The Mayor’s memo before Councilman Callahan’s press conference

logo Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government logo

The action that precipitated Councilman Callahan’s announcement of a press conference on November 25 was this November 18 letter from the Mayor, indicating that the investigation of Ms. Karner that BC had requested a month prior had not been done..

Donchez Callahan letter

Councilman Callahan’s press conference was scheduled at 4PM yesterday afternoon.

Earlier yesterday afternoon of November 25 — that is, before Councilman Callahan’s press conference — Mayor Donchez sent the following 3-page memo to City Council president Waldron.

The memo was sent early enough and distributed enough so that the media and presumably Councilman Callahan were aware of it at the press conference.

Mayor’s memo prior to Callahan press conference

There seem to be three issues here. Let’s separate them out.

  • possible unethical behavior by AMK regarding the Bethlehem Parking Authority decision on the Polk Street Garage (raised by BC at the November 6 City Council meeting)
  • possible unethical behavior by AMK stalling permit approvals in order to justify staff additions in her department
  • breaches of decorum by BC at City Council meetings

The Mayor addressed just the first bullet in this memo, indicating that Councilman Callahan was confusing a “bid” and an “RFP” (Request for Proposal).

Since the BPA decision related to an “RFP” and not a “bid,” there was, according to the Mayor, no improper behavior by AMK.

Chewing on all of this so far?

Now let’s move to the Councilman Callahan press conference.

It’s probably neither here nor there, but remember that Gadfly had some indigestion over the Polk Street Garage decision by BPA.

Come up to speed on Councilman Callahan’s suggestion of possible unethical behavior at City Hall

logo Latest in a series of posts on Ethics and City Government logo

If you haven’t been paying attention, ’tis time to listen up.

A tempest has been brewing around Councilman Callahan for a period of time.

It blew up yesterday when he held a press conference at Town Hall.

There Councilman Callahan suggested that the Director of Community and Economic Development Alicia Miller Karner may have engaged in unethical behavior that Mayor Donchez has been unwilling to investigate.

Gadfly — always the professor — wants to make sure that you are up to speed on this important matter.

Let’s review how we got here.

Here in chronological order over the last three weeks or so are a series of Gadfly posts that will provide recent history of Councilman Callahan’s agitation and provide necessary background for his announcement in public yesterday.

Ok, are you with him so far? Gadfly will spend the next several posts on this topic. There will be more than enough for you to chew on today.

Clear your calendar.

Buckle up.

The Bethlehem Food Co-Op: the question of Council members’ conflict of interest

logo The latest in a series of posts on City government logo

The first question Gadfly had was whether a for-profit like the Bethlehem Food Co-Op could qualify for a federal CBDG grant. All good, as he indicated last time.

The other threshold question about approving the Bethlehem Food Co-Op for the $100,000 federal grant was that of the possible City Council conflict of interest in voting since 6 of 7 members of Council are members — “owners” — of the Co-Op.

Solicitor Spirk parsed the legality of the Council members’ position and found no problem.

Council members’ proportionate ownership is extremely small, the dividends will be extremely small, and membership would not be an issue anyway, since Council could not act if the 6 members recused themselves. Sayeth the Solicitor.

To top things off, Council members spoke of not taking dividends but turning them back to the BFC.

Case closed on the question of conflict of interest.

Gadfly is satisfied that the Bethlehem Food Co-Op grant meets the funding criteria

logo The latest in a series of posts on City government logo

Gadfly would like to bring some closure to the discussion about whether or not the Bethlehem Food Co-op meets the criteria for funding by a Federal government CBDG grant.

Remember that the City approved $100,000 this year but that several residents raised reasonable questions, not about the mission of the Co-op (everybody is enthusiastic about that!) but whether it fit the guidelines for Federal funding.  (See “Co-op” on the Gadfly sidebar to refresh yourself on the discussion so far.)

At the November 6 City Council meeting (see Council video, min. 25), Gadfly (a BFC member) expressed support for the BFC but expressed desire that we had enough specific information about it to know that funding was “cleanly” done and that no “shadow” would fall on the BFC as it progressed forward.

In short, after obtaining additional information, Gadfly is satisfied that the BFC grant meets the funding criteria.

At the November 6 City Council meeting, a number of people spoke in support of the BFC funding (see video, part 1, min. 57:25 and video part 2, the opening 3:25 mins.).

Gadfly thought the presentation most effective at addressing in brief time the specific question of whether the BFC met the guidelines for CBDG funding in a positive manner was done by a woman whom he thinks was Colleen Marsh, past Head of the BFC (video part 2, the opening 3:25 mins.). Gadfly thinks you will find Colleen’s remarks a profitable 3 minutes.

Gadfly obtained the document package provided to prospective grant applicants plus both the 2018 and 2019 BFC applications for the CBDG grant via a Right-to-Know request to the City. Tip o’ the hat to the City staff.

As you can imagine, the paperwork for a government grant is long and dense.

But here are a few important highlights.

From the application package:

CBDG 1

For fiscal year 2020, the BFC applied for $189,840 for physical improvements. The entire application (73 pages) is linked here: Bethlehem Food Co-Op 2019 application.

Here is a key “nutshell” statement of the project:

CBDG 3

For most of us, the first 10 pages or so of BFC’s application will be the most pertinent. Gadfly always encourages followers to go to the primary source and make personal observation and judgments. But here are just a few selections from this opening portion of the application that struck him as fitting the grant guidelines:

CBDG 4

CBDG 5

CBDG 6CBDG 7
There are Gadfly followers more skilled and experienced in such matters than he. Further comments, of course, always welcome.

Bethlehem Environmental Advisory Council News: funding for the Climate Action Plan and a position available

logo The latest in a series of posts relating to the environment, Bethlehem’s Climate
Action Plan, and Bethlehem’s Environmental Advisory Council logo

Lynn Rothman is an Environmental Scientist, having previously worked for the Environmental Protection Agency. She currently chairs the Bethlehem Environmental Advisory Council and serves on the board of the Sustainable Energy Fund, among other volunteer activities with non-profit organizations. 

November 21st Budget Meeting

At the November 21st budget meeting, it was announced that the City budgeted $80,000 for a consultant to complete a Climate Action Plan in 2020 (General Fund p. 166).   The EAC commends the City for moving ahead with this important initiative and its commitment to climate action.  We appreciate the time and effort spent by the Dept. of Public Works to bring us to this point in the process.  The EAC is proud of our City and will continue to assist in the climate action planning process in every way possible.

We also support Councilman Reynolds’ remarks during the budget meeting stating that the City could focus more on sustainability. He emphasized that this is especially important given the uncertainty of the recycling market and because the priority of actions to most effectively manage waste and protect the environment is to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. As Councilman Reynolds stated, “We talk about the idea of building a sustainable city, and we do not have a director of sustainability.”  He continued to say that while many departments are doing a fantastic job of individually contributing to this effort, as we move forward with the Climate Action Plan, there may be an opportunity to have a point person on sustainability, possibly as part of the Dept. of Recycling.

(For Councilman Reynolds’ comments, go to the City video of the November 21 budget meeting, min. 45:30.)

EAC Members

Bethlehem EAC member Kathy Fox has resigned from the council in order to devote more time to her new position as board member of the Bethlehem Food Co-Op. Kathy will be sorely missed on the EAC, where she has been a strong and vocal advocate for sustainability, green infrastructure, and climate action.  Kathy chairs our Solar Energy Committee, and we are fortunate that she will continue her connection with the EAC, albeit in a different capacity.

Residents of Bethlehem City who would like to apply for a position on the EAC may email a letter of interest, along with a resume to Adam Waldron, Council President, at awaldron@bethlehem-pa.gov.  Please copy “Members of City Council” on the letter of interest. When sending, copy the email to Clerks@bethlehem-pa.gov , enabling the City Clerk to distribute your application to Members of Council. Alternatively, a hard copy may be mailed to 10 East Church Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018.

Lynn

It’s Saturday, November 23, do you know where your local Climate Action Plan is?

The community will only improve when trust is built between city hall and the residents

logo Latest in a series of posts on City Government logo

Dana Grubb is a lifelong resident of the City of Bethlehem who worked 27 years for the City of Bethlehem in the department of community and economic development, as sealer of weights and measures, housing rehabilitation finance specialist, grants administrator, acting director of community and economic development, and deputy director of community development.

ref: “I feel community policing is very important”

Gadfly,

I met Lisa for breakfast recently. It was nice to reconnect with her because she was very active in the community when I was a city official and I would attend block watches regularly. I and the then Chief Housing Inspector Mike Palos were regulars at block watch meetings back then usually along with a Community Police Officer who worked out of a substation, and who rode a bike throughout their patrol areas. City hall connected with residents back then through our presence in the neighborhoods, and our accessibility in our offices beyond. Residents could call us at anytime, and we’d get their issues addressed. I could list upwards to 20 officers who were true community policeman, who had developed relationships by being out on the street riding and could count on support during investigations. We were all accessible, and the public could rely on us to get on whatever the matter was.

I understand that nobody from Community and Economic Development attends [block watches] regularly if at all these days and that employees have received direction to not attend. I can’t tell you the last time I saw a cop on a bike, stopped and chatting with several residents. Back in the day those officers took ownership of their bicycle patrol areas, and the residents adopted them and made them their own. Over time many of those connections were lost as officers advanced in rank and moved around in the Police Department.

Mike Palos and I were “Bethlehem guys,” having grown up in Bethlehem. A number of the officers were as well. The Community Police Officers riding their bikes compare very favorably to the imprint today’s Mounted Police Patrol makes throughout the town.

Getting back to Lisa, she was one of those Bethlehem neighbors who worked closely with every one of us, because she cared. She’s not alone, but if city hall remains aloof to neighborhoods around town, people like Lisa can grow frustrated. An occasional incursion into a neighborhood to install smoke detectors and maybe sweep the streets and do some exterior inspections is only a piece of the equation. You need city hall to be there, to create points of contact that are responsive and productive.

It was great to watch Lisa turn out. There are more residents who will do that. Some did on Main Street, but at the end of the day the community will only improve when trust is built between city hall and the residents. That takes time, empathy, and action. As deputy director of community development, I was constantly reinforcing with employees, our inspectors, secretaries, and administrative staff that we needed to treat each situation like it was happening next door to us, our parents, our best friends. With that in mind, city staff could relate and provide a higher level of service to Bethlehem. It’s an attitude, something many of my generation of city employees lament has been lost.

Dana >

Councilwoman Crampsie Smith: “This area needs to really be given attention”

logo Latest in a series of posts about neighborhoods logo

Gadfly wraps up today’s long “neighborhood” thread from last Tuesday’s City Council meeting here.

He loves the real down-to-earth people from our town, and they are no more compelling than when they are in need.

He spun this thread out hoping you would linger on each of the resident testimonies.

You don’t want to depend on summaries and soundbites.

You want to hear the live voices. And recognize the common humanity.

So, where do you go when you are in need? When you are in trouble. When you need help.

You go to City Council, of course, which, as I always say, though administratively powerless, is to our residents the “face” of City government.

So these people came to City Council looking for someone to help.

Gadfly doesn’t mean to slight the other Council members, but he senses that in her short time on Council Grace Crampsie Smith, who has a family background in law enforcement, is focusing on such neighborhood issues as block watches, policing, housing.

So he brings this thread to an end (for now) with Councilwoman Crampsie Smith’s concluding remarks on the issues these residents brought to Council’s attention.

  • While we want every single neighborhood in the City to be safe, we are seeing certainly an increase in drug problems and poverty and homelessness and affordable housing, but I think this area needs to really be given attention because of the number of drug and criminal activities that have occurred in the last five years.
  • I really would ask that the City Administration and the Police Department and especially the Zoning do everything they can to try to rectify the problems we’ve been seeing.

It may not be clear from Gadfly’s clips that the main focus of attention in the resident comments has been on the 900 block of Main St., with some reference to Garrison St.

“I feel community policing is very important”

logo Latest in a series of posts about neighborhoods logo

A resident proposes a plan in response to the problems detailed over the last several posts, and — behold — we see another gadfly born!

  • I know many of the older police, and we managed to clean up quite a few blocks.
  • I feel community policing is very important, because it is the only way that citizens get to see that police are human too.
  • We became good friends.
  • And we managed to get good block watches going.
  • I hear now that nobody wants to get involved any more in community policing.
  • Some may not admit it, but they are afraid — and I understand that totally.
  • Because I’m afraid . . . some guy pulled a gun in front of my house at me.
  • I was pretty much a prisoner of my own home.
  • Community policing has done a lot for me and other people.
  • So I would really like to see something done with this.
  • Get officers in to this, I’ll even volunteer to work with them.
  • This is a very important part of the police department.
  • If they’re afraid to go out there and talk to people, that’s not good.
  • I’m going to be a thorn in everybody’s side, but I’m doing it for the good of my home, which is Bethlehem.

Gadfly knows this is a big change of pace, but how about this as an example of good community policing?

“We have so many issues on our block”

logo Latest in a series of posts about neighborhoods logo

No Gadfly comment needed here either . . .

  • We do have a block watch now [900 block Main st.].
  • We just call the cops all the time.
  • We have so many issues on our block.
  • I keep complaining to the Health Department and finally they were inspected.
  • So we keep complaining . . . and nothing’s being done.
  • I’m curious what you plan on doing to rectify this, to make it a safer environment.
  • We have a daycare, a grade school . . . It’s not safe to walk up and down the street.
  • What can you do to make it safer?
  • I would think there would be more due diligence.

Councilman plans to address concerns about potential unethical practices in a City department

logo Latest in a series of posts on City Government logo

Mayor/Council Speech 11-19-19

Councilman Callahan now publicly identifies the City Department of Community and Economic Development as the source of the concerns that he brought to the Mayor’s attention and which he does not feel have been resolved to his satisfaction.

PRESS ADVISORY

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 22, 2019

Contact: Bryan Callahan 610-730-8658

 BETHLEHEM COUNCILMAN BRYAN CALLAHAN TO ADDRESS MAYOR DONCHEZ STATEMENT TO COUNCIL & CONCERNS RAISED REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

 WHEN:   Monday, November 25, 2019

TIME:     4:00 PM

WHERE: Bethlehem City Hall Council Chambers

10 E Church St, Bethlehem, PA

Monday, November 25, 2019 at 4:00 PM in Bethlehem City Council Chambers, Councilman Callahan will address the public statement Mayor Donchez made at council directed toward Councilman Callahan, and will discuss the concerns the Councilman raised to the Mayor regarding the potential practices of the Department of Community and Economic Development, which impact citizens and business owners in Bethlehem, and are directly connected to the public statement by the Mayor.

It has always been Councilman Callahan’s position that Council and the City of Bethlehem has an obligation to the citizens they serve to be open and transparent.

“There’s a meth lab on the corner”

logo Latest in a series of posts about neighborhoods logo

Needs no commentary . . .

  • There was a shooting on our block . . . over drugs.
  • There are homes on our block that are known to be selling drugs.
  • I’ve called the police time and time again. Nothing is being done.
  • There’s a meth lab on the corner.
  • We need to do something . . . to take control of our homes and our neighborhoods.
  • It’s not safe for our children to go out and walk.
  • This is crazy, and nobody’s doing anything about it.
  • I worry about our next generation.
  • Do you want everybody to move out of Bethlehem because it’s not safe any more?
  • Nothing was ever in the newspaper about the shooting.
  • I understand that the police force needs more officers.
  • We need to do something.
  • We do our due diligence. We need protection, and it’s not there any more.
  • I’m afraid.
  • No one’s doing anything about it.
  • I get they’re understaffed.
  • My taxes should be going to safety.

to be continued . . .

“We do have a drug problem here in Bethlehem”

logo Latest in a series of posts about neighborhoods logo

Public comment at the City Council meeting last Tuesday night had more than the usual “edge” to it as a series of residents made moving and powerful statements about problems in their neighborhoods revolving around drugs and called for more policing, especially community policing.

A few posts ago Gadfly called attention to the return to active duty of resident Gadfly Eddie Rodriguez. Here you can see him forcefully and bluntly consolidating the message that several other residents delivered and which Gadfly will present in subsequent posts.

But for now listen to Rodriquez presenting the problem and calling for action.

Gadfly’s idyllic Norman Rockwell image of Bethlehem took a hit.

  • I would like something to be done.
  • We do have a drug problem here in Bethlehem.
  • It’s important to take the input from these community members.
  • These community members are scared.
  • I know for a fact that what these people [neighbors] are commenting on, that is happening.
  • These people [drug people] are not going to give up just because you had a drug raid.
  • You have more drugs down on Garrison Street than what anybody suspects here.
  • I came from that world . . . so I know, personally myself, as to what’s happening in these communities.
  • If you’re not doing anything, it’s not going to happen.
  • You have to get involved, really involved, and bust these people.
  • It’s the drugs.
  • They don’t give a darn about what they do and how they do it and they don’t care about your churches and they don’t care about your community.
  • They are out to destroy.
  • Do something about it before this situation gets out of hand.
  • I’m pleading with you for the sake of the decent-living community members that came out here.
  • Do something now before it’s too late.
  • You gotta get the police more involved.

to be continued . . .

Good news on the progress of a pedestrian bridge study

logo Latest in a series of posts on Walkability and Bikeability logo

Gadfly reported a few days ago that the Rose Garden was awarded a $210,000 grant.

But was not aware that in the same grant bundle the City was awarded $40,000 for the study of a pedestrian bridge.

See Senator Boscola’s bulletin: http://www.senatorboscola.com/enews/2019_11_19_BB.htm

And, in addition, the Mayor announced at Council Tuesday night that the County has approved a $60,000 grant application for the bridge as well.

Well-informed commenters offer more relevant comments

logo Latest in a series of posts on City Government logo

ssinsider is known to Gadfly but prefers to remain anonymous.

Gadfly:

Although I was not able to make the meeting to which Dr. Pooley refers, I would definitely second his requests for technological or even duplicate easel displays of the presentations that are made at each Planning Commission meeting, as well as his request to find some way to share as much as possible with the public before meetings occur. If public participation is, indeed, welcomed as part of the process and is taken into serious consideration by the PC, it would help to allow residents to think about their concerns and comments (both positive and negative) well before they might step up to the microphone. With more facts at hand, the comments would be more meaningful (and perhaps even more concise!). And with better information shared ahead of time, as well as greater knowledge gleaned from renderings, etc. that are made visible and shared at the PC meeting, well-informed commenters will inevitably be able to offer more significant, relevant comments to help the PC members with their decision-making . . . IF they are genuinely open to that kind of public engagement.

ssider

Councilman Callahan charges “unethical behavior” / Mayor Donchez charges “unwarranted personal attack”

logo Latest in a series of posts on City Government logo

November 19 City Council meeting video

Bethlehem Mayor Robert Donchez on Tuesday said he would consider changing the 57-year tradition of cabinet members attending City Council meetings if there’s another “unwarranted personal attack” on a member of his administration like the one Councilman Bryan Callahan made at a recent council meeting. Reading from a four-page speech before City Council, Donchez did not mention Callahan by name or the details of the comments he found objectionable. The mayor made a reference to the Nov. 6 meeting when Callahan called the actions of a top mayor’s aide “unethical” and last Thursday’s budget hearing where Callahan had sometimes testy exchanges with council members during discussion on the city’s golf course.
Nicole Radzievich, Morning Call, November 20, 2019

 Gadfly always, always, always says go to the primary sources.

So he attempts to provide you here with a chronological list of the key moments you need to understand the Mayor’s (in Gadfly’s time) rather unprecedented statement — an indictment of Councilman Callahan’s recent behavior.

In addition to engaging in disruptive argumentative skirmishes with other members of Council in recent weeks (see Gadfly’s links above), Councilman Callahan believes a member of the Donchez administration should be investigated for unethical behavior, making what is in effect a  charge of professional homicide against an unnamed but easily identified department head in public — but without any details. All innuendo.

Serious stuff.

Follow the bouncing ball through the links below to moments of the November 19 City Council meeting. It will take you a little time, but well worth it.

1) Eddie Rodriquez (1 min.):

Yours truly has heard Eddie’s name mentioned as a diligent Gadfly-of-the-past. He has started to attend Council meetings again, thus catching the recent bad behavior, and — coincidentally — forcefully calling for its end during public comment at the top of the meeting, that is, before we knew what was coming.

  • “I’d like to ask that the Board members here not debate amongst each other, not to be critical.”
  • “You are supposed to be the prime example for all of us.”
  • “I would like the chairman . . . you are the Sergeant of Arms . . . when you say that’s it, that’s it.”

2) Mayor Donchez (3 mins.):

The Mayor rarely speaks at Council. But here he is with fairly lengthy prepared statement, which Gadfly hopes to have a printed copy of to post soon. The Mayor cites insult to his administration, the Council’s loss of reputation, and the damage to the working relationship between the two. He dangles the possibility of a decidedly unwelcome next step if the behavior continues.

  • “I participated in debates over many controversial issues . . . Debate was intense, with strong opinions, but personal attacks were not part of the process.”
  • “I am more aware than anyone of the importance of the relationship between the administration and City Council.”
  • “Bethlehem City Council has always been known for its decorum, professionalism, and respect for different points of view.”
  • “We’ve been the model for many communities on how to conduct government business.”
  • “Over the past several months there has been a major regression from that standard.”
  • “I’m not talking about votes. I’m talking about provocative comments and personal attacks which seem to originate from a member of City Council.”
  • “The departures are having a disproportionate negative impact on working relationships and Council’s reputation.”
  • “Council members have been unfairly challenged to choose between engaging at the risk of escalation or to answer with silence.”
  • “The personal attack [at a member of my administration] was unprovoked, out of order, without cause,  completely out of line.”
  • “The members of my administration are professionals . . . I will not subject members of my administration of any more personal attacks.”
  • “Decorum suffered again when a Council member did not get the answer he wanted.”
  • “There are benefits [to the tradition of having the Mayor attend City Council meetings].”
  • “In the future, if there is another unwarranted personal attack . . . I will consider changing that tradition.”
  • “There have been some recent departures from decorum and professionalism that I feel obligated . . . to address.”

3) Councilman Callahan (5 mins.):

At last Thursday’s budget hearing, Councilman Callahan demonstrated the lack of decorum the Mayor spoke of, but here at the Council meeting he makes his golf course proposal in a calm, straightforward way, not one to distress decorum.

  • “All I’m asking for is a children’s rate [at the golf driving range] like we do on every other recreational fee.”
  • “The City of Bethlehem should be encouraging kids to stay outside an be active and stay off the streets.”
  • proposes change from adult rate of $10/bucket to $5
  • “This is a vote for kids.”
  • “I’m for kids first.”
  • “I’m fighting for kids to be active and off the streets.”

4) Response to and discussion of the Mayor’s statement (6 mins.):

Councilman Callahan states that it is his duty and right to point out administrative wrongdoing to the Mayor, that there was mutual blame to the decorum lapse at the November 6 meeting, and that he and the residents of the City like and want debate out in the open. (Note Councilwoman Negron leaving as Councilman Callahan speaks.)

The Mayor states the desire for and value of debate, but it’s the “tone” that is the problem.

President Waldron notes the positive difference in Councilman Callahan’s “approach” (tone) tonight over his behavior at the budget hearing.

Councilman Callahan wonders why he’s being judged on tone; it’s just the way he speaks; and he says look at the video: others made comments before he did.

Councilman Reynolds (2 mins.):

Councilman Reynolds thanks the Mayor for his “strong statement” about how business should be handled and indicates that he and Council don’t have information on the unethical behavior Councilman Callahan has raised and he looks forward to conversation about it.

Councilman Callahan’s concluding remarks (2 mins.):

Councilman Callahan makes clear that he is not charging the Mayor or his entire administration with wrongdoing but a department head and not just for one thing “but a couple things.” He offers to disclose his information — “of such a serious nature that everybody on Council needs to know about it” — right then and there — but the Mayor says that from his perspective it is a personnel matter (and thus confidential).  Councilman Callahan speaks of a “private letter that is “very disappointing” — a letter the nature of which he does not describe, though one guesses it is from the City about their investigation of the matter.

We may be heading for a car wreck here. Maybe time for Gadfly to pull together various observations of Councilman Callahan over the past year or two.

to be continued . . .

Decorum d’issue at City Council last night

logo Latest in a series of posts on City Government logo

So Gadfly always tells you that you can’t tell a meeting from its agenda.

Look what happened last night at City Council.

The Mayor and Councilman Callahan kind of getting in to it.

Chew on the news stories.

Gadfly will go deeper next time.

Sara Satullo, “Bethlehem mayor clashes with councilman over ‘unwarranted personal attack’.” lehighvalleylive.com, November 20, 2019.

Bethlehem’s mayor on Tuesday urged his city council to return to the decorum it’s typically known for and threatened changes if members of his cabinet are again subjected to “an unwarranted personal attack.”

While Mayor Bob Donchez never addressed Councilman Bryan Callahan by name, his comments were prompted by recent heated exchanges between Callahan and fellow council members and the mayor’s top staff members. After the meeting, the mayor said he did not name Callahan because everyone knew who he was talking about.

“I am not talking about votes. I am talking (about) provocative comments and personal attacks, which seem to originate from a member of city council,” Donchez said reading from a four-page speech during Tuesday night’s council meeting. “While, for the most part, meetings proceed normally, the departures are having a disproportionate negative impact on working relationships and council’s reputation.”

Callahan argued he wants to debate city issues in the open, not in a backroom, and said he felt it was his duty as a councilman to alert the mayor to potential wrongdoing.

“I don’t think any of us want to stifle debate,” the mayor said. “It’s the tone.”

The mayor felt he had to speak up on the heels of a Nov. 6 council meeting where Callahan accused city Director of Community and Economic Development Alicia Miller Karner of “unethical” behavior. It came after months of council meetings devolving during the new business portion of meetings where Callahan laid out his concerns and council President Adam Waldron sought to rein him in and urged him to respect his colleagues.

“The personal attack was unprovoked, out of order, without cause and completely out of line,” Donchez said Tuesday during the meeting. Donchez spent 18 years on council and is in his sixth year as mayor. “The members of my administration are professionals. They work hard for the city and value the working relationship they have with city council.”

Callahan’s allegation stems from Karner’s role on a city committee tasked with evaluating requests-for-proposals from developers interested in getting in on the Bethlehem Parking Authority’s new Polk Street parking garage.

The city committee recommended the authority select Nova Development and Allied Building Corporation’s proposal. But the authority board opted to go with a Peron Development and J.G. Petrucci Co. plan that offered $200,000 more for the land. In a memo, the city committee said the difference in purchase price was not the only financial aspect to consider and pointed to the large gap in contracted parking spaces. Callahan questioned whether Karner inappropriately lobbied the authority to select the Nova/Allied proposal.

Councilman Callahan’s brother and former city Mayor John Callahan is director of business development for Peron, owned by developer Michael Perrucci.

Following the meeting, Donchez said there was no merit to the accusation following a review by Business Manager Eric Evans and city Solicitor William P. Leeson. The mayor noted he recused himself from the investigation because his son works for Perrucci’s law firm.

If there is another “unwarranted attack” the mayor threatened to end the city’s 58-year tradition of having the mayor’s cabinet members attend council meetings to explain items on the agenda, answer questions and try to resolve citizens’ issues.

“I will not subject members of my administration to any more personal attacks in the future,” the mayor vowed.

At council’s Nov. 13 budget hearing, things got tense between Callahan, a city officials and members of council as the councilman accused the city of “sticking it” to kids using the driving range when charging them for a full of bucket of balls. He was urging discounted pricing for the golf balls similar to the discounted youth golf rounds.

Callahan again raised the same concern Tuesday evening during a budget vote on the golf course fund, but took a much more collegial approach, urging his colleagues to support his suggestion that there be a discounted youth rate.

“I would recommend this vote for the kids,” Callahan said.

Waldron told Callahan he appreciated the way he laid out his thoughts Tuesday evening and noted that the councilman would need to bring forward a separate resolution to change the fee.

Nicole Radzievich, “Bethlehem Mayor Robert Donchez criticizes councilman for ‘unwarranted personal attack’.” Morning Call, November 20, 2019.

Bethlehem Mayor Robert Donchez on Tuesday said he would consider changing the 57-year tradition of cabinet members attending City Council meetings if there’s another “unwarranted personal attack” on a member of his administration like the one Councilman Bryan Callahan made at a recent council meeting.

Reading from a four-page speech before City Council, Donchez did not mention Callahan by name or the details of the comments he found objectionable. The mayor made a reference to the Nov. 6 meeting when Callahan called the actions of a top mayor’s aide “unethical” and last Thursday’s budget hearing where Callahan had sometimes testy exchanges with council members during discussion on the city’s golf course.

Donchez said his comments were not prompted by differences in policy but the tone of “one member of council” whose attacks were “unprovoked, out of order, without cause and completely out of line.” “I will not subject members of my administration to any more personal attacks in the future,” he said.

Callahan said he would reserve his response to Donchez’s remarks and likely hold a news conference. He added that he has the right to point out a possible impropriety as he sees it and debate in the open rather than in back rooms.

“The fact that I like to debate in the open is a good thing,” Callahan said. “I think the residents want it.”

Donchez, mayor for six years and councilman for 18 years, said council has a reputation of preserving political decorum and professionalism even during the most heated debates, including over whether a casino should be built in Bethlehem, but there have been moments of departure in recent months.

“While, for the most part, the meetings proceed normally, the departures are having a disproportionate negative impact on working relationships and council’s reputation,” he said. “Council members have been unfairly challenged to choose between engaging at the risk of escalation or answer with silence.”

Councilman J. William Reynolds on Tuesday thanked the mayor for speaking up about what he agreed to be a breakdown in decorum at council meetings.

Over the last few months, Council President Adam Waldron has told Callahan he was being disrespectful to colleagues and called those moments at the meetings “cringe-worthy” and “embarrassing.” Council members Paige Van Wirt and Olga Negron have called points of order because Callahan was violating its rules on decorum, such as assigning motives to actions. Reynolds, a one-time political ally of Callahan’s and a possible rival in the next mayor election, has said Callahan has no working relationship with council members, a characterization Callahan objects to.

Callahan, a two-term councilman and chairman of council’s finance committee, has defended his behavior. He said his questions are legitimate, he has a right to air his opinions and other council members violate the rules of order and make snide remarks without being called on it.

Callahan tangled with Reynolds at an Aug. 20 meeting over a zoning hearing board appointment, accusing him of hypocritical behavior. On Nov. 6, he called actions of Alicia Miller Karner, city director of community and economic development, as “unethical” during a discussion that began with questions about a South Side planning study. After that comment, Waldron said he hoped Karner, who was sitting on the edge of her seat, would not “lower herself” to respond, and then she pushed back in her seat and did not respond.

Karner, who was not at Tuesday’s meeting, said in an interview Wednesday that she has acted ethically in her 22 years of public service, but it was hard to address Callahan’s criticism without details. She said she would be happy to clear up any misunderstandings Callahan may have heard from others.

And last Thursday, during a lengthy discussion about the city’s golf course, Callahan, council members and a golf official sometimes talked over each other as Callahan questioned why the city was “sticking it” to kids by charging them the full price for a bucket of balls. The city offers discounted prices for youth golf rounds and season passes, he pointed out. Callahan said he would rather a kid drive balls on the course than be up to no good somewhere else. A city official said it was industry standard, and Councilwoman Grace Crampsie Smith noted the city offers free and discounted golf through youth programs including the First Tee.

When Van Wirt asked to be recognized to pose a “budget question,” Callahan said he wasn’t finished and to “take a seat for a second.” A few minutes later, he called her rude when she asked to be recognized again before he was done with his questions. Later during that budget hearing, Waldron admonished Callahan for interrupting him and “just about everybody in this room.”

“No, she interrupted me,” Callahan had said Feb. 13, pointing at Van Wirt.

It’s not the Zoning Hearing Board’s responsibility to craft strategy on behalf of the residents of Bethlehem

logo Latest in a series of posts about neighborhoods logo

Dana Grubb is a lifelong resident of the City of Bethlehem who worked 27 years for the City of Bethlehem in the department of community and economic development, as sealer of weights and measures, housing rehabilitation finance specialist, grants administrator, acting director of community and economic development, and deputy director of community development.

Gadfly:

Your header regarding ZHB decisions indicating a desire to change Bethlehem’s character is a very interesting one. However, it’s not the ZHB’s responsibility to craft any overall desire or strategy on behalf of the residents of Bethlehem. Rather it’s their responsibility to review and act upon each request on a case by case basis. A recent commenter on a post I placed on my Facebook page expressed it succinctly when she wrote, “a zoning board is supposed to uphold the “essential character of the neighborhood.”

Dana

Zoning Hearing Board decisions may indicate a desire to change Bethlehem’s character

logo Latest in a series of posts about neighborhoods logo

Gadfly #2 Bill Scheirer does the math (probably a 1000 new apartment units on line) and makes us wonder if there is a conscious policy to change the character of our town.

In the approaching Christmas season during which we all will be watching “It’s a Wonderful Life” again (and again), Bill makes Gadfly #00 think of Bethlehem as Bedford Falls and reminds him of the resident in public comment at Council a year or so ago who spoke of the “Capra-esque” quality of our town.

We do have that kind of charm.

Are we in danger of losing it?

  • “We have constructed or proposed or in various stages of approval 12 apartment projects in the City of Bethlehem, 5 on the Southside, 4 on the West Side, and 3 on the Northside.”
  • “Let’s say 30 variances were requested, 2 were rejected.”
  • “That’s a 90% approval rate when a developer appears before the Zoning Hearing Board.”
  • “It would seem that the Zoning Hearing Board has a desire to see Bethlehem change, change its character.”
  • “And it’s up to us to decide if that’s what we want Bethlehem to become.”
  • “Do we want it to become a more dynamic and more busy and more congested and more noisy and become like many other small cities with pretensions.”

The 2 W. Market beat goes on

logo 88th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St logo

Gadfly has lost count. But there was another 4hr meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board last week on the challenge to the validity of a text amendment to the “storefront”  ordinance originally intended to apply to properties like the one on the left but benefiting 2 W. Market on the right — an ordinance passed by a Council, in Gadfly’s opinion, not in its best hour.

This is the 88th post on the long history over the controversy of the zoning on 2 W. Market, and followers can refresh themselves on that history by clicking the link on the Gadfly sidebar.

Gadfly loves examples of citizen participation, of which there were several at this meeting, and he invites you here to both learn about the issues surrounding 2 W. Market and to enjoy a model of good citizenship through the testimony of Paige Van Wirt.

How does this zoning amendment impair or impede the residential character of the neighborhood? (3 mins.)

  • “There’s no families in this business to watch little kids on the street, there’s nobody to see that somebody fell down on the corner.”

What are your concerns given that this property is on the edge of a commercial district? (1 min.)

  • “Now this neighborhood is struggling to come back and have a full residential character to it. Any conversion . . . of a previously healthy residential home . . . is going to erode the fabric of my neighborhood.”

Do you have concerns about commercial creep? (1 min.)

  • “This does give a signal that our neighborhood’s zoning is not a wall.”

Will this amendment erode the reliability of the zoning ordinance? (1 min.)

  • “As a homeowner . . . I would be much less inclined to buy a property on this block if I felt there were going to be more commercial/residential flips.”

Describe the importance of drafting the memo to the City Planning Director asking for more data? (2 mins.)

  • “My concern was that there was no impact study done by the City. . . . that we were asked at City Council to adopt an ordinance where there had been no data and research done.”

Does the amendment support the general health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Bethlehem? (1 min.)

  • “I understand why this is in the best interests of Quadrant, I get it, they did a great job on the building, but it doesn’t pass the litmus test of being in the best interest of the City, and that’s fundamentally what City Council is here as a representative body of the citizens of Bethlehem to do.”

Interesting material came out as Van Wirt parried with one of the attorneys under cross-examination. (9 mins.)

  • “This is a border neighborhood. . . . You’re not going to go six blocks in to the middle of Wall St. to try to set up a business there.”

Are you familiar with uses of the properties on your block? (1 min.)

  • “If this amendment could be so broadly applied that it would affect my own home, it made me understand the potential impact this would have on the rest of the City.”

Why did you wait so long before requesting data from the City? (2 mins.)

  • “Call me naive, but I never thought it would get that far. Once it was apparent that there was enough people on Council considering voting for it, that’s when I said, O, my God, I’ve got to show them, I’ve got to prove to Council why this is not in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Bethlehem. . . . That’s my job”

The hearing board will convene again December 11 to continue consideration of this case.

Planning Committee needs to take public-trust-building steps

logo Latest in a series of posts on City Government logo

Gadfly earlier this week reported the desire to have last Thursday’s Planning Commission meeting on the Armory moved from 4PM to a later time to accommodate the work schedules of more residents who wanted to attend. That didn’t happen, though residents were afforded the opportunity to make appointments to view planning documents in City Hall. At the meeting, moreover, residents were thwarted by and complained about inability to see the plans proposed, which were displayed on easels in front of the Head Table and visible only to the Commission members. Resident spectators could not see what the developer was showing the Commission. Beginning January the PC will move its meeting time to 5PM, which, though not perfect, is a step in the right direction. But, as Armory neighbor Jeff Pooley points out in the audio clip from the meeting and this email below, there are additional steps needed to make PC meetings resident friendly. Jeff describes that the effect if not the intent of PC practice is to “exclude” the neighbors, of creating a feeling of “not encouraging public comment.”

November 15, 2019

To: Darlene Heller, Director of Planning; Tracy Samuelson, Assistant Director of Planning; Rob Melosky, Planning Commission Chair

Dear Darlene, Tracy and Rob (if I may),

I am writing a quick follow up to the Planning Commission meeting last night—not about the substance, but about the public-input issues I raised in my comments. (I was one of the members of the public who spoke about the Armory application.)

Let me first say that I was, and remain, very grateful for your kind help, Tracy, when you showed me through the plans and answered my questions. Rob, I want to commend you for running a humane and fair meeting, with real empathy for residents and their concerns. It was noticed, and appreciated.

If I left with a bad taste in my mouth, it was entirely about the process up to and including the meeting—and that’s why I’m writing. (I am cc’ing Ed Gallagher, who I know shares some of these concerns.)

The news about the shift to 6pm meetings is genuinely thrilling, and answers one of my concerns. The City and Planning Commission could make additional, small moves in the same spirit—to encourage public input.

The first would be to post all application materials, including the City’s reply letter, as one or more PDF downloads on the City’s website.

The second would be to project those plans/PDF on the existing projection system during meetings, so the public is not shut out (as happened last night).

Every document in any application—even the large architectural renderings—now exists as a digital document. It would be a trivial matter to collect them into one or more PDFs for (1) download prior to a meeting and (2) digital display during the meeting. If materials are now delivered in paper form, the City could require digital copies too.

(Just to be clear, the PDF download that *was* posted prior to the meeting was a tiny, and completely uninformative, subset of the application that the public is entitled to. That is not what I am referring to.)

In the meantime—while a system like this is being implemented—my strong recommendation is that members of the public be permitted to take photographs, and or make copies (at a reasonable fee), of these public documents. I honestly wonder whether that restriction is even legal.

These seem, from the outside, like legitimacy- and public-trust-building steps that are nearly cost-fee. There’s certainly no justification, in 2019, for not sharing digital copies, nor for relying exclusively on unidirectional easels that, in effect, exclude the public.

I would love to work with you, and help in any way (including technical advice, given my day job 🙂 ), to make these small changes happen. I was pretty frustrated, and want to channel that feeling into helping to make a change—one that seems utterly feasible.

Thanks for reading.
Sincerely
Jeff
Needless to say, Jeff’s points apply to other City agencies as well using Town Hall. We need to keep pushing for the means for effective public participation in all areas of City government.

The cost to the quality of life from development could be greatly lessened if there was a true spirit of cooperation and collaboration

logo Latest in a series of posts on the Armory logo

Dana Grubb is a lifelong resident of the City of Bethlehem who worked 27 years for the City of Bethlehem in the department of community and economic development, as sealer of weights and measures, housing rehabilitation finance specialist, grants administrator, acting director of community and economic development, and deputy director of community development.

Gadfly,

I have to chuckle at the “we’re communicating” comment. Communication suggests two way listening and achieving some sort of consensus and compromise as a result. That has certainly not been the case here and in a number of other areas of Bethlehem. It’s a lot easier for some to cry NIMBY, but the usual fact of the matter is that residents in established areas are open to development, but they want it to be compatible with the established environment, which it usually isn’t. I think it’s fantastic that people want to invest in Bethlehem, but it comes at a cost to the quality of life, which I believe could be greatly lessened if there was a true spirit of cooperation and collaboration between those already here and those who are coming. Establishing that kind of landscape in any community takes leadership. I’ll leave my observation at that.

Dana

Emergency shelter for the homeless not permitted to open early

logo Latest in a series of posts about Northside neighborhoods  logo

A post on the Next Door Mauch Chunk blog urges residents to attend the November 19 City Council meeting to discuss this.

Sara Satullo, “Complaint forces Bethlehem cold-weather homeless shelter to ditch early opening amid frigid temps.” lehighvalleylive.com, November 15, 2019.

Bethlehem’s emergency shelter for the homeless hoped to open for the season early due to the Lehigh Valley’s deep freeze but a neighbor complaint thwarted the effort.

In 2017, the shelter at Christ Church United Church of Christ, 72. E. Market St., got zoning approval to operate from Dec. 1 to March 31 each year. On average, the church houses 65 men and women from 5 p.m. until 7 a.m. each night.

Posts on the group’s Facebook page indicate the shelter hoped to open on Friday evening as the region’s been gripped by frigid air with temperatures dropping well-below freezing at night. Overnight temperatures Friday and Saturday are set to dip to lows of 26 and 25 degrees.

But it seems a neighbor complained, forcing the shelter to adhere to the schedule approved by the Bethlehem Zoning Hearing Board.

“All of us who support BES and our mission to serve our street neighbors are deeply disappointed in the situation that forced us to delay our opening until December 1. However, the board is requesting that people refrain from making any disparaging comments about those in the neighborhood or others who have voiced concerns about the shelter,” Bethlehem Emergency Sheltering board chair Rodney Conn said in a statement posted on the group’s Facebook page. “We have and continue to work with the community to ensure that the Shelter operations provide security to our neighbors, the Church, our volunteers, and our guests. Thank you for your cooperation.”

The nonprofit group began hosting rotating shelters for men and women at area churches in 2009. It was a realization of a dream when in December 2017 the nonprofit opened a permanent co-ed shelter in the heart of the city’s Historic District.

The shelter and the city began requiring anyone staying at the shelter to first register at the nearby police station to obtain a voucher last year in response to neighbor complaints. Police run a criminal check to ensure a person does not have outstanding warrants or is a sex offender.

The church also hired professional security guards last year and installed surveillance cameras in response to neighbor complaints.

Discussion of the golf course budget drifts off the fairway

logo 9th in a series of posts on the 2020 Budget logo

Before going any further, Gadfly invites you to spend a light few minutes with the public comment by Jack Hoy (Huy?) at the last City Council meeting.

82-year-old Mr. Hoy gave us all a few chuckles as, bringing several clubs as exhibits, he proclaimed his pride and appreciation in the Bethlehem Golf Course that signaled the dramatic, positive change there over the past year.

Hoy was such a great warm and sincere salesman for this major part of our recreational system that at Wednesday’s budget hearing Council members quipped that he was a plant by Business Manager Eric Evans to support the Golf budget statements.

You might remember that back in 2018 the golf course was a hot issue. It was losing money and deteriorating in quality. Should we sell it, lease it, dedicate a pot of money to it??  Tricky issue. And a high priority for many vocal residents.

There was a meeting in which Town Hall was filled with angry and concerned golfers, the like of which Gadfly hadn’t seen and won’t soon forget.

Business Manager Eric Evans seemed to take charge of the course’s fate, advocating for a viable future path. The decision was to make the course operate as a business and to be self-supporting, and Larry Kelchner — a retired businessman — was hired to manage the course.

Mr. Kelchner was impressive at the budget hearing Wednesday, and the performance of the course over the year has even changed Councilwoman Van Wirt’s mind about it — because last year she was skeptical about the course’s future.

So Mr. Kelchner pretty much simply received plaudits and engaged in congenial conversation till it was if someone stepped on a landmine unobtrusively planted in a fairway and for several minutes the meeting blew up.

Please go to the City video of Wednesday’s budget hearing #2, part 4 min. 21:20 to the end and part #5 up to min. 12:15.

You know that an important part of Gadfly’s mission is to help and encourage you to know your Councilpeople so that when it comes time to vote you are doing so as well informed as you can be.

This 15 mins. is well worth viewing in this respect.

Councilman Callahan raised a legitimate question about the difference in cost between adults and kids for greens fees and season passes but not at the driving range and claimed that was driving (no pun intended) kids away from golfing there.

For instance, a round of golf on the 18hole course is $24 for adults, $16 for kids, but at the driving range it’s $10/bucket for both — same price. At one point BC seemed to be asking for a reduction to $5, on the grounds that the differential in the other fees made the case that we recognized that kids can’t afford the same as adults.

And, said BC, the consequence was that the kids were not using the facility because of the cost — kids whom BC wanted there to keep them off the streets.

So far so good.

On its face, that is not unreasonable.

Then things went out of bounds.

At one one point BC seemed to be saying that there were no kids at the course because of this fee differential while LK was saying that there were plenty of kids there.

In answer to BC, EE and LK said the fee at the driving range was “industry standard” and documented various examples of their generous involvement with and solicitation of junior golfers.

But BC wouldn’t seem to accept that explanation and pressed on.

Tension escalated when Councilwoman Van Wirt tried to get the discussion to move on, which met with a curt response from BC, and pretty soon there were hard words between President Waldron and BC, including suggestions that BC was arguing for special interests — for example, “paving” was mentioned, seemingly totally unrelated to the golf discussion.

Odd. Where did that come from? One of those times where other people know things you don’t. Other issues bubbling under the surface. And you feel left out of the conversation.

Paving?

Gadfly was not sure of what AW spoke, but he immediately thought of BC at the first budget hearing indicating twice that major road work was needed. Major paving.

Had BC been promoting paving interests there?

In any event, BC was rather heatedly defensive, and protested unfairness.

Now Gadfly — as always — suggests you go to the tape yourself and make judgment if judgment needs to be made.

Perhaps Gadfly will only say that there is a “history” of BC interactions with Council members that has resulted in short fuses among his colleagues.

Tempers escalate quickly.

After a previous Council flare-up involving BC (the Zoning Board nomination issue about which Gadfly devoted 10 posts), Gadfly responded to President Waldron’s invitation (to us all) to comment on the way he handles discussion.

Gadfly suggested that President Waldron consider a discussion rule based in Roberts Rules:

  • a limit of 10 minutes, then others are given an opportunity to speak
  • after others have spoken or passed on the opportunity to speak, another 10 minutes
  • any further 10-minute time after that only with majority vote of the other Council members

After you view the tape of this heated episode, however, Gadfly suggests that you go back and bask in Mr. Hoy’s ray of golf course sunshine again.

Gadfly bets his game is as sharp as his wit.

Budget hearing #2 goes pretty smoothly

logo 8th in a series of posts on the 2020 Budget logo

2020 Proposed Budget

2nd-Budget-Hrg-11-13-19-Agenda

Gadfly’s private life (yes, he has one!) unfortunately kept him from attending the second budget hearing as well as the first. So, again, he relies on the video archive just as you can.

Gadfly especially likes these budget hearings for the ability to hear from the City administrators and for the opportunity to hear some of the doings within their departments.

After all, these people — in their day-to-day, on-the-ground work — may have more to do with the quality of City life than some elected officials.

Gadfly likes to know who they are, have a sense of them.

Last hearing, for instance, we heard from admins Boscola and Alkhal. Mr, Boscola attends all the City Council hearings, but Gadfly doesn’t believe he’s ever had an occasion to speak. So hearing him was a treat. On the other hand, Mr. Alkhal is often called upon to answer some question or other in his diverse department.

At the mics for the second hearing were the familiar Chief DiLuzio, Chief Achey, and Business Manager Evans but also the unfamiliar Golf Course manager Larry Kelchner, who has been spoken of very highly. It was good to hear him.

Followers can see from the bullet points below that the questions from our Council inquisitors elicited answers on interesting topics. Gadfly invites you at the very least to choose a spot to browse the discussion for a while.

As at the first hearing — except for a brief stretch that we’ll consider in the next post — the interchanges between Council and Administration were courteous and amicable. One could sense cooperation and respect.

Budget Hearing #2, November 13
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Police Chief DiLuzio (parts 1 and 2):

  • no big changes in the budget
  • rise in overtime because they’re down 20 officers; applications are down; “big issue is manpower”; overtime is controlled — 4hr shifts not 8
  • good economy affects number of applications
  • every patrol officer has a body camera
  • current contract expires in 2022
  • new vehicles Ford SUVs
  • discussion of budgeting of special event overtime
  • probable presidential candidate coming to the City in 2020
  • we are probably in lower half of pay rates compared to other cities
  • drugs, opiods — get calls every day — number stagnant but hasn’t increased
  • programs to keep kids off the streets?
  • interaction with Health Department, for instance storm problems
  • the BPAIR program: people voluntarily turning selves in for drug treatment
  • diversity? work with NAACP, Hispanic organization,  LGBTQ
  • info on use of body cameras
  • info on winter shelter: people sleeping outside, etc.
  • Resource officers at Liberty: safety concerns? soft target
  • Fentanyl? large caches for city our size, a lot of it out there
  • marijuana enforcement

Fire Chief Achey (end of part 2, part 3)

  • contract settled
  • numbers of fires down: smoke alarm program
  • new engines added
  • down 2 firefighters, recruitment good
  • meeting call volume, injuries at historic low
  • drone program?
  • our gas lines? risk of explosions?
  • code for firewalls?
  • hiring Latinos?
  • EMS service calls static
  • compression devices?

Golf Course: Eric Evans, Larry Kelchner (end  of part 3, part 4 & 5)

  • turnaround has been a success
  • lots of positive feedback
  • major projects: pavilion, irrigation system, trees, etc.
  • rounds up 17% on course and up on driving range
  • marketing partnership with St. Luke’s at range — up 23%
  • “dramatic changes operationally” paying off
  • good work of part-timers
  • involved in First Tee program
  • environmentally friendly?
  • bunker and cart path work
  • bathrooms need to be “tuned up”
  • fees not being raised
  • discussion of kids’ fees — why difference in rate?
  • why not differential for kids at driving range?
  • First Tee (housed in Boys Club) uses facility for free
  • argument over whether kids are at the range
  • Liberty, Freesom, Beca teams use for free
  • host “Y,” Special Olympic, etc.
  • $5 at range instead of $10?
  • sticking it to kids on Golf range?
  • St. Luke’s partnership
  • “uniforms” for staff
  • relationship with restaurant owner: “fluid,” “contentious”