City Council - Regular Meeting

I call this Altuna City Council meeting to order. Monday, April 13th, 2026 at 6 PM. We'll now have a moment of silent prayer. Please stand for the pledge of

allegiance. I aliance 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. Linda, would you take roll call, please? Councilman Batty, here. Councilman Butterball, here. Councilwoman Clinich, here. Vice Mayor Ellis, here. Councilman Ikis, here. Councilman Kelly here. Mayor Pacificico here.

Uh, we had an executive session last month uh to discuss litigation. And with that, we'll open the floor for public comment. If you would like to address council, please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Please keep your comments to three minutes and the floor is now open. Steven G, 104 Pleasant Valley Boulevard. Wherever there is a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. This is a line spoken in John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. Said during the Great Depression, a displaced white family sacrifices to feed their pregnant daughter only for her to lose the pregnancy. When the family later comes upon an elderly black man dying of starvation, the daughter asks the others to leave and bears her breast to nourish him. Steinbeck teaches empathy without prejudice and what it means to give and sacrifice within the confines of our own given circumstances. A city is a better city when the library's copy of The Grapes of Wrath isn't sitting on the shelf. The proposed ordinance for the unhoused in downtown Altuna needs serious consideration. Why hire a social worker to work with the police when the fact is we don't yet have programs in place to help these people? Facts are stubborn things. The housing authority has been defunded. People asking for housing vouchers are being told there are numerous cases ahead of them with whole families living in cars and tents. This proposal lacks clarity and is kiastic, putting the cart before the horse. We must offer solutions to homelessness before making it a crime to be homeless.

We need shelters that are available year round that are well staffed and safe. We need services to address hunger. And we need drug and alcohol programs that are easily accessible and destigmatized. Once the city has these programs in place, then it is appropriate to hire a social worker to assist officers in engagement. If an individual is offered help, refusing it would imply willful disregard or an inability to provide self-care. The latter being addressed by the now appropriately appointed social worker. As for the proposal that would hinder rightful assembly in Altuna, the recent No Kings rally was a large protest held peacefully without incident. Indivisible did an incredible job organizing a safe event without police assistance. If the underlying reason for this proposed policy is to silence us, save yourself the hassle in the lawsuits and invest in earplugs. We pay taxes for our police department and the cost for their services at parades, protests, and other events is included in that. Unfortunately, I have to attend the school board meeting also being held tonight, but I do look forward to watching the live stream later. If you speak tonight, please speak openly and from your heart. And if we could all find a way to demonstrate empathy and sacrifice for one another within the confines of our given circumstances, our city and our country would be a better place. Thank you. Hi, my name is Caleb Hogan, 2012 Fifth Avenue. As I talk about this, I will be addressing points made and things said by different individuals who make up the uh student I mean yeah student the uh city council. Um however I will be addressing you as a collective because should this ordinance pass then it would be the responsibility of all of you to

carry the burden with it. Uh so with that in mind, when you tried to say uh last month uh that the ordinance would not be illegalizing homelessness, you then went on to say about perhaps using it to try to get the homeless to do community service, which cannot happen without a legal case being charged against them. That's a logical fallacy that or some weird platitude. Everything that you guys are pushing through seems to be about asking, well, we're open to ideas and concepts after it's after it's uh pushed. Why are we trying to push a half-baked idea? That's the most charitable way that I can describe this. If there's no clarity, if there's no way that we're trying to actually uh propel anyone forward, this isn't laying groundwork. This is, like he said, putting the cart before the horse. We're illegalizing before we give any sort of way for them to uh thrive. I mean, even whenever you say you want to give every every homeless person a case worker, that's one of the reasons you said that you wanted to do this. We had multiple people in the last session talk about how there's third-party foundations, groups, and organizations that are helping them. They have human resources. They're lacking material resources, i.e. housing. We need to address that. That's the real problem here. We need to find ways to either get rent caps, subsidize uh for people living, find ways to control uh rent, find ways to help other people invest in even community housing. Those are the ways that we can try to help everyone get homed and try to get housed. Um, even uh when you guys were talking before about you said that there were tenants who were having sex to pay rent, that there's a trafficking ring, that there's things that you consider rape or slum lords who are having people live with black mold. You you talked about how you rehoused 80 different people last year. And I agree those are all very important things, but that's a false equivalence. Rape is not housing. Trafficking is not housing. Rehousing and trying to have a

standard for landlords, that's not the housing. That's rehousing. They're different subjects. And whenever you try to have this false equivalence, you push them to the side. We're talking about people living in cars here. They don't have to worry about black mold. They have to worry about if they're going to freeze in the winter. It's a very different thing. And we have to give that the respect that it deserves. And we have to find different resources to give them. Again, material. It's it's the only logical con conclusion that we have to this. They have all kinds of different ways that they can get uh support through other people. A social case is going to do nothing more but just gum up the bureaucracy of trying to get these people something. We need to have a very uh pro uh housing oriented idea for this. Not just talking about the endless plation of oh yeah well if we just push this then everything will fall into place later. We need to take them seriously. Thank you for your comments.

Yeah,

John Grove is my name on 104 Ruskin Drive, Altuna. Um, I want to address the issue of homelessness and urban camping and the possibility that this body may make decisions that criminalizes people who are seriously mentally ill. that is the homeless. You have substance abuse disorders and severe mental illness. That is the basis of homelessness. And these people cannot navigate the society with the kind of capitalistic norms that we have. So therefore, why should they be punished? As a as a volunteer in the prison society, I'm well acquainted with the prison and how we criminalize people who are mentally ill. The ma majority of people who are in the prison are mentally ill, 80%. There's no treatment in that context. So treatment and also housing are what I would say would be the most important focus. I don't think you guys want to go down this path of criminalizing behavior that is urban camping. Thank you. Hello, my name is Patrick Ferrell. I live at 11:27 7th Avenue and I'm a member of St. Luke's Episcopal Church. I'm here to represent the view of the congregation in Vestri. We are opposed to the urban camping uh ordinance that's being considered here. We feel that it is not honoring uh people by treating them as invisible nor is it solving a problem by hiding it. The uh we point to the

successes of housing first policies in other communities and urge that greater consideration be given to finding a more creative solution, more humane solution. Thank you for your consideration.

My name is uh Jay Iman. I live at 504 Bowmont Drive, Altuna, PA. Good evening, respected members of the city council. I recently read an article in the Frederick News Post from Maryland, in which the United States Immigration and and Customs Enforcement Agency, also known as ICE, is seeking information on potentially leasing office space in 90 different cities around the nation. Apparently, Frederick's uh city and count and county officials said they were not aware of ISIS plans. It's common knowledge that ICE has the egregious reputation of entering into homes without judicial warrants, kidnapping children, and transporting them to detention center in another state, snatching up US citizens either born in this country to US citizens or naturalized, and holding them in detention, practicing racial profiling, aggressive and overzealous tactics such as the shooting and killing of Americans peacefully protesting. ICE has won violated the fourth amendment which protects against illegal search and seizures. The fifth amendment protects against unfair and unjust legal proceedings and the 14th amendment grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States or and protects their rights under the law. In the past, you ICE has used office space as holding areas as it has occurred in New York City and LA. My questions that I addressed to the city council is the following. Has any members of the city government been approached by ICE for their interest in renting office space? Does any member of the city government have knowledge of any property managers who have been approached by ICE with an interest to

lease office space here? And does the city government have a 287g agreement with ICE? The Legal Immigration Reform and Immigrant uh Responsibility Act of 1996 added section 287G to the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizing US immigrant immigration and customs uh uh enforcement to delegate state and local law enforcement officers the authority to perform specified immigration officer functions under ISIS dur. ction and oversight. Understand that I and the residents of Altuna would want to see our respected police department collaborate and assist a government agency that is illrained and illprepared to practice and enforce proper police procedure. Let alone the fact that ICE undergoes a six-week training program shortened from 13 weeks which excludes classes in constitutional law. Whereas the average training period for a new recruit in the police police academy is 21 weeks or five months before they go on patrol. I plead with the city council to protect the safety and security of Altuna's residents and our way of life. And I do have receipts here. I do have a the listing from sam.gov which is uh generated by the uh general services agency.

Okay. Thank you for your comments. And I also have the article here too. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have a good evening.

Good evening. My name is Carol Taylor. I live at 1057 Kettle Road in Altuna, Pennsylvania. Um I wanted to address two separate issues. Um first off the ordinance uh with respect to public gatherings. I note that there are no fees associated with that at least delineated in the new ordinance for police services. But I have some concerns and some questions and I'm hoping that you council will address those questions at the end of this comment period. First of all, it leaves the manager's ability to any applicable police and parking authorizing fees open to question in one of the paragraphs. Does that mean that they may be assessed on some unknown basis? That's my first question. Um, there is the ability to require security possibly. It's a very vague ordinance and we need some clarification on it because I'm not sure how this is going to to be interpreted um in action. Now, as you know, no kings was held without incident. The commentary about it amongst the participants was overwhelmingly positive. However, we do have a concern because the police were called due to disruption of the event with a boom box and walking through the crowd while speakers were trying to speak. We did call the police. They did not come. I am hoping that we can get some clarification on the role of the city police in this kind of event. We cooperate always with the city police in giving our plans. And as a matter of fact, we did hand over our intended path because we want to keep everyone safe at these events. But when we have a permit for an area, just like if you had a permit for a birthday

party, you wouldn't expect somebody to crash it, call people names, and disrupt it without police force intervention. Our security people are not police. They're not meant to be. The second issue, the ordinance regarding urban camping. It is appalling to me that while we said in the last meeting that we would not be criminalizing the unhoused homelessness, that's exactly what this ordinance does. Instead of finding solutions, we are finding people who can't afford housing, $100 to $1,000, and or could be both or one or the other, putting them in jail. I failed to see how this solves any problems. What it does is increase problems. Our jails are full. We already have issues with respect to Blair County Prison. And secondly, what we should be addressing is the need for resources. And I would hope that the city would consider that instead.

Thank you. Devin Sailor, 1515 25th Avenue. Guys, I don't have a handwritten speech tonight, so I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but uh we'll see how this goes. Uh I just wanted to throw in my two cents as well as it go as it regards to the uh urban camping ordinance. Uh for me personally, as I go over and I read the ordinance, I see that a lot of the the stuff in it, how it's written, it's so broad in its discretion. I mean, it it is unlawful for you to sit on a curb. It's unlawful for you to lay on a bench. It's unlawful for you to I guess lay down in the park if you want to sit down with uh your girlfriend, you know. Um and I and I joke um and I understand that a big part of law enforcement is discretion, you know, the discretion of enforcement. Uh whether that's up to a judge or an officer as an individual while they're out there. And while I've heard the point be said that it is not the intention of council uh to criminalize homelessness, it does that. But I would even argue and and uh say that it goes one step further. I think it in a way uh criminalizes public existence. Anybody who acts in a certain way or conducts themselves in a certain way, technically speaking, uh could be facing a fine, a penalty, imprisonment, uh and so on. Um, and for me, I don't understand what it really fixes long term. Uh, because, okay, for instance, let's say you arrest an individual who's unruly. Uh, that individual, then you guys go to a judge. The judge says, "Hey, you know, community service, you know, no fine." And actually, people within this council and even within the city staff would even admit that, you know, you're not getting that money from a homeless person. And at the end of the day, they're still going to be homeless. They're still going to be sleeping on

the street. Uh, you know, I think the ordinance, uh, I'll put it to you this way. It seems like uh not with a coat, not with a goat, not near a moat can the homeless be out on the street. Uh and for me, I think that that's not really solving the issue. Uh I think that it does a lot uh to I think further the harm and at the end of the day, I don't know what the enforcement uh apparatus of this would really be and I don't see it bearing any fruit. Uh thank you councel for your time. David Edge, uh, 3021 Broad Avenue. With regard to the urban camping, um I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already, but I understand you went to other uh cities like Pittsburgh and uh I just don't understand how you can't just look at this and say this isn't a good idea. This is objectively morally bad. These people have so many problems to deal with already. and then dragging them through the court system is unthinkable. I I don't know why you think this is a good idea. Um, and then with regard to the uh uh uh protest, uh uh I can't remember what it is. I'm sorry. I don't speak well in public, but um I don't think that that's a good idea because I I do believe that it um impinges on our First Amendment right to be able to speak freely. Um it puts an unjust burden on those who would like to

be able to express themselves by potentially uh requiring a hefty fee to uh be able to use our public space. Um, I I just don't see how that's uh fair, especially, you know, it doesn't sound like we have a good uh outward facing um we don't know what it looks like. We we don't know the terms of it. Uh so it sounds like that this could potentially be at the discretion of you know one individual and you know what if they're having a bad day or getting pressured by people you know uh this could result in people not being able to express themselves. And that's all I have to say about either of those issues. Thank you for your time. Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen, council members, ladies and gentlemen joining us at this event. Good evening. According to the Department of Community and Economic Development,

Excuse me, sir. Could you state your name and address for the record?

My name is Tom Koba. I live at 307 Aldrich Avenue, Altuna. According to the Department of Community and Economic Development, on any given day, there are over 12,000 Pennians who are experiencing homelessness. In 2009, due to struggling with alcoholism and joblessness, I was one of those numbers. Although I was fortunate to have friends that would offer their couches or spare bedrooms, I know the anxiety of not knowing where my next meal would be coming from or where my next sleep would be. To add another stress to this population for no other reason other than they're unpleasant to the eye or you see them as a burden and to society is not only irrehensible but dangerously immoral. Tonight I ask the people of the council and the people of the city of Altuna to look at the amount of vacant homes and buildings in our city. Surely there is funding we can request and a program we can create to assist those facing or experiencing homelessness. Not only experiencing homeless in finding and rehabilitating not only these structures but themselves as well. I also ask the people here tonight, I plead with you to not add another stigma or obstacle to an already struggling problem. And with that, I thank you for your time.

Steve Lawson, 2800 Walnut Avenue in Altuna, Pennsylvania. And I'm here to uh speak about uh the issue permit issues for marches and also just in general uh first amendment rights. Okay. And the first question I have for the council is, and this not only has to do with permit ordinance, but when you have these ordinances, what are the purpose that you're you're what is the purpose of you looking at these different issues? I mean, I don't expect you to answer that right now, but I I just want to start at that point, and then I want to start with a little historical perspective. Supreme Court Justice Thood Marshall encouraged public engagement against injustice, saying, "Where you see wrong or inequality or injustice, speak out because this is your country. This is your democracy. Make it protect it. Pass it on." Thood Marshall was a defender of free speech. He emphasized that the government cannot restrict expression based on its content or its deemed or if it's deemed offensive. He famously argued that the first amendment protects the right to dissent. Marshall's views on free speech included. Uh he said that the government cannot ban speech simply because of its message, ideas or subject matter. Also he wrote that public employers cannot use their authority to silence employees just because superiors disagree with the content of that speech.

Regardless, regarding permits, a local government cannot deny a permit for the protest solely because it would cost too much for police or security. Under the First Amendment, the government cannot oppose a financial burden on speech based on the anticipated reaction of others, often called a heckler's veto. Basically, the heckler's veto is this. Police costs cannot be higher simply because an event is controversial or because counterprotesters are expected to be hostile. Okay. The Supreme Court also ruled that fees cannot be based on the whim of an administrator or tailored to the expected public reaction to a message. Also, permitting regulations must be contentneutral, meaning that they cannot be used to suppress particular viewpoints. I uh just want to finish with this and I find this ironic that just over a hundred years ago we had here in Altuna a mayor who invited the KKK to march in a parade just down here on 12th Avenue. In 1924, the mayor of Altun invited the local chapter of the KKK to march in robes in the city's 75th anniversary parade. Four letters were sent by the mayor to the clan secretary on mayoral letterhead dated n September 1924 promising a to hold a committee meeting to discuss clan membership in the parade. The mayor clearly seeking to

assist advised that the group may parade with heads and faces unmasked to avoid misbehavior by unscrupulous individuals. And I just bring that up to like I know this was 100 years ago, but do you want to be associated with that mindset or do you want to be associated with a mindset that's open to all and uh is there to protect the free speech of all? Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Gina Strawmire, 140 Sunset Drive. I would just like to address a little bit more about the um the proposed fees for the public gatherings in Heritage Plaza. Um public squares exist for one reason above all else, to give people a place to be heard, especially when it matters most. And that time is now. Because what many of us clearly see is a country moving in a dangerous direction. A direction that starts to resemble control, suppression, and the slow, subtle erosion of rights. And in that moment, free speech is not optional. It is not a privilege. It is a right. A right that does not come with a price tag. The Constitution is not vague on this. Government cannot control condition speech on someone's ability to pay. The moment you attach a fee to a protest or assembly in a public forum, you're no longer managing logistics. You are deciding who gets to be heard. And once you do that, you've already crossed the line. The courts have been clear. Even neutral sounding fees create a chilling effect. People think twice. People back down. Voices disappear. Not because they aren't valid, but because they can't afford to be heard. And let's stop pretending otherwise. That's exactly what this is about. You can dress it up however you want. Call it administration, call it safety, call it fairness, but the impact is the same. Fewer people speak and those in power face less opposition. You think as we stand before you that we are stupid and aren't going to dig in and fight. Well, that just makes you look obuse and irrelevant in what you think you're trying to convey.

And the timing, the timing says everything. For years, nothing like this. No urgency, no concern. But now, when people across the country are organizing, marching, and speaking out peacefully, now you want to impose fees. That's not coincidence. That's strategy. It's hard not to see the pattern here. History gives us plenty of warnings. You don't have to go back far. Look at Germany in 1939. Rights weren't erased overnight. They were restricted, controlled, and conditioned until disscent became difficult, then dangerous, then nearly impossible. That's how it starts right here. Your job is not to make speech more difficult. Your job is to protect it, especially when it challenges you. Because the moment you start deciding who gets to speak based on cost, convenience, or comfort, you're no longer defending democracy. You're weakening it. And once that process begins, it doesn't stop with one policy or one group. It spreads like cancer to everyone, including you. So, let's be clear. This is not about logistics. This is not about fairness. This is about control. And we all see it. We are here united fighting for not just us standing before you, but for all of you. And if you choose to move forward with this, just understand you're not on the side of the Constitution and you're not on the right side of history. Thank you very much. Hello, my name is Harriet L. Gaston and I live at 302nd Avenue, Altuna. And as I was saying that, I thought, what happens

when someone who doesn't have a home is able to get here and speak to you? The other thing, and please Matt, cut me off if I go over three minutes. The other thing is I'm looking at gas. I'm looking at food. I'm looking at the rising prices of today's economy. We have to become more creative. and how we handle this. A lot of us are just one paycheck away from joining those who are homeless. We're one paycheck away from dealing with a financial health issue. We are one paycheck from the worst thing that happens. The car breaks down. You don't have money to pay for rent. You don't have money to pay for gas, light, or whatever else that this economy and society under American capitalism is all about. So I am hoping that you guys become creative. You are hearing from all of us. Come to us. As I've already know, you guys don't represent all of the W wards that exist in Altuna. Most of you probably live in what? Five of the 12 quote unquote 12 wards. Do I have that right?

14. 14. Did I hear 15? 14.

14. So, how do you know what's going on in those wards? Please, we're here or at least I can I can only speak for myself. I am here to become a partner in addressing this. I would love for the media to talk about how we got creative and how we brought in more citizens. Make make it something that when you see a Facebook post talking about Altuna, it's not about the worst things. It's about the best things that are happening and that would be awesome. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Pam Beckwith from 1103 South 10th Street and I'm very grateful that I do have a home also because I'm going to to discuss this And I'm really not sure what but I agree with her. We are many of us are one step away from a catastrophe that may make us homeless. My taxes went up last year by city taxes. I don't know where that money went. I would love for it to go to help the homeless, to help the mentally challenged. The man who said about going to the prison, I I've I've been there. I I mean I've not been in prison, but I've been to the prison visiting people. My daughter lives in Pittsburgh and we were discussing the homeless and I was on a Facebook post and I said something about the homeless because they were cleaning it up for the NFL draft. Heaven forbid we'd have homeless there and I said, "Well, send them down Tuna. They're gonna find them there." Somebody said, "Nobody wants to go down Tuna. I don't want it to be that way. I don't want to be homeless. Can you imagine the first time you're homeless and you have to poop outside? I'm just my just heart just breaks. Anyhow, I I don't have a solution, but I would love for my taxes to go help find homelessness, a home, give them some job. I'm on social security. I'm waiting for Trump to take that away. Maybe I'll be out there and I'll be trying to find a job. But we all need to have some empathy. We need to come up with some creative solutions. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Meyers. Mer Thomas E. I've been a Republican for 42 years. I'm running for the 79th district state representative. Is there any Republicans here? No. Show of hands. Republicans. Okay. You'll vote for me, right? We We try to keep the council meetings apolitical. Like we're here to represent the city as a whole. Like it's not a political complain about being homeless. Huh? They can complain about being homeless. No, it's not a political rally. It's

all you gentlemen have a nice day. Uh just if you see Vovich, tell her she's got competition.

Good evening everyone. Uh, Michael Allison, 53224th Avenue, Altuna, Pennsylvania. Um, I'm just going to try to be brief here. I just have a couple of things to say. Um, I enjoyed speaking with you guys last time and in a way I kind of sympathize with you because I know how it works. You know, you run for office, you get elected, then everybody goes home and you're supposed to solve everybody's problems. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You heard a lot of that last time. Um, there's a lot of people here who might be interested in literally trying to help to reiterate what Harriet just said, my good friend. Um, there are people here that may not belong to the same political party, and I'm not going to go there, but they might have some avenues that you guys don't have that you could put together as sort of a brain trust, you know, community advisory panels. Um, try to get them as diverse as possible.

Some of us would really like to help. Some of us have lived in Altuna most of our lives. We've done a lot of things to try to improve Altuna and um we would like to see it continue to improve and not see our young people run screaming from Blair County as fast as they can. Now, obviously I don't like these ordinances. I said that last time. Um good luck, uh Mr. City Manager. I guess it's been dropkicked. The one has been drop kicked back in your lap. Um, but once again, scrutiny got to be evenhanded with it. Um, the downtown events I've been at, here's been the the threat the threat assessment. Um, a an idiot who has an uh an iPhone who thinks he's a reporter and four of his goons were downtown for the uh no kings thing and they were shuffled off. Uh, the police were called, they didn't come, but that's all right. they were handled and they uh they weren't particularly threatening. Um, no problems with the African-American uh festival that I can see. No problems with the Advent parade as I can see. Uh, no problems with the Labor Day parade that I can see. Um, oh yeah, the uh gay pride parade. Uh, the only threat assessment there was a group of Christians who decided to stand on the sidewalk and scream at the participants that they were all going to hell. But once again, they didn't really threaten anyone. Helps if you believe in hell, I guess. But anyway, uh to make a long story short, um some of you took the time to speak to me afterwards. It was kind of fun. We got had a sharing. We have some common humanity even though we may disagree. Um looking at you, Dave, disagree about just about everything.

Hey, we we had a great conversation. We had a great conversation because we shared our humanity. We're people after all. So are the homeless. So are people that belong to a different political party. So are people who are in rehab who might not have a car to count for parking. So I'm just reaching out and saying don't be afraid. Let's make this a two-way street. Um that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Autumn Temple, North Fourth Avenue. Um, I'm not going to dwell on the recovery house in the encampments. You guys know where I'm at about that. Uh, what I'm going to look talk about tonight is the lack of transparency. It would be really um interesting to know what is the real reason that we are passing ordinances that's restricting recovery houses. What's the real reason that we're going to pass the ordinance that's going to do the encampments? Um the other thing I'm here uh for tonight is to discuss the potential transfer of the ice building located at 320 East Chestn Avenue. Uh although I'm not opposed to the transfer of this building to the redevelopment authority of Altuna, I am opposed to the lack of trans uh transparency that appears to be happening. Um this building, it's more than just a property. If you look at the size of it, if you look at the value of it, $2.3 million, it represents the opportunity um for different things. It's public investment. It's future opportunity for whoever is interested in it. Negotiations should not be held with the owners of Double Tap um or any other business. Uh the opportunity for purchasing this building should be open to any entity or person that would be interested in the building and all people should be given an equal opportunity to tour and participate in that negotiation and bid process. And I also think that that uh the process of that should also be made more public like many people don't know the process of you transfer it to the alternate housing authority they put something in three different or the altuna house the altuna

redevelopment

redevelopment authority they put it at three different places and then you can participate in that. So um transparency it should not be a burden it should be a responsibility and open communication and how discussions are being made regarding that um what the financial outcomes are going to be. It's going to ensure should ensure that residents are included in that. Um nobody should be excluded so that we do have confidence in you guys. Equally important is uh more clarity around what are you going to do with the money from that sale when that happens? Like I said, $2.3 million. So, when you um finally sell that, is it going to be used to strengthen like things in the community? How about uh housing for the homeless? um maybe a detention center because our counties are lacking it and we got criminals going to uh jail being put in cells in Blair County or Cambury County or another jail that could hold them. Um so I do urge you to lead this with transparency, invite public input, and then clearly communicate your plans along the way. Thank you. Hi, Maryanne Cinei, 3921 Maple Avenue, Altuna. Everybody knows my position as well on the ordinance for the recovery and sober homes as well as the unhoused ordinance. Um, actually I think taking away from people that are struggling with substance use disorder, I'll be the first one to say that if they are a bad actor, find a way to find them instead of punishing the person that is trying to get their life back on track. If we

want to have an ordinance, why can't we have one against all the places in town that have neon signs forratom or vape or alcohol or any of the things that are actually holding them under like how about the skills games machines to pretty much on every corner. People struggling cannot keep their head above water because that's all it is everywhere you look. So, I don't see how doing that is going to help anybody that's struggling. It's only going to push more people to be unhoused is what's going to happen. Like I said, find a way to find the facilities that are the bad actors. Find a way to get rid of them. Don't just make this judgment and criminalize something when somebody is struggling with substance use disorder. They need our help not to made feel worse or like they do not belong in this community. That's not what we should be known for. And if you don't have answers for certain things, I've seen other places have town hall meetings. How about if you do that and find out if somebody in that room has an idea that you haven't thought of. There has to be other ways. I get it. We have a shelter that only is open so many months during the coldest times. There's other counties and other states that have done planned encampments. They bought the tents. They put them on platforms. They kept them in a park. There's a portaotty. It I know it's not a permanent solution, but it's something until we figure it out because every community is facing the same thing that we are. There is not enough places to live and the ones that are are ridiculous and people can't get the jobs to pay for them. Thank you.

Is there any more public comment?

Okay, seeing none, we will close the floor and move on to the resolutions. Item A, approving the minutes of the Altuna City Council meeting held Monday, March 9th, 2026. Item B is approving the request of the Athenian Cafe for an intermunicipal transfer of a Pennsylvania liquor license from 217 Union Avenue, Logan Township, to for use within the city at 6017th Avenue, Altuna. Item C is approving the city manager to execute and the city clerk to attest to all documents regarding forced distribution of Blair County Act 32 liquid fuel tax monies in the amount of $272,120.99 to be used for the 2026 Capitol Street reconstruction project. Item D is awarding the exterior painting at Booker T. Washington building to Clark contractors in the amount of $41,48245 payable from the capital budget and further authorizing the city manager to execute all documents and the city clerk to attest to same. Item E is awarding the supplemental storm water maintenance contract to Guyire Brothers of New Enterprise in the amount of $29,940 payable from the capital and/or liquid fuels funds and further authorizing the city manager to execute all documents in the city clerk to attest to same. Item F is awarding road materials for 2026 27 package A and package C to New Enterprise in the amount of $32,749.50. 50 cents payable from the general fund and highway aid and further authorizing the city manager to execute all documents and the city clerk to attest to same. Item G is awarding the road materials bid for 202627 package B to Granis Brothers of Holidaysburg in the amount of $126,150

payable from the general fund in highway aid and further authorizing the city manager to execute all documents and the city clerk to attest to same. Item H is awarding the road materials bid for 202627 package D to Woodland Equipment of of Woodland PA in the amount of $16,919 payable from general fund and highway aid and further authorizing the city manager to execute all documents in the city clerk to attest to same. Item I is awarding the 2026 Capitol Street Reconstruction Project to Granis Brothers in the amount of 1,638,24923 payable from the capital budget further authorizing the city manager to execute all documents and the city clerk to attest to same. Item J is awarding the 2026 CDBG street reconstruction project to new enterprise stone and lime in the amount of 216,951.91 payable from CDBG funds and further authorizing the city manager to execute all documents and the city clerk to attest to same. Item K is awarding the 12th Avenue and 13th Street and 12th Avenue and 15th Street parking lot renovation to Ventura Construction of Altuna in the amount of $500,27620 payable from the capital budget, further authorizing the city manager to execute all documents in the city clerk to attest to same. Item L is rejecting the bid received for the Juniata Gap pedestrian path lighting improvements project and returning the bid security. Item M is approving a repository bid submitted by GDI Enterprise of Philadelphia in the amount of $800 each for properties located at 2024 5th Avenue 208 to 10 East Cherry 11:09 to 1117th Avenue 131317th

Avenue 14081 17th Avenue 1810 12th Avenue 1814 11th Avenue and 1926 12th Avenue and 709 4th Avenue and further authorizing the city manager to execute the taxing district form. Is there anything to be deleted or pulled for separate vote? Yeah, I'd like to uh pull item M, please. I have two questions. Is it all right if I ask now? Uh we'll start with the one that's on the screen now. Item L, rejecting the bid. Can we have a little bit of further information on some of the backstory regarding the Juniana Gap pedestrian path lighting improvement project?

So when we advertised this last month, we that was a grant project that was part of a pendant multimodal. The the bid received came in higher than what we had in the the grant, if you will. So we decided with only one bid and upon review of the bid that some of the items were way out of line of where they should have been. Okay. So, we're going to go meet with Pendod and see what we can do to retool that to bring the price down to the close to the grant amount to get it done. So, we have until So, it's still it's still being considered, correct? But, but we have there's maybe some additional process that has to be done.

Yeah, we have to retool. We have till September 27 to to get that complete. Could that also mean that the scope of the project could change u so as to try to reduce the bid to get it in line with the money available? Correct. Okay. All right. So we do have to then we do have to reject the bid. Correct. Formally it's a pendot awarded project. So we don't have as much flexibility in what we can do after we receive

caused the bid to come in so much higher in the first place. uh PEDOT gave us some requirements after we submitted for the grant and they built some redundancies into it that we didn't feel that were needed and we wouldn't have done it if we were designing it that way. So part of the bureaucratic process is now to go back and talk to them and see what they can do to help us. And just curious, what was the initial estimate and what did the bid come in at? 777,000 was a total grant amount and it came in around 980 and change. Okay. And did I read that right that there was only one bidder?

Correct. That was another reason. Out of 30 packets that were put out, only one bidder. Yes. Okay. It's a pretty busy summer for contractors and the construction folks actually. Well, is that unusual on that size of a project? Not really. Um, there was one requirement in there that they had to be pre-qualified for certain PENDOT packages, if you will. So, that brings your pool down substantially. So, we're hopefully going to work with them on that to open it up to

It's not a roadway, it's not a typical roadway PENDOT project. It's more of a street lighting project. So, there should be plenty of electricians that could handle the scope of that project. So that was probably one of five things we need to discuss with PENDOT to hopefully bring the price down. Was they putting that through ECMS partially the review was mostly um okay through central office? So I don't know. Second item is um letter C which has to deal with um liquid fuels. Is that common for that to be on the agenda? This do we normally approve liquid fuel items?

No. So, this the uh state's office of audit uh looked at the county's dispersement of the liquid fuels funds and they were ordered to turn the money over to the city. Okay. So, these are dollars coming from the the county for liquid fuels. Thanks. Okay. So, I can I'm going to call for the consent vote first and that's item A through L. Councilman Batty, yes. Councilman Butterb, yes. Councilwoman Clinich, yes. Vice Mayor Ellis, yes. Councilman Ikis, yes. Councilman Kelly, yes. Mayor Pacificico, yes.

This consent vote passes 7 to zero. And then on to item M, which is pulled for separate vote by Councilman Butterb. It's approving the repository bid submitted by the GDI Enterprises for the properties as indicated. Councilman Batty, no. Councilman Butterb, no. Councilwoman Clinich, no. Vice Mayor Ellis, no. Councilman Ikis, no. Councilman Kelly, no. Mayor Pacificico, no.

And the vote does not pass. And we have some ordinances. The first ordinance was introduced by Vice Mayor Ellis and it's an ordinance of the city of Altuna, Blair County, Pennsylvania, amending the code of the city by adding a new chapter 509 to be entitled urban camping providing definitions, regulations, enforcement, penalties for violations, repealing of all other ordinances or parts of laws in conflict therewith, severability of provisions, and providing an effective date. Is there a motion for adoption? So move. Second. I'll second.

This ordinance was moved for adoption by Vice Mayor Ellis and seconded by Councilwoman Clinich. And I'll call the role for a vote. Councilman Batty, yes. Councilman Butterb, yes. Councilwoman Clinich, yes. Vice Mayor Ellis, yes. Councilman Ikis, yes. Councilman Kelly, no. Mayor Pacificico, no.

And the vote passes 5 to two. The second ordinance for adoption was introduced by Councilwoman Clinich. It's an ordinance amending the code of the city of Altuna to amend chapter 105 entitled police civil service commission article 1 entitled rules and regulations section 105-22 B physical agility testing updating the physical agility testing repeal of all other ordinances or parts of laws in conflict therewith severability of provisions and providing an effective date. Is there a motion for adoption? I'll make that motion. A second. Second. This ordinance was moved for adoption by Councilman Batty, seconded by Councilman Ikis, and I'll call the role for a vote. Councilman Batty,

yes. Councilman Butterb, yes. Councilwoman Clinich, yes. Vice Mayor Ellis, yes. Councilman Ikis, yes. Councilman Kelly, yes. Mayor Pacificico, yes.

And the vote passes seven to zero. We have ordinance number three which was introduced by councilman Butterb and it is an ordinance of the of the city of Altuna Blair County amending the code of the city of Altuna specifically chapter 571 entitled halfway recovery rooming and boarding and institutionalized facility licensing program form of application. Item A changing language by striking the word or and adding the word and and in item A rules and regulations. Number two, changing the distance requirement from 1500 ft to 300 ft, repealing of all other ordinances or parts of laws in conflict therewith, severability of provisions, and providing an effective date. Is there a motion for adoption?

I'll make that motion. A second.

Second. This ordinance was moved for adoption by Councilman Batty and seconded by Vice Mayor Ellis. I'll call the role for a vote. Councilman Batty, no. Councilman Butterb, no. Councilwoman Clinich, no. Vice Mayor Ellis, no. Councilman Ikis, no. Councilman Kelly, no. Mayor Pacificico, no.

The vote does not pass. The next ordinance for adoption was introduced by Councilwoman Clinich and it's an ordinance of the city of Altuna amending the code of the city of Altuna chapter 553 entitled public gatherings to change the title. Add noise and alcohol permit wording. Extend the submission deadline. Remove the deposit references. Update the insurance requirements. Remove the waiver of fees. Include city sponsored information. Provide penalties for violation. provide severability of provisions, repealer, and provide an effective date. Is there a motion for adoption? I'll make a motion. I think there a second. I'll second.

I should mention too on this ordinance that on item B in the ordinance, the part that's underlined is actually supposed to be a strikethrough. So, it's a typo, but it takes out where it says that applicants are required to pay the $25 fee and the $100 event fee. That's supposed to be a strike through and not an underline. So, that was just a typo.

I do have a couple of questions on this before we vote if I may. So, that part that you brought up, just for clarification, the strikethrough is to be all applicants are required to pay the $25 application fee because I thought that the initial revision on this was everyone paid the initial filing fee of $125. Correct. It was $125. That was the initial That was Yeah, I'm just confirming. Yeah,

because you brought that up. Couple of other questions I have. So, I think it was alluded to earlier, but with this um ordinance, there's no tie for the fees that were considered or initially considered at last month's meeting. Correct. Correct. So, so the charge for police services, for example, is not a part of this. So, the current ordinance has a what, a 7-day review period, is that correct? by staff, department heads and staff to sign off for uh requests for permits. First page, wherever first page is,

I believe it is a week and now it's we've moved it up to um 30 days. So under the current form of this ordinance, who's making the f who's making the decisions, if you will, administratively, it goes through review by all department heads and then ultimately reviewed and approved by the city manager. Correct. And that would be consistent with what this proposed. Nothing's changing as far as that's concerned. So the only thing that is changing is the review proc essentially the the review process or the the length of time for work to be done by city staff, department heads, etc. Correct. I have no further questions. Thank you.

Okay. Hearing no other questions, I will take the role for the vote. Councilman Batty. Yes. Councilman Butterb. Yes. Councilwoman Clinich. Yes. Vice Mayor Ellis. Yes. Councilman Icis. Yes. Councilman Kelly. No. Mayor Pacificico. Yes.

The vote passes 6 to one. And the final ordinance for in for adoption was introduced by Councilman Batty. It's an ordinance of the city of Altuna amending the code of the city of Altuna to amend chapter 405 entitled lease and/or conveyance of city-owned land to authorize conveyance of city-owned land located at 320 East Chestnut Avenue, Altuna to the redevelopment authority of the city of Altuna for $1. Reaffirm the remainder of chapter 405. Repeal all other ordinances or parts thereof in conflict therewith. provide severability of provisions and provide an effective date. Is there a motion for adoption? So moved. A second. Second.

This ordinance was moved for adoption by coun by Vice Mayor Ellison, seconded by Councilman Ikis. And I'll call the role for a vote. Councilman Batty, yes. This is Councilman Butterb. Yes. Councilwoman Clinich. Yes. Vice Mayor Ellis. Yes. Councilman Ikis, yes. Councilman Kelly, yes. Mayor Pacificico, yes. Vote passes seven to zero. Okay. City manager updates. No updates. Thank you.

Uh council discussion items. Uh I'd just like to briefly um announce um I partnered with uh First Commonwealth Bank to host a home buyer seminar coming up Thursday, April 23rd. Um there is flyers in the back if anybody is interested in going. There's a QR code at the bottom if you'd like to register. Um there's going to be um resources there. Uh PHFA, uh some um uh of course Horse Purse Commonwealth's going to be there, home inspectors, folks like that uh to be able to kind of help anybody in looking to purchase a home. So we have that coming up uh at the on the 23rd. And uh if anybody else has anything they'd like to add, feel free.

Are you going to start on that end? No. If anybody has anything, you can just speak up. As far as the um ice facility that we're switching over to the redevelopment authority, that was done with the intent purpose of opening it up. Ron, can you turn your mic on? It is. It is one. Oh. um

the the purpose of moving it to the uh redevelopment authority is to give everybody an even chance at acquiring that. So that was the purpose is to get it out for a request for proposal from anybody. It'll be advertised nationwide. You know, we'll get the best value for for the city. And then those funds will go to the redevelopment authority. will use those for housing, you know, all the different uh look uh tiny houses, rehabbing houses, building new houses, you know, that will be the purpose of the fund use for that.

If the I think just to add to that, I'm not on the RA, so maybe the mayor or Councilman Batty can correct me if I'm wrong, but if the city sells property, we have to accept the highest bid. Correct. Yeah. Whereas the redevelopment authority is able to not only consider bid but ultimate um if you will utilization for property selling. So for example, and not to wound wind anyone up here, but let's say the city sells the that building and

Meta LLC decides to put a data center there and the city would ultimately then be in a situation to accept the bid. whereas the RA has the ability to customize um not only price but also best utilization for that. So that's part of the part of the advantage to using the redevelopment authority as that example and also the best return once it's sold. You know, how many jobs does it bring in? Um you know, we score all those things on the benefit to the city, the most benefit. So, anybody else?

Uh, yes. I I just have a statement on behalf of city council. Um, we voted not to adopt the current proposed amendments to the halfway recovery house ordinance. Following a comprehensive policy review and consideration of public input, council's decision was based on the determination that the ordinance in its current form requires additional refinement to ensure it appropriately balances, the needs of residents, neighborhoods, the service providers, and the public safety. Concerns raised include clarity of definitions, consistency with zoning, operational standards, and overall impact on surrounding communities. Additionally, council believes it is essential that any ordinance governing recovery halfway housing be thoughtfully crafted to both support recovery efforts and ensure enforcability within the city's regulatory framework. For these reasons, council has chosen not to advance the ordinance in its current form. The proposed amendments will be revisited, revised as necessary, and reintroduced at a future council meeting. City Council remains committed to developing a balanced, clearly defined ordinance that supports recovery efforts while upholding the city's responsibility to ensure effective governance and community safety.

Mayor, I have uh two other items if I may. Um, given the fact we're in the spring season, Nate, I you're my guy tonight. Sorry, you get to answer all my questions tonight, but obviously we're in the spring season, so we are in the midst of construction and utility cuts. Um, can you just share with us a little bit about what the process is for restoration of utility cuts? Are we able to work with these utility providers that are doing work? A lot of them are the gas company right now. um where we can work with them to have them complete paving their areas before they move on and doing further utility cuts in other neighborhoods. You know as well as I do that ends up being a significant uh the city ends up having to handle a lot of those citizen complaints and our hands are often uh tied as far as enforcement. So, I mean, the short of it is we we may be able to we'd have to look and see what, you know, the PUC would have to say about it because the gas company is under mandate from them, too, as far as it relates to like their ratings that they they they have on certain steel lines. And last year, we had that individual come in and he had explained Altuna is one of the hot spots for steel lines in the city. So, I mean, yes, you probably could, but you know, if there was something catastrophic that would happen because of that, it would be best to just kind of let them do their own thing and then hopefully, you know, do a blitz in the spring to try to get caught up on what they do over the winter. It's a process of where like when they do a long line in an area, they have to do they have a contractor come in, they do the long line, and then there's like a tide each end. said that they have to do all the work and then test that and then they have to put all the laterals out and it's a process and it's a very timely process and then they can't actually hook the the gas up. The gas

company then has to come back and then they do all the gas tie-ins and then they do the tie-ins to the houses and then check all the houses to make sure that there's no leaks etc etc. So, it is a process. Now, I did talk to a rightaway supervisor and he's working on a schedule as far as getting in. You know, the gas company has been the gas company would rather try to work with us to get a blitz in the spring to get caught up what they work on in the winter time and continue their work as is to try to get as much steel line out of the ground as they could. So, that's where we're at right now. Okay.

Um, Blackt plants didn't open until the end of last week. So, um, in the meantime, and we do have the opportunity in the winter time, we could work with them on, you know, some additional restoration methods, uh, but concrete doesn't work really well in winter because it freezes. So, it they'd have to blanket it and heat it until it actually cured for a few days. So, that leads to its own issues whatsoever. So, um, maybe give us a month and see, you know, where we're at with this. And just think it'd be good for us to perhaps reinforce conver dialogue with with them coming coming into this. Yeah, understood. Thank you. Anybody else?

Okay, questions from the media. Bill, oh, Sydney, I'm Sydney with WPSU if you don't already know me. Um, so there was already some discussion about this, but I was having a hard time following. So, to be clear, the the ordinance about adding police fees for downtown events, that was not included in tonight's ordinance. Is that right? Correct. Okay. And why is that? It's still under review. Is that what I heard? Okay.

Okay. So, these were a resolution. They weren't an ordinance. Okay. Okay. Um, so the urban camping ordinance, when does it go into effect? Is it immediately? Yeah. Yes. And there was a question earlier about how would that ordinance affect people who are housed, who are sitting or laying on public property. Great question. Is it just a matter of discretion? I'm assuming I

I went into this last month. All right. We we've had in-depth discussions with social service agencies. All right. It is not our intention to walk up to someone sitting on a bench or sleeping on a bench and drag them to the magistrate. Okay? That is not what this is about. We've had extensive discussions with social service agencies to find a path for these people to get under a solid roof. Okay. We have had discussions with the police department how this is going to go. We've had discussions with the magisterial district justice how this is going to go. Our goal is to whenever the police or the codes folks or any of any of the city's uh personnel encounter a homeless person, a social service agency will be notified. that person will be given the opportunity to find at least transitional housing to work with the social service agencies to move into more permanent housing. And we're working with these agencies and they they believe that this is something that can be accomplished.

Thank you. Um Mr. Pacificico, could I ask why you voted no?

Yeah. Um because in the last 30 days I helped get two people off the street and into um motel which I know is just transitional but you know we view the motel down in Greenwood that Blair Health Choices has as part of the housing continuum of care you know so once folks are there able to get um hooked up with resources to help them. So, you know, we're already we already have solutions and resources in place to help people who are experiencing homelessness without making it criminal, you know, so I don't see the need. I have a real issue with with that, you know, a personal issue with um criminalizing people sleeping outside. So, yeah. Um, the last thing I wanted to ask is what kind of concerns are there surrounding recovery houses in the city? Why is there talk about putting revisions on that ordinance?

Part of the concerns is the incentive of the money and then when the money gets out, they just dump them out on the street and that's the problem. And I understand having taken chemical dependency courses that you can't get treatment from where you are from. But also if you agree to treat and bring somebody from somewhere else, you need to take responsibility for that person. If the people claiming to help take take responsibility, then none of this tonight has to wouldn't have the problem in the first place. That's over 90% of our homeless problem.

Why is the solution to change the distance between them? Why can't there be like an audit system to see where that money is going? Maybe that is part of the question. Well, that is the distance is being worked out. We need to get it right and that's why we voted no on the ordinance tonight. Like that needs to be hashed out properly and go through the correct legal channels. We we really shouldn't be just having a new ordinance every month. Let's let's wo up get it right the way it should be and then pass a good amicable ordinance.

All right. Thank you. No, I'm sorry. Public comments closed. Um

Derek, I don't know if you can say um or care to say, but um Carol Taylor mentioned that in the No Kings rally there was an incident that I sort of caught the tail end of and talked to the people involved. Um people walking through who were counterprotesters and that police were called. Can you say um why police didn't come when they were called? Sure. Um I actually had multiple officers assigned downtown. So they were there. Uh they were instructed not to act unless you know there was danger to someone's life or property. So that's probably why there was no action taken.

Okay. Um let's see. I I want to I know Sydney asked, but I wasn't sure the answer. So there is in the ordinance on public gatherings there is no charge for police um to provide security. There is no charge.

And can you say why that was eliminated? The fees were in a resolution. Council table the resolution. The ordinance had nothing to do with fees. Fees were never included in the ordinance. So that cleared up that mis uh if it was miscommunicated or there's a misunderstanding. Um the the ordinance that was adopted tonight fixes an ordinance that hadn't been updated in a number of years. Uhhuh. So is the the there's no resolution either then regarding those fees. There is no fees.

Okay. Well, can can you explain why the DEC who how the decision was made or why the decision was made to eliminate the fees for that sort of thing? Council chose last meeting to table the resolution not to include fees. And is that the is that kind of a final decision on that or is the fee resolution is updated periodically annually?

Annually usually at the first meeting of the year I believe. So, it was when it was tabled at last month's meeting, um the ordinance was then adopted, which because we tabled that um resolution, it wouldn't proceed, at least at this time, and then the ordinance would go through after it was adopted for final consideration at tonight's meeting, which is what happened.

Okay. And Bill, I' I'd also add there's there's also a misunderstanding that fee the the fee for the police coverage was not targeting any one specific event. What it was was looking to help defay the cost of the amount of events that are going on downtown. Now, we want events downtown, but we want events to be safe. There's a cost to the city for closing streets, for cleaning up afterwards. That was the staff's recommendation to council was to include fees to help offset those costs. Every department was asked to provide what their cost data was, how much it's impacting, and uh the resolution was presented to council. Council chose not to do that, so there is no fees.

Okay. And Bill, I I guess it's fair to say there's are a lot of events that take place for various and Sunday reasons and and I know of three or four that were either moved or held in a different manner just because people came and negotiated or spoke with the police or the city staff. And for one example, um it was originally planned to have the Charlie Kirk vigil at Heritage Plaza or at least that was one. Well, originally it was going to be at a church and then it outgrew that and then Heritage Plaza got into the mix and so people sat down and said, "Okay, what would be the cost if this many people and then at that point it was got up to 6 7 800 people and then it became like, okay, we don't want to burden the city with that. So, we have to find another place to have this safely. And it ended up being Grace Bible, but that's one example because, you know, they didn't want to burden the city with the cost of that. Uh there was a prolife march that was going to be downtown. It ended up moving to 17th Street. This was a few years ago, and it was like a sidewalk thing, you know. So, a lot of times people will come and talk and say, "Okay, what what are we burdening you if we do this, you know, if we do this prolife march or if we do this Charlie Kirk vigil vigil, you know, and you know, we get the numbers and it's like, okay, and sometimes they have it here and sometimes you go find another place where it makes more sense." Okay. Um, Matt Sydney asked you about the urban camping and give an answer, but Bruce, you you voted no on the urban camping also. Do you want to say why?

You know, and I think you heard a lot of comments from the folks tonight. Um, it it it does raise the possibility of criminalizing someone who is in a bad bad spot and I don't know that that's necessarily fair. I don't like to see people living in tents. I don't think that it's provides great shelter and when we have people living along the main line of the railroad, I don't think that you could say that that's a a very safe environment. Um but um I I don't know that this is the solution to the problem. Do you have an idea? I mean I know it's a complicated problem. Any any

It's an extremely comp. We're not the only community that struggles with this. That's for sure. Um but I I I don't know that um um the potential of of of criminalizing it is is really um a great solution. Okay. Um let's see. And I think this you weren't asked this. Why did you vote no on the public gathering ordinance? Although I guess that's that's a moot question now without the the money.

Well, it does does change from 7 days to 30, right? Yeah. So, in the world we live in, especially these days, things change at the drop of a hat. And I think increasing the length of time is maybe a disservice if people Okay. So, could you explain that? I I guess I didn't catch that. to the the it has increased the uh the lead time. Right now it's what seven days and it goes to 30 days as as lead time for

approval and and I think that things change so quickly um I don't know that that that's helpful and um a lot a lot can change in 30 days. Um, and I think if people feel agrieved about something that happens and they want to gather and express their opinion, um, I I don't know that making them wait three more weeks is is, you know, necessarily a good thing. Okay. And, um, Shel, when I'm done here, can I get a a copy of that statement, please? Thank you. Um, and I think Sydney asked this, but I I don't think I understood the answer totally. What what issues besides possibly the um the distance requirement need to be resolved before that um the the recovery house ordinance can can be satisfactory to you guys. Bill, there's there's several things that we're going to address in it and uh look at, I should say, not address. We just want to make sure that when it is reintroduced that it is um you know revised appropriately. Um, and we just want to make sure that we have everything in it when we intro reintroduce it. And we're going to go through it line by line to make sure it is it it um is balanced for not only recovery efforts but also for um the city.

Okay. And then uh I guess on to less controversial. Well, no actually uh yeah, one more thing. The the liquid fuels money, what's the explanation for the return of that from the county? I guess

so. What we were told by Pendot, who's the facilitator of this bill, is that there were the auditor general did a audit of the the county and there was an amount of money that didn't get from what we understand the it didn't get burned down quick enough. And so part of the vehicle is that they distribute it to municipalities within the county. Anything more than that, you'd have to probably talk to municipal services person. That's all I have. Meeting is adjourned.