1  1 2 3 4  OLD FORGE BOROUGH COUNCIL OLD FORGE, PENNSYLVANIA  5 IN RE: COUNCIL WORK SESSION  6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  JULY 11, 2023 7:00 P.M.  OLD FORGE MUNICIPAL BUILDING 314 SOUTH MAIN STREET OLD FORGE, PENNSYLVANIA  COUNCIL MEMBERS:  RUSSELL RINALDI, PRESIDENT  RICK NOTARI LOUIS FEBBO JAMES HOOVER ANDREW BUTLER  WILLIAM RINALDI, ESQUIRE, SOLICITOR MARYLYNN BARTOLETTI, BOROUGH MANAGER  ROBERT LEGG, MAYOR  Mark Wozniak Official Court Reporter    2  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Good evening,  ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call the meeting to order with the Pledge of  Allegiance.  (The Pledge of Allegiance was  recited.)  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Roll call,  please, Marylynn.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilwoman  Avvisato is absent. Councilman Butler?  MR. BUTLER: Here.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Febbo?  MR. FEBBO: Present.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Hoover?  MR. HOOVER: Here.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Lettieri  is absent. Councilman Notari?  MR. NOTARI: Present.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Rinaldi? MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Here. Once  again, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the 01d Forge Borough work session. Tonight is Tuesday, July 11, 2023. The purpose of our meeting will be to set our agenda which will be for next Tuesday, July 18, 2023, at 7    3  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  p.m.  Tonight we'17 go through our  department heads, we'1l hear from our borough manager, our chief of police, our counsel members and the mayor, see if they have anything for the agenda for our meeting  next week.  Well also have two parties here this  evening. Two gentlemen from Lackawanna County Regional Storm Water. They're going to give us a presentation. Then we have Mr. George Dunbar giving us a presentation  on his upcoming development.  Before we go to our regular meeting  situation we're going to let the gentlemen give their presentation first. We'11 start with the gentleman from the storm water, Mark and Lee. Whenever you guys are ready.  MR. SPATZ: Good evening, council.  My name is Mark Spatz. I'm with Herbert, Rowland & Grubic. We're a civil engineering firm that specializes in helping entities stand up, such things that we're going to talk about tonight. With me this evening is  Lee as well.    4  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  ATTY. STINNETT: Hi, I'm Lee  Stinnett. I'm an attorney with  Salzmann-Hughes, we've helped over a hundred  communities establish storm water  authorities. So we're going to talk about sort of the process, especially for this joint proposal that we're looking at. But the general process for setting up storm water authorities and the advantages our clients have experienced in going this route in terms of cost savings and the needs between the management and the program.  MR. SPATZ: So a little bit more  about myself and HRG. We've been doing this since 1963. We've helped a lot of entities set up sewer authorities, is where it really started, but storm water authorities and other types of municipal authorities. So our capital planning and solutions divisions have a unique entity within our firm that kind of does that stuff. That's kind of the specialty things that we work with with Lee's law firm to get legal components and kind of working nand-in-hand on that.  The regional storm water interest in    5  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Lackawanna County started in 2019 with interest from various municipalities and the senator's office at that time in exploring if it makes sense in Lackawanna County. Ultimately there was a convening of municipalities at that time from the entire county area. Not all municipalities were represented but a number of them. Many municipalities were there. Over 26 municipalities were there and a  representative from those, and we'17 talk about that in a little bit. So that's kind of the kick off of it. We took some surveys  and went from there.  The city of Scranton saw that it  made a lot of sense. They thought about it quite a bit and said, you know, they really think that this makes sense for the city area and took the initiative to issue an RFP out to do a study on that and kind of put some figures together, put some schematics of how would this thing get stood up. How would it make sense in Lackawanna County. It does make sense in Lackawanna County. HRG responded to RFP and we were selected    6  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  for that, and that's how it kind of brings  us to the table.  That study was completed this year,  and tonight we're going to go over some of the findings of that and kind of why we're here in 01d Forge Borough talking about  this.  So you know, we'1l talk about storm  water tonight, and hopefully I'17 keep it brief. If there is questions from council, please don't hesitate to jump in. If there's any confusion I'm pretty : hopefully decently good on my feet. But don't hesitate to ask questions.  So storm water challenges, you're  probably well aware, as most municipalities are dealing with polluted streams in the valley area, regulations in the NS4 program : and we'1l talk about that in a second. Make sure we get everybody on the same page. We have aging infrastructure and flooding. So here's just some localized flooding events in Scranton and here in the Abingtons and the Dickson City area. They're all over the place. We don't have    7  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  any specific pictures here for 01d Forge but you guys know the area better than I do with just the flooding difficulties. This really gets compounded with the rainfall events. We've been seeing more intense rain storms over the last 20 years, and we've seen the wettest years on record in the last hundred years and within the last 20 years. So the aging infrastructure, all these things kind of compound together and makes it kind of difficult for all the municipalities to deal  with storm water in general.  Obviously with looking at that and  the guise of everything else that municipalities try to take care of, from streets to developments and just all the regulatory requirements that municipalities are dealing with, storm water is just another entity. I mean, municipalities are responsible for sewer, and in many cases in that scenario where in the 1960s sewer became required to be treated, that was kind of pushed to authorities to handle that specific task because it was a big, major  undertaking.    8  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Storm water is similar to that.  It's just right on the cusp. So this is the beginning of where municipalities are deciding to either create authorities individually or work together in  collaboration to create authorities to kind of take some of that storm water burden off of the general municipal ledger and also the responsibilities of everyday operations that municipalities have and authorities just to  specialize in.  So where are we now? Specifically  talking about regulations. That was one of the pieces. So we know flooding and things of that nature, but there is this MS4 permit requirements that require municipalities to clean their waterways. I know 01d Forge definitely has the permit, and over the last permit cycle you'11 find a ten percent reduction in sediment leaving the streets of the borough and has to get treated in some way, shape or form. There's other  requirements for mapping and things of that  nature.  Many of the municipalities are    9  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  behind on that. 01d Forge is part of that. So there's a requirement over the last : we're in this 2018 to 2025 cycle, but a lot of the stresses and strains of those permits and requirements municipalities are feeling because they're somewhat behind on it, and the best way to : you know, don't believe me for that. Talk to DEP about it. They're trying to make sure everybody gets caught  up.  Going forward to the next point, sO  this is kind of the first thing in the permit cycle. In the next permit cycle they're going to be looking at additional requirements. Most likely a volume reduction requirement. So this first five years it was a sediment reduction  requirement, sO this is like a little : the dirt coming off the streets, to reduce that from going into the streams. Then it will be a volume reduction requirement moving  forward.  So where do these come from and why  are these here? Well, back to the polluted streams part. A quarter of the streams    10  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  and this is : you know, I'm just relaying information on this. This comes from the DEP. But a quarter of the streams in Pennsylvania, roughly 19,000 miles, don't support natural aquatic life anymore because of all the pollution and increased runoff and things of that nature. So we're trying to hold that line and obviously over time reverse that, and that's where this is coming from. You might have heard, like, the pollution in the Chesapeake Bay and all that kind of stuff. It's happening there and it's happening in our local waterways as well, and obviously it keeps getting worse, worse and worse. We won't be able to fish and things of that nature in the long term.  So that's a big part of what a  regional storm water authority tackles, taking on and taking this burden of these  regulatory requirements off of  municipalities to address them just like the  sewer authorities do.  So ultimately why are we here?  Regional approacnes. You know, working together, bottom line, saves money. We live    11  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  in communities because working together makes things : you know, we collaborate, it makes life easier. There's, definitely there's regional sewer authorities. 01d Forge is a part of that. It's a regional sewer authority because it saves money. Instead of 01d Forge just handling sewer service all by themselves you're a part of a  regional collaboration.  Same thing happens for storm water  and addressing storm water. Right now you have to address your storm water items within the borough's limits, but that's not how the water drains. It goes from the mountain, down through and across and keeps flowing downhill. Nature doesn't care about our political boundaries, sO it's sometimes very difficult to address storm water issues when you're confined to the box that the municipal boundaries are. So as a regional entity it kind of takes those restrictions off. It can get a little bit more smart about the planning about where to do BMPs, these things that clean up the water. Where you put these things, SO on and sO forth.    12  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  There's other benefits as well. I'm  not going to go through each one of these. You can see them up here, but scale funding opportunities is another huge benefit. I digress. Moving forward, DEP is going to lessen the regulatory burden for regional entities versus individual municipalities as somewhat of a carrot to hopefully get people to work together on this because they recognize regional entities are very successful in meeting their obligations and requirements. Individual municipalities typically lag behind. They have to issue nastygrams and ultimately fines and they don't want to be doing that. They'd rather have people figure out how to work together and address these things and they don't want to do that stuff. But they're going to  throw a carrot out there.  The next big thing, regional  entities typically work or will work and set up opportunities with working with entities like the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corp of Engineers is obviously federal. They're federally funded and they'11 come in    13  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  and they'11 pay for half of the : whatever they're involved in through federal dollars. The Army Corps loves to work with regional entities, big areas of urisdiction. Not as much for smaller entities. This is a pretty big outfit. So you get the leverage of we're a bigger regional entity. You get more political capital with less legislative view on grant applications and things of that nature, and then more opportunities. We also work with USGS on mapping. So again, another big federal entity that would come in and -- typically does come in and partner with a regional entity.  So those are the three kind of  biggest things : and we'11 talk about cost savings a little bit more. But you can see holistic sources, supporting water shed planning. It makes more sense from that standpoint. Capital regulatory, sO on and sO forth. You can see some other benefits here. Administrative savings. You don't have each municipality come and do work. You'11 have the one whole entity do the paperwork for the whole region.    14  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  So like I said before, we did a big  municipal meeting at the senator's office. Senator Blake, who was the senator at the time, facilitated a meeting where  municipalities were invited by their office. DEP was there as well. We took a survey. In this I'm going to talk about eight municipalities that we're making this presentation to around the city of Scranton. 01d Forge, of course, is one of them. A11 eight municipalities had some sort of person there. Maybe it was a manager, maybe it was somebody from council, maybe it was an administrator. Somebody was there for the municipalities. We had a hundred percent of eight people that were at that meeting.  In some of the surveys we took we  just asked various questions to see if there's any aspects before this even gets started to look at this. One of the big questions was would this municipality be willing to give up some local control for a regional collaborative, and the answer was yes. What I'm talking about with that is, you know, obviously for a regional entity    15  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  the borough would be involved. You appoint somebody from the borough to sit on that board. So that person as your appointee would speak for the borough and make sure they have the borough's interest in mind, but you wouldn't be handling it directly at council meetings. You typically would assess projects. You're not losing control but it's not directed to your council meetings. It would be the borough  appointee, obviously.  We see the need for increased  funding. That was a comment. The  municipalities would be receiving some funds back to help with local infrastructure. Minor things like inlet repairs, new grates, cleaning out and a bunch of things like  that.  Then we talked about where can they  use the most support. Do they think their municipalities can use funding for infrastructure, sediment removal and administrative items, which is a lot of paperwork and things like that. So that's  kind of the results.    16  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  So out of eight : again, these are  the eight we're talking about. You can see the city of Scranton on there, you can see 01d Forge, Moosic, Taylor, Dunmore, Dickson City, South Abington and Clarks Summit. So we're basically making our rounds. I only have after tonight Taylor and 01d Forge and Moosic left to go. We did South Abington yesterday. Clarks Summit actually voted already to take this next step. I don't think it's a major next step but it's an affirmation. If you have interest you can  take a look at this.  So like I said, what the city passed  sO far is a kind of study in two different forms in 2018 and 2021. They did try to discuss it with the county at that time if the county would be interested in looking at a countywide solution at the time. That changes every year with political things moving around. But there was no interest at the time, sO it's been passed that long now, standing something up by the municipalities to make a new authority, which honestly I think is a little bit better, because then    17  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  you would be appointing somebody to that board, whether it's a county thing. It's the county. It's not directly in the  purview of this board.  So again, current vision is an eight  municipality regional storm water authority, and those are the eight that we're talking  to at this time.  Getting back to some of the survey  results, you can see here the results of what we kind of talked about before. Regional projects, storm water, flooding, infrastructure maintenance. So the main point of this is to try and show we're taking feedback to set the direction. We're not just coming out with something saying hey, what are the issues. We're trying to get feedback as we go, and that largely sets (inaudible) because it is what we as a local entity make it. And I'm not from somewhere way far away. I - live in South Abington.  So regional storm water management  vision. We got to start somewhere with some sort of framework, and this can be altered as we go. Especially, obviously, if you're    18  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  a regional partner. But the vision sO far to set some sort of vision is that we have a two phase approach. Phase one the authority would work on funding for municipalities for local infrastructure improvements, funding for regulatory compliance, existing infrastructure maintenance. Again,  regulatory BMPs, which are things which are used to clean up the waterways, the mapping requirements that are going to be due here  soon and for levy maintenance.  Phase two could be : and this is a  little bit farther out, sO this is kind of more : most of these are subject to input as this kind of comes together. But this one is subject to even more. It just wouldn't be contemplated until the authority is actually up and running. It would be complete all permit administrative items. Complete all the MS4, taking over levy infrastructure and maintenance improvements, regional flood projects. Like a specific flood issue that the borough may have in a certain area, things like that. So, again,  just the two phase approach.    19  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  So as we talked about, a lot of it  was cost savings that needed to really be the emphasis of why this would make sense, which, honestly, completely makes sense as a main driver. If it's not going to save municipalities money to be in a regional collaborative there might be other benefits, but, honestly, money talks. Right? And it's got to make sense financially.  So in that survey response we looked  at what percentage would need to be saved to make it make sense for your municipality. Again, this is back when the eight folks or more that were there. You can see, the majority said about 30 percent, 20 percent, some said as little as ten percent, one and one said 50 and 40 percent. Keep those percentages in mind. The point is 30 on average. If we can save more than 20 or 30 percent it would make a lot of sense.  So as I mentioned at the top, this  is not our first rodeo. We've done this a bunch of times. We've done it a bunch of times with Lee's outfit all over the state, SO we have a lot of figures and facts based    20  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  on, you know, experiences in other areas that we can use and take that data and localize it to make that make sense, because people think, like, yeah, that's a lot of foo foo. If I build a road out here and get the square footage cost from that contractor and say okay, that is probably a good estimate of square footage cost as it's going to cost me down in Stroudsburg. It might not be right on the money but it is good because that's what engineers do all the time. That's what contractors do all the time. So it's taking that concept of you have cost in this area, you can see how it played out. Let's localize that to this region and see how that matrix works and does it make sense for cost saving.  There is one city in the eight, sO  we could have just labeled it Scranton, and there's one township in the eight. We could have just labeled that South Abington. But there's multiple boroughs. I'm not exactly sure what borough this was. I can get that information. But we looked at it and said okay, as a regional collaborative what would    21  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  the cost savings be to a municipality versus going it alone. Over a 20 year period going to alone versus working together. With the city it was about a 25 percent savings, for boroughs about 50 percent savings. So about  half the cost.  For all the reasons I talked about  so far : and that applies to, like, nine reasons, and even more. But that's the matrix. I know we just have a couple figures up here, but this is a detailed study. So if anybody wants to know any specifics or are critical about certain things, how did you get to that, I'd be more than happy to talk to people about it. This is not a : this is factual stuff. We're not trying to : this is not a sales pitch either. This is totally an information session to give you information based on our  findings.  We then said okay, we see the cost  savings, and in our questionnaire back in 2019 what did folks in that room think it made sense to : obviously there's a need of financial income to take on these tasks.    22  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Would the best way to do that be a cost share agreement by all the municipalities just like you'd fund maybe a regional park, or - I'm not sure. I know in South Abington I'm on the Hillside Park board and each municipality : there's five  municipalities that own that park and each give a contribution to that park. That just comes from tax dollars. Does it make sense to do a cost share agreement, which is basically tax dollars or a storm water fee. Hundred percent response the municipalities at that meeting said storm water fee makes sense. So that's why we went in that  direction.  But there is two ways to do it. You  don't have to do a storm water fee. In the fee structure, just a fee structure alone : and there's a reason sewer authorities do a fee structure. You get additional cost savings. Those numbers go up from 56 from 25 percent to 56, and you see 93 and 98. A huge increase. One of the bottom lines is everybody that's within the municipality that receives service gets a    23  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  fee. There is no tax exemption, things of that nature that basically take that burden off of that specific property and then put it on the taxpayers. Everybody's fee for service equally across the board, so you don't get any :- again, you don't get any  kind of shift on the tax base.  So with that, fees, fees aren't  good, but they're not bad fees. Ultimately it's a fee for service, sO it's a bottom up approach, it's not a top down. You have to justify -- legally you have to justify a fee. Like, what are your actual expenses, what are your actual costs, and then that boils up to a fee. So it's not like this authority which you have an appointee to to begin with can just make whatever fee they want. Doesn't work like that. Legally they have to justify it and there's a challenge  if they don't.  Based on projections sO far you're  looking at : it will be about : a monthly fee for - residential will be $4.00 or $6.00 per month. Less than $100 for the whole year. Municipalities : and that's in    24  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  phase one. You can see if you have levy services, it goes a little higher with the levy. The folks here this evening obviously are not within the levy orotection. That's phase one, this is phase two. These numbers are subject to : we need to tweak those in as we go here. One major factor you need to know, who's going to be a part of this? Is it two municipalities or all eight? It's  going to have an impact.  So that's kind of why we're here  tonight, to see : to get this information to you. We're not actually looking for any feedback other than questions. But ultimately we'17 get feedback from the borough, see if you're interested in taking  the next steps on this.  So again, back to that survey, we  said hey : we talked about a bunch of stuff at that time and said hey, is this something  that seems to make sense for your  municipality, and everybody basically agreed  except one that said unsure.  The next steps are you can see where  in the May and June time frame we're doing    25  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  this presentation business plan. That's our  broad picture business plan to municipalities. Then we had an MOU,  memorandum of understanding, we did send out to the solicitors : your solicitor specifically, Mr. Rinaldi, was there and asked questions and things of that nature, sO he got a chance. The MOU is three pages.  ATTY. STINNETT: Yes, it spills over  to three. So a three page MOU is actually a pretty big accomplishment for us lawyers. Basically, the MOU serves a handful of purposes. One, we heard a lot today about the steps we need to take to get to the point of the phased approaches, and there are several that we need to get there.  First is in my experience in working  and setting up these regional approaches in other areas of execution of an MOU. It's a vote we take at a public meeting. That demonstrates a little bit to your solicitor and your engineer that you're serious and you want them to engage with us to help to determine what services you all want. What you want to see out of this program. So    26  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  that just, I think, is helpful to us as consultants. We know that you want us working on this and it puts the  authorization to do so. That's because the other part of the MOU is really aimed at getting us to the intermunicipal agreement, which is listed a little bit lower. So we have a drafting of a governmental  cooperation agreement. That's fall of '23 with a finalized version in winter of 2024.  So that document is going to be one  of the more important documents that comes out of this process. That document is going to be much longer than three pages, but it's going to outline all of the services that the municipalities will receive. The intergovernmental cooperation agreement might involve different services for  different municipalities.  But all of that is designed to help  us work to determine the budget and the level of service that your community wants because that can vary based on the municipality, based on budgetary concerns, and in general how good of a program do you    27  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  want for your residents. A1l that goes into  eventually ending up with a fee.  The other important part of the  intergovernmental cooperation and why it's important to start it now, when we did these regional approaches : and Mark mentioned that one of the drivers for this right now is in the next permit phase DEP said we're going to encourage regionalization by reducing the amount of reductions, essentially, you have to make. Well, in order to have a regional approach approved by the department to get those benefits they require an intergovernmental cooperation that they have also reviewed and agreed is  good for the parties.  So in order to do all of this stuff  we have to start with the MOU to get to negotiating the ICA, getting that approved by the department and getting that in place sO we can sort of move forward with all final steps to establish the end goal and  the fee.  So that's why it's important to get  this MOU out in front of you now. Again, it    28  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  is simple. It's essentially a memorandum of understanding that you guys are going to work with us to get down that road, and maybe if we get to some point in that road and it doesn't work that's fine. We can part ways. We don't have that happen often, but in order to start seeing if we're going to get to that point we need to start working with your solicitor and your engineer under that MOU to develop the program so we can get to this end goal.  MR. SPATZ: So again, just to  reiterate, the MOU, we'11 be sending that to the borough for council to review with your solicitor and have a chance to review it as well. Obviously, at any given time you guys have my card, your solicitor knows my information as well, your engineer, sO on and sO forth. We're always open to questions, comments, concerns.  Ultimately, that MOU would be  something that council would act upon. Again, not for tonight, of course, because  we're done. Something for your  consideration over the next month or so.    29  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Welcome to come back to address questions, comments, concerns at any given time. It's ar non-binding document, but it is : many municipalities ask me wait, you want us to approve something that we can just step out? Like, yeah, that kind of : you're right. Why do you need that? Because you're approving something at a meeting that is : you're going to take a vote on it, you're thinking about it, and it's that affirmation step for us to say hey, are we working with eight, are we working with seven, are we working with two, and who are we working with, because obviously we need to refine things, start talking about the  intergovernmental cooperation agreement. If you say hey, we'17 sign the MOU but there's some things we really want you to know that we're going to be looking for, we want to make sure we're taking that because it is again, it's not them and you. A lot of time we will talk regional and it's, like, they. It's not they, it's us. You're appointing a board member just like a bunch of stuff.  I work on this - I'm a chairman of    30  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  South Abington for Hillside Park, and we always are battling against the - well, you guys : you appointed me. I work for the township. I don't get paid, but I work for the municipality. It's your park. It's literally your park. This is your  authority.  If there's any questions I can  address those. If not, we can wrap it up.  MR. NOTARI: Who designs the plan,  who constructs the plan? Is that your company? Is that somebody else that would  be hired by the authority?  MR. SPATZ: Which plans  specifically?  MR. NOTARI: Storm water management  plan.  MR. SPATZ: So you have a : we  typically work with all the engineers, sO your engineer would stay involved, and it's a collaborative approach. Generally the authority would have an engineer which : it's non-profit. There's no guarantee once it gets stood up it would have typically an engineer just like a sewer authority has.    31  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Hopefully when that engineer : if we're lucky enough for it to be us we would make sure we're working with each of the municipalities engineer - because that's your trusted engineer : to come up with a comprehensive plan that makes sense for every municipality's engineer. I would think municipalities should be looking to that consultant that they've hired to :  MR. NOTARI: Is every system going  to be tied in together? Is that how it  would work?  MR. SPATZ: No, it differs from  sewer in that relation. You're not taking everything to, like, a central plant. You're installing things like rain gardens, ultimately volume reduction that's coming in the next storm cycle. Those are things like underground retention, storm water basins. There's other ways like vegetative swales. There's a whole plethora of what they call green infrastructures you can do. Usually they involve grass and things like that. So there's a whole plethora of those things that get sprinkled around generally in all    32  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  the different entities that are involved. So there would be some in 01d Forge.  ATTY. STINNETT: Also with the  reduction plan would be the storm water plan. As part of that process, the actual epartment-driven process, in addition to the background work that would go into developing that plan with whoever the engineer for the authority is with each of the member municipalities there is also the public comment period that's required of it, and in that the municipality would have a say and have an opportunity : and the engineer : to offer comment to that as  well.  MR. NOTARI: So I guess what you  just told me it's one system, that each municipality has its own system. So where does it start first? Because I know a lot of people have concerns that this is Scranton trying to get everybody else to  pitch in to help them.  MR. SPATZ: Honestly, it's the other  way around. Scranton has the biggest population. They just have the least amount    33  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  of open area. So Scranton gets expensive looking at these. Not saying it won't be, but it's expensive because it's a city. So to Scranton's benefit there would be a decent amount of capital raised in Scranton, but to get the best bang for that buck it makes sense for them to partner with the regional entities to see if they can look at what makes sense for an open space within the town and within Scranton, of course.  MR. NOTARI: So there could, then,  be multiple projects going on at the same  time.  MR. SPATZ: Absolutely there will be  multiple : it will not be one single thing.  MR. NOTARI: Not like we're going to  start in Scranton, and then when we're done with Scranton we're going to go to South Abington, then we're going to go to Clarks  Summit, and then :  MR. SPATZ: No, it's all the same  time. So for WVSA, 31 municipalities. Each municipality has BMPs. Their engineers designed and helped build for the authority, but for WVSA. They're working for WVSA now.    34  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  They hire the engineers of each town to do that because those engineers know their town the best and work for council. There's a trust part there. Right? There's a pretty big trust part there. So it's not like it's oh, they -- it's not they set the BPMs. Our engineer set the BMPs here. So those are the little things that make : that's what makes regional cooperation work. Again, this is not the first time we're doing this. We'11 take it from here, boys. That's not how it works. It's truly a collaborative.  ATTY. STINNETT: It's not like we're  going to sit here and Took at it and say okay, we got these eight municipalities, we need to do eight projects. One for each. The first step is going to be let's figure out if we can put the project that  accomplishes the largest percentage of our total production as a group at the most cost-effective price, and that's where the savings are derived from. If you can do one BMP and it just happens to be : you point to the benefits there. Then as part of the program that you all want there might be    35  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  certain aspects. Okay, we would prefer more streets. We can look into that. We can build that into the program and the  agreement between you and the authority. So it might not necessarily be a big project, it's that oh, we received these services. At WVSA we have some municipalities that opted in to other services that WVSA provides. So one municipality might not have any projects. They receive all the benefits from the large regional project that satisfies their production, but then they have this service that they didn't previously have for the residents provided at a cost-effective basis from a shared  service provider.  MR. SPATZ: And there's other little  things that happen there, too. So one piece is that the residents, they don't appreciate the BMPs because they probably don't see them as much. Right? They may see some rain gardens and stuff like that. The park you've got, they appreciate seeing that going down the street, but they never see : they appreciate the back inlet that always    36  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  used to get flooded is now cleaned every two years. It's just little things, and it makes a difference from a flood protection view because that is not being cleaned. That's why their front yard was flooding. So it's all these little things, really, are  what people appreciate the most.  But from a municipal level what's  the big thing? That they're actually getting the BMP done in compliance. Nobody's in the threat of being fined, things of that nature. So it's kind of a  two-prong approach.  MR. NOTARI: In your presentation it  said an approximate annual fee would be about $350,000 for a borough. What would the start up cost be for a municipality :  MR. SPATZ: So there is no start up  fee.  MR. NOTARI: The total annual storm  water revenue fee, so that was approximately  $340,000 a year?  MR. SPATZ: Yeah, and that would be  through the fee structure.  MR. NOTARI: So is there a start-up    37  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  cost? Okay, 01d Forge is in. How much are they going to be expected to contribute right off the bat to get this off the  ground?  ATTY. STINNETT: So we can't say for  certain, and I actually have a very good reason for that. In the past, when we were setting up these regional authorities : do you remember the ICA I mentioned? When we did the first one, I remember sitting in a meeting with DEP and the representative from DEP kept saying these municipalities have to have skin in the game, and my response was why do you care about skin in the game? One entity is taking all of the costs of setting up this program and it's going to be built into the rates that are charged and we're not going to make the municipalities pay. We're not going to make them pay any up-front costs to join us.  His response was well, they have to  have skin in the game. I said is $500 enough? He said no. I said is a thousand dollars enough? He said no. Finally we get to $3,000. Each of the 31 municipalities    38  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  had to pay $3,000 because the department  wanted skin in the game.  Now the department is saying we're  going to incentivize you to do the regional approach. My question is going to be can we get rid of the skin in the game component there, and that's why we're unsure. It could be very little. It could be zero, it could be a nominal sum. But right now there's no expected you need to pay us  $50,000 to join.  MR. NOTARI: Well, who pays for your  services?  MR. SPATZ: The city of Scranton is  paying. They see the interest in this. They're going to work to stand something up. They're paying through their ARPA fund right now. They push some of their ARPA funds  towards standing this up.  MR. NOTARI: Lastly, if we don't  decide right now to get in can you get in  down the road?  MR. SPATZ: That would be up to the  municipalities that stand this up. They  might say  that would be up to the    39  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  municipalities because there could be -- I could see where people in that group that say yeah, you're going to have to help us recoup some of the cost. That's going to make the differential between where if you would have came in up front we would have got fee reductions more. Now it's blah,  blah, blah.  ATTY. STINNETT: When I've drafted  these in the past we have a subsequent participation option. I don't know it will be here, but in the past it's been written in a way that was nebulous enough for that number to be set when someone wants to join, and I think that you could, human nature, expect that if seven municipalities jumped in, started going to meetings and then a year and a half down the road everyone sees how great a program it hopefully is they want to join then. I think the skin in the game wouldn't necessarily be significant.  MR. HOOVER: Do you have  municipalities joining?  MR. SPATZ: Clarks Summit Borough  voted to sign the intergovernmental : not    40  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  the intergovermmental, just the MOU. Again, just like the borough here, but that is a big affirmation step. We were at the meeting, they were interested in it. It made sense for them. They were, like, you need us to sign this and pass this. And I tell them the flip side of it. I don't want you to pass an MOU if you're going to cancel later. Don't do that. Only do it if you think this really is interesting and you want to take those next steps. Granted, keeping in mind that if at some point it doesn't become interesting anymore you can back out. But I'm trying to be an honest broker in all my presentations, but I need the borough to be an honest broker, too. Right? So if you really think this makes sense for the next couple months :  MR. HOOVER: Seven municipalities? MR. SPATZ: Eight total.  MR. HOOVER: If municipalities go  down the money's going to go up.  MR. SPATZ: Not necessarily because  there are other clients there.  MR. NOTARI: But those numbers are    41  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  based on eight.  MR. SPATZ: Those numbers are based  on eight, but it's not like if eight goes to  seven those numbers go up.  MR. NOTARI: Does it reduce  flooding? Is that something that we : I don't want to say promise but expect?  ATTY. STINNETT: So this is  something I harped on from the beginning. I kind of cringe when people call this an MS4 fee because we are not doing this strictly for regulatory compliance. Obviously huge driver. The environment's important. But at the end of the day there are a lot of general storm water concerns that a municipality has, and when we set these up, italics bold, it's a comprehensive storm water program and it's going to encompass more than just regulatory requirements, because at the end of the day one of the things that I think is really helpful, a year down the road we have a meeting where we come out and say : two, three years down the road we have a meeting and say here's before, here's after, and those pictures are    42  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  usually incredibly strong support for the program. I mean, every client we've done this for has had that meeting and the response is : obviously nobody likes the fee, but bang for the buck I think three years down the road the citizens see that  bang for the buck.  MR. SPATZ: So on the flooding  aspect, on the engineering side I've seen localized flooding get reduced from better maintenance, but these funds can be used for other things, just like sewer fees. Sewer fees have to be used for sewer. Same thing happens with storm water. So the money back that the municipalities put up, they get some funds back to the general ledger they have to be used for storm water in your town as well, plus the authority's going to help. More attention to that helps reduce  localized flooding.  Where it gets tough is, like, oh, if  we do this we'17 never have flooding again. It's, like, let's not get drastic. Rains are getting heavier all the time. It will help reduce flooding but we're not going to    43  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  do this and all our problems are solved. No, but it's going to be a step in the right  direction, and generally we see  municipalities do better having the regional approach and that direct attempt to do it. I represent boroughs. Cordell Borough we did a project four years ago. They wanted us to do an entire section of the town. I started looking at it, we don't - I'm happy to design this for you but you don't need to. A17 these culverts are half full. You've got to clean them. They just didn't. But now there's an entity that does it, they don't have that flooding. So their solution was just that. So you can see those little  things.  MR. NOTARI: Thank you. I  appreciate the answers.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Mark, is there  a C deadline to sign the :  MR. SPATZ: We're going to be  probably nagging you, you know, August time frame. Hopefully you got that on the agenda. Let us know either way.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Councilman    44  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Notari asked a question about if we got in later. That's why I asked if there was a  deadline.  MR. SPATZ: August, September for  the MOU. The sooner, the better. We hope  to have them in July.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: You said you  have two more municipalities to go to?  MR. SPATZ: Taylor on August 7th and  Scranton. So technically two.  MR. HOOVER: Who are the eight  municipalities again?  MR. SPATZ: Clarks Summit, South  Abington, 01d Forge, Moosic, Taylor on August 7th. Moosic in August as well. The rest we're done with the presentation. Clarks Summit signed, I presume Scranton  signed the MOUS.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: What was the  first presentation?  ATTY. STINNETT: Dunmore, wasn't it?  MR. SPATZ: June 20th.  ATTY. STINNETT: I think it was June  11th. June 12th was the first presentation.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Anything else?    45  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  MR. SPATZ: That's it, unless : MR. LENCESKI: Who would be  responsible for any of the borough or city's MS4 reports? Would the authority actually  do it?  MR. SPATZ: So it's usually a  collaborative. The MS4 annual report is usually a collaborative between the local engineering firm and the firm that basically pools them all together for the eight  municipalities.  MR. LENCESKI: So the authority  would actually put it together for the  municipality?  MR. SPATZ: Correct. Well, they  work with the local engineering firm.  MR. LOPATKA: A lot of the  information comes from us and providing it to them. They would ultimately report it.  MR. LENCESKI: Who would go out and  inspect the outfalls?  MR SPATZ: So in this -- I would  have to look, but I think in the context I'11 have to get back to you on that. Some scenarios they've worked with the DPW to do    46  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  the outfall inspections and some scenarios the authority does it as well. Honestly, the next step is if the borough's interested pass the MOU, then who do you want it to be? Hey, we want you guys to do that. We would look for this authority to do that for us, or no, we want our people to do that.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Just sO you're  aware -- I don't know if you met Joe. Joe is our DPW manager. He's the street  commissioner.  MR. SPATZ: It wouldn't be for this  reporting cycle.  ATTY. STINNETT: A lot of times the  authority takes over and we kind of tie in with MS4 coordinators and they coordinate with each municipality how that's going to be handled, and it's built into the eventual agreement. I think that was in the second phase of the two phase approach that was put up earlier. It was determining the MS4  coordinator role.  MR. SPATZ: So from the regional  part of this - and that's why I said it's a collaboration. Some municipalities want    47  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  their guys to do it because they want to keep their guys busy and it's one of the things that they're doing and they want to keep their guys engaged. Some township guys do it, and it's handled municipality by municipality. So that's why we want to get that feedback from you. What makes sense for you. What level of service.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Do any members  of the public have any questions for the gentlemen? Any more council members have  any questions7  Gentlemen, anything else? MR. SPATZ: The building looks  great.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: We also  appreciate you coming. The presentation went very well, very detailed. Good job.  Thank you very much.  Mr. Dunbar, if you guys would like  to address us with your presentation.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Good evening,  council. My name is Michael Gallacher. I've been in front of council several times before. I think many of you know me, and    48  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  obviously you know my client, Mr. Dunbar.  We are here this evening to  introduce to borough council a new project, a new development that Mr. Dunbar would like to begin in the very near future. We're going to introduce it, give you a little information about it and ultimately ask that a request for a LERTA be put on the agenda for the next meeting of borough council.  I'm going to talk a little bit about  the LERTA. Mr. Dunbar is then going to speak a little bit about the development itself as far as what he's looking to do pullding-wise, construction-wise, that type of thing, and our CPA, Mr. Christopher Wartella, is going to give council some numbers, speaking about the benefits of the development to the 01d Forge community.  So with regard to the LERTA, what I  would like to do is actually start by talking a little bit about Birchwood Estates. Many of you, I'm sure, are familiar with that development. Back in 2016, I remember coming in front of council at that time and requesting a LERTA, and for    49  1 2 3  those of you who may not remember, basically  LERTA stands for Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance Act.  Basically, it's an economic revitalization of an area through a tax benefit. When we came in front of council back in 2016 Birchwood had just been purchased. The land had been purchased. It was a vacant lot. People were dumping garbage on it. There wasn't really anything there. It was an  5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  economic wasteland.  As I'm sure council is aware, it is  now an economic benefit to the 01d Forge community. We are wrapping up in the not too distant future the construction at Birchwood. There's now going to be 192 residential units there consisting of one and two bedroom townhouse units, garden townhouse units there. It has been a benefit to the community. It's brought a number of very successful people into the community who have contributed financial dollars, tax dollars, shopped at  restaurants, local shops. Brought a Tot of money into the community. It's employed a    50  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  number of people in construction of the development itself, and seven years later the borough is starting to see some of the tax revenue that's now being generated.  The LERTA that was granted for  Birchwood is basically the LERTA that we're going to be requesting in relation to Holly Ridge. Holly Ridge also is right at Howard Street and Forge Street in 01d Forge. It's a very large, undeveloped section of land. Years ago a gentleman came in front of council -- I don't know if any of you were here. It used to be called Misty Ridge. So it's a similar development but we're going  to do it better, hopefully.  If you haven't gone to Birchwood  lately or at all, I would suggest take a drive through there and see what's going on. See what's been created on this : what was previously undeveloped land and you'11 see that that's the type of work that Mr. Dunbar does. He's done a number of other ones. Maple Leaf Village, Lilac Meadows and The Orchards. He really does a high end, high class development which brings a lot of good    51  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  benefits to the borough of 01d Forge, and that's the type of thing we'd like to do  here again.  Holly Ridge is going to be a bigger  project. It's going to cost more money. There is going to be more financing involved. Mr. Dunbar is working with the banks right now to try to get that financing in place. Having a LERTA is critical to getting some of that financing and enabling this development and this project to go  forward.  With regard to Birchwood, it was, I  think, what you would probably call a phased in/phased out LERTA, and by that I mean it was phased in in that the LERTA became effective as the various buildings came on line. When a certificate of occupancy was granted for a particular building or a particular group of buildings, generally three buildings at a time or six buildings at a time, the LERTA would go into effect and it would offer a tax abatement on the increased value of the property. So when we came here in 2016 that property over there    52  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  was generating a couple thousand dollars in tax revenue for everyone. For the school district, for the county and for the municipality. Now that same property is developing tens of thousands of dollars in tax revenue, and as each building has come on line -- for example, the first year that the certificate of occupancy was granted there was a hundred percent tax abatement of the original increase in value of the property. That would be for years one and  two.  For years three and four it's a 90  percent abatement.  For years five and six it's an 80  percent abatement.  Years seven and eight a 70 percent  abatement.  Year nine it's a 60 percent  abatement.  Year ten is a 50 percent abatement,  and then there's no abatement after ten  years.  So that's how it kind of got phased  out. It's phased in that some of these    53  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  buildings that have been constructed are in year six of their abatement. The ones that just came on line recently and got their certificate of occupancy are in year one of the abatement. But when this development is completed, which is going to be in the very near future, ten years from that completion date all of the LERTA will phase out, and it's phasing out, again, over time. So right now we're in year six for some of the buildings. In four years the borough will be getting a hundred percent of the  increased tax revenue from those particular buildings. So it's a benefit to the  community.  That's what we're looking to get,  essentially, with regard to Birchwood. That's what we're requesting, that at the next meeting it be put on the agenda for consideration, and when Mr. Dunbar and Mr. Wartella speak to you about the development, the project itself and the numbers we hope that borough council would agree that it would be a benefit and really is the only way that this development can get done.    54  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Without this Birchwood would not have happened. It wouldn't have gotten done, especially with the increased cost of construction during Covid, increased labor costs, financing issues and things like that. Without the LERTA that was granted for Birchwood this project would have been stalled years ago and probably would not  have been completed.  So from our perspective it's  critical that we have the LERTA in place, and we think it is a benefit to the community. We think that Mr. Dunbar has done a fabulous job on the projects that he's done and we'd like to do at least one more. So that's what we're here asking for  tonight.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Mike, my first  question would be about the LERTA. There's the three taxing bodies that you're going to be requesting from. The county, the school  district and us.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Correct.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Have you asked  to address the other taxing bodies here or    55  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  are we the first?  ATTY. GALLACHER: There is no  requirement in the LERTA statute as to who we go to first or in what order we go to. We have approached and have had numerous discussions with regard to the 01d Forge School District. We don't have a LERTA from them at this I point in time. We are hoping that we can get together with all three of the taxing entities and get a LERTA that's going to work for everybody and will work  for us.  With regard to Birchwood, the last  time all three taxing entities did agree to the LERTA, as I outlined, where it's phased in and phased out, and that's what we're  hoping to get again.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: I don't know  if the question would be for you or Mr. Dunbar or Mr. Wartella. What's the current taxes on the property that is there now?  ATTY. GALLACHER: That, I think,  Chris would probably have.  MR. WARTELLA: The correct taxes on  the property were under $4,000 a year.    56  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  ATTY. GALLACHER: My recollection is  when we came in front of the council for Birchwood I think it was about $3,000.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: About, $2,800.  1 remember about $2,800.  MR. NOTARI: I'm new to the LERTA  thing. Does the LERTA have to be exact for each governing body or could it be  different?  ATTY. GALLACHER: It does need to be  the same for each governing body.  MR. NOTARI: So all three would need  to agree.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Correct.  MR. NOTARI: How many buildings are  in Birchwood right now?  ATTY. GALLACHER: Birchwood, right  now the remaining buildings are being constructed. When they're completed, I think we're down to the last five at this  point or six at this point.  MR. DUNBAR: George Dunbar,  President of Birchwood Estates. We're in the last phase, phase seven. We're constructing six buildings, a total of 48    57  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  units. Once that is completed we'11 have a total of 24 buildings and 192 units.  MR. NOTARI: The original plan was  18 and we added on six more. Correct?  ATTY. GALLACHER: We had come before  council and different entities requesting an expansion and addition of a couple of ouildings. The addition of the buildings actually, I think, is beneficial because it creates more of a tax base, it increases the overall value of the property, and will ultimately create more tax revenue for the borough not only through the taxes on the property but the additional people who are going to be living there and the additional workers that have to be hired to complete  those extra buildings.  MR. NOTARI: Do we know what each what stage of the LERTA they're  building  in? Do you have that figure?  ATTY. GALLACHER: As far as  Birchwood? So phase one, we have the first six building, I believe, are on year six right now. We then have : and George might have this information a little better.    58  1 2 3 4 5  MR. DUNBAR: So phase one, which is  our first phase, consisted of three buildings. We're already six years there.  Think about that. Six years.  Phase two, we're already there five  years. So we're already paying taxes on it.  7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Remember :  MR. NOTARI: I'm just looking for a  breakdown in numbers on each. So three buildings are in year six, three buildings  are in year five :  MR. DUNBAR: Six, five, four, three,  two, one, and phase seven is not yet completed. I'm anticipating sometime in November or December it will be completed.  A17 six buildings.  MR. NOTARI: So we're at 18 right  now. Six at each stage. Six at five to six, six at three to four, six at one to  two.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Correct. Holly  Ridge is going to be a similar timeline. Mr. Dunbar has built these buildings incredibly fast in comparison to other developments. When you see some of these    59  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  other municipalities, they have much smaller developments. They linger and struggle for years and decades, sometimes, to be built. We're anticipating Holly Ridge, because it's a little bit bigger, is going to take a little more time, but we're still hoping to do it in a rapid manner. That's all I have.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Anybody have  any questions for Mike before George  addresses us? Okay.  MR. DUNBAR: Again, for the record  my name is George Dunbar. I'm the president of Holly Ridge. Thank you for the opportunity this evening.  So back in the late 1800s - a  little history of the land -- there used to be coal breakers, so they used to bring the coal on railroad cars. I'd like to hold on to that word railroad cars. They would bring the coal and they would crush it and disburse it to every municipallty. So my architectural concept, I want to preserve the history of the land. A17 my buildings are going to look like railroad stations. In my opinion there will be nothing like    60  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  this in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania  once it's completed.  So the project's going to  consist of :- my sequence of construction is going to be the townhomes first. So  clusters of townhomes. Each cluster's going to have a building of five and twins, which are two and two, for a total of nine per phase. Right now I'm working with the banks trying to finance this project. It's a lot of money to finance this project, sO I'm not there yet. So that's why this LERTA is very important. It helps me get there. It helps the bankers feel more confident and more  comfortable.  If I do partner with a banker they'd  have to participate. What I mean by participation, they're going to have to get other banks to help, because of the volume of the project, monetary wise. So my partners in this are the bankers. Right? So they don't want to come in and build 164, 169, 200 units. I have to do it in phases. That's why the phased-in LERTA is sO essential for the success of this project.