1  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  OLD FORGE BOROUGH COUNCIL OLD FORGE, PENNSYLVANIA  IN RE: REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL  JULY 18, 2023 7:00 P.M.  OLD FORGE MUNICIPAL BUILDING 314 SOUTH MAIN STREET OLD FORGE, PENNSYLVANIA  COUNCIL MEMBERS:  20 RUSSELL RINALDI, PRESIDENT  RICK NOTARI LOUIS FEBBO JAMES HOOVER MICHAEL LETTIERI ANDREW BUTLER  21 22  23 WILLIAM RINALDI, ESQUIRE, SOLICITOR MARYLYNN BARTOLETTI, BOROUGH MANAGER  24 25  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?  MR. LETTIERI: Present.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Notari?  MR. NOTARI: Present.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Rinaldi? MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Here. Once  again, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the regular meeting of the 01d Forge Borough. Tonight is Tuesday, July 18, 2023. The    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  purpose of our meeting is we'11 go through a few housekeeping motions, we'11 hear from our department heads, we'11 hear from our council members, our borough manager, solicitor, we'11 go down the table.  There's a public sign-in sheet. If  anyone from the public would like to address us we'11 give you a few moments at the end of the meeting before new business.  With that said, we're going to go to  our first housekeeping motion. A motion to approve the minutes of the prior meeting.  MR. NOTARI: I'17 make that motion. MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: By Councilman  Notari.  MR. BUTLER: I'17 second.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Seconded by  Councilman Butler. On the question? Public  input? Roll call, please.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Febbo?  MR. FEBBO: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Butler?  MR. BUTLER: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Hoover?  MR. HOOVER: Yes.    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  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman  Lettieri?  MR. LETTIERI: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Notari?  MR. NOTARI: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Rinaldi? MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Yes. Item  number two is motion to approve the treasurer's report. Please note that this does not include the sewer account.  MR. NOTARI: I'17 make that motion. MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: By Councilman  Notari.  MR. LETTIERI: I'11 second. MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Seconded by  Councilman Lettieri. On the question? Public input? Roll call, please.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Febbo?  MR. FEBBO: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Butler?  MR. BUTLER: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Hoover?  MR. HOOVER: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman  Lettieri?    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  MR. LETTIERI: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Notari?  MR. NOTARI: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Rinaldi? MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Yes. Item  number three is motion to approve invoices for payment. Once again, please note this does not include the sewer account.  MR. BUTLER: I'17 make that motion. MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: By Councilman  Butler.  MR. NOTARI: Second.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Seconded by  Councilman Notari. On the question? Public  input? Roll call, please.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Febbo?  MR. FEBBO: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Butler?  MR. BUTLER: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Hoover?  MR. HOOVER: Yes.  MS. - BARTOLETTI: Councilman  Lettieri?  MR. LETTIERI: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Notari?    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  MR. NOTARI: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Rinaldi? MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Yes. Fourth  item is motion to approve treasurer's report  for the sewer department.  MR. FEBBO: I'11 make that motion. MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: By Councilman  Febbo.  MR. LETTIERI: I'17 second it. MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Seconded by  Councilman Lettieri. On the question? Public input? Rol7 call, please.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Febbo?  MR. FEBBO: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Butler?  MR. BUTLER: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Hoover?  MR. HOOVER: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman  Lettieri?  MR. LETTIERI: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Notari?  MR. NOTARI: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Rinaldi? MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Yes. Last    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  item under housekeeping is motion to approve sewer department invoices for payment.  MR. LETTIERI: I'17 make the motion. MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Motion by  Councilman Lettieri.  MR. NOTARI: Second.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Seconded by  Councilman Hoover. On the question? Public  input? Roll call, please.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Febbo?  MR. FEBBO: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Butler?  MR. BUTLER: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Hoover?  MR. HOOVER: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman  Lettieri?  MR. LETTIERI: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Notari?  MR. NOTARI: Yes.  MS. BARTOLETTI: Councilman Rinaldi? MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Yes. First  department head we'11 go into is our DPW manager, Joseph Lenceski. Joe, do you have  anything for the meeting?    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  MR. LENCESKI: Nothing for the  meeting.  MR. RUSSELL: Anybody have any  questions for Joe?  MR. FEBBO: Do you want to address  everybody on what happened down the park  today?  MR. LENCESKI: Yesterday at Pagnotti  Park we had storm damage. We had the insurance company come and EMA from Lackawanna County. There was straight line wind damage. We had about ten trees topple over, the fence was folded over at the baseball field, and that's about it.  MR. HOOVER: Bleachers? MR. LENCESKI: Bleachers were  flipped over. They determined it was straight line winds. They determined that.  MR. FEBBO: Thank you.  MR. NOTARI: Joe, I'd like to know  if we can go through the process of  designating two parking spots in the back as a safety drop off zone for divorced parents who are exchanging their children. I've got a couple requests from people in the    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  community.  MS. BARTOLETTI: When we decided to  do the new building and the parking area the first two spots that are right outside the police department are the two that are supposed to be : there's a camera that's facing right at them and there's a light  there.  MR. NOTARI: Right in front of the  doorway?  MS. BARTOLETTI: As soon as you turn  into our parking lot, it would be to the right side. Close to where the Little  Library is.  MR. NOTARI: Can we designate those  spots with signage, maybe paint the lines different, make sure nobody parks in them in  terms of employees or policemen?  MR. LENCESKI: Yes. MR. NOTARI: Thank you.  MR. HOOVER: What's going on with  the cones on Winter Street?  MR. LENCESKI: There was subsidence  in the pipe. Is sent Earthworks over to do the work. They called PA-One Call in, they    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  marked it, and they're just waiting for the  PA-One Call to start working.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Anybody else  have any questions for Joe? Thank you, Joe.  Mike Sokolowsk1, code  enforcement/zoning officer, anything for the  meeting?  MR. HART: I C don't have anything  right now, no.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Anybody have  any questions for Michael?  MR. BUTLER: 602 Maple, did that guy  ever start cleaning that place up? There  was stuff all over the place.  MR. HART: That's where Passarielo  bought the garage there. He cleaned that area up. The guy next door, he cleaned some but not a lot. I just went by. He had a dumpster there. He put some stuff out but  not a lot.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Councilman  Butler, is this the property that's across the street from where the fire was a few years ago, the one house? If you're driving down Maple towards Oak, on the left?    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  MR. SOKOLOWSKI: On the left. MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: When you  explained I thought it was the other property across the street.  MR. BUTLER: Bobby Passarielo. MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: That was  already taken care of.  MR. SOKOLOWSKI: It's on the other  side. He's got some stuff there, yeah.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: When's the  last time you are there, Mike, or the last time you were in contact with him?  MR. SOKOLOWSKI: Got to be at least  a month.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Just stop over  or give him another call.  MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mike. MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Any other  questions for Mike? Thanks, Mike.  Dave Lopatka, engineer, anything for  the meeting?  MR. LOPATKA: I believe the only  thing on the agenda was Casper Street. I think that's later on for your approval.  MR. RUSSEL RINALDI: That's listed    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  under new business for tonight. Anybody  have any questions for Dave?  MR. NOTARI: How's the senior center  project?  MR. LOPATKA: Still waiting for the  county to get back to me with regard to the review of the plans. I'11 call Joe Rovinski tomorrow and find out where it's at.  MR. HOOVER: Our paving program  started today.  MR. LOPATKA: Yeah.  MR. HOOVER: They're doing all the  inlets and some berm work down on Connell  Street.  MR. LOPATKA: They should be  starting paving next week sometime.  MR. HOOVER: Are they going to do  that second cross up on Dunn that we  discussed?  MR. LOPATKA: I'm going to get  information on that. I looked, because we had done something a couple years back. I might need a little more information :  MR. HOOVER: I want to get that done  before you decide to :    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  MR. LOPATKA: I can tell them to  hold off on Dunn right now.  MR. HOOVER: Hold off on Dunn. Joe,  you can get that information?  MR. LOPATKA: No, I have to get some  surveys. The one on Sanderson.  MR. BUTLER: I read on your report  here that Emlaw never got in contact with  anybody.  MR. LOPATKA: I haven't heard  anything. Nothing was submitted to the  borough.  ATTY. RINALDI: Are they coming to  the meeting at the end of the month?  MR. SOKOLOWSKI: I tried to contact  him. He hung up on me.  MR. HOOVER: Is he still working out  of that building?  MR. SOKOLOWSKI: No.  MR. HOOVER: Everybody says he's not  but his car's there all the time.  MR. SOKOLOWSKI: I went in, there  was somebody putting pipe on the truck. Taking a piece of pipe out. I said are you guys working here? They're not working    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  there, from what he said. Two minutes later my phone rang. It was him. You go on my property you're going to hear from my  lawyer. I don't know.  MR. HOOVER: Karen, if you don't  mind me putting you on the spot.  MS. PICARSKI: He's working. I have  pictures. I've noted every time. It's usually between 6 a.m. and 7:30 that all the  action happens.  MR. SOKOLOWSKI: That's when I was  there. About 6:30 I pulled in.  MR. HOOVER: Did you get any plans  yet or anything? He didn't get nothing  done?  MR. SOKOLOWSKI: A11 he said was  Dave Cherundolo's my new lawyer. Contact  him.  MR. HOOVER: Bill, did you contact  him?  ATTY. RINALDI: I - did. He said  thanks for the letter. I'17 look into it. We already spoke. He's got to come in with plans. That was right before the 4th, right  after the 4th.    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  MR. SOKOLOWSKI: I drive by. ATTY. RINALDI: It's a violation of  your subdivision ordinance.  MR. HOOVER: The next step is? ATTY. RINALDI: I'11 get together  with Mike and fill out a citation or we can actually go to court. We can do both.  MR. HOOVER: Unless he sends a  letter stating that :  MR. SOKOLOWSKI: He more or less  just hung up on me. Talk to his lawyer.  ATTY. RINALDI: First I heard that. MR. HOOVER: Okay, next step. MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Any other  questions for Dave? Thanks, Dave.  Police Chief Jay Dubernas is absent  from the meeting. We have his report. If we have anything we can e-mail him or call  him.  Next we have Assistance Fire Chief  Bill Stull.  MR. STULL: Nothing for the meeting. MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Anybody have  any questions for Bill? Thank you, Bill.  Attorney Rinaldi, solicitor's    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  report?  ATTY. RINALDI: Just a reminder that  Thursday is the comprehensive plan and  zoning meeting at 6:30.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Anybody have  any questions for the solicitor? Thanks,  Bill.  Marylynn, Borough manager report. MS. BARTOLETTI: A1l of you have my  financial reports. Anybody have any questions? No? Just a couple things to add. In June we sent out the sewer bills. Approximately 3,700 that we sent out.  Our new DPW manager truck was  delivered the end of June, and the older truck now has been transferred to the parks  department.  We were awarded $337,422 from DEP  for consecutive grants that Joe and I put  together.  I just wanted to give you an update  on our PLGIT account that we have. We have $90,000 in interest for the first six months  of the year.  MR. FEBBO: Where does that money    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  come from?  MS. BARTOLETTI: It is an investment  that I think is called Pennsylvania Local Government Investment Trust, and you have to be able to invest money for certain amounts of time depending on what accounts you want to invest in. So any excess that we have that we know we won't use over the next 90 or 120 days I invested for us and that's  been our return sO far.  MR. FEBBO: So you invest the money  for the borough and generated how much?  MS. BARTOLETTI: In the past six  months it was $90,000. That doesn't include  our other account.  MR. HOOVER: Very good, Mare. MS. BARTOLETTI: Camp will end on  Friday and we have 110 kids.  On the agenda for tonight we're  going to discuss my new copier contract.  That's it.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Anybody have  any questions for Marylynn?  MR. NOTARI: Marylynn, nice job on  the grant, on the investment in the PLGIT,    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  on - the park program, and also we haven't talked about this. About a month ago in the newspaper there was an analysis on pension funding ratio and we seem to be one of the more healthier among the municipalities in the county and that's related to you. Thanks for your work. Didn't go unnoticed.  MR. RUSSEL RINALDI: Anyone else  have any questions for Mare? Thank you,  Mare.  Before we go into new business we'17  go into public comment. Doctor Notari?  DR. NOTARI: Doctor Robert Notari,  103 Tioga Court. Good evening. I was here to discuss something that had happened at last week's meeting, which has obviously changed on the agenda. But because I'm here and I don't know if I'11 ever make it back during the next public comment I just wanted to give you some information sO you're aware of things that affect the borough, the decisions you make that maybe you're not aware of and most people aren't aware of.  2016 there was a change in state law  that all new school funding flowed through    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  this thing called Fair Funding. So over the billions over the last seven years all monies that go to the school districts flow through something called Fair Funding. Part of the formula has three key elements.  The first key element is number of  students. For better or worse, it's just basic number of students. Variables that affect that, poor, abject poor, English,  things like that.  Two of the major factors that are  part of the equation that the state looks at when determining funding is median household income, and as you've seen over the last seven years with the developments that have occurred our median household income has gone up, which is wonderful. However, the state then looks at that and says you could fund the school yourself and don't need our  help. Okay.  One of the other things that occurs  is they look at the number of households in your school district. 01d Forge has 3,756 taxable properties. 01d Forge is recognized by the state as having 3,666 households.    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  That's 90 parcels that they feel aren't households. Think about 01d Forge. You could probably name 90 like this that aren't households. How does that occur? When you have a property that has multiple units on it that increase the amount of households per taxable property. So if you have a new 200 unit development on one property that's a 2 200-to-1 ratio that then has to get funneled to every other taxpayer in the town. Larger towns and cities and school districts it's easy to absorb. Something like us, we're a bedroom community, gets passed on to all our senior citizens without any consideration of the state because all  they do is look at the formula.  So the more units we have per  taxable property is deleterious to the school district's effort to get funding from the state, which then we have to raise taxes on the residents. If you've noticed, we've been banging the residents hard because we're trying to overcome this issue that we're not getting more state funding because we keep increasing our household income and    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  we keep increasing units per taxable  properties.  One of the other issues is one of  those main properties isn't being taxed, sO the last seven years we haven't had the tax income to outweigh the number of units going up, which then, again, gets passed on to all our residents. If we're going to do another one which, again, over a ten year period is going to raise the amount of household income it's great for the town, not sO good for our formula. It's going to raise the amount of units per taxable property. Everything is going to continue to get buried on the rest of the residents of this  town.  Now, nice and easy. Easy for the  borough, we don't really raise taxes, but we had this conversation months ago. The borough raises taxes, it comes out of the resident's pocket. School raises taxes, it comes out of the same resident's pocket. Decisions you make affect us as a taxing unit, and as a resident that's just going to get buried and buried and buried because of    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  what looks like a great idea and all the deleterious effects that nobody ever sees or saw coming. Nobody in 2016 thought that was going to be a possibility. Everybody thought it was a great idea. Seven years later as we keep watching our funding going down and our taxes going up from the school district. This is one of the reasons why. Just wanted to let you know that going into your decision making process that it's not just a borough issue that you're going to make. It's going to affect all of our residences on the other hand by the school trying to outweigh the decision that you're  making.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: I don't know  if you have the answer. I - don't have the answer. What are the tax base that the school gets from big developments like this?  DR. NOTARI: If you're taxing it you  get it on the assessments.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: You said the  school district isn't taxing it?  DR. NOTARI: The current  development. This is being asked to have     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  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: I'm not  speaking at this point :  DR. NOTARI: The one that happened  in 2016. The way it was developed by the borough, the school and the county kind of went against the spirit of the LERTA law. LERTA law is ten years flat, that's it. The way that the school district, the county and the borough wrote it up gave it a sliding scale. So currently, right now, instead of a - ten year window it's up to a seventeen year window when both the borough and the school district will fully feel the tax dollars from that development. Okay.  Right now the borough, this year,  will probably collect about $2,500 from the Maple Ridge Estates with the current LERTA. It should be getting approximately $22,000 if the LERTA was done in the spirit and correct action of the law. So at the end of  the ten year period :-  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: For Maple  Leaf? There's not a LERTA -  DR. NOTARI: I'm sorry, Birchwood  Estates. They're both on Keyser Avenue. At    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  the end of the ten year period at current assessment the borough would have seen approximately $75,000 a year. You're not going to see that until 2033. In the four yeas when the LERTA should have been up the borough will receive about $12,000 instead  of $75,000.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: How much does  the school get?  DR. NOTARI: The school would have  received about $400,000. Currently, right now we're going to get -- the school district will receive about $50,000 instead of $150,000. Currently. Then as it goes up and the percentages go up until what would have been the full ten years. The full ten years, which should have been 2026, at current assessment. That's without appeals or anything like that. Just what it is currently assessed at through the county.  MR. FEBBO: What is Birchwood paying  right now?  DR. NOTARI: According to this,  $47,000 : what will be due this year. So the tax bills haven't gone out yet. I    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  believe it's $47,545.81.  MR. FEBBO: Correct me if I'm wrong  on this. Wage taxes, didn't Birchwood  contribute $486,448?  DR. NOTARI: No.  MR. FEBBO: What did we collect in  wage taxes?  DR. NOTARI: Total for the year, I  believe it's going to be equal. So I believe the total is one million : total of  the whole town.  MR. FEBBO: That was collected  from -- could you tell us?  DR. NOTARI: I don't know how you  could break that down. I could just tell you what the total is from the whole town. The whole town pays $1,174,908 in wage tax. That's gone up in the last -- $200,000 in the last seven years. So seven years ago, in 2016, the wage tax that was collected by  both borough and town, $961,835.  MR. FEBBO: So it would be safe to  say that the increase that we've seen, over $200,000, was because of the influx of the  development?    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  DR. NOTARI: No. Partial, sure. MR. FEBBO: Do we have any other  development in town that contributed to  that?  DR. NOTARI: But let me ask you  this : and again, there's no way to figure this out, sO we be supposition all the time. How many people aren't paying wage tax? They're just there as retirees. We have no idea how many people are there that don't register as their home abode there. There's no way to find that out. So it's easy to be supposition and say the $200,000 difference came strictly from a development that was built, but seven other people here, other people that are residents I'm sure have seen their wages go up at the same time in the last seven years and have increased that as  well.  MR. FEBBO: So you cannot say the  majority of the wages that have come in have  come in from :  DR. NOTARI: No, there's no way to  track that. It's impossible. I could say I made an extra $2 million a year. We have no    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  idea if that's true or not. If my salary went from 1.5 to 2 million how would you know? A17 it is is a collection through Berkheimer. We get the number that's punched into the budget. Again, it's easy to outweigh this idea of oh, we influx $200,000. We are losing mass amounts of money in state revenue and to the school district, which then is passed on to the rest of the residents in the form of taxes. Taxes have gone up, I think, 25 percent in the last three years via the school because we are not getting any revenue from the  state.  Part of what we have done is this  type of -- and Mr. Brian Rinaldi has a tremendous presentation that will drive you crazy trying to figure out what it is because he put it together, did the research and found out what our situation was. He's been to Harrisburg, back and forth a few times, he's brought in representatives, superintendents brought in representatives, senators. There's nothing they can do to beat a formula that's state law.    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  So the decisions that will be made  don't just affect the borough in the borough sense, it affects the residents and the taxing ability of everybody else around it.  Okay? Thank you.  MR. FEBBO: I'd be anxious to hear  from Mr. Dunbar's financial consultant here to tell us more about what they do  contribute to the community here, because we don't want to get into something like this if it's going to cost us money. But at the same token it's going to generate at lot  more money in the community.  DR. NOTARI: Well, are they going to  present that information? How do you do  that?  MR. FEBBO: I heard your side of the  story :  DR. NOTARI: It's not my side of the  story, it's actual :- it's not a story. Like I said, if you contact Mr. Rinaldi it's paper, fact. You can ask your borough manager, it's on your budget, what your : I didn't make it up. It's a number on your budget of your EITC, what comes in. I    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  didn't make up the number. That's what it is. You can ask her for her 2016 budget, her 2013 budget, 2009 budget and give you all those quick numbers and you can see the  difference. Thank you.  MR. FEBBO: We'11 be objective about  it.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Thanks, Doctor  Notari. Mike Bledsoe?  MR. BLEDSOE: First and foremost,  I'd like to thank all council members for the survey done on Flower Street. It has alleviated some of the issues. My current issue : and I spoke with Mike previously : is there's still a lot of trees hanging in the area. It's not safe for the children that travel through that property. I'd asked if I could clear that myself. I was told it was a liability. Is there any way  that :  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Whose property  it is?  MR. BLEDSOE: Borough property. MR. FEBBO: That's not borough  property.    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  MR. NOTARI: If it's a paper road  it's not borough property.  ATTY. RINALDI: It's all the  residents. If you're on one side you have rights to that road there. I haven't seen the survey. I don't know where you're at. I C couldn't open it. I'11 look at it  tomorrow.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Mike, the  determination of the survey, if it's borough property we'1l go down there and cut it.  Nobody has to :  MR. BLEDSOE: I was willing to do it  myself but I was told it was a liability.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: We would  handle it ourselves. If it's not borough property, as our solicitor is saying, maybe the residents do have rights to it.  MR. BLEDSOE: To my knowledge it was  considered borough property. When it was surveyed there was markers put in. One or two of the residents has already removed some of those markers, sO they are no longer  currently there.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Me as one    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  member : and I hope the solicitor comes back and says it's borough property. We can get down there within a day or two.  MR. BLEDSOE: Safety of the children  is one of my main concerns.  MR. NOTARI: The property owner is  the one in question removing the stakes?  MR. BLEDSOE: Yes.  MR. RUSSEL RINALDI: We'11 let him  look at the survey. Then if he determines it's borough property we'11 get right on it.  MR. ZUPON: Good evening, everybody.  Ij just want to congratulate you guys. It seems like the town is starting to come together a little bit better. With Mike on board a Tot of things are getting done.  The only thing I had a question on  was the house off of Oak Street, the apartment building that burned all the way  up the upper end :  MR. SOKOLOWSKI: It's in court.  They're fighting the insurance company. He  told me three to six months.  MR. ZUPON: Then I had a question to  maybe the police or fire department. We can    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  maybe get a program together for a CPR course, something like that. First aid or a CPR course with the new building at the firehouse or here at the borough building. I think that would be a good idea for the  residents.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: You mean a  course to teach the residents CPR?  MR. ZUPON: Yeah. Show off the  borough building or the new firehouse.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Bill, does the  fire department hold anything like that?  MR. STULL: No.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: I wasn't sure. MR. ZUPON: If you guys can do  anything.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: We can  definitely discuss it. I wasn't aware that boroughs did it but it sounds like a pretty  good idea.  MR. ZUPON: The other thing was  today I took a tour down at Birchwood Estates for the first time and I can't believe how nice it is. It's like going to Disneyland in that area. Not a paper out of    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  place, no junk cars, no garbage, no nothing. George Dunbar did a great job on that and I think it's bringing in a lot of money with the residents that are living there. Seems like they're high-end people that live there, which will help the borough.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Thanks. MS. VELEHOSKI: We've been living on  Milwaukee Avenue for almost three years now, and for the past three years I've contacted the 01d Forge Police Department, I've spoken to - the chief of police, I have gone -- I was down there in person. The traffic on our road drives sO unbellevably fast :  MR. RUSSEL RINALDI: Which road? MS. VELEHOSKI: We're on South  Milwaukee.  MR. VELEHOSKI: Between Drake's Lane  and South Main Street. There are no speed limit signs posted and they come through there at ridiculous speeds. There was lines painted on the street but there's no enforcement because there are no speed limit signs posted. We're requesting  because in our neignbornood there are some young    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  children, there's an elderly couple that came with us. They're our neighbors across the street. They're expecting a child in  the next month.  So all we're asking is speed limit  signs be posted and, if possible, no through  traffic.  MR. - FEBBO: Where is that? MR. VELEHOSKI: Milwaukee Avenue,  where Milwaukee and Drake's meet. By Preate  Winery.  MR. HOOVER: We're scheduled to pave  that.  MS. VELEHOSKI: Paving isn't the  problem. I know the road's a mess. They'11 go even faster then. We were actually, for the past three years, parking sO that our cars were with two tires on the one side of the car on our sidewalk because his car :  MR. LOROW: About two months ago my  car got sideswiped.  MS. VELEHOSKI: And we park sO that  there's enough space for the cars to go through sO we don't get hit. Well, we came out : this was last week or the week    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  before : and four or five of the cars on the street, we all got citations for parking on our sidewalk. Now we're parking on the street and the cars are trying to beat each other sO that they can pass through. It's just ridiculous. I practically begged the chief of police please, could you just have someone sit there, and he said well, I have people sitting down by the bottom, there, by the car wash. I said that doesn't do us any good. They fly and then they stop for the stop sign and turn by the car wash.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Are you guys  more towards Drake Street :  MS. VELEHOSKI: We're right in the  middle.  MR. VELEHOSKI: Right near Harrison. MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: What we could  do is we can relay it to the chief about putting either lines and speed trap there, speed limit signs, and maybe a little bit  more patrol.  MR. VELEHOSKI: There are lines  already painted.  MS. VELEHOSKI: Nobody came out to    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  monitor them.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: So we'11 relay  to him that you guys are requesting maybe speed limit signs on the road and then a  little bit more patrol.  MR. LOROW: At the end of Drake's  there's a turn onto Main and it's normally a very long light. Nobody wants to wait at that light sO it's just through traffic.  MS. VELEHOSKI: They're doing a cut  through. I think that's the whole problem because that light is very long. There's no turn on red. So these cars are using our street as a cut through to get down to the  other part of Main.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: We'11 relay it  to the chief and ask him to do a little bit more patrol there and also speed limit signs. Have a good evening.  Laureen Cummings?  MS. CUMMINGS: I'm just here because  there's a project going on in Moosic that someone reached out to me and asked me to let you all know about. There's a 1.1 million square foot warehouse being asked to    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  be built on old Powder Mill Road. So apparently the project is going to bring in over 900 trucks coming through in the morning and in the afternoon. There's only a few ways out of 01d Forge to get to 81. That's down Moosic Road, make a Teft onto Main, and then go over to 81 south or north. That's going to be completely filled with trucks. Nine hundred and some trucks is going to add to our way to get to work  through the area.  I'm from Moosic, so it's a little  bit upsetting to me to see that happen to the people on Spike Island. I know what it's like to get out into 81 every morning. It's really difficult. Now they're talking about bringing more residents in that are going to have more problems getting onto 81. So I just wanted to bring it to your  attention.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Off of 502. MS. CUMMINGS: Luzerne County  already said no to their approvals for the zoning sO they went to Moosic. There was over 80 people at the Moosic Borough meeting    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  to resist this. I don't know what's going to go on with the 81 project, but right now it didn't happen. As someone that has traveled that road in the winter we always had a problem with semis jackknifing on the hill up to 81. Just always been a problem. Just wanted to bring it to the residents' attention. Thank you sO much for listening.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Thank you,  Laureen. Bob Pikarski?  MR. PIKARSKI: I showed the pictures  last meeting. He's supposedly closed, which  he isn't.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Bill, the  property down on South Moosic :  ATTY. RINALDI: I know I asked Mike  to check.  MR. SOKOLOWSKI: I spoke with Jerry  Styles. He's on vacation. He called me back yesterday. He said he's going to stop  down and see what he can do.  MR. PIKARSKI: He's still sending  stuff out and nothing's getting done.  MS. PIKARSKI: It's usually early in  the morning he's loading the trucks.    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  MR. SOKOLOWSKI: Call me in the  morning. I'm here by 7:00.  MR. FEBBO: You know Mike is on it.  We all are, really.  MR. HOOVER: Do the next step in the  process. We're going to do the next step.  Write the letter.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Mr. Dunbar and  Mike Gallacher?  ATTY. GALLACHER: Good evening. My  name is Mike Gallacher. I represent Holly Ridge Estates, Inc. and Mr. Dunbar. I've obviously been in front of council a number of times, including most recently last week. We are here again this week in follow-up to that meeting last week in relation to a LERTA for the Holly Ridge development.  There have been a few developments  in the last week since we were here. We were able to hunt down and obtain some additional documents related to the Holly Ridge property. With council's indulgence I'd like to just do a Tittle brief history, not too long, but going back to about 2009, 2010 in relation to this property, the TIF    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  that was discussed at the last meeting that there is on the property, how that came about, where it is now, and where we're asking council to move forward at this  point.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Just sO you're  aware, under new business there will be a motion proposed tonight about Holly Ridge Estates. Just sO you're aware.  ATTY. GALLACHER: And that's what we  are asking. When I do my presentation we're going to ask for the LERTA to be enacted tonight, to be passed. That's our request  tonight.  To understand the history I just  want to give a brief summary of the TIF legislation. TIF legislation is the law. It's basically what the legislature and then signed by the governor says here's the law, here's what you do. Under TIF, if you want to get a TIF area approved there's a whole process that you have to go through just like you have to do to get a LERTA.  What it requires is essentially that  the area redevelopment authority come up    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  with a plan, that they go to the local municipal governing entities : i.e., the council and the school board : that they present the plan, and that the school board and council then approve a plan and send it back to the redevelopment authority, which then says yup, council's approved it, school board's approved it, we're going to designate this as a TIF area.  What the statute actually says is in  relation to the involvement of the local municipal governments : in other words, the borough of 01d Forge : it says it shall be created. "A tax increment district shall be created in the following manner," and it says that "the governing body of the municipality which will create the tax increment district shall hold at least one public hearing at which interested parties are afforded a reasonable opportunity to express their views on the concept of tax increment financing on the proposed creation of the tax increment district and its  proposed boundaries."  So the TIF law requires that the    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  borough of 01d Forge have a public meeting  in order to approve a TIF.  It then goes on to say that once  they have that : and it says, actually, they have to advertise the meeting, it has to be advertised at least 30 days before  then.  The statute then goes on to say that  after that meeting the borough has to wait, and it says "in order to create the district and adopt the project plan the governing body of the municipality which will create the district" : again, the 01d Forge Borough - "shall adopt, not earlier than three weeks after the public hearing described in the previous paragraph of the statute, a resolution or ordinance" that basically has to set forth certain things and certain findings including that the  district is blighted.  So under the TIF statute there has  to be a public hearing by 01d Forge Council, there has to be a public hearing also by the 01d Forge School District. Following that there has to be a period of at least that    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  three week period, and then the borough and the school board can pass a resolution approving the TIF. It then goes back to the redevelopment authority, they say okay, this has been approved by council, it's been approved by resolution of the 01d Forge School Board, we are going to create the TIF. We're going to create this district.  So that's the process that has to go  through. There has to be a designation of blight, a resolution saying there was a designation of blight, and then the  approval.  What we have here is we had just  that happen. So back in 2009 the  redevelopment authority apparently came to 01d Forge and to the school board : the statute says they have to meet with someone from there  and a TIF was proposed for this property that Holly Ridge now owns. It was actually two parcels at the time. One of the parcels has since been sold off. So it included the Holly Ridge property and  another piece of property.  Pursuant to the 01d Forge ordinances    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  and codes it went in front of the planning comission. So the 01d Forge Planning Commission had its own public hearing on the TIF, and on August 6, 2009 the borough of 01d Forge passed a resolution describing this specific property as 23 acres, has the pin number of the property, it goes through the requirements for blight, and the 01d Forge Planning Commission specifically says "it's found and determined that this project is a blighted area based on one or some of the conditions enumerated above."  So they found that this was  specifically a blighted property. The 01d Forge Planning Commission determined it was blighted back on August 6 of 2009. If council wants to see any of these documents - have these. I have copies if you'd like  to see them.  Next it goes to the school board, sO  that's in August of 2009. In November of 2009 it goes in front of the 01d Forge School Board, and the 01d Forge School Board, on November 18 of 2009, issues a resolution also. The resolution    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  specifically addresses that it's a resolution specifically under TIF. It's there to "address conditions of blight and inadequate planning and development." It says conditions upon the tax increment district being duly created, all  requirements of the Tax Increment Financing Act being duly complied," and goes on to  approve the district.  So the 01d Forge School Board  essentially says yup, we recognize that the requirements of the TIF Act are being met. There is a blighted condition here. By law they would have to have had a public meeting. They don't specifically reference it in this document, but they would have had to have had it, and they issued this resolution on November 18 of 2009.  We then get to the 01d Forge Borough  Council. They were a little later, but in June of 2010 it apparently comes in front of the 01d Forge Borough Council and they issue a - resolution also. I don't know if any of you were members at the time. I suspect probably not. But in 2010 the borough of    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  01d Forge signs a resolution, approves a resolution, passes a resolution, whatever you want to say, where it has language almost identical to the school board resolution, recognizes the requirements of the TIF Act to "address conditions of blight and inadequate planning and development. It says specifically that the borough of 01d Forge desires to participate in the project, and, again, it recognizes that the TIF will be approved, all conditions of the Tax Increment Financing Act being duly complied  with.  So the borough of 01d Forge, again,  by the statute, would have had to have had a  meeting. The resolution does not specifically recognize that there was a public meeting held but they would have had to have done it pursuant to the TIF Act because that's what's required.  So we now have : and I should point  out that I know members of council may not have been members then, but actually the secretary was still the same. It was actually signed by Marylynn Bartoletti. So    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  at the time we have a signature, it was passed, the resolution was passed, and it was sent back to the redevelopment authority  of Lackawanna County.  Part of the reason that we know that  the public meeting was held, because when it goes back to the redevelopment authority and it goes to the county commissioners they also sign a resolution. This resolution is signed on July 28 of 2010. This is about a month after the Borough of 01d Forge Council  signs its resolution.  In the county resolution it  specifically recognizes that there was a meeting held by 01d Forge  here's what it says. "The borough of 01d Forge School District and the borough, each having agreed to participate in the plan pursuant to a resolution duly adopted by borough council and the borough of 01d Forge on June 15, 2010, and pursuant to a resolution adopted by the board of school directors of the school district on November 18, 2009, respectively, and have provided copies of  the resolution to the county. "    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  It then says "whereas, a public  hearing has been duly advertised and held on July 6, 2010 pursuant to the requirements of the TIF Act and its proposed boundaries, and all conditions precedent to the creation of the TIF district as required by the TIF Act having been satisfied," the resolution then goes on to approve the TIF district.  So we have Lackawanna County, then,  recognizing that the borough of 01d Forge and the school district of 01d Forge and the planning commission recognize this property as blighted property, as it's required to do pursuant to the TIF Act, that they agreed to the TIF, and that they passed a resolution saying this is a blighted property. We declare it's blighted pursuant to the conditions that are required under the act to determine it's blighted and the TIF is  hereby approved.  Now, what we found out is the TIF  never really was implemented because the owner at the time didn't get the financing. But you have TIF that was approved based on the determination that the area was    49  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  blighted. I'm sure you're all familiar with that property. Nothing has been done with that property since. It has not been improved, it has not gotten better. If anything, it's probably gotten worse. There's probably a little more dumping going on there, it's a little more overgrown. It has not gotten any better and the blight  condition is still there.  So the LERTA statute requires that  in order to pass the LERTA it has to be a finding of blight. Our position is that that has been done. There has been a finding of blight. That they found : 01d Forge Council, the school board, the planning commission and Lackawanna County, back in 2009 and 2010, looked at this property very carefully. They came together, they met, they looked at it, examined blueprints, plans, everything and determined this is a blighted property.  So our position is we have the  determination of blight. Pursuant to LERTA you need that determination of blight before  you can approve the LERTA.    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  Now, the statute also says that if  you have a TIF you can't have a LERTA. You can only have one or the other. When we were before you last : like I said, we've gotten more documents. Even some of these as recently as today. So what we're asking is that the borough would have to dissolve the TIF and grant the LERTA. We're asking that those be done at the same time. Now, specifically the TIF statute : again, I want to refer council to that : provides for how to do just that. It basically says you can't have a TIF without : or youcan't have a LERTA without the TIF being  dissolved. It says "the existence of a Tax Increment District shall be terminated when  either of the following occurs."  One is the TIF is played out,  paraphrasing there. Basically the money's granted, it's paid back. A11 that is done  the way it should be done.  Two, "the governing body of the  municipality which created the district" that would be 01d Forge Council : "by resolution dissolves the district." So the    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  borough council is the only one that can dissolve the district. You would be the ones that would have to dissolve the district, and we're asking that the TIF district be dissolved in conjunction with  the granting of the LERTA.  Now, we can get into : and we have  our accountant here to give some information on that. I'm not going to get into the numbers and everything like that. We gave you a lot of that stuff last week.  So we are asking that the LERTA be  granted tonight. We think that it can be granted. There's no reason not to. It's a blighted property. It was declared blighted by the planning commission, the 01d Forge Council, the 01d Forge School District, and Lackawanna County. That has not changed. But we do need to dissolve the TIF in order to grant the LERTA. We're asking that that  be done.  I know Chief Semenza indicated that  he would be talking about Doctor  Notarianni's comments, and I'11 just make a couple brief statements on that and then    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  I'11 turn it over to our financial accountant to talk about some of the  numbers.  If you could go back in time to  before Birchwood was built, and if we were coming back in front of you at that time and someone came in and said we don't want Birchwood, we'd rather have a vacant lot where people dumping on it, we don't want all those people coming in with mid to high range incomes, we don't want a beautiful development there, we'd rather have a blighted property, would you have granted  the LERTA or not?  Would you be better off with what's  there now, that yes, right now there is a tax deferment which made that development possible, but in the not too distant future the borough and the school district and everybody's already starting to recognize some of the increased taxes on the assessments only : I'm not talking about the income that's coming in from all the residents. But you're starting to recognize and see the tax income from the property    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  itself, the property tax income, and that's  going to grow over time.  In several years, instead of  getting -- I think it was about $400 a year from that property, everybody's going to be getting thousands, tens of thousands of dollars in tax revenue from that property. So that's a question I would ask as you're  sitting here now.  But I'd point out also that we're  not here tonight asking for whether or not Holly Ridge should be allowed to go forward. That's been done a long time ago. Those plans are already approved, the development is approved. It's most likely going to get built in one form or another. So the question is do you want to have a nice development where you have high-end people coming in? I think by Doctor Notarianni's argument, I think  this is how I was seeing it : he would almost rather that it not be developed at all or that it be developed with low income families sO that it's showing that the numbers are down sO they can get more money for the school    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  district. It's a strange argument to me. I don't think I've ever heard of a community that says well, we don't want to develop properties sO that we can get more money for the school district or we'd rather have all this Tow income property people coming into the area because it's going to give us more money for the school district. It doesn't make sense to me. I think that, you know, what we presented last week, the quality of the work that Mr. Dunbar does with all the developments that he's done, I think that you want to keep 01d Forge moving forward and not go back, and I think the way to do that is to allow Holly Ridge to be developed in a way similar to Birchwood that's going to bring in good quality people and make it a wonderful development that's going to generate a lot of money for the borough, for the school district, for everyone over a  period of time.  So that's what we have. I'17 refer  to Mr. Chris Wartella unless any of you have  any questions for me.  MR. FEBBO: We hear you, what you    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  had to say. We sat here in executive session with our attorney. Based on what he had to say I'm confused. I C don't know about  everybody else.  ATTY. RINALDI: Well, he's right on  everything but one point. A TIF district can only be created by an industrial development authority or a redevelopment authority. This district was created by Lackawanna County Redevelopment Authority. They are going to disavow it. They're going to put an ad in the paper tomorrow.  ATTY. GALLACHER: I don't think they  can disavow it, Bill, with all due respect,  once it's been created.  ATTY. RINALDI: They're the only  ones that can. As long as bonds aren't an issue they can disavow it. I'17 give you the section. First of all, you want to look at powers of authority. Actually, if you go to the beginning of the act and read it, it says 'industrial and commercial development authority or redevelopment authority."  ATTY. GALLACHER: You're referring  to the TIF Act. Okay.    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. RINALDI: Once they propose  it, then they make a formal presentation to the governing body, which in this case is the borough and the school district and  Lackawanna County.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Correct. ATTY. RINALDI: So that's who  created this particular TIF. It was the county that created it. The redevelopment authority. We approved it, said we don't have any objection to it. We go along with  it, the borough.  To dissolve it, if you go down to  section eight, "the governing body is the municipality which created the district and which can dissolve that district." In that case the creator governing body is the Lackawanna Redevelopment Authority. "The district may not be dissolved as long as tax increment bonds or notes for the district  remain outstanding."  So she went through all the minutes,  didn't find that last one I indicated, but I have a resolution from December 9, 2009 where the redevelopment authority enacted a    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  TIF district on two pin numbers in 01d Forge. Your client now owns one of them. And then they put the conditions to do the rest of it, proposed to the borough or the school district. They were aware of it as of Friday. Monday they reviewed all the information. Their solicitor got back to me at 5:17 today. There was an agreement. "We will do a resolution to disavow any TIF sO that the LERTA can for forward. So that's  going to be done.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Well, I disagree  with you on that, Bill, because I think that section eight is talking about the municipality which created the district, which would in this case include 01d Forge because it specifically describes, if you look at the definitions, "the governing body as the legislative body of the municipality authorized by law to Tevy taxes."  ATTY. RINALDI: I only go by who  created it, and I know we didn't create it.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Well, I think the  borough did create it.  ATTY. RINALDI: We approved it.    58  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: Approved it and  partially created it, but it has to be the governing body of the municipality which  created.  ATTY. RINALDI: Basically you want  to talk to Lackawanna Redevelopment  Authority :  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Attorney  Gallacher, if I can interrupt, because it seems like we were on page and then we got off and then I got confused as well. I was going to ask about the TIF being created by the county or us and who has to disavow first. According to the findings today that we discussed with our solicitor prior to the meeting those were the findings that we had. So our motion tonight was going to read to entertain a LERTA contingent upon the county disavowing the TIF, because according to the documentation he got from them they would have to disavow it before we could or we don't even have the authority to disavow it.  Now with you reading that : and  I'11 be honest, I don't quite understand that. So I was taking it that the county    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  had to disavow it first, so that's why when you guy were on the agenda for this evening it was going to be contingent upon them to disavow it. Just sO you're aware of that.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Perhaps I could  propose a compromise here. Perhaps a resolution that would say the LERTA is approved contingent upon the TIF being dissolved. I don't think it has to be disavowed. The statute specifically says  dissolved.  ATTY. RINALDI: Two problems with  that.  ATTY. GALLACHER: The second part of  what I was going to say is but we will disavow it to the extent that we can. Meaning we, the council, will disavow it.  ATTY. RINALDI: We have to advertise  the ordinance and have a public hearing on the LERTA district. There's no LERTA district on the property. If you read the ordinance this counciT has to set a LERTA district. It's already been blighted. We can use what was done in the past, but the boundaries of the district, whether it's    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  your project or property, five blocks or the entire borough, it has to be determined by council pursuant to LERTA. You read all  your :  ATTY. GALLACHER: But that's been  done already. Whether it's TIF or LERTA it  doesn't matter.  ATTY. RINALDI: No :  ATTY. GALLACHER: The LERTA statute  says you have to set a boundary of the blighted area and it has to be :  ATTY. RINALDI: I read it for  council. And we're talking about you want a  LERTA. Correct?  ATTY. GALLACHER: We want a LERTA.  Correct. Whether it's a blight under TIF or a determination of blight under LERTA, it's  been done.  ATTY. RINALDI: LERTA we have the  ability to do without anybody else. So we can decide what is a deteriorated or an economically depressed community in the borough prior to the adoption of an ordinance or resolution : in this case it has to be an ordinance : authorizing the    61  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  granting of tax exemptions to your client. You're the one that wants the tax  exemptions. Correct?  ATTY. GALLACHER: We do, Bill, and  that's been done. That's what I'm saying.  Pursuant to LERTA :  ATTY. RINALDI: You have an  ordinances that says we gave :  ATTY. GALLACHER: There's no LERTA  yet, but all the LERTA statute says :  ATTY. RINALDI: "Prior to the  adoption of the ordinance authorizing the granting of a tax exemption" : which is  what you're asking for :  ATTY. GALLACHER: That is correct. ATTY. RINALDI: "The municipal  governing body" : borough of 01d Forge in this case : "shall affix the boundaries of a ( deteriorated jurisdiction, if any. At least one public hearing shall be held by the municipal governing body for the purposes of determining said boundaries of  LERTA districts."  ATTY. GALLACHER: I doesn't say of  the LERTA district, Bill. You're reading    62  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 into it. It says : you're correct. Its says there has to be one public hearing. The public hearing is for purposes of determining the boundaries of the blighted property. It says that before the LERTA can be granted the council has to determine the boundaries of the blighted area, and they  did that.  ATTY. RINALDI: You want to set the  boundaries of the LERTA district :  ATTY. GALLACHER: It's been done. ATTY. RINALDI: We never had a  meeting on setting the boundaries of a LERTA  district :  ATTY. GALLACHER: You had a meeting  on setting the boundaries of the blighted  property.  ATTY. RINALDI: We agreed to a TIF  district, and the planning commission recommended a blighted area under the  original   ATTY. GALLACHER: And council  approved it as a blighted area.  ATTY. RINALDI: Everything you  read in accordance with the TIF, in    63  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  accordance with the TIF, we did this : we did this, we did this. Nothing says LERTA. A17 I'm saying is council wants to get this moving forward, we're getting it moving  forward.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Whether it was  done for TIF or LERTA it doesn't matter. Both statutes require that the council set the boundaries of the blighted district. That was done. That has not changed. It's  been done.  ATTY. RINALDI: Read the ordinance.  Prior to adoption of the ordinance.  ATTY. GALLACHER: And that's been  done. It was done in 2009 and 2010.  ATTY. RINALDI: We set the areas  of : deteriorated areas to be declared :  ATTY. GALLACHER: It's determined a  blighted area. Whether it was for LERTA or  TIF doesn't matter.  ATTY. RINALDI: You can't apply  areas for different tax purposes. We have not said anybody in this area can have a LERTA. That's what the ordinance does. Now, your area is small. You're asking for    64  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  just that new Holly Ridge Estates to be a  LERTA area.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Correct.  ATTY. RINALDI: So they're going to  have a public meeting to say that's going to be a LERTA district. Not a TIF district, a  LERTA district.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Our position,  council, is that that's already been done. It was done in 2010 by council, in June of 2010. It was approved as a blighted area. That complies with the requirements of the statute, and I'm confident if this ended up in any court in front of any judge they would read the statute that way, because all it says is before you grant the LERTA you have to set the boundaries of the blighted area, and that was done back in 2010 by  council here.  ATTY. RINALDI: Deteriorated area  for purpose of LERTA.  ATTY. GALLACHER: It doesn't say for  purposes of LERTA. You added that in. It  does not say that.  ATTY. RINALDI: Deteriorated    65  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  property. "Any industrial, commercial or other business properties in a deteriorated area as provided for, such property which has been subject to an order of governing agency require the unit to be vacated"  ATTY. GALLACHER: Well, we're  asking  ATTY. RINALDI: We never did a  deteriorated property on a LERTA. That's  all I'm saying.  ATTY. GALLACHER: And you don't need  to. The statute says that there has to be a determination of deteriorated or blighted area prior to approval of LERTA. That's been done. We're asking council to vote on it tonight to approve the LERTA, again, conditioned upon dissolution of the TIF, whether it's supposed to be by the county, or to the extent that council can dissolve it, to dissolve it. To vote to dissolve it.  Again, our position is it's the  council that needs to do it. If the county wants to do it or the redevelopment authority it's redundant, perhaps. That's fine. But we're asking that there be a vote    66  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  tonight on approval of the LERTA and not come back for another public hearing because it's already been done. We've already done it once. We don't need to do it again and I don't think council needs to waste time doing it again. It's been done. There was a lot of time and effort put into it back at  that time.  So the property hasn't changed.  It's still blighted. It's already been done. Our position and our request is to vote on the granting of the LERTA tonight.  That's what we're asking for.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Attorney  Gallacher, you're saying that your position representing Holly Ridge Estates,  Mr. Dunbar, you are saying that you don't think it has to go before a public meeting  because it already did?  ATTY. RINALDI: The ordinance : ATTY. GALLACHER: Because it already  did. Correct. Back in 2009 and 2010 it went from three public meetings, actually, possibly four. One with the school board, one with the planning commission and one    67  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  with borough council, and at that time there was a public meeting held. By statute it was required that the meeting be held and that the resolution be adopted after the public meeting. That was done. The LERTA statute doesn't say you have to have a separate public meeting specifically for LERTA. It just says there has to be a public meeting at which the area is determined blighted at some point prior to passage of the LERTA resolution.  ATTY. RINALDI: And you're saying  that the district can be done without advertising the ordinance :  ATTY. GALLACHER: It's been done. ATTY. RINALDI: The ordinance has  not been advertised.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Advertise what  ordinance, Bill?  ATTY. RINALDI: The LERTA ordinance. ATTY. GALLACHER: What needs to be  advertised is a public hearing on the  determination of blight.  ATTY. RINALDI: LERTA ordinance has  to be public seven days in advance of a    68  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  meeting. Every ordinance of the borough.  I'm not :-  MR. GALLACHER: This is a resolution  we're asking for, not an ordinance.  ATTY. RINALDI: It's an ordinance  now. As of 2015 or '16 the act changed. I'11 print you out a graph. Anything that's not administerial can be a resolution. Everything else involving money has to be an  ordinance.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Well, it  doesn't :  ATTY. RINALDI: I double-check these  all the time with the state legislature  association.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Well, the LERTA  statute, Bill, says by ordinance or  resolution.  ATTY. RINALDI: And I totally agree  with you.  ATTY. GALLACHER: And we're asking  for a resolution here.  ATTY. RINALDI: The problem is read  the 144 of the borough code.  ATTY. GALLACHER: They didn't change    69  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  LERTA. LERTA still says resolution.  ATTY. RINALDI: Which amended the  borough code. It says "or resolution."  Whatever you require.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Ordinance or  resolution. A resolution is permitted to do  this.  ATTY. RINALDI: I'm going to try to  give them the best advice I can.  ATTY. GALLACHER: I understand that,  and you know our position. We'd like the vote tonight. It can be by resolution. The statute specifically says ordinance or resolution. It has been advertised, there had been multiple public hearings held on the determination of the blighted area and it's already been blighted. A determination has been reached. It doesn't need to be  done again.  MR. FEBBO: What we need here is an  understanding between our solicitor and you. We want to get this resolved. We don't want a lawsuit from you, and at the same time we want to be sure that we're protected here at  the borough.    70  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 being said, as legal counsel  you both : we need an answer. We need an  answer.  ATTY. GALLACHER: I've been talking  to Bill since last week. We have different  positions on this.  MR. FEBBO: The best resolution I  heard sO far was from our president, Mr. Rinaldi. Putting it in there :  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Making it  contingent upon :  ATTY. GALLACHER: That's what we're  asking. We're asking that the LERTA be granted contingent upon the dissolution of the TIF and that council dissolves the TIF  to the extent that they can.  MR. FEBBO: That being said,  contingency. Can you hold on with that as we go through the process of getting of getting the TIF eliminated and enacting the  LERTA?  ATTY. GALLACHER: Well, apparently  it's going to be dissolved or disavowed  tomorrow.  MR. FEBBO: For a time factor :    71  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. RINALDI: We get the ad in  tomorrow's paper you can have a special  meeting next :  ATTY. GALLACHER: Again, our  position is there's no need to do that. We don't want or need to go back to another  hearing.  MR. FEBBO: I understand your  position. We have to go by his position also. So can we get together? Can you hold off -- is it a week, Bill? Get our meetings  in and everything else.  ATTY. RINALDI: You can pick the  date.  MR. FEBBO: We as council will  expedite it to get it done.  MR. GALLACHER: We're here tonight,  Councilman Febbo, asking for the approval of the LERTA. My client does not want to come back and I don't think we would be coming back if it's not approved tonight.  MR. NOTARI: Mr. Gallacher, that's  what the LERTA says. We do not have any documentation that spells out a LERTA.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Again, I can share    72  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  all this with you. I have copies of any of  this.  MR. NOTARI: You're asking us to  pass something that we do not have, we have not studied, we have not looked over.  ATTY. RINALDI: Don't you have to go  to the redevelopment authority?  ATTY. GALLACHER: There's no need  to, Bill. The statute is very clear :  ATTY. RINALDI: "Please be advised  that after discussing the matter of having the redevelopment authority disavow the TIF district in 01d Forge as referenced in your e-mail, Brenda Sacco, is in agreement with the same and thus I am in the process of getting a resolution to that effect to the redevelopment authority to adopt the same, because in accordance with the statute you cannot have a LERTA on TIF district  property.  ATTY. GALLACHER: I agree 100  percent with that statement, but it needs to  be  ATTY. RINALDI: Then as soon as we  get that, which could be tomorrow :    73  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. HOOVER: We want to get rid of  one and then you have :-  ATTY. GALLACHER: What you're asking  my client to do is to surrender the TIF he has on the chance that maybe there would be a LERTA given at some point in the future.  ATTY. RINALDI: He can't. He can't.  It runs with the land. He can sell the property. He can't. The property owner can't surrender his TIF. He just doesn't  make application for it.  ATTY. GALLACHER: You're asking us  to make application to dissolve a TIF, a tax benefit that he has on the property right  now.  ATTY. RINALDI: No, we're asking the  Lackawanna Redevelopment Authority to dissolve it because they created it.  ATTY. GALLACHER: We haven't asked  them to do that.  MR. FEBBO: Wait. Bill, we're  saying here on contingency, meaning that we wi7l give you the LERTA  give back the TIF, rather, and you get the LERTA.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Correct, one is    74  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  conditioned upon the other. But what he is saying, then, is no, we're not giving you the LERTA. We have to do a public hearing,  we have to advertise it.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: No, that's not  the motion.  MR. LETTIERI: We need the TIF to  get dissolved. Right?  MR. BUTLER: We're covering our  bases. That's all.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: The LERTA was  going to be contingent upon them, the  county =  MR. FEBBO: We don't give it up  unless we :  MR. DUNBAR: George Dunbar,  president of Holly Ridge. Gentlemen, sO there's not going to be another hearing. So as I understand this, if you agree and we agree, we come to a deal to move this town forward - I'm not going to get into all the sales part of it and what it's going to do. You all know what it's going to do. I'm not going to want to have another public hearing. As the statute states, which is    75  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 rule of law that governs our commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we are following that to the book. We don't want to have another hearing. We want - we'17 give you back the TIF, right, with the condition that we get the LERTA. If you want to hold that, right, make the motion tonight and we'17 hold that in abeyance  until we get this resolved.  But in that motion it would have to  state that we're not going to do another public hearing because it was already done four times for this property. That's going  be to my position with that.  Mr. Notari, to answer your question,  when we were here last week we said the LERTA will be exactly the same as Birchwood.  MR. NOTARI: I don't know what that  is.  MR. DUNBAR: Please, I have the  floor. You've been a councilman for how  many years?  MR. NOTARI: Seven.  MR. DUNBAR: A long time. Serve the  community, read a lot of documents. So you    76  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  mean to tell me since Birchwood's been established, in six years you never looked  at the LERTA document?  MR. NOTARI: No, I have not. Idid  not have that document, I've not looked at that document, I don't know where to find  that a document.  MR. DUNBAR: It's right here at the  borough building. In addition to that my attorney, Michael Gallacher, sent a new proposed order to solicitor Rinaldi seven days ago. So Bill's had that and the borough manager's had that because she was  copied on every e-mail.  ATTY. RINALDI: I got it. It's on  the phone.  MR. DUNBAR: So we're all pretty  smart guys, sO it would literally take four minutes to read that. So it's the same  exact thing.  So I don't want to get sidetracked.  I want to move forward. Look, I have a time frame. Right? I've got to meet that time frame. I C can't keep bobbing and weaving, bobbing and weaving. I've got to get this    77  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  done. I - have a lot to put together. Time is of the most importance here. I've got to get material, I've got to get water lines, sanitary lines, building products. Right? I've got to get a bank on board.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Mr. Dunbar, I  think the reason for the next meeting will be for us to vote on adopting the  resolution.  ATTY. RINALDI: A11 due respect, the  TIF district took eight, nine months. The last LERTA took at least a year. It's not like five days we can put this all together.  MR. DUNBAR: We're not asking you.  It's already put together, Bill. It was put  together years ago.  ATTY. RINALDI: It's not because  you're asking for one from the borough alone, sO there's nobody to manage it. The county's not going to manage this. There's got to be legislation put forward.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Manage what? It's  a LERTA. It basically says what the reduction in the taxes is and for how long.  MR. DUNBAR: The county assessor    78  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  manages it, too, when he does the  assessments.  ATTY. RINALDI: The other LERTA went  through the county, sO the county adopted the program and asked everybody :  MR. DUNBAR: No, the other LERTA  went through the municipality first, Bill, then the school district, then the county. That's the order we went in. That was the  sequence, just for the record.  ATTY. RINALDI: George Kelly from  the redevelopment authority. I worked with him on it. They presented the package to council at several different meetings and presented it to planning. Lackawanna County manages that LERTA. When you went for your exemption you filed it at the county level.  Correct?  ATTY. GALLACHER: No, we didn't. ATTY. RINALDI: You had to. MR. GALLACHER: No.  ATTY. RINALDI: You filed an  exemption form here? We don't have them. That's my point. You filed at the county  level for the assessment.    79  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. GALLACHER: But there's no  management of it. Once the LERTA is granted  the tax is reduced.  ATTY. RINALDI: You better read the  act because there is a management of it, and the county was fulfilling that job. We're going to fill that job for you as soon as we enact it. So you make application here because my understanding is you're only  asking us :  MR. DUNBAR: So what I think the  sticking point is here, having another public hearing. I think that's the sticking point right now. If we can work this out, hammer this out tonight I think we can move forward. I understand if you want to, you know, make a motion contingent upon the TIF being dissolved and the LERTA being granted. But I wouldn't want to go through the  process again.  As attorney Gallacher stated, we  have records, we have signatures, we have documentation that it's been done four times already, public hearings have been made.  MR. HOOVER: Documentation to the    80  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  public was done four times?  MR. DUNBAR: Yes.  ATTY. RINALDI: In connection with  the TIF.  MR. DUNBAR: Jimmy, the land was  deemed blighted. So once the land is deem blighted it's always blighted until  improvements are made. It doesn't matter if it's for a TIF or if it's for LERTA or if it's for KOZ, which they offered developers years ago. The reason for, obviously, the LERTA is to entice developers like myself to come in the community and generate economic  development.  ATTY. GALLACHER: The LERTA statute  and the TIF statute both require a hearing on the issue of blight, not on the issue of whether the TIF should be approved or whether the LERTA should be approved.  ATTY. RINALDI: And they were all  advertised. They were advertised as public  pursuant to the TIF.  MR. DUNBAR: See, as a developer I'm  required to be in compliance with the municipality SALDO and an array of    81  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  ordinances. So I have my legal team. We only go by statute. Right? What does it say. That's our guide with everything that we do. So attorney Gallacher is telling you that tonight, that we are not required to have another hearing. You are required to dissolve the TIF. You have the authority to dissolve it. He has the statute which is the law of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: My question is  why did the county tell us that they have to  dissolve the TIF?  MR. DUNBAR: Maybe inexperience,  Russ. They're not used to it. They're  young.  ATTY. GALLACHER: If they want to do  it there's no harm in them issuing something saying we dissolve it also, but we believe that the borough is the one that really  needs to dissolve it.  ATTY. RINALDI: The creator of the  TIF district, which is Lackawanna County, can only dissolve it. That it's only after they create it they seek approval from the  municipality, which they did.    82  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: The statute says  the local governing municipality, and it describes it as the taxing entity. The redevelopment authority is not a taxing  entity.  MR. FEBBO: But the criteria for  blight is the same for TIF and for LERTA.  MR. DUNBAR: Correct, exactly the  same.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Absolutely the  same.  ATTY. RINALDI: It is different, but  there was a blight determination. But the determination of a LERTA is a different description. If you read under all the criteria that they ask for input.  MR. FEBBO: But the public meeting  you're going to be asking for a blight : a  TIF or :  ATTY. RINALDI: You want to make  this district a LERTA. It's already been recommended to us by the planning  commission :  ATTY. GALLACHER: It doesn't say  that, Bill. It says specifically    83  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. RINALDI: I'11 read it to you  again.  ATTY. GALLACHER: It says "the  taxing authority may, by ordinance or resolution, exempt real property taxation  with assessed valuation."  ATTY. RINALDI: "At the public  hearing the local taxing authorities, planning commission or redevelopment authority and other public and private agencies and individuals knowledgeable and interested in the improvement of deteriorated areas shall present their recommendations concerning the location and boundaries of deteriorated areas per the guidance of the municipal bodies. Such recommendation taking into account the criteria set forth in the urban development law, but also the Neighborhood Assistant Act for the determination of unsanitary or required buildings or property adjacent to those areas which they think might meet the criteria, which may be included within the deteriorated area if the local taxing authority determines that new construction    84  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 such property" -- that's not under the  TIF Act.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Well, Bill, you  didn't --  ATTY. RINALDI: Every meeting that  we advertised for the TIF Act which people were coming and saying we he want to do this under a TIF Act to give : to allow you to get financing, which means you were still going to pay the full boat in taxes. They just go into a separate fund that services  your debt.  A LERTA, if you're coming and saying  to the borough hey, we don't want to pay taxes, we want a discount on our improvements for a period of ten years, that's a different animal than saying you're going to tax us. We're just going to use it  to borrow money.  ATTY. GALLACHER: You didn't read  the two sentences before that where it doesn't matter what the purpose of it is. There's no hearing, again, on whether or not to grant the LERTA or whether or not to  grant the TIF.    85  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. RINALDI: Prior to the  adoption of the ordinance or resolution. Right now it's an ordinance because Act 144 changed. Prior to that, I'm saying, what your tax exemptions are going to be, "at least one public meeting shall be held by the municipal body to determine deteriorated  area."  ATTY. GALLACHER: To determine the  deteriorated areas.  ATTY. RINALDI: Those tax exemptions  in that area.  ATTY. GALLACHER: It's to determine  the blight.  MR. DUNBAR: Can we have two minutes  to talk?  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Absolutely. ATTY. RINALDI: I'm trying to get it  in in a week.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: Council is  going to take five minutes.  (A brief recess was taken at this  time.)  MR. RUSSEL RINALDI: Mr. Dunbar and  Mr. Gallacher still have the floor.    86  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: We've come up with  a - proposal that we're hoping council will be agreeable to, which is kind of somewhere in between, I think, what we were all talking  about.  What we would ask is that council  make a motion tonight to approve the LERTA as drafted, as submitted after a public hearing one week after advertisement and that it be advertised tomorrow sO that we have a short advertisement period, the seven days, as it required. If council can come back for another meeting next Wednesday or Thursday, perhaps, to do something like that, and it will be conditioned upon the  TIF being dissolved.  MR. FEBBO: And that's after the  public meeting?  ATTY. GALLACHER: It will be after a  public meeting, at a special meeting.  ATTY. RINALDI: I don't have a  problem with the LERTA on the terms they're requesting, for the exemption they're requesting, but if it goes into the ordinance it's at council's purview. If    87  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's what they want, that schedule you presented, I don't have a problem with that, but the rest of the ordinance, there's things that have to go in it. I'm not going to use your : we're going to limit it to Im mean, I'17 tell you right now, just to double-check, we're going to do it for your project. Not for the E-1 section of your property, just for the project area. The  R-2 area.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Correct. The  other part was actually deeded away to the conservation district, I believe.  ATTY. RINALDI: This will not be  contingent upon the other governing bodies. That's my understanding. You want to stand  alone.  ATTY. GALLACHER: Correct. ATTY. RINALDI: And it's for : MR. HOOVER: It's 65 townhouses. ATTY. RINALDI: Sixty-five  townhouses, and I went off your approved  plans.  MR. DUNBAR: So if I may, this is  very important. It's huge. As I stated    88  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  last week, I've got to be able to bob and weave. Let's say I can't build 65 townhomes, I can't build 94 townhomes, I have to build less because the market hit the dump, or the conservation district changes storm water calcs and it allows me to put more structures up. Then I would come back and go through the SALDO and be in compliance with the ordinance and do all  resubmissions.  So I don't know if I want to be  locked in to X amount of units because that could go both ways, and then the more units we have, the more it's better for everybody. The guy who's taking the big risk,  obviously, is me. So I don't know if I want to lock into a specific : we can lock in,  Bill, not to exceed.  ATTY. RINALDI: I can go with not to  exceed the number.  MR. DUNBAR: That's perfect. We can  do that. Not to exceed.  ATTY. RINALDI: I can't go beyond  that because that's your approved plan. They can't write a blank check. I've got to    89  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  reference something. You want it for that project. It's a preliminary plan. Correct?  MR. DUNBAR: Correct.  ATTY. RINALDI: So it has on that, I  counted them, I'11 double-check, seven  apartment buildings   MR. HOOVER: Sixty-five townhouses  and seven apartment buildings.  MR. DUNBAR: Right, with 12 units in  each.  ATTY. RINALDI: The other stuff is  how do you make the application because now  you're making it to us.  MR. DUNBAR: Again, we can put -- I  want to go with a greater number not to exceed. Listen, I can't come back and say I want to put more buildings. I'm dictated by the conservation district and DEP called storm water calculations. The engineer here can attest to that. They're the ones who tell me Mr. Dunbar, you can build 64 units or you can build 30. I have to listen to them, sO they have the authority over me.  ATTY. RINALDI: I can tell you this,  the LERTA amendment for exemptions, if you    90  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  went to planning and got an enlarged  development approval you'd come back and say can I amend my LERTA because now I'm putting two more buildings there which you approved. The LERTA can be amended. But for right  now  MR. DUNBAR: I would be in agreement  with that if we have language to that.  ATTY. RINALDI: I have to work with  what I have right now, which is preliminary plan for up to 65 total townhouse units up to three bedrooms each, and then we have a plan approved for up to seven apartment buildings with 84 apartments, each containing two bedroom : one or two  bedrooms.  MR. DUNBAR: So in the proposal that  we sent to Bill and Marylynn we stated as not to exceed would be 80 townhomes and 12 apartment complex, and I don't ever see it hitting that. It may, it may not. I don't  know.  MR. HOOVER: That would be the max.  MR. DUNBAR: Yes.  ATTY. RINALDI: I want to stay with    91  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 max on your approved plan. If you want to change the plan, then we can amend this.  MR. DUNBAR: So what you're saying  is that if the conservation district, DEP changes their storm water calculations that I'd have to come back to this body and to all the bodies and ask for an amendment on  my LERTA.  ATTY. RINALDI: Yes. In other  words, you're not going to :  MR. DUNBAR: I think the easiest way  out of this for everybody, for everybody, is put a number in there not to exceed sO I'm not wasting your time and you're not wasting my time, I'm not wasting the school  district's time, I'm not wasting the county. If we can come to a number tonight not to exceed that is the key. He's going by what  the plans are approved for.  ATTY. RINALDI: They can't give you  a blank check for a future council. They can't say if and when you decide to do this we'11 do this. I - litigated that case all the way up to the Supreme Court and won. They can only go with what's in front of    92  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  them. If and when you build a school you've  got to do this, this and this.  So this is you've got plans. We're  going to - well, you want :  ATTY. GALLACHER: We have not to  exceed 80 townhouses and 12 apartment  buildings.  ATTY. RINALDI: I was going to do  not to exceed what the preliminary plan is.  MR. DUNBAR: I got it. So past  practice had been established by the municipality, and I'm going to refer to Birchwood. My engineers, we got together, we said you know what? Storm water calcs are a little different. We're going to resubmit our MPDES permit. A' very, very important permit for a developer. It's huge. Just as big as getting a bank to partner with you. It's already been established that this council and the planning commission approved the expansion of Birchwood. So why would I want to give  that up, Bill?  ATTY. RINALDI: You :  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: My question is    93  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  if we decide to put not to exceed a certain number of townhouses, a certain number of apartment buildings he can only construct  the 65 anyway.  MR. DUNBAR: Bingo.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: And if he  wants to do more he has to come back to us  anyway.  ATTY. RINALDI: I agree with you,  but your conditional use there also has a not to exceed. That permit. I didn't bring it with me because you were under it.  ATTY. GALLACHER: We couldn't exceed  that.  MR. DUNBAR: Russell, that's  brilliant.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: He has to come  back regardless, so he can go over anyway without coming back to us to pass it.  ATTY. RINALDI: Right, but the only  project in front of you to decide on, which you're going to have the hearings on, is 65 townhouses and seven apartment buildings.  MR. DUNBAR: You said hearings.  That's plural. Is it hearings or hearing?    94  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. RINALDI: Hearing. And that's  the whole diatribe that it's going to go through. Hey, we want to give a LERTA for these improvements, not more of them. I mean, you can vote on improvements you don't  know what's coming down the pike.  MR. FEBBO: You're doing the same  thing you did down at Birchwood.  MR. DUNBAR: Exactly. Not to  exceed. It's a no brainer. Not to exceed.  It's done.  ATTY. RINALDI: No, you don't want  to put your plans in now. You can't.  MR. DUNBAR: We have the current  plans.  ATTY. RINALDI: A17 you need is a  current plan.  MR. DUNBAR: Just as long as the  language doesn't hold me to that exact : that's what kind of got us in the situation with the school district. People think we're sneaking in buildings, which is  impossible to do.  MR. RUSSELL RINALDI: You'd have to  come back before all the bodies to get