as all the county projects over the years, and you could ask the county manager this and people who were on council since home rule began. If you take all of the co county projects that were bid out and awarded, whether it was construction

companies with union shops as opposed to construction uh companies of non-union shops, it would be a wash because you had uh you had companies that did projects. I'll give you two examples, Mr. Chair, real quick. The uh roof on the courthouse and also the uh prison, the check valves in the prison. Those were those were problematic. Yet those were not done. Those were not the the contractors were not held accountable to to redo the project. And as you know, Mr. Chairman, and I believe members of council uh that are currently on said that there should be a bid bond, which should have happened years ago, but never did. So I think this is not about uh apprenticeship programs as much as about the bidding process and the procurement pro process not being followed to accordingly. So I would ask uh you Mr. Chair uh to direct the county manager to ask the office of law to look at the pro uh pro procurement process and the bidding process to see uh how we can thank you Mr. Rabo on the county level. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We also have Ashley Bart. Hello, my name is Ashley Bart, um, resident of Lazernne County. And, um, while I agree that safety safety, um, ratings and measurements would be extremely important for large scale projects or any scale project. This ordinance seems like it could lean in the direction of favoritism. And I think that it deserves a lot more deeper um exploration and introspection before anything is passed through. So on that I would ask you to vote no.

Thank you. Anybody else for public comment? All right. Hearing none, is there a motion to adjurnn? All in favor? Opposed? Meetings adjourned. At 6:23 we'll get right into the voting session. We already had the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence. Roll call, please. Miss Lawrence, Mr. Hos here, Miss Krishnowski here, Mr. Luscavage here, Miss McDermott here, Mr. Perry, Mr. Sabatino here, Miss Smith here. Miss Stevenson here. Mr. Thornton here. Mr. Will present. Mr. Lombardo here. All present.

All right. Thank you. We do have three ceremonial proclamations and I will read them. And if there's anybody here from these organizations that would like to accept them, uh please feel free to come up. We can let you make a short uh set of remarks afterwards if if you'd like. Uh first we have the General Federation of Women's Club Westside Women's Club proclamation. Whereas the General Federation of Women's Club Westside Women's Club is celebrating the momentous occasion of its 100th anniversary on October 5th, 2025. And whereas by living the volunteer spirit, GFWC, Westside Women's Club, women transform lives each day, not simply with monetary donations, but with hands-on tangible projects that provide immediate impact with a grassroots approach that often thinks locally, but impacts globally. And whereas the general federation of women's club westside women's club affiliated with GFWC Pennsylvania and its GFWC is one of the world's largest and oldest formed over 129 years ago. Women's service organizations from all walks of life and with considerable diversity in all ages, interest and experience of the GFWC members all are united by a dedication to community improvement through volunteer services. And whereas the General Federation of Women's Club, Westside Women's Club, is celebrating their 100th anniversary of a federated service to their community. Now therefore, we the Luzar County Council do hereby proclaim its gratitude and honor for all the members of the GFWC, Westside Women's Club, who embody civic duty and community pride for all residents of Luzar County on their 100th anniversary of incorporation. Thank you. Not sure if there's anybody here from the GFWC. Okay. Okay. Is she outside?

Oh, okay. All right. I have a young lady. Thank you.

Okay. Next up, we have a CEO proclamation. All right. Whereas Luzern County is committed to taking steps to combat hunger in every corner of our county. And whereas Luzernne County is committed to working with the commission on economic opportunity, CEO Weineberg Northeast Regional Food Bank to educate residents about their role in the importance of food banks and addressing hunger and raising awareness of the need to disperse more resources and attention to hunger issues. And whereas hunger and food insecurity are issues of vital concern in Pennsylvania, where according to Feeding America, nearly 50 million people have used food banks in the United States, which includes one in eight Pennians and one in six children live in food insecure households. And whereas adequate nutritious food has become more expensive and out of reach for many neighbors with food costs increasing, leading to a record demand for food banks nationwide. And whereas food insecurity, the condition of limit or uncertain access to adequate food, is associated with numerous adverse social and health outcomes and is a vital public health issue. And whereas the CEO Weineberg, Northeast Regional Food Bank, distributed 17.6 million pounds of food to nearly 1.1 million people in Northeast Pennsylvania in 2024 in Luzern County alone, 9 million pounds of food were distributed through more than 130 partner agencies. And whereas public and private entities including policy makers, business leaders, community activists, farmers, concerned citizens, and hunger relief organizations must collectively work to address food insecurity within the county. And whereas the month of September has been nationally designated as hunger action month for the last 18 years to raise awareness to inspire action to end hunger in America. Now therefore, we loan county council do hereby proclaim September 2025 as hunger action month in Lzern County. Thank you. [Applause] Thank you, council, for recognizing uh September as hunger action month. Um, but I think you all know that hunger is

365 days a year. Um, and I think it's important that we recognize our neighbors in Luzern County, more than 50,000 of them are food insecure, including 22% of children. So, I think it's important that we recognize this and we continue with the help of the community and all the partners we have to make sure we're doing everything that we can to provide our neighbors in need with healthy and nutritious food. Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] Thank you, Morbach.

I just want to uh put council on notice. Uh uh we will be uh volunteering uh at the Weineberg Food Center for uh October. Uh so I'll be sending out uh a message to all of you to join uh the division heads doing that. So stay tuned.

Okay. Finally, domestic violence awareness month uh proclamation. Whereas across our county and here in the county of Luzernne, across our country and here in the county of Luzernne, domestic violence traumatizes victims, endangers children, harms families, affects workplaces, threatens communities, and crosses all racial, social, economic, and cultural boundaries. And whereas it is the goal of the county of Luzernne to reduce the incidents and effects of domestic violence on its citizens and to increase public awareness of this problem. And whereas the county of Luzernne urges all citizens to recognize the epidemic of domestic violence and to join in support of the programs which help alleviate domestic violence. And whereas the county of Luzernne supports the coordinated and knowledgeable response of instances of domestic violence by first responder service providers such as the domestic violence service center and the criminal justice system. Now therefore, we the Luzar County Council do hereby acknowledge the problem of domestic violence, appreciate the difficult yet outstanding work which responders accomplish in fighting the problem, urge all residents of Lozern County to be more aware of the problem of domestic violence and its impacts on our daily lives, and proclaim the month of October in the year 2025 as domestic violence awareness month in Lzern County. Thank you. Not sure if anybody's here from domestic violence. No. All righty then. Moving on. Any deletions from the voting session agenda? Is there a motion to adopt the agenda?

Second. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Agenda is adopted. We'll now have public comment on agenda items only. Okay. I have a bunch of slips um from people that were uh spoke regarding the RCO. If they'd like to speak again, I'm just going to say your name if you're cl if you're on it. Uh Marissa Banker, you're good. Okay. All right. James Solano, you got me already. All right, Robert Gus. Nothing further. Thanks for your time. Chris Bellis, further. Uh, Matthew John Mashevski. I know he's I'll give him a second.

He's coming.

He's coming. Okay. Hello again, ladies and gentlemen of our county council. I would like to first start off by recognizing Lutheran County Community College, the St. Vincent D. Paul Soup Kitchen as well as CEO uh for having a wonderful food pantry program and for being willing to share food with people who are food insecure without requiring any other information. I would also like to ask the council to look into investing in extra food security infrastructure such as refrigeration units.

Sir, are you speaking on an agenda item? I thought this was just speaking about what y'all just brought up. No, this is just for agenda items only. You have it marked down on the paper. Okay. There's three different papers and it wasn't clear exactly which one you guys were referring to. Okay. All right. If you want to speak again, you can come up at the end of the meeting if that's okay because this is not it doesn't seem like it's agenda items related. All right. Well, would you be able to tell me which one you're speaking about right now because like I said wasn't clear. Whatever's on the physical agenda. I know you spoke previously or the work session. The voting session. The voting session. Let me look at that. If anything, I will be right back. Okay. All right. Anybody else? Because you guys were bringing it up uh right after what you just spoke about that it was still relevant.

Okay. Anybody else for public comment on voting session agenda items in the audience? Okay. If there's anybody out in the Rotunda that would like to come up and speak, I'm going to start calling on uh on the people from the Zoom and then they can if they have anybody wants to come in, they can. Uh we have Mark on the Zoom. Mr. Chairman, this is Mark Rabo of Hazelton speaking. Can you hear me? Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is in regards to agendum items number I believe it's eight with the fund balance. Uh I don't I'm kind of confused on this, Mr. chairman because maybe the county manager can answer the question as far as this goes because I believe that the fund balance the issue with having a a set fund balance uh should should have been done at the beginning of this year not towards before the budget right before the budget because of the fact that we did have a surplus going into this year and before the awarding of uh new contracts and also the county manager manager contract. Uh we did have a surplus. So now we're looking at possibly a deficit going into the budget season. So I'm kind of confused as far as the timing of this goes, but uh I I would like to answer to that question. And secondly, on agenda item number 10, I believe for the uh black lung uh issue, I just want to make uh you, Mr. Chairman, aware and other council members aware that September 10th was a pivotal uh date not only of the egregious that happened uh in Utah, but also with the egregious tragedy that happened uh over a 100 almost 120 years ago today or of 2000 or the September 10th. uh the Latimer massacre which uh tragically and and heinously uh Lucern County shot and killed murdered unarmed miners because they were uh protesting for healthc care uh in relation to uh their job on in the mines uh with black lung they were having black lung issues symptoms of black lung at the time. So, uh, I think

that needs to be finally recognized by Luzernne County that, uh, that egregious tragedy should have never occurred in the first place. Uh, because those miners died as martyrs just like Charlie Kirk did for what they believed in, which was, uh, that they needed to have their healthc care rights respected. Uh, and they were they were they were shunned and they were murdered for it. So, I think that needs to be recognized, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Rabo. Anybody else for public comment? Agenda items only. Okay. Hearing none. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of the September 9th, 2025 voting session?

Second. Motion second. All in favor? I chairman, I abstain. I was a Okay. 10 and one. Okay. Thank you. Moving on to the agenda. Number one, motion to adopt the resolution approving a modification to an American Rescue Plan Act funds awarded truck project for children, youth, and families. So moved. Motion and a second. Roll call. Mr. Hos. Yes. Miss Krishnowski? Yes. Mr. Lisgavage? Yes. Miss McDerman? Yes. Mr. Perry? Mr. Sabatino? Yes. Miss Smith? Yes. Miss Stevenson? Yes. Mr. Thornton? Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Lombardo? Yes. Unanimous.

Thank you. Number two, motion to adopt the resolution approving a modification to an American Rescue Plan Act funds awarded project for the Luzern County Flood Protection Authority. Second. Motion in the second. Roll call. Miss Krishnowski. Yes. Muscav. Miss McDermott. Yes. Mr. Perry. Mr. Sabatino. Yes. Miss Smith? Yes. Miss Stevenson? Yes. Mr. Thornton? Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. H? Yes. Mr. Lombardo? Yes, unanimous. Thank you. Number three, introduction of ordinance to revise the existing GIS and mapping department fee schedule. Manager Crocomo

introducing the ordinance uh to revise the existing GIS and mapping department fee schedule. There's any questions? Uh we have uh Dan Reese here. All right. Thank you, manager Crocomo. Any questions? No. Okay. Number four, motion to adopt the resolution providing prior approving uh an electric electricity supply contract and electricity rate. Show move. Second. Motion and a second. Roll call. Just on the on the question, Mr. Chair, if I could

go ahead, Mr. I was talked to Mr. Ro beforehand. Just that this is the rate. It's 12.4 cents a kilowatt hour and um the residential is so we're getting 8.3 cents 8.4 4 cents a kilowatt hour. So there's a savings there and um Mr. Rose told me it's a fixed rate. It's not going to change with the seasons and you know energy costs are going up. So fully support this but just thought that that was important for the public to know that. Thank you. I I have a question Mr. Chair. Go ahead.

When I read this uh part this morning I noticed the resolution states a two-year agreement with the rate, but the table presented in the resolution was a three-year table at that rate. I'm not quite sure if we're voting on two years or three years. Uh Mr. Vogue, you want to clarify for us, please?

Yes, it's a two-year term. We had the option of two or three. The broker suggested a two-year term, and I agreed with that. Um prices in the next year are going to be going up 3 to 7% in that range. So, it's good to lock in the rate now before it jumps to a year. All right. Thank you, Mr. Vogue. Any other questions, comments? All right. There's a motion in a second. Roll call. Mr. Lavage? Yes. Miss McDermott? Yes. Mr. Perry? Mr. Sabatino? Yes. Miss Smith? Yes. Miss Stevenson? Yes. Mr. Thornton? Yes. Mr. Wovit? Yes. Mr. Haw? Yes. Miss Kushnowski? Yes. Mr. Lombardo? Yes. Unanimous.

Number five. Motion to adopt the resolution authorizing the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to close a portion of Honeyhole Road for a bridge replacement project. Second. Motion in a second. Roll call. Miss McDermott. Yes. Mr. Perry. Mr. Savatino. Yes. Miss Smith? Yes. Miss Stevenson? Yes. Mr. Thornton? Yes. Mr. Willow? Yes. Mr. Hos? Yes. Miss Krishnowski? Yes. Mr. Lavage? Yes. Mr. Lombardo? Yes. Unanimous. Number six. Motion to adopt the resolution approving a contract with the Ziggman Company for insurance risk management services. So moved. Second. Motion in a second. Roll call. Mr. Perry. Mr. Sabatino. Yes. Miss Smith. Yes. M Miss Stevenson.

Yes. Mr. Thornton? Yes. Mr. Willovich? Yes. Mr. Hos? Yes. Miss Krishnowski? Yes. Mr. Luscavage? Yes. Miss McDermott? Yes. Mr. Lombardo. Yes. Unanimous. Number seven. Motion to adopt the resolution approving an extension of a lease with King's College for parking at River Street between West Jackson and North Streets, Wilsbury for fiscal year 2026. Some moved. Second. Uh I heard Mr. Thornton was right next to me. He was the loudest one. So, how about Mr. Thornton? Um what? You don't want it? Okay. Motion in a second. Roll call. Mr. Sabatino. Yes. Miss Smith? Yes, Miss Stevenson. Yes, Mr. Thornton. Yes,

Mr. Mr. H. Yes, Miss Krishnowski. Yes, Mr. Lavage. Yes, Miss McDermott. Yes, Mr. Perry. Mr. Lombardo. Yes. Unanimous. Thank you. Number eight, motion to adopt the resolution adopting a fund balance policy. So move. Motion and a second. On the question, Mr. Chair, go ahead.

Can we just hear the management again explain the reasoning why this is appropriate this time? I mean, I get the Gatsby requirements. I'm all about adhering to those kind of principles. Um, and we just had some positive news about our credit rating, but um, my concern, and I don't want to eclipse what Mill is about to say, but I I don't I would rather see us keep taxes at a uniform rate than have fund balances, you know, and um, do that. I don't know if we could address that. I imagine it probably has something to do with Mary Rosal, if you come to the uh, podium.

Thanks, M. uh but uh we were advised to do that financial uh management company and if you look at the purpose uh it establishes uh guidelines to maintain minimum levels of fund balances. This is something that was discussed uh during our interview with standard and pores.

It was also brought up when the auditors were here doing the audit report. He talked about the fact that we had a two we had 2.7 months. the standard is um three. Um so we have a little ways to go. We're almost there. I mean, we're not in bad shape, but we're almost there. So he talked about that. Standard importers talked about it. Our financial adviser talked about it. So it's something that a lot of um a lot of counties do have. It helps improve your credit rating. It certainly was recommended by standard importers. Um something we could do at any point in time and has nothing to do with the budget time period at all. It's just a policy that should be developed at some point. I'm certainly not opposed to it and I I would really hope we would would really uh double down on this once we reach that surplus for the long term. We pay down the debt four more years, four or five more years. Best practice is great, but again, not at the expense of uh you know, having a fund balance, but then calling for a tax increase. I just hope that doesn't happen. So, my concern, but I I support this as it is on paper. Thanks, Mel. Thanks, Milan.

Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you, Mr. Rosel. Motion in a second. Roll call. Miss Smith. Yes. Miss. Stevenson? Yes. Mr. Thornton? Yes. Mr. Willow? Yes. Mr. Hos? Yes. Miss Krishnowski? Yes. Mr. Lascavage? Yes. Miss McDermott? Yes. Mr. Perry? Yes. Mr. Sabatino? Yes. Mr. Lombardo? Yes. Unanimous. Number nine. Motion to adopt an ordinance to define the qualification of a responsible contractor. Second. Motion and a second. on the question anyone um if okay who would like to go first here you anybody

well I nobody does anything I have I mean I have two friendly amendments that I would like to make however if anybody has commentary they would like to say first that's that's all right

the first amendment that I have which I think is is fairly straightforward um just a little background to it so as I've been doing research on uh these responsible contracting order One of the perennial issues that I have noticed um when speaking with other municipalities that have them is that there is sometimes a lack of bids that come in for certain projects um and then they rebid the projects multiple times um which ends up you know taking some time a lot of the time in Luzern County and other municipalities we have grant deadlines and things like that. Um, and you know, honestly, I think it would it would be bad publicity for us to have this ordinance and then have to constantly come in and have to override it um when we don't get enough bids on certain projects. So, I'd like to put an amendment in uh move section 4 down to section five and add a new section 4 that states as follows. If no bids are received on a project from contractors described in this ordinance on project on projects outlined herein, the requirements of this ordinance shall be considered null and void for that specific project and the lowest qualified bidder shall be selected according to the standard purchasing/bidding policies in place regarding of the award of contracts. Um so this you know we would still be essentially following um the ordinance as it is written. Uh but we would be encouraging all contractors to apply uh to to bid on these projects. And if we do not get enough bids or any bids from uh contractors who would be covered under this ordinance, then we can go back essentially to our previous policy. And it would prevent us from having to address it every single time we have a council meeting and we have this issue happen. And I mean I I don't know about anybody else on council here, but I know that if that is constantly coming to us, if I'm not saying it will, but I have heard that that has happened in other areas. Um, but if that's coming to us multiple times, that might make uh

that might make council a future council uh wanting to, you know, make that amendment there or, you know, even worse. So, yep. Yep. So, like I said, section four will be moved down to section five, and this will be a new section four. And it states, "If no bids are received on a project from contractors described in this ordinance on projects outlined herein, the requirements of this ordinance shall be constru considered null and void for that specific project, and the lowest qualified bidder shall be selected according to the standard purchasing/bidding policies in place regarding the awarding of contracts. Miss Smith, your mic. Yeah,

I'm sorry. If zero bids and the last phrase again, please. The last phrase according to our previous purchasing. Yeah, that would be according to uh pre this the standard purchasing bidding policies in place regarding to the awarding of contracts

and ML previously. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. Previously standard. And Miss Lawrence, I'll send you the Go ahead. If that's your motion, I'll second it. Okay. There's a motion and a second for that amendment. And then after all the amendments are made, I will give the public an opportunity to come up for public comment on the all of the amendments collectively. Um, as that would be, you know, good policy. Mr. Chair, could I just comment on the amendment? Yep. Motion in a second and comment. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, the amendment sounds great, like it would cut off or curtail some extra procedures down the road. However, as one who's been on both sides of the issue, um, back in the 80s, I worked in New York City out in Queens. I worked for a very, very large contracting company. Uh I was an estimator did heavy highway construction, bridge construction, tunnel rehabilitation, runways, Kennedy or whatnot. Um what you'll find is this amendment with all due respect uh it will be a moot point because um the contractors that don't comply with the provisions of this ordinance won't even submit a bid. We won't have a go-to next lowest bidder because it's extremely expensive for a contractor to put together a bid for major contract. Um you're you're paying uh in our office six estimators uh for different aspects of the job. Uh you're buying all the plans uh from the uh owner, the entity uh and you're putting in long long manh hours for weeks on end to put together a bid. I could tell you contractors that wouldn't comply with this RCO, they're not going to even bother to go through that and submit a bid. So, we won't have anybody a backup to go to if that happens. So, with all due respect, I understand what you're trying to do. It's a nice effort. Um, but it's it's really going to be a moot point.

So, I'll I'll give you an example. In the Bureau of State College, um, they're considering they're currently reviewing their responsible contracting ordinance. I believe they put a six-month freeze on it, something like that. Um, and their their main issue, and I spoke to a representative from State College Bureau earlier today, actually, their main issue has been um lack of bids. Now, they have had projects where people have bid on them where they did not fall under the provisions of the RCO. They they bid on them anyway. Now, I'm not saying that would happen here. I'm not saying that it wouldn't happen here, but in order, in my opinion, to prevent a problem that is happening elsewhere with these ordinances, I think that it would be wise to at least put this in here because this to me is something that's just adding an extra layer of of security on this so that we don't have to keep coming back to council and delaying these projects. I I think that that's some that's what really this is coming down to for me because um some of the uh the people that have talked about amending these RCOs's and and repealing have talked about the the timeliness of certain projects and I agree with that 100% because here we know, you know, we want to get road projects done quickly. We want to get bridge projects done as quick as possible. We want to get building projects done as quick as possible, you know, for different types of things. So that's why I I felt that this amendment would be would be a positive. Miss Miss Smith and then Mr. Lcavage. I think that's a reasonable amendment. I'm fine with that. I think it's a good one. Thanks, John. Thank you, chairman.

Mr. Lavage,

after hearing this, I don't know why we just don't leave it the way it is. I don't see what we're gaining in the end, and I just say, "Leave it alone. It works." Um, when myself and Mr. Thornton were on West Pittston Council, we bid out the sewers, we had bids. If I remember right, there was about a $3 million spread. We took the lowest bidder. They did a great job for us and we're able to do a second phase that project because of the savings to be had. I'm afraid we're not going to experience that with this. Um I don't think we should exclude anybody. I think everybody should be able to bid and I don't know if we keep making all these amendments and we keep diluting it what the purpose is. Anyhow, we're back to square one. We seem to do that a lot and I don't understand why. Okay. Any other comments, Miss Smith?

I think what we're doing is trying to account for a lot of um different situations. It happens often in legislatores and it happens often with us. Uh and that's what happens when you put a law on the books. Uh that's why we have a judiciary branch in our government to help interpret what laws are. And what we're trying to do is account for other possibilities. And if your argument is that this provision would be moot and no one would bid anyway, then it doesn't matter. Put it in. Doesn't change anything then. All right. Uh Mr. Wovich,

I was just going to say it makes sense because if we would have to bid it a second time, you know, they still wouldn't be eligible. So what would be the point of bidding it a second time? They still have to come back to council another time. So that continues to prolong the process. I'd rather them have the opportunity in the beginning.

Yeah. Yeah. And if we have to if we have to rebid it, then obviously this this this prevents us from have to go the extra step and saying, "Okay, we are overriding the RCO for whatever XYZ particular project." And I just think as a as a practice of good policy, if we're putting this policy in place, you know, we wouldn't it would be undermining it every time we come here to to have to override it. Process was on this. Okay, there's a motion in a second. Roll call on the amendment. Miss Stevenson. Yes, Mr. Thornton.

Well, in the unlikely event that that would happen, I guess it's a safeguard. Uh, but I I don't think it'll happen. But in nonetheless, if it's if it's going to help the situation, I'll vote yes on the amendment. Mr. Hovich, yes. Mr. Hos, no. M. Krishnowski? Yes. Mr. Lavage, Miss McDermott, yes. Mr. Perry, no. Mr. Savatino, yes. Miss Smith, yes. Mr. Lombardo, yes.

Okay, thank you. my second amendment that I have. Let me find what we're going to be uh section one under purposes and definitions. Letter B item number three uh estimated cost of total projects in in excess of $250,000. I would like to double that to 500,000. And my rationale for that is so I have spoken to um members of the building trades community. I've spoken to members of the construction community that are here that are in opposition to this. And um members of the of the construction community that are opposed to this are um stating that they think that a million dollars would be a more appropriate threshold. Um and $250,000 has basically been where we've been almost since the beginning with this. Um, and I would like to at least try to come up with a reasonable compromise for everybody. Um, and I do have some other questions about about this as well. But, um, you know, I you I know that I've spoken with both sides of the of the uh of the aisle, so to speak, on this issue. And, um, I I do feel like one is is being left out of the negotiation significantly. Um, so I think that at least to add this in here, we would still be a lot closer to what the original amount was of 250. Uh, we would still be a lot further from the million dollars that others are asking for, but I think that somewhere in the middle here would be a reasonable compromise. So, I'll make that I'll make that motion.

I'll second it. Second it to discuss. All right. There's a second. Any discussion? Go ahead, Miss Smith. Um, this may be a question for Mr. Vogue or maybe Miss Roselle or manager Crocomo. What's the average bid that we receive on our projects? Like if we took all the bids that we in a year,

so there's two, right? There's two different Sorry, you're right. Let me finish. Sorry. Thank you. I there would be two different averages that I'm looking for. One is an average bid on a project and one is what's our average bid that we receive if you take all of our projects together because vastly different projects would obviously give us vastly different bids then I'd like to So those are the two averages I'm looking for at first. I'm sure we wouldn't be able to figure that out. Mr. involved. Do you have a any commentary you'd like to give on this? I I thought I'd be bringing up I'm sorry.

We did send uh a spreadsheet of our bids. Uh that was months ago. Yes. Yes. If we're talking about a road project, that's always going to be over a million. Especially in today's age. uh bridge, small bridge, uh full rehabilitation, you're looking at three to five00 um thousand 100 million 100,000. Um if you're looking at a bigger bridge, you're in the one to $2 million range.

Uh building projects really variable on what you're doing. Roof projects, 250 to 400, give or take the building size. Um really is variable on what you're doing. Okay, Mr. Oh, I apologize. Oh, Miss Smith, you weren't done yet. Okay, I apologize. Go ahead. I just had I just Can you repeat that? The building side is It depends on what you're doing, but a a roof uh depending on the size of the roof, anywhere from 250 to 400. Okay. Um

how about the cost of the replacement of the windows at Pen Place? Do you have Do you know what that was? Yeah. So, we're doing the weather facing side. Um 500. Okay. Yeah. Only one floor. So, for one floor. Yeah. So, I mean the whole the whole building would be over a million. $500,000 for one floor. For one floor. Mhm. Wow. Okay. Windows are expensive. All right. Uh any other questions for Mr. Vogue? Probably. All right. Mr. Movich, go ahead. Sorry. Sorry. Um so, I'm not sure if we I probably should ask this sooner. Um, do we have an idea of how many current county contracts would actually be, if this was in place before, impacted by this ordinance as written? Uh, a majority,

not all. Not all. Okay. Okay. But you don't have a majority is very different from all. A majority is also very different from half. So where are we in the majority? Are we at 90% 60% 65%. Yeah. Because this also does not include road projects, correct? bridges. Correct. That doesn't Okay. Okay. Mr. Sino, if we change the limit to 500,000, does that change the ratio to say 40% of the county projects?

Um, yes, I think it may be beneficial to go a little higher. Um, that's just my opinion. So, if we change this number to 500, you're saying that this RCO would affect 40% of the county contracts that are currently out there? Yes. Okay. Uh, Miss Stevenson, then Mr. Thornton. Uh, Councilman Lombardo, I am in favor and willing to compromise with the threshold number to 500,000. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Thornton. Yeah. Um, I think it's unfair to put Mr. Vogue on the spot and have him site statistics. Apologies. We're not.

Good thing he's knowledgeable. No. So my just let me finish please. So uh my point is um that wasn't a reprimand. That was I'm leading to that I think whenever you talk

an analysis such as this should have been done prior to tonight since this is going to have grave grave effects on many many workers in this county. Uh, we should have drilled this stuff down. That's no comment on you, Mr. Vogue. I don't think I didn't see any questions go to you in writing and emails or anything like that. Again, all of these issues should have been discussed well in advance of a vote tonight. Okay. It's extremely disturbing to me and it should be to everybody in this room. And I asked for this 16 months ago. Why wasn't everybody who was devastatingly affected by this invited to the table to talk about it? As uh the woman spoke here from ABC tonight. Why? I I I said it two or three times in public meetings. There was a deliberate and intentional effort to exclude the entities to suffer dearly from the passage of this ordinance. And I that bothers it should bother everybody here that we heard from one side and not the other. These are very good questions about average uh contract size. Let me remind everybody your math class. There's a big difference between average, median, and mode.

Sure. Okay. You could have an average of 300,000 with all contracts. Uh but that's because you had 30 contracts at 10,000 each and you had one contract at 3 million. That's why you need to do a different kind of an analysis and and this bothers me that we're rushing into this without all these questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could, Mr. Chair, uh Mr. Wovich, and then Mr. Hos, I was just wondering if Mr. Thornton attended my legislative committee meeting where we discussed all this and presented an opportunity for questions. Was Mr. Vogue involved? Well, how did you get the answer from Mr. Vogue? You didn't. Okay. Thank you. All right, Mr. Hos.

Yeah, based on what Mr. Thornon said, all the stakeholders really, if if we really want to do this right, I guarantee you all the politicians at this table here, maybe Mr. Thor exempted, but even Mr. Thornne doesn't know all the climate of the types of contracts this will affect, the types of people that are going to put in for this, the types of workers this is going to affect. I would like to see everybody sit down, if we're really going to do this right, let's do it well. Let's do it correctly. Let's not politic this here and just try to take little bites of this apple at the very 11th hour. I get it. We We've done that certainly before, but this one is going to have very long range effects. I would I would move that we remand this back to committee that we have a a real public gathering if we really are serious about doing this and not take a a a cookie cutter RCO that has clearly been coming from other areas of the country that's been used. You've seen it. So, um that's what I recommend. something that really works for Loser County that works for the management that doesn't handicap Ramilda and her team makes things more difficult and also protect our workers. I mean, we all want we all want that. We want this to be a win-win just like that PPL discussion which we were excluded from that by and large until it was a little too late. So, I really don't want to make see that same mistake. If we could remand that, Mr. Chair, I'd make that motion, remand it back to committee, do it right, it might take a few more months, but I think that's the right clean effective way to do it.

I would second that. All right. There's a motion in a second to remand back to committee. Uh, Miss Smith,

I would just note that any discussion that we have about this needs to obviously be in public and any vote that we have on this and any vote would obviously come with a discussion and there's things that the public needs to know. This is public funds. This is obviously a huge has a huge impact on the public. I don't think there's been an intentional effort to exclude anyone. We've opened this up this table up at least twice now. This has been happening for months and uh Councilman Thornton, I believe you're correct. I should have used the word median, not average. I apologize. You're correct on that. Um and I think the issue here is that that's why we just implemented the new section five to allow for a safety, but this has been open at least twice to the public where we have asked people to come to the table. Well, I know I've spoken to people and for lack of a better term, both sides of the aisle on this. Um, this has been in the works for a long time. So, I just don't think there's been any intentional effort and I certainly think that we've opened this up. And just the last five, this is a safety net.

We do just one second here. Procedurally, I got to figure out where we are. So, we have a second. Yeah, we have to remand. However, there's already a motion second for an amendment, right? So, well, that passed. All right, that passed. No, not the 500,000. Not the 500,000. Yes. So, what should we do? Okay. So, the amendment. No, no. The first amendment. The first amendment is is done. The second the second one has a first and a second. The 500. He's talking about the motion to amend section three of five section one. He's talking about the motion to amend attorney scheme. Okay.

Yeah. He's talking about All right. Mr. Hos, can you withdraw your motion so we can vote on the amendment and then you can make another motion and then you can make a motion to remand back to committee procedurally. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Then I'll withdraw my second. Oh, you'll withdraw your sec. Okay. For that. Okay. All right. So, there's a motion and a second on the change from the threshold of $250,000 to $500,000. Should we just let's just take a roll call vote on that. Mr. Thornton? Yes. Mr. Wovich? Yes. Mr. H.

Uh, no. It's going to go back to committee. Motion. No. Mr. M. McDermott. Yes. Mr. Perry. Mr. Sabatino. Yes. Miss Smith. Yes. Abs. Yes. M. Stevenson. Yes. Mr. Lombardo. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Now, Mr. Hos, would you like to make your motion to remand back to committee? Motion to rem this back to committee that there can be more buy in from all the stakeholders. Okay.

I'll second that. Motion in a second. Is there any other discussion on this on this motion? Uh, Miss McDar, did you you didn't have any questions before? I I didn't I couldn't see you. Sorry, I wasn't. Okay. There's a motion in a second to remand this back to committee. Roll call. Mr. Hos. Yes. M. Krishnowski? No. Mr. Lavage? Yes. M. McDermott? No. Mr. Perry? Mr. Savatino, no. Miss Smith, no. Miss Stevenson, no. Mr. Thornton, yes. Mr. Wovich, no.

Mr. Lombardo, no. Four. No. Seven. Excuse me. Four. Yes. Seven. No. Okay. It does not go back. All right. 500 pass, right? Yes. All right. Any other further discussion on this? Call the question. No call. All right. Questions called point order. I

Yep. All right. Uh we'll have public comment on the two amendments. Any any public comment on the amendments? Anybody in the audience? You guys want to just check out there or see if anybody Thank you. I just wanted to say that the information regarding the contracts for TW from 2023 to 2024 and partially of 2025 were sent uh in February of this year to council. Thank you, man. Thank you.

All right. Go ahead. Sure. I'll be brief. This is Rob Gith from Hidden Power Group. Again, I'm just a little disturbed at where we're at right now where this is about to come up for a vote and we have one C council member asking what the average construction project size is and we have another asking how many projects this is going to affect. I share Mr. Thornton's concerns that this should have been discussed well before tonight and these are things that shouldn't be discussed at the last uh at the last second before the vote um is about to go up. Uh so I I'm just a little disturbed at the way that things have been have been handled. Um, and so I those are my uh my comments. Thank you, Mr. Foust.

There was plenty of time for discussion as Mr. Wulovich alluded to. We've had a hearing on this. Uh Pat and I have debated at that hearing, so there's been plenty of time for discussion. Thank you.

Any other members of the public? All right. Uh, go ahead, Mr. Thornton. Yeah. Uh, a couple of things on the, uh, motion itself on the RCO. I read through, uh, the eight pages or so of the ordinance. Everywhere I read with these clauses, I see more government regulations, more government regulations. I see additional opportunities for lawsuits and litigation. uh how many times it's mentioned in here. The county should do this, the county could do that, the county can conduct periodic inspections. Um it even has some language here. Uh and there's a lot more about regulations. I'm not going to read them. Um firms that fail to submit a complete contractor responsibility certification as required by this ordinance will be disqualified from bidding. Uh, no legal action may be brought against the county for rejecting a bid. Really? This is America. You can't put that in there. It doesn't hold water. Um, it also reads here, um, this applies to even the smallest subcontractors. Be someone doing $5,000 of work on a million-doll project. You know, a guy who's been in business, he's 50 years old for 30 years, has workers that have been working for him for 20 years. they haven't been in apprenticeship program in 15 years. They can't they can't work. It throws them out of out of a job. Um we have very very valid uh oh the last clause here uh the firm for which the certification was submitted if the county determines it wasn't valid. uh that firm shall be prohibited from performing work for the county for three years and penalties and sanctions which by the

way aren't named in the ordinance very vague unclear um certain lawsuit certainly lawsuits will come against the county for language that like that you imagine we don't pay someone and they did the work I worked on the other end with a contractor we sued the city all the time in New York we sued DOT and and and most time we on um if a contract is terminated under these circumstances, the county may withhold payments owed to that firm. Lawsuit all over it. I'm just saying uh with this RCO, this is it was stated tonight, it's not about unions really. every single speaker, and I wrote them down on the back of this page here somewhere, that every speaker that spoke in favor of this RCO was from the union or was an apprentice of the union. Every single one. But I'm supposed to believe it's not union related. U and maybe there was one exception uh person who's running for office u in the room. Anyway, it bothers me again that AB this ordinance that was crafted in the way it was was crafted from one side. I wonder how much of this language was put in there by the ABC. Probably nothing. Okay. Um I just feel it's wrong for any government agency to put their finger on the balance of fair and competitive competition. And that's what we're doing here tonight. The government here is putting their finger on that scale and it's wrong. And I'll tell you, a vote for this RCO tonight is definitely a vote to raise taxes on the people of Lutheran County down the road. Without a doubt, it's happened everywhere in America. And that's all I'm going to say. Thank you.

Anybody else have any questions? Um I I will say that one thing, you know, I I do agree to some extent with some of the things Mr. Thornton has said. Um and and that's why I I intended to make some of those amendments. Um because I do feel that uh this is you know there hasn't been a lot of consideration to uh some of the people that have been coming to these these meetings. I I I do feel that way personally. Um and I know we have been working hard on this. I know that other members of council have met with um other members of the of the uh constru you know construction trade. Um, so I don't know if if any of you have any any insight as to what was discussed at those meetings and what you know was put in there from uh your discussions with them because from what I understand it doesn't seem like very much was. Is there anything I know I know Jimmy and Britney I know I don't mean to call you out but I know that you two have met with a couple of different individuals. Is there anything you'd like to say regarding um the you know anything that was taken into account? I mean, I do have, you know, this list of 23 different things from Mr. Solano from a Pickicket. Um, and one of them was the uh the million-dollar threshold. And, uh, you know, another thing that I tend to agree with him on, um, is his was it would be number 12. It involves the OSHA 10. Um, and as someone who's a first responder, I understand, you know, when you take certain classes, it looks great that you took the class. um OSHA 10. I you know I've never taken the class so I'm not sure what level of certification that is or how um significant it is. I know there's been discussion about like birdie versus versus OSHA 10. Um but uh you know OSHA 10 from what I understand is like the minimum uh standard class that that many people take. So

Mr. Chair, excuse me. If you're if you want to make an amendment to make it OSHA 30, I'd happily second it. No, not not no that's not what I'm I'm just I'm just I'm just saying that that you know I do agree with that point that Mr. Solano made regarding um that that OSHA 10 maybe isn't necessarily the best measure of what safety would be. Um you know he talked about EMR the experience modification rating um and and I do also to some extent agree with what Mr. Thornton said about uh the experience of different uh you know laborers who maybe are older and are involved in the building trades for a long time uh but maybe don't haven't taken a uh haven't taken an apprentice class or or don't have the ability to do that. So I you know I just you know my opinion I do agree with those things and and I wish that there was something that we could do to carve that out in in this in this legislation. I I really do. Um, and I I wish that was something that was discussed.

I to answer that specifically, I don't think that we're targeting people 55 and over. I think we're asking contractors to have an education program. The 55 plus crowd doesn't have to go through that program. They just have to the newer people that are coming up through the ranks have to graduate that program and then the entire company would be qualified under this ordinance if they graduated apprentices uh three out of the five years. So we're not asking people to go back to school. We're asking companies to rise to a standard of education across the board,

but they'd be disqualified for the next three years from bidding on any contracts. I guess my question is why haven't they already had apprenticeship programs? You know, they have all this wealth of knowledge of 55 year old uh plus people that have been out in the field for years. Why wouldn't they want to pass that knowledge on in in a more efficient and and direct way? Have you asked that question to ABC or A Picket? I have. We've had many conversations. Yeah, a couple. And you know, we we did ask that question and I didn't get a satisfying answer out of it. Okay.

Chairman, I'd like to call the question. Okay. Motion a second called roll call. Miss Krishnowski. Yes. Mr. Losavage. No. Miss McDermott. I'd like to see how this goes and then we could re revisit it if it doesn't work. Um, so yes, for now, Mr. Mr. Savino, yes, Miss Smith. Yes. Stevenson, yes. Mr. Thornton,

no. Mr. Again, we've had a lot of conversations with multiple people. Well, you know, I think we've come further than from the beginning and I think we should give it a chance and see where we go and if we have to revisit it, we can always do that in the future. We've done that with other ordinances and other resolutions. So, I vote yes. Mr. No, Mr. Okay, thank you. All right. Okay. Number 10, motion to adopt the resolution authorizing the county manager to execute a contract with Hart Intercivic Incorporated for the lease of voting machine equipment software maintenance and support services. So move second.

All right. Motion in a second on the question. Anybody? Mr. Sabino?

I just have one more question to follow up from our work session. Um I was looking at the numbers. I'll wait for Miss Cook to Sorry. Uh, good evening. How are you? Sorry to put you on the spot again, but I was looking at the numbers and it seems like we're comparing uh oranges and apples. What is the price of Dominion to versus heart uh based on the same uh like items? So, we wouldn't be programming 800 machines. we wouldn't be, you know, testing and logistics. Did we invest?

Sure. So, we did um look at the the general number. I don't have that with me. I apologize. Can you just say if there's a savings? They were all comparable. They were all comparable with with all four vendors. Um obviously there was one that was a bit higher. Um, but under comparable circumstances, all the other three vendors were were very similarly priced. They were they were rather competitive. Thank you. Any other questions?

Okay. I just want to say great job on this. Uh, I think that we're moving in the right direction here. Seems like we've addressed the concern of the voters by having paperbased ballots uh while having the tabulator. I think that the tabulators themselves are fantastic. They address a lot of problems that we kind of thought might be issues related to paper ballots such as over voting, undervoting, uh the writeins. Uh even as far as adjudication is concerned, they are have addressed those issues where you'd only be looking at things specific to that particular race. So if there's an issue with a race for school board, then you'd only be looking at that one singular schoolboard race. I I think that this is a really great solution. I think that this is going to uh be a win for election integrity in the county and I think that it's definitely going to be something that's a positive and it's going to help really help the workers of the election bureau because there's a lot less equipment to manage. So, let us know. Maybe we can lease out that uh some of the warehouse space, make some money off of it.

Anybody else? Go ahead, Miss Smith. Thank you very much. Oh, yeah. Yeah, sure. In transitioning to paper ballots, won't there be another cost? Right now, we only have 350,000 annually balloted or budgeted for paper ballots. Excuse me. No. So, the the cost savings that you would see

I wait I'll wait. So ultimately you would see a cost savings because the money that we would otherwise spend on the software licensing and the um the programming and testing of that equipment um in addition to what we already budget for the printing of ballots. Uh like I stated in in the last meeting during the work session that um those the the current system that we use with the primary ballot marking device voting, we are still required to provide emergency ballots for the voters in the precincts anyway. So we're we're duplicating those efforts um and also purchasing blank ballot stock uh for every election. So we're we're cutting out the blank ballot stock costs. We're cutting out the programming uh and and software costs rather significantly, dropping from 710 down to 186.

And in that, I guess as an ancillary question, if we have more ability to adjudicate paper ballots, well, there's going to be more need for adjudication is what I'm getting at. If we have paper ballots and reconciliation, There actually would be won't we have a problem with a reduced staff? I wasn't finished my question. I'm sorry.

Okay. If so, if we have an additional in paper ballots, we'll have an additional need for adjudication and reconciliation because people are it's paper, right? So, won't we need increase staff because we have less staff now. We're going to have less staff, right? I think I need a new battery. That's all.

One moment, please. I mean, yeah. Yeah. Jimmy doesn't bite much. Um, thank you. Thank you very much. Join us. Okay. Join us. Thank you. Uh, so no, we actually would see the similar amount of writing. What is it?

Pennsylvania and I'm only able to carry what I'm able to pursue my interest and also participate in the EOS that I call this because of the failure and respect level and also the state. I'd also like to remoke the importance of safeguard.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Mashevki. N Okay. Okay. Anybody else? Public comment. Yep. Can you just go to the microphone to speak? I think the microphones may be fixed now. Test. Test. Awesome. Just a point of clarific state your name again.

Certainly. Marissa Banker, the president and CEO of Associated Builders and Contractors of Eastern Pennsylvania. Just looking for a point of clarification surrounding the revisit of the ordinance as suggested by Miss McDermott, by Mr. Wovich, and therefore, you know, kind of understanding procedurally how does that look? Uh, I mean, we can revisit it pro next year. Yeah. Yeah. We can revisit it at the beginning of next year. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Appreciate you.

Okay. We we also could potentially revisit it if there's a motion to reconsider by the affirm people who voted affirmatively. Um not sure if that will happen. I mean that will have to be determined by anything that goes on with the ordinance at you know between now and whenever. Um okay. Anybody else public comment? Speak once more. Nope. Anybody else public comment? You'll have another opportunity later. Yeah. Thank you. Anybody else? Motion to adjurnn. Oh, I No, no, nobody nobody's on. Nope. Okay, there's a motion. Second. All in favor? I

opposed. Meetings adjourned. It's 7:41. We'll restart at 7:50 with the work session

test. Yeah, this is working. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.

Oh, you want to talk to me? Yes, sir.

I'm gonna get out of here. Yep. Take it. Chuck one, two.

Test, test, test, test. It's coming out of the microphone. Fine. Can you hear it on the Zoom? Test test test. Can you hear that on the Zoom at all?

Just died actually. Test test test. All right. Test, test, test.

Test, test, test.

cut

Council members, please take your seats. It's 7:50.

All right, council members. All right. Thank you, it. We appreciate you. All right, council members. It's 7:52. I'd like to call the work session to order. We had the moment of silence. Allegiance, all that other good stuff. Roll call, please. Mr. Hos. here. Miss Krishnowski here. Mr. Lascavage. Mder here. Mr. Perry here. Mr. Sabatino here. Miss Smith

here. Miss Stevenson here. Mr. Thornton. Mr. Wovich here. Mr. Lombardo here. Nine of 11. Thank you. Uh, by the way, the microphones are temporarily fixed, so you can use them now. Just please be careful that side of the room, Miss Stevenson. I know you're probably not the one that normally is. Yeah. No, no, this side of the room that by the um by the the metal thing. Okay. Any additions or deletions from the work session agenda? Motion to accept it. Second. All in favor? I

opposed. Agenda is adopted. All right. Budget reports August 2025. Roselle, come on down. Oh, we go that work. Okay, we're good.

So, included in your packet are the budget reports for the month of August. The first report is your revenue report. Revenue earned is at 87% of budget or 145 million 314306. Current year tax collections as of the end of August are at 119 million, which represents 98% of our current year tax revenue budget. So, that's really great. Um, our expenses are at 90,39,799 or 56% of the budget. Next, you have your listing of the budget transfers followed by the accounts payable detail. And lastly, your treasurer's report showing a cash balance of 168,219 at the end of August. Cash balance at the end at the end of July was 179,399. So, our payments are really making up that difference for the most part. Interest earned for the month of August is 281,98114. Of that, ARPA accounts for 130,76211. And our year-to- date interest that we've earned is 2.677 million. Our ARPA cash balance still sits at 35,24,000. ARPA interest earned year to date 1.3 million and since um inception 9.2 million. Does anyone have any questions?

Anybody? Hey, thank you.

Thank you. Discussion regarding resolution approving the recommendations of Ziggman and Company regarding security bond limits to protect Loan County against risks of loss for calendar year 2026. Good evening. Um, as part of the administrative code, our risk manager is to recommend bond recommendations for each calendar year. Courtney Scarandella is here with the Ziggmaning Company and she can go over those and answer any questions that you have. Good evening. Um, first I just want to take the opportunity to thank council for um, supporting our continued partnership with the county as their risk manager for several years now. So, thank you for that. Um, again, my name is Courtney Scamardella. I am with the Ziggman Company. Um, we are the county's risk manager. We handle insurance um, matters and um, this is our bond recommendations for 2026. Um, as required in article 9, administrative code in act 106 of 2011, the following recommendations are being submitted by the Ziggman company, the county's risk manager, regarding the required amount of security coverage. The proposed fiscal year 2026 county budget assumes costs equal to fiscal year 2025. If the cost of these required securities exceeds the fiscal year 2025 amount, a budget amendment for 2026 would be necessary, but it's equal. So, no need for that. Um, the following security bond limits are recommended for the fiscal year 2026. It should be noted that for each security bond, the limits requested might not be available in the current markets or offered, meaning that if you wanted to obtain them, you can't. So, we're just saying that if um if they're not available due to underwriting acceptability, in addition, it may not be economically feasible for the county to purchase the limits requested. We are just providing you with what we recommend. County manager recommendation is 5 million bond limit.

Um I will start just by kind of saying I'll go through all these but it it nothing it it's the same as expiring last year but I will go through the numbers quick just so we all know what those are and how we got to them. But um county manager recommendation is a $5 million bond limit. Division of budget and finance recommendation is $2 million bond limit. office manager tax administrator standard limit in the industry is onethird of the tax duplicates. The estimated county tax duplicate for 2026 is approximately 21,742,780. So therefore, our bond recommendation is um our bond recommendation $5 million bond limit which would cover that. Blanket bond recommendation is 1 million including coverage for all elected officials. County Council bond. If elected officials are eligible to be covered under the blanket bond, a separate bond is not necessary. If elected officials are excluded in the blanket bond, a separate blanket county council bond a limit of 7,500. District attorney officials are eligible to be covered under the blanket bond. A separate bond is not necessary. All budget officials, specifically the district attorney, are excluded in the blanket bond. A separate bond will be needed. The amount of the bond should be the maximum amount available in the discretionary fund at any one given time during the year. All other elected and appointed officials if elected and appointed officials are eligible to be covered in a blank bond. A separate bond is not necessary. If all certain elected appointed officials are excluded in the blank bond, a separate bond would be needed. the amount of the bond covering these excluded officials should be their maximum exposure to money and property in their custody and control. So pretty much they're stating that if the certain language excludes certain parties there's you know other ways around that where you would get a

different limit through you know if the policy excludes that then you get the bond that you don't need that so pension bond lassern county 457 deferred compensation recommendation is the maximum available which is 500,000 pension bond lern county employees retirement system recommendation is the maximum available which The above recommendations are based on industry standards and companies risk management expertise and our knowledge of the business, the market and what's currently going on and the cost of different you know students playing different things. So however the county may not be able to purchase the bonds at the recommended amounts. The bond carriers may refuse to offer requested amounts due to underwriting concerns and or it may not be support premiums offered by the bond carriers. This is true for any bond. The sign company recommends that the bond that the county purchase the highest affordable limit up to the recommended amounts.

There any questions? I know that was a lot. Any questions, council members? All right. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Yes, absolutely.

All right. Number three, discussion regarding resolution approving a modification to an American Rescue Plan Act funds awarded project for the Wolsbury Wyoming Valley Airport. So we are asking for those funds to be allocated reallocated I should say to the Wyoming Valley Airport. working with Delta for hanger construction and the jet a facility and because of the increase in cost any

how much money are you requesting? Um I think it'll be about 451 to come back. Okay. Oh, okay. I see it. Sorry. Okay. Um, I have a question. Go ahead, Miss McDermott. Uh, just with it going to the airport, could it have been used or could it be used for any other projects or am I missing something that you said it was already allocated for this?

It was um renovations project budget. It was also allocated for another project. Can't remember what it was off the top of my head. I apologize, but you know, it could go to any other county project, but we're already these money. We're in a pickle. Like the projects have to be completed by December 31st, 2026. And I don't know where else we're going to get the money from. Um I think we were about 2 million short at one point. Um, so any you know I thought when I asked her I I and and the cash is coming back from other from other county projects that were allocated through revenue loss and this is just

so it's not through I apologize. It's it's not through a specific um one of the specific buckets or whatever they call them. It's it revenue replacement for other county project but it's not it's not like specifically for a project where it has it has to be spent in that same category it does because we that 1231 deadline it has to be spent in revenue replacement. Yes. But that's the category. It's not the other category which means that you Okay. Right. Okay. Understood. Did I I'm not Did I not do a good job of explaining? No, I think you did. I just wanted to reiterate it and then I made it worse. I um played

Yeah. Anything else? Well, I was just going to say it's just to finish projects that we already said needed to be done and the cost went up so we have to keep it as much to the original. Mr. Sabino, uh, you mentioned that there's a $2 million deficit and this is going to go towards that. Uh, so we still have to find 1.55 somewhere.

We had a call Delta and myself and Ronaldo was on that. We had a call with um the Bureau of Aviation and we have capital project money, capital line items and we requesting those give us about a million dollars. So, so that's why we're slowly closing that gap. So, we're still about a half million dollar. Okay. Any other questions? That was a lot of math, Michelle. I know. Even though I'm not good at math. It's all right. did fine. All right. All right. Thank you, Miss Bar. And

oh, okay. Discussion regarding resolution authorizing the county manager to apply for a statewide grant.

Yes. So since we cannot apply on our own application request for improvement And there's no county match.

No, there is no county match. And this hearkens back to about 2009. Oh my goodness. I forget when the river was right. There was a plan uh to update the river commons and we were part of that plan and uh it's time that we uh fulfill our obligations to that. Miss Smith,

I'd just like to break I'd just like to um say public spaces that people can enjoy that make our area beautiful that bring our community together are so important and I'm really happy to see us investing in that. So, thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? All right. Thank you, Miss Bar. All right. There's nothing else. Public comment. Oh, Mr. Sabatino. Uh I would ask the county manager uh included in the budget an update to our microphones and uh I would ask the the chair to have a moment of silence before we close the meeting for the Latimer maser.

Absolutely. Uh let's have public comment and then we'll have the moment of silence prior to that. Thank you. All right. Uh members public comment. Go ahead Mr. Mashevsky. As soon as uh Mr. Stone is done there.

Huh. My name is my father's side. So there's been a person in regards to public This is something when I speak Lack of not going.

So there have been a lot of I feel very encouragement. Finally, I'd like to business like my service and my own neighbor. facility.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Mashevski.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Mashevski. All right, Mr. Mashevski. Mr. Mashevki. Okay. All right, Mr. Mashevki. Okay, Mr. Mashevki. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Anybody else? Public comment. Motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. All in favor? I opposed. Meetings adjourned. Oh, wait, wait, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa. Moment of silence for the Vladimir massacre. police officers. Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you. Meetings adjourned. Recording. Stop.