City Council - Regular Meeting

All right.

Now, or after the beginning, before you get into that, you can obviously do like right before the, right before the application.

All right. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to tonight's Williamsport City Council meeting. Brief announcement before we get started, we did have an executive session to discuss legal matters after last City Council meeting two weeks ago. Please rise for the invocation by Councilman Dave Dessinger, followed by the flag salute.

Heavenly Father, we come to you first thanking for all the brave men and women that allowed for us to celebrate 250 years of independence this past week. This evening, we ask for your guidance, wisdom, and support as we begin this meeting. Help us to engage in meaningful dialogue to grow closer as a group and to serve the needs of the community. And continue to remind us that all that we do here this evening, all that we accomplish, is for the pursuit of the truth, for the greater glory of you. We ask these things in your name. Amen. Black Lives Matter. The Republic stands one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

number three on the agenda is approval of city council meeting minutes dated 6 25 26 do i have a motion please so move second all right any questions concerns or comments about the meeting minutes seeing hearing nothing mrs frank dr yoder yes mr milligan yes mr mackie yes mr dessinger yes mr palizzi yes mr beider yes motion passes six zero item number four is limited courtesy the floor i believe we've had no requests this evening So we will move on then to item number five, Mrs. Frank.

An ordinance, transfer ordinance, and final reading.

Can I have motion, please? So moved. Second. Ms. Livermore, how are you this evening?

Good, how are you?

Very well, thank you.

This is just the final reading of the ordinance that we discussed at the last meeting.

Are there any questions, concerns, or comments about the ordinance as discussed last meeting? Seeing or hearing nothing, Mrs. Frank?

Dr. Yoder.

Yes.

Mr. Milliken.

Yes.

Mr. Mackey.

Yes.

Mr. Dessinger.

Yes.

Mr. Palizzi.

Yes.

Mr. Beiter.

Yes. Motion passes 6-0. Item number six, please, Mrs. Frank.

Resolutions specific findings setting forth the declared invalidity of the zoning ordinance and making references to specific uses, which are either not permitted or not permitted in sufficient quantity.

Can I have a motion, please? So moved. Second. Mr. Milliken, you have had two very wordy ordinances on the agenda the last two weeks.

I love the words. Thank you, Janice. I appreciate that saying it so I don't have to. Essentially, two weeks ago, we passed, Council passed a resolution stating that our planning code in Williamsport did not adequately implement prepare or plan for data center development. In fact, it could essentially be read to ban data centers. This resolution now is kind of the second part of that pair. I guess the state of PA and the municipal code in PA requires this second step to happen. Essentially, we declared that our planning code was invalid because it essentially banned data centers. And this resolution confirms that and says, you know, specifically, we don't have any mention of like, you know, cooling towers or power supply. Long story short, this resolution is intended to allow us, give Williamsport the opportunity to revise our planning code or zoning code, I should say, to allow for appropriate development and protect quality of life in Williamsport. We will have 180 days from the last council meeting to draft, discuss and vote on a curative amendment to fix our zoning. So that's what this is about. It's not like, well, I'll leave it at that, even though I like words, so.

I trust that you've been texting Scott Williams every day, 179, 178, 176. Yes. Okay.

Yes. To be clear, this will be a group effort. This, this curative amendment will not be something that I am equipped to, or, you know, we can work on it together, but we need to call in our friends in like Scott Williams and people at the County and work with our solicitors to do this the right way.

I appreciate you bringing this forward. This is a very hot topic, specifically in Pennsylvania. We've got communities not very far from us that are experiencing some woes of data centers being built, and it's taken them by surprise. So being proactive about this, so that way we can at least be prepared that something like this should happen. I mean, I can't even begin to think where they would put something like that in the city, but still, I'd rather be prepared than get caught. Are there any questions from members of council regarding this item? Dr. Yoder.

Just one comment. If Scott watches the playback or you talk to Scott, I would encourage him to talk to the local government services group at DCD. They have a really good toolkit. I think they're kind of supporting some of the municipalities across the state with this similar effort. They probably have a lot of good intel resources. best practices etc same too i think justin hauser is the one solicitor wise supporting this i sent some stuff over to him again the other day related to that just encourage them to reach out to dcd as well um no disrespect to the county or anything like that but i i'm gonna guess dcd probably has more resources that even the county might benefit from so i um

100% agree with Dr. Yoder on this. And though my name is next to this, I know that, you know, Adam, you raised some good points on this topic. So...

will do. President Beiter, before you take a vote, your third whereas clause has a blank in that resolution. I would either clarify from your motion and your second that that's intended to be the 25th or probably a better procedure would be to have a motion to amend that to include the 25th in the blank of that third whereas clause.

Yes. So I will make a motion to add the 25th on the third whereas. I'll second. Mrs. Frank?

Dr. Yoder?

Yes.

Mr. Milligan?

Yes.

Mr. Mackey?

Yes.

Mr. Dessinger?

Yes.

Mr. Polizzi?

Yes.

Mr. Beiter?

Yes. Motion to amend passes 6-0. Any questions remaining then from members of council? Seeing or hearing nothing else, Mrs. Frank?

Dr. Yoder?

Yes.

Mr. Milligan?

Yes.

Mr. Mackey?

Yes.

Mr. Dessinger?

Yes.

Mr. Palizzi?

Yes.

Mr. Biver?

Yes. Motion passes 6-0. We'll move to item number seven, please.

Resolution authorizing the solicitation for bids for the sale of real estate City Hall.

This was tabled last meeting, so do I have a motion to remove this from the table? So moved. Second. Second. Mr. Milliken, if you wanna lead us off again, please.

What we have before us is a resolution, I guess, authorizing city administration to open the door to solicit bids for a sale of city hall. This is something we talked about two weeks ago. I'll start by saying some things that we're not voting on tonight. We're not voting to sell City Hall tonight. This is again, a resolution to seek bids or authorize the city to start the process to seek bids for a potential sale of City Hall. We're not voting on a proposed use of City Hall tonight. Importantly, we're not voting on an RFP or an IFB or any kind of language about how we're gonna sell City Hall. It is my opinion and belief that on city council, our function in government is to help direct the city as to what we should do And I would answer that this is, we are directing the city to seek out proposals and bids for sale of city hall. And I would say that it's city administration's function to figure out then how we're going to do that. And I see that as the drafting of an RFP. There was some debate and back and forth last two weeks ago and concern about specific language And I wanna recognize that like this is coming, everybody up here cares about doing, not screwing this up, right? We wanna do the best we can for our city. And I guess I personally believe that this resolution allows us to move forward tonight. As a resident of Williamsport, I don't want my city council drafting, I guess, the legal document. I guess I see that as the role of administration working with a solicitor. I think that council can and should provide input. I think that we have made good progress on that. And yeah, I guess I'll leave it at that. We're tonight, again, voting on, let me, I want to actually specifically read part of the resolution. Now, therefore, it is hereby resolved by the City of Williamsport as follows. The City of Williamsport hereby holds that the real property commonly known as City Hall, located at 245 West 4th Street, Williamsport, Lycommon County, Pennsylvania, generally identified as tax parcel number 63007100, and as more particularly described in the deed recorded in Lycommon County, Pennsylvania, at deed book 832, page 28, shall be exposed for sale by soliciting bids in accordance with 11 PACS, on and on. The city of Williamsport reserves the right to reject all bids received in its sole discretion. So again, this resolution is two-page resolution, 488 words, is just authorizing the next step in the process. So I'll leave it at that. I know that there's – people have some strong feelings on this, as you should.

Sure. I'll open it up to comments, questions, concerns.

Dr. Yoder? So when we had dialogue on this two weeks ago where we tabled this because of some – public comments about some accurateness of what was given to us by you two weeks ago. It was delivered to us, the actual RP document on the day of the meeting. Yeah. And then the other part where we tabled this was we had questions and I thought we're moving towards redoing the RFP to reflect a different scoring system. I know that some of that work has happened. So what am I missing with your dialogue? Yeah. Yeah.

I can say that, and I know Councilwoman Mealy and maybe Councilman Dustin there may want to speak to this too. I'm under the impression that they took the original IFB and then had a meeting and revised it, provided some added language for a scoring system. That was since maybe yesterday, I think. via email. Solicitor Chris Kenyon had some legal concerns with that. He stated that we can't do a scoring system. We're not able to based off of our own code. And that's why he wrote the IFB as he did. So, and not to put you on the spot, Dave, but you were part of that call today. So then Dave took that feedback, revised the revised RFP, IFB, whatever you want to call it. And I guess before, I'll shut up in a second, but I want to make a point to say that I think that's a good document, but I don't think, like, we're not in any way voting on that document or any document tonight, we're voting on a resolution. So that conversation about language within that or concerns in the IFB can continue and should continue. I think that we have made solid progress on this. But I guess my whole point is that it's not our role as a council of seven people to dictate the specific wording on this. So I think we can provide feedback. I think we can provide our thoughts. It's our job to decide what are we doing. And I am personally of the opinion that We have a building that has been vacant for five years that is continually in worse condition, that the city of Williamsport is paying $50,000 a year to keep, that city administration and police have expressed no desire to go back into that building, that we have paid for proposals that state that it's gonna cost tens of millions of dollars for us to renovate. And so here we are today, and again, Again, I guess I just feel like that's why this resolution is 400 some words and it's not an RFP because we're not seven lawyers up here. And even if we were, we wouldn't agree on it.

So if I may add two comments, you know, so yes, it's not our job to write the document. You know, we have solicitors that do that, but it is our job to make sure that that building is repurposed in the best interest of the city to where it is used to benefit the city the most through the history that that building carries with it. With that being said, Yes, we did receive counsel from one solicitor today on how the building should be put up for sale and what that wording looks like. I will say though that we are still looking into all possible avenues on how the conveyance of that building can leave the city and go into the private sector to where it will be utilized the best for the city. And we have not yet finished that process of vetting that out. We are still looking into all options of transferring that building and what that may look like. And with that being said, we were not done with that process yet. So we still need about another seven days to finish that process to figure out HAB-Jacques Juilland, What all options we have for that building and then be able to bring that back to counsel with the proposal on the best way to convey that building from the city to another sector. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Yeah, sure.

Yeah, I think, I mean, It doesn't need a lot of belaboring. Urban Planning 101 would dictate that any structure that large that's sort of in the heart of our central business district needs to ideally continue to have street level uses, continue to be a vibrant part of the city, right? And we know from the last time that we attempted to sell this building that at least one of the three proposals we received, if not two, were not really street level proposals that included engagement. So we know that there's every possibility that if we were to decide to sell it to the highest bidder, the highest bidder would not have a use for it that was conducive to maintaining the fabric of downtown. And I think from a financial perspective, what we need to look at is when I talk about maintaining the fabric of downtown, it is a livability concern, right, for the city and a walkability concern for downtown. But it also is tax dollars in our pockets. over the next 40 or 50 years. We do something with that building that creates additional revitalization in that neighborhood, and that brings us money for decades to come. We screw up the repurposing of that structure, and that screws over downtown for decades to come. There is just no other way to look at it. So while I would agree that it is a building that needs to have a new purpose now, I wholeheartedly agree with that. I think that this isn't a we need to get rid of it, we need to get rid of it fast. This is a we need to do it and we need to do it right because the decision we make and if we pass it to another owner, that reuse becomes the reuse that it has for the next several decades. And I don't want to be the council member who lets it become a warehouse and then is trying to explain to people why downtown Williamsport is a dead zone. You know? So, you know, that's... I mean, that's kind of basic urban planning. In order to have a walkable city, you need there to be a use in that space that makes people want to walk past and around it to interact with the structures there and around it. But yeah, I apologize. I entered this meeting a little bit behind the eight ball late, of course, and I apologize for that, but also because I wasn't part of the call this morning with the solicitor. I wasn't invited to that conversation. So I missed the opportunity to ask the solicitor who made the decision that we couldn't issue an RFP questions about that process. My understanding from the limited research I've done is that there are mechanisms for us to issue something more geared toward choosing the best proposal and less geared toward the financial, the immediate financial benefit. But I need to flesh that out with the solicitor. And since I didn't have the opportunity today, I'm looking forward to doing that over the next week or so. Sorry, Adam, you can, it's, I mean, take the floor, take it, take it, take it.

So back to what I was trying to figure out what I'm missing here is, you know, I would agree with that. I'm not privy to what the opinion of the solicitor is. You know, so when I hear what you were talking about, Jonah, I'm like, what are you, this is different than what we kind of went off on.

with the last meeting.

So I'm not privy to what the opinion of the solicitor is. I would be interested in understanding what that is because at the end of the day, and this isn't about city hall, this isn't about, the intricacies of the issue. And we can get to that if we want to tonight. This ties back to me about the debate that we had with term limits. We are not a third-class city. We are an optional third-class city, all right? And what that actually means, and Bruce is back there, so he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but we are, I'm serious, Bruce knows- Please don't make a public comment, Bruce. Just call him or Nick can do it too. But- That means that we are to an extent already, quote unquote, a level of home rule from an operational perspective, right? So if you read the charter, there are clear things that we still have to abide by city code, right? But other than that, we have autonomy to execute operations in ways that are advantageous to us. And I have not brushed up on that charter, but I do not recall offloading procurement or selling of property to be one of those specific things that we have to follow in the state law for, right? So I would be interested in understanding what the opinion is and why I think it's important beyond the issue of city hall is if we're not going to take that autonomy seriously with an issue like this, are we really prepared as an institution of the city to take it seriously if the local government study commission deems that home rule makes sense and if the public deems that it passes and they accept it? It is a bigger question than city hall, right? That's why I'm interested in that opinion. Same argument that we had with term limits, right? We as an institution of the city do not utilize that, in my opinion. Culturally, we've got room for growth there. All right. And where that comes into play to the city hall issue was, to your point, you know, look, this this is a big issue for a number of reasons. But most importantly, this is a very sizable building that has a lot of historical significance to the city. And if if if it's not. How do I phrase this? We potentially have an opportunity to get it into other hands in a much more innovative way that can really positively impact the community, impact the downtown, impact our local economy, et cetera. I don't see us having that ability and I see us losing that control if we follow the traditional process that I, without understanding, am of the opinion, we should have that autonomy to do what we talked about doing two weeks ago. So... So look, I mean, to me, with this resolution now and try to get a little off of my soapbox here, I respect your perspective on this. And generally, I would agree with you with a big issue like this, though, with an issue that has been a struggle for the city to work through for my entire time on council, six and a half years. And where, you know, at the end of the day, my individual vote can impact what can happen to that building and more importantly, what the ripple effects are on that community. I individually feel more comfortable still having that all worked out and reflective in the resolution. So that process is clarified. And it can be executed accordingly when we pass the resolution. So I appreciate where you're coming from, Jonah. I respectfully disagree. It seems to me that there's probably still some things to work out. I think that the plan that we left off on two weeks ago was a good plan. I think we still have the runway to execute that plan. And frankly, I don't know what waiting two more weeks is going to do in the grand scheme of things in selling city hall. That's just my individual opinion.

I would also add that until we have an RFP or an IFP document, it can't go out for bid. So us passing a resolution without the document existing is no different from us waiting two weeks. So we need to have the finalized document before the bid can happen. So I don't think that we dramatically lengthen the amount of time before it happens by waiting to pass the resolution until two weeks from now. Secondarily, the resolution, like I said, I would like to see us try to find a mechanism that allows us to not just solicit bids for the sale of the property, which is what it says in the resolution. In the hopes that that continues to be a possibility to do something other than just solicit bids for a sale, I would be hesitant to pass this resolution as written because I want to see us have the broadest range of possibilities until we know for sure they have to be closed down. Anyway, yeah, I think that's about all. But yeah, I will say that I both agree and largely agree with you jenna we have an incredibly talented community development staff and i think that they should um be leading the you know because this is a community development initiative um our community development staff and because they have so much experience in precisely this sort of project collectively not all of them with the city but in the various places they've worked i do think that they should be leading this charge but i also think that council should have input into it above and beyond just voting on a resolution. Because like I said, I think a project like this that could potentially determine things within the city for years to come is something where we need as many smart people thinking about it as we can find. And, you know, we got some not smart people throw them in there too. I don't, I'm not, this is not a judgment on anything, but I think that we all need to be a I think we all need to be thinking about this and trying to make it the best project we can. But I definitely would agree that this should be led by community development because they are the people with the expertise here.

Um, well, just one thing, um, I'll just point out that the city hall has essentially been a warehouse for five years and that zone of the city is still very vibrant and hasn't died. So just going to put that out there. Um, and if, if, if, and maybe I am misunderstanding what's being said here, it sounds to me like we're back to square one, right? Two weeks ago, we had a document that we tabled cause we didn't like some of the language, um, Correct me if I'm wrong, you just said it's now the job of the administration to write this document?

We did write another document. In fact, I think there have now been two or three drafts of another document. Jonah asked Dave and I to work on it over the two weeks, and we did.

I'm fully aware.

Dave did.

I saw that. I saw that document. But did you not just say tonight that we're passing this resolution to instruct the administration to write the RFP? Or did I misunderstand what you're saying?

I guess what I mean to say is our resolution does not include or reference the specific IFB or RFP. It's not work that's lost. I don't personally believe that if we were to vote yes on this tonight... we're not starting at zero. We have that document and everything you're talking about, about collaborating with our planning department, um, and community development department, like that can still happen, I guess. So I am, go ahead, John.

I'm just gonna say thank you for clarifying it because I do agree the document that I recently saw, the updated version, I thought was really several steps in the right direction. I liked a lot of things that I saw in there. So I just wanted to make sure that, I just wanted to make sure So I feel way more comfortable now with what you're saying.

And for two points, John, for you. So number one, individually, I think we should have the resolution reflect and reference that document, right? So I might be in the minority in that, and that's fine. But more importantly, I think what Jonah, what I interpret he was getting at in the you know, we're we can't do what we tried to do in two weeks. And I disagree with that. Right. Because of the little soapbox that I had five minutes ago. So, you know, for me, like, I think the resolution needs to reflect what our intent is. And I frankly don't think we have, I mean, I think the resolution does not reflect our intent coming in here. I think we need to get clarity on what the process actually is going to look like and what we're legally allowed to do before we pass it. That's what I'm saying.

So if I may interrupt and I have a direct question for you, Mr. Grimes, in paragraph number two, it says the city of Williamsport shall be permitted to place any and all conditions and or restrictions on the sale of the above referenced property as the mayor may deem reasonably necessary. My question for you, but also other members of council, if we were to amend that and add in the mayor and city council may deem reasonably necessary, would that be something that would then allow us to take the work that's been done by Liz and others, Mr. Dessinger and so on, to get that document to be part of what we're agreeing to, self-building, in the future? And is that something that other members of council would see as a valuable compromise this evening?

So the direct answer to your question is yes. If it requires, unless there were no conditions placed on it, but if conditions require city council approval, obviously city council members can't act individually. It would have to come back to the board for a vote for any conditions, which would then require that invitation forbid to be approved by council before it's issued. As it's written, that's not required. This does give the administration authority to go out and seek bids as they see fit. Obviously, council would have to approve or reject bids that come in. But adding that language would require any invitation for proposals that would have conditions on it to be before council.

Is that something that everybody would be amenable to? I think it would help us get a step in the right direction.

I mean, I would still prefer to, because I don't think we're going to make enough progress to get something, a bid document drafted and put out in the next two weeks. I don't see any reason not to wait for two weeks. I am totally amenable to adding and city council to that paragraph. i would feel comfortable with that that i think that's a solid idea eric but i would still prefer to see us simply table this for two more weeks um i'm happy to make the amendment amended and then we can see how it falls out what i'm going to ask then is i'd like to propose the amendment to add the language of the mayor and city council to paragraph number two i'll second that mrs frank on the amendment on the amendment dr yoder yes mr milligan no

Mr. Mackey?

Yes.

Mr. Dessinger?

Yes.

Ms. Mealy? Yes. Mr. Beiter? I'm sorry, Mr. Palizzi?

Yes.

Mr. Beiter?

Yes. The motion to amend passes six to one.

And President Beiter, if I could just clarify that there's a little nuance to that language where it says conditions or restrictions on the sale of the property. it could be argued, and I don't think this is a strong argument, but you could still allow administration to get bids without putting any restrictions on the sale of the property. Now, of course, functionally, if you asked for bids without any restrictions, and then after the bids came in, tried to take a bid number and add restrictions to a sale after the fact, the buyer's not going to go for that. But technically you could, as it's written, the administration could ask for bids. Then city council afterwards could say, we'll accept this bid with these conditions, these reasonable conditions on it, but that would make the sale fall apart at that point, most likely.

I don't think any of us want to see beyond that, so...

And if it's helpful, I'm happy to clarify the solicitor's position on the proposals as you work through this for the next few weeks. The Third Class City Code specifically has provisions on how to sell surplus property, which you'll see, I think, the next item on the agenda tonight. It also has specific sections on how you sell real estate or real property. There's a requirement in there that it's either done by accepting the highest bid, going out for bids and accepting the highest dollar bid or through public auction. Dr. Yoder is correct and I would suggest that even Mr. Huffman may disagree with me on this point, but the solicitor's position is that if the third class city optional code does not reference a specific power that's given under the optional third class city code, then you have to fall back on the third class city code. That's how the local government commissioned DCED. That's how they view the optional third class city code to work. Now, Dr. Yoder and Mr. Huffman could probably even speak better to it than I could, are correct that there's some older case law that that views the optional third class city charter more as a home rule charter, which would sort of turn that that interpretation inverse to say the third class optional third class city charter is defining what powers you're restricted to. Otherwise, in all other categories, you can act however you'd like to, as long as there's not a generalized state mandate on it. um that's not the solicitor's position in the solicitor's position especially if you're looking at selling a property that you don't want to get into if you've given marketable title after the fact through improper bidding would be that you have to follow the requirements of the third class city code which require you to go out to bid and accept the highest bid

Does it necessarily have to be the highest monetary amount bid or is it the highest responsible bidder?

Unfortunately for this section of third class city code, it doesn't even list responsible bidder. Now I think you would be okay to say if there's somebody that, that cannot prove to you that they have the finances available to make a purchase that you don't need to get into an agreement of sale with that individual or that organization. But unfortunately, If the suggestion is that you can place some of these other conditions on how the property is used as a qualifier for what's a responsible bidder, you wouldn't be able to do that under the language of the third class city code.

So then I have another question.

So to Councilwoman Mealy's point, she said earlier that we couldn't even put any bids out, requests for bids, unless we had the accompanying RFP. Sorry. We need the documentation to even put it out for bid. Is that correct?

With the change to your ordinance, that's probably closer to correct the way that, or the resolution, the way that the resolution was written, that that is not true. The mayor at the direction of city council to go and solicit bids could draft an issue, the invitation for bid document, and then bring the bids that are received back to council at that point.

I guess my point was, we just don't have the document done. So the chances that that's going to happen.

What I'm getting at is that if we voted on this and pass this tonight with the new language, that would allow the mayor to, to, out for bid but then if you could bring it to council and council could go oh yeah we'll accept that but here's our list of demands or here's our list of of what it has to accompany um And I guess that's the hang up right now.

Why vote yes to this if we don't have everything else that we- I think the change to section two would allow the mayor to go out and solicit bids if there are no restrictions with them. I would suggest though that if city council is going to take the approach, the majority of city council, that you all want to approve the actual invitation for bids that go out, then there's really no reason to do it in two parts. Whether you- accept this tonight and then accept what an invitation for bid looks like in two weeks, or you just accept what an invitation for bids look like in two weeks, if you're going to draft it and bring it in front of council anyways, it would end at the same. This document would be unnecessary if in two weeks you're going to say, here's our invitation for bids that we've drafted and we want the mayor to solicit bids based on this document.

Thank you. And that's kind of what I was hoping that we could get to is Uh, as much as I appreciate Mr. Milliken putting this out and pushing this forward for the sake of not losing momentum on something that the council, Dr. Biters pointed, we've been dealing with for six and a half years. I apologize. Dr. Yoder. I'm sorry. I appreciate it. Six and a half years we've been dealing with this. And Mr. Milliken, I understand and appreciate the desire to not lose momentum on this project again, as we visited this over a year ago. And then we lost momentum on it. And as such, we've had, to Councilman Mackey's point, essentially a warehouse that's been sitting downtown that costs us $50,000 to $60,000 a year annually to keep up, right? So I appreciate that. the desire to not lose momentum on this and keep this rolling. But if Mr. Grimes is saying, even if we pass this tonight and the mayor puts out a request for bids, it's not going to do anything if council also has contingencies that we want to add to it.

I do understand. And I guess that was my no vote. It's not to take power away from us, even though I know that that's what my no vote did. It's my belief that this building has sat vacant for five years and we've spent over a quarter million dollars on it without even thinking about planning and our own salaries. So probably over half a million dollars for five years because this council is operating like we need to have a unanimous seven vote agreement on a very complex thing. So that's why, again, I may be taking the philosophical easy path of saying our job is to decide whether or not we want to sell it or not. So if the decision is to not sell it, Okay, but if we're gonna sell it, I guess my position is let's be serious with ourselves. And it's been five years, not to just keep saying that, but it's been five years. So I do have hesitation. There's one of seven seats when I look at this council and I think we're gonna make progress in seven days. We just added a clause that says that any of us can add additional restrictions or opinions. to a legal document. So that's where I'm coming from. It sounds like some members would like to make a motion to table or not, that's fine. I'm gonna vote no on that. If I may, it sounds like you just don't want us to get in our own way. I think that we have sufficiently got in in our own way for years. And I think that now I'm getting on the soapbox is going to be a bigger soapbox. I think that there exists a real trust issue within the city of Williamsport government. You know, like, we have to work alongside of city administration. in good faith, like not just say the words, but like actually want to work through the challenging conversations. And I know I'm saying that as a new guy, and I know you guys have put in a lot of time, but we need to do better at that. And that's why this, like, I am afraid of this sitting stagnant for another five years. I guess that is truly how I feel. And it's not the end of the world if it does, but it's sad.

I will tell you, Mr. Milliken, that I will not allow this to drag on anymore. I understand everybody's concern. We want to make sure that things are done correctly, but this is not something that we will be talking about a year from now, like, oh, hey, let's sell City Hall. It's in the minutes now. It's on YouTube as well. And I completely agree with you in a lot of the points that you made. So what I would ask, and I know, Liz, you'd like to say something, so I'm going to go ahead and allow you to speak, and then if I may, after you.

Oh, okay, sure. No, all I want to say is that Part of the reason the building is still sitting vacant is that several years ago now, we did go through a bidding process and we received bids that we found unsatisfactory. And that I think is what I'm trying to avoid here. is us going through the effort the time of our staff to show people the building to request bids to have them draw up plans so that we can make a decision and find that the responses that we get are things that we don't feel are adequate uses for that structure It just seems better to me to figure out what we want there and to flesh out a little bit whether there is law. I actually have been getting a handful of texts from the solicitor who made the original determination, saying that he is going to look into the possibility of transferring money. the building to someone who can issue an RFP instead of just a highest bidder document. If there is a better path that allows us more flexibility in who we choose, I would like to find that out before and not after we receive a whole bunch of bids for a building that we find that we have to reject because they simply aren't what we need there. so it just seems to me like we take a couple more weeks. We understand a little better, all the ramifications, all the moving parts. Um, and, uh, and then if, you know, if we have to take it out for bid and hope the highest bidder is also something we want and reject the bids, if not, then hell so be it. But, um, but that is what happened, um, however many years ago. And I would like to see it not happen again. I would like to structure it so that we are asking for what we want and, um, And we don't need to vote in consensus all seven of us at one time we in fact we just voted to amend this resolution without you and so in two weeks what we're looking at is is something you know something coming up and if four of us think it's a good idea then god damn it that's where we go and if you know four of us don't then that's not what happens but it doesn't it doesn't need it's not we're not an all or nothing body and we never have been um and that has pissed all of us off at some point or another and will continue to, without doubt, moving forward. I'm done. Sorry, I stopped talking. I was staring at your hand.

I might respectfully disagree with Liz's take on what happened the last time we tried to sell City Hall. So what I'm hearing, Liz, maybe specifically from you, is that in two weeks... We are going to have a document to vote on.

Pardon me. What I am saying is in two weeks, we will have a clear path forward. I would prefer to see us execute an RFP. And if there is a mechanism to do that that is not this mechanism, then I will try to have that ironed out in two weeks with the help of the solicitor. I think it sounds to me like most of us feel as though an RFP that prioritizes the specific nature of the development over the purchase price is probably a better way to guarantee good development down there, right? And so if I would prefer to try to figure out if that's a possibility, if we tackle this another way than the city issuing an IFB. If it's not, then we come back and we've got an IFB and we see what shakes out.

You know, and in your head, what's that timeline look like?

I mean, if it's if. we are putting out an invitation for bids and i think we do it in two weeks hopefully anything will only take two weeks but that does depend a little bit on the complexity of if there's another solution then we'll have then we might have to have concerns about what that or conversations pardon me about what that is and whether or not we want to move in that direction so it might take longer than two weeks to get the general you know um to solicit both the administration and council on what they think about a different path. But like I said, the problem is that until this morning, I was under the impression that Dave and I were working with the administration to write an RFP and we could move forward that way. And then I learned from Dave after the call happened that Chris Kenyon had said that we couldn't, but I haven't even been able to talk to Chris Kenyon who had determined that this was not a path we could do.

You couldn't proceed in the method that you were- That we'd spent the last two weeks working on. Right.

So all that I'm saying is- I don't know that we would have had an RFP document totally ready to vote on tonight either. But we were a hell of a lot closer to it before we got the last minute legal counsel that said that we couldn't do it. So that, you know, and now I can try to look at other avenues, but because I didn't get that word until today at 1 p.m., it was hard for me to track down any alternatives between now and then.

And I also don't think that if we pass this resolution tonight, that the administration is going to go out and accept bids and bring them to us to try and, I mean, that's not going to happen, right? I mean, because we obviously, from what I'm hearing tonight, that any of those would get voted down real quick, right? So, yeah. I don't know. This to me, I could go either way on this. But what I can say is that if we vote to table this specific resolution as it's worded tonight and we get back here two weeks and we're still having the same conversation, I will be the first to take it off, to make a resolution to take it off the table and vote on it because I agree with Jonah. We can't get out of our own way. All right. We need to sell the building. And in my opinion, we had a fairly legitimate offer to sell the building last time. Unfortunately, we had a handful of residents who decided to come and express their opinions on that. And that led us to take a step back. So yeah, I don't know. I don't know what else to say, really, but we do need to sell the building, right?

We are clearly not going to take care of the building. We have not done it since 1972.

I like a lot of the things you're saying, but the longer you speak, the more I hear it. time, more time passing, more time passing. And then the next thing you know, it's February and we're still paying to heat city hall. So what I'm saying is that that cannot happen.

I think that all of us are interested in finding a better use for that building before it gets into the kind of shape that would make it hard to find an adaptive reuse for. But I am also concerned that I don't want to make such a hasty decision that it winds up being something we regret. So And, yeah, I'm not, yeah, hard to say what the final outcome of the last round of bids might have been, but I also don't want to wind up in a situation where we're sitting on another three or four bids and we're looking at them and we're trying to decide whether we can make peace with any of them and having some sort of public debate that, you know, I would rather be looking at a bunch of really quality proposals.

Because I'm just going to warn everybody, no matter how good this bid is, night we vote on it we're going to have a room full of people most of them are going to be yelling at us about it okay so i just want to make sure everybody's prepared for that this time that there they can say there are going to be people that are upset about this and they're going to tell you about it before the meeting starts so i just want to make sure we're all ready for that i i can say that the good news about the intervening time is i think that some of those people have also made peace with the idea of selling city hall

So if I may, I think that we've got, we're at a crossroads here. So I could ask for a vote or I could ask if somebody has a motion that they'd like to make.

I will make a motion to table this until July 23rd.

I'll second. Mrs. Frank on motion.

Dr. Yoder.

Yes.

Mr. Milligan.

No.

Mr. Mackey.

No.

Mr. Dessinger.

Yes.

Ms. Mealy? Yes. Mr. Palizzi?

Yes.

Mr. Beiter?

No. Motion passes 4-3. Moving on then, we will go to item number 8.

Resolution authorizing the sale of surplus personal property of the City of Williamsport.

Can I have motion, please? So moved. Second. Ms. Livermore, welcome back.

you good evening everybody hopefully mine is easier than the last decision um this is a just a standard sale of surplus property we plan to sell a 2021 dodge durango um the new durangos went into play so the 2021s are going out so we're just selling one of those because we got a new one any questions concerns comments protests willingness to offer a bid is it a hemi i say wait what are we selling it for i have no idea on both of those uh the people who are selling it have the idea of it's it's at least more than two thousand dollars yeah i can tell you that is listed in leslie seeing hearing no questions concerns mrs frank

Dr. Yoder?

Yes.

Mr. Milligan?

Yes.

Mr. Mack?

Yes.

Mr. Dessinger?

Yes.

Ms. Mealy? Yes. Mr. Palizzi?

Yes.

Mr. Beiter?

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Item number nine is a certificate of appropriateness from HAARP. We have 756 West 3rd Street, removing exterior asphalt roofing from the front porch, replacing sheeting as needed, installing architectural shingles, gray shade, and Dark Drip Edge reinstall existing gutter system. By motion, please. So moved.

Second.

Any questions or concerns about the Certificate of Appropriateness from HAARP? Seeing and hearing none, Mrs. Frank?

Dr. Yoder?

Yes.

Mr. Milligan?

Yes.

Mr. Mackey? Yes. Mr. Dessinger?

Yes.

Ms. Mealy? Yes. Mr. Palizzi?

Yes.

Mr. Beiter?

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Item number 10, except for filing, we have the HAARP meeting minutes from 6-23-26 and the Williamsport Municipal Water Authority and Williamsport Municipal Sanitary Authority minutes. And they are not dated. Do we have a date on those, Mrs. Frank?

I think they were May.

The May minutes. Any questions, concerns, comments about their meeting minutes? Seeing or hearing none, Mrs. Frank?

Dr. Yoder.

Yes.

Excuse me. Mr. Milligan. Yes. Mr. Mackey.

Yes.

Mr. Dessinger.

Yes.

Ms. Mealy. Yes. Mr. Pelosi. Yes. Mr. Beiter.

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Item number 11 is announcements. The next regularly scheduled city council meeting will be held here on Thursday, July 23rd, 2026, 7 p.m. And upcoming meetings, we have July 15th, 10 a.m., blighted property. Thursday, July 16th, at 10.30 a.m., zoning and hearing board. Tuesday, July 21st, at 1 p.m., committee of the whole. At 6.30 p.m., we have HARB. Thursday, July 23rd, 7 p.m., City Council meeting. Any comments from members of the public this evening? Please come up to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.

Hello, my name is Kevin Mackey. I'm on Memorial Avenue. I timed myself for two minutes, 37 seconds. So I'm going to use those 23 seconds to comment on city council's thing with the hall real quick. At about six years, you're looking about $300,000. That property is only supposed to bring in about $14,000 in tax revenue. You guys are up to 20 years. Can't wait for 23 next year. Good evening, Council. First off, I'd like to thank the Williamsport Police for their quick action during the shooting last month. I had family members that were at the pool, and when I was almost there myself, if I was not running for errands at the time. Between this incident and the ones I've cited earlier, I am still concerned for the safety and now the well-being of my own family. Talking with friends and neighbors, there is a desire to create a community alliance of sorts that will help keep people informed and provide free resources as we organize. Some of what I hope to see done are simple things such as helping set up cameras, keeping folks updated on the neighborhood, and coordinating with other resources groups that we do not cover. As the mayor called for action at all levels of this community, this is my part in that. For those interested in learning more about this, I've created an email called togetherwilliamsport at gmail.com. We will be meeting at St. Paul Calvary on Memorial Avenue at noon on July 25th. I'll be here in two weeks as a reminder. My second concern has to do with the operation of the treasurer's office, my old office. As is public knowledge, I left this position because council determined that term limits were needed for this position. In the time I've left, I've heard a few things I won't repeat, but some things that do need to be repeated, as it is our taxes are not being enforced. I'll wait for an answer as I go through these, because I think it is necessary to have this on public record. Article 333 of the Williamsport Quotified Ordinances states that council authorizes and empowers the licensed tax officer, which is the treasurer, to collect the mercantile and business privilege tax. To date, have you given direction to the treasurer on the enforcement of this tax?

I'll let you continue.

No, I'm waiting for an answer.

The answer is that's an independent elected official.

Okay, but he works at your direction. That's what was told to me by the solicitor when I worked for that position.

Again.

Okay, so I'll take that as a no. I have not seen any resolutions on record, nor have I seen anything else talking about this, aside from what I've done right now. Under Article 333.99, the licensed tax officer is authorized to find offenses in the amount of $300 per offense or ask for 90 days imprisonment. Counsel, has your treasurer taken any action to ensure tax laws in Williamsport are being enforced? Just waiting for an answer again. You dare.

But the answer is still the same.

Okay. The answer to this one is none. I checked with the courts today. You know, it's public information and our previous treasurer can confirm that some of that information is public once it goes to the courts. Counsel, did you know I left instructions on how to file complaints and enforce this tax before I left?

Mr. Mackey, I'll say I'm not prepared and I don't want to scare everybody, but I don't know if we're prepared for your questions.

I know. I emailed them to HR before I left. Do you know how many violations are in backlog?

You have one minute left and I will gladly sit here in silence or you can continue.

Okay. I'm just making sure that's on record. The answer is numerous because I can't give an official number, but I know the official number. And you happen... This tax, which has relied over a period of years to atrophy in its enforcement, is not something that can be fixed quickly or without constant effort. You happen to have two of your previous treasurers here tonight who gave a tremendous amount of effort to write this tax. I would like to hear a resolution from this council in two weeks calling for the enforcement of this tax or its revocation. Unenforced taxes are unpaid taxes, which would be no different than what's happened in the past and what's being allowed to happen again now. Your solicitor can provide information on what can occur if your tax base is the one to enforce this issue. Because of the efforts of five individuals on this council to stop the mayor from being elected to another term, he has shot the city in the foot and hampered its revenue collection. That is the Williamsport residents holding the bill for shady businesses not paying their taxes while we try to enjoy the summer without gun violence.

Thank you. You're welcome. Any other comments from members of the public? Other comments from members of council?

I do. Real quick, I would just like to speak to resolution number seven, again, about the sale of City Hall. I voted to table. only because i did not want to convolute the situation absolutely however i would mirror councilman mackie's sentiments that in two weeks if we don't have something i would also look to take this off the table and vote to pass it provided we don't allow city council or the city hall building to turn into an illicit massage parlor or a vape shop or whatever it might be um but yeah uh we gotta HAB-Jacques Juilland, If we're going to take some action to try and keep things in order great but let's not hold it down for so long and get in our own way, I know we all care greatly about it, but let's keep the momentum going.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, smile and comment, thank you. Piggyback off of that, we talked about getting in our own way. Biggest challenge with this issue is that there has never been a long-term plan of where we're going to be in this issue. We didn't talk about it tonight. I hope the mayor is here in two weeks to talk about it, assuming we're going to take some action on this resolution. It was right to table it so that more ducks can get in a row. Look forward to participating in that conversation in two weeks.

Um, yeah, I guess I would just like, uh, to remind our former treasurer that, um, the final, uh, ordinance that we passed says that the mayor can run for a third term, 12 years, um, and that your former office can still run and be elected for 12 years. Um, and it's unfortunate that you decided to resign, uh, while we were still deliberating over eight versus 12, because I'm pretty sure you wanted it to be 12, but you resigned before we could even get there. So it is 12 now, just like the mayor is. So I just wanted to point that out. I'm sorry? I didn't think, we don't have to talk to you about that order. Right. And if you'd like to speak, you can-

Thomas from the public is over.

Let's follow the agenda, please. This conversation can happen after the meeting.

At any rate, Mayor 12, Treasurer 12. City Council 12? Yeah, everybody's 12. I'm not going to be 12. I can tell you that right now.

Council might be 16. I'm not positive.

No, it's 12.

Go right ahead.

I'm just kidding. No, not to shift the tone, but I had a couple residents of Williamsport reach out to me within the last two days with concerns regarding a video that circulated online. And I will begin by saying I don't have the context of this and I don't know the details, but it was a law enforcement individual who we have determined is not a member of the Williamsport police. What appeared to be he was following a teenager in a hoodie The teenager happened to be black. And he was following him and saying, it looks like it's a little warm out to be wearing that jacket. And it was not a good look. And that video has been circulated over 10 million times online. And I know that City of Williamsport police put out a statement today just confirming that it was not one of their activities. employees and i just i guess i want to say that it's a shame because i know that our city police work really hard to build trust within our community um and when something like that happens we we go down a couple notches and i hate to see it so with that being said there there is an event a community event in williamsport that is unrelated to this video this was already in existence um But there's a walk, a community walk on Saturday. It's called Justice for Juveniles Peace Walk. You can find details of it on Facebook. It'll be taking place. It'll be starting at 11 a.m. People will be gathering outside of the Family Dollar on 4th Street. The event is described as, join us as we come together to stand for our youth and bring awareness to the challenges so many teens are facing today. This walk is about showing our children that they are seen, heard, loved, and supported by their community. Every step we take is a reminder that their lives matter and that they are not alone. I will be there. I think it's a great, this is what I want to see in my community. This is people coming together, not even as a protest, just to come together in solidarity and support a community. Yeah, 11 a.m. Saturday, this coming Saturday, outside of Family Dollar on West 4th Street. Thank you very much for that.

Anything else from members of council? Anything from the administration? Anything from the news media? I'll make a motion for adjournment. Second. All in favor? Aye.