City Council Tackles Lengthy Agenda at April 1 Meeting
By Emily Wright
LOCK HAVEN – The Lock Haven City Council members had their work cut out for them at the April 1 city council meeting, with a full agenda extending to a second page and 24 items to be discussed. Several issues were discussed and voted on, including Resolution No. 2024-10, which resulted from council member Brinker’s request at the March 18 meeting to add a discussion to the April 1 meeting agenda about requests to paint on city-owned streets in downtown Lock Haven. The discussion stemmed from previous meetings where requests were made to paint Pride flags on city streets. In addition, council members also discussed how to use funds from the city’s opioid settlement and a possible formation of a Joint Municipal Authority with the Suburban Water Authority. Updates on the progress of the new police department project were also included in the meeting agenda.
The consideration of Resolution No. 2024-10: Governing the Placement of Decorations, Decals, Logos, Images, and Phrases on the Public Streets in the City was up for discussion and a vote. This Resolution ties in with Resolution No. 2024-09, which governs which flags are permitted to be flown on the flagpole at Triangle Park.
The two Resolutions stem from the February 26 city council meeting, where Bill Stankiewicz requested to fly the Christian flag beneath the American flag at Triangle Park during the month of April. At that same meeting, a request was made to paint Pride flags on Grove and Vesper Streets in downtown Lock Haven. Both requests were approved, however, some members of the Clinton County Pride Alliance expressed opposition to the approval of the Christian flag. After four meetings that included discourse regarding the approval of the request to fly a Christian flag, City Manager Greg Wilson met with City Solicitor Justin Houser to draft a Resolution to outline what flags can and cannot be placed at city-owned parks.
Council member Jeff Brinker shed light on the painted flags not having been removed properly after Pride Month in June as well as the fact that the expense involved in painting the flags falls on the city’s taxpayers rather than the Pride Alliance, who requested to paint them. Dr. Brinker expressed his position on painting anything on city-owned streets at the March 18 meeting which led to his request to discuss the matter further at the April 1 city council meeting, to which Mayor Long and City Manager Greg Wilson agreed.
Dr. Brinker did not request that a Resolution be drafted, but rather a discussion be held regarding the Pride flag painting, or any painting, on the city-owned streets at the March 18 city council meeting, however, in response to his request, Resolution No. 2024-10 was drafted by City Solicitor Justin Houser at the direction of City Manager Greg Wilson and was subsequently included in council members’ packets to be voted on at the April 1 meeting instead.
In short, Resolution No. 2024-10 removes the ability of the public to make requests to paint on or otherwise decorate the city’s streets after Pride Month in June, taking effect July 1, 2024. Since the request to paint the Pride flag on Grove and Vesper Streets in acknowledgment of Pride Month had already been voted on and approved by the city council, regardless of the results of the vote on the Resolution, this year it would still be permitted. The Resolution aims to avoid divisive issues around street decorations in the future.
Tami Brannan expressed concern that Resolution No. 2024-10 could set a precedent that could lead to the city deciding not to allow things such as banners over Main Street or decorations in parks. Clinton County resident Rose Reeder asked for clarification on what exactly constituted a “street” in terms of whether it included the sidewalk. Bre Reynolds of the Clinton County Pride Alliance asserted that the discussion that led to the Resolution was in response to her previous requests to paint Pride flags on city streets in downtown Lock Haven, stating, “This is because it’s rainbows,”.
Upon a motion made by Dr. Brinker, and seconded by council member Steve Stevenson, Mayor Joel Long called for the vote. Resolution No. 2024-10 did not pass, with council members Brannan, Alexander, Conklin, and Masorti voting no and council members Brinker, Stevenson, and Mayor Joel Long voting yes.
The next item on the agenda was a notice of grant funding recently approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) for the city of Lock Haven. The city had applied for the grant, which is provided through the Strategic Management Planning Program (STMP). City Manager Greg Wilson reported that the city had received word on March 28 that a $65,000.00 grant would be awarded to help cover the cost of updating the zoning ordinance and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. This project is consistent with the governor’s goal of reviving and expanding towns around the state.
City Council members will be asked to weigh in on what they believe is a good use of the city’s opioid settlement funds. The City of Lock Haven, like several other municipalities, was part of a class action lawsuit against a variety of opioid manufacturers, one of which is Johnson & Johnson. “So far, the city has received its 2023 opioid settlement for $5,978.00, and that is coupled with the amount the city had on hand, so the current amount now is $10,262.00,” Greg Wilson explained. “Last year the city did do two education programs with its Collegium settlement for $6,380.00,” he added. Council members were provided with a list of permitted uses for opioid distributions and are now being asked to weigh in on what they believe is a good use for the funds to better the community.
Next, the city council considered Resolution No. 2024-11: Requesting Reimbursement from the Lock Haven City Authority for $33,750.00 to help cover the cost of updated leak detection equipment. The new equipment helps to pinpoint leaks between valves more accurately than current technology. The agreement between the City of Lock Haven and the Authority requires that a Water System Capital Reserve Account be set aside for these types of expenses. The consulting engineer for the City, Mark Glenn, President of Gwin Dobson & Foreman, has certified that the funds are not available in the City’s budget and therefore the request is being made. Councilmember Alexander motioned to approve the Resolution, which council member Stevenson seconded. There were no questions or objections raised and the Resolution passed unanimously.
Mayor Joel Long asked Wilson how the city is doing in terms of repairing leaks. While Wilson did not have a tally for 2024 yet, he stated that last year well over 90 leaks were detected and repaired within the city. “We are consistently looking for and repairing leaks; we don’t leave any leaks without repair, so if there’s a leak that we know about we do repair it,” Wilson said.
Other new business to be considered was a recommendation from the Council’s Water Authority Subcommittee, that if terms can be reached which are agreeable to the city in the formation of a Joint Municipal Authority, the city will give its assets to the Authority for $1.00. Mr. Wilson said that last week the Suburban Water Authority held its regular meeting and it agreed to turn over its assets for $1.00 to the new Joint Municipal Authority according to its manager. The City Authority meets this Friday, April 5, to discuss this. “There are a lot of complicated differences that will have to be worked out if this continues to progress in a positive way,” Wilson said. “After discussion last Thursday, the recommendation from the committee to the entire council was that if terms can be reached that are agreeable to the city in the formation of a joint municipal authority, the city would turn over its assets to the same for $1.00; it’s water assets,” he explained.
“We’re hopeful that everybody will see this as an opportunity to say we’re creating a circumstance where each of the organizations are equal, and where everybody that is a customer between suburban and the city is going to be in a situation where we’re sharing not only the assets, but we’re also sharing the costs because the truth is that the costs that are coming to water systems like ours, over the course of the next 20 years, are really, really high and as a city, we are never going to be able to handle all of that alone. If we form this bigger authority, with more people actively involved in it, we have more resources for everybody and we can spread the costs up more fairly, and that’s really what we’re looking,” council member Masorti said.”I just want to make it clear that that’s really the goal.,” she added.
City engineers Buchart Horn Architects sent a progress report to Greg Wilson regarding the new police department project. The progress report includes a description of the services that have been provided in past periods, the progress made thus far, and the next steps in the project. It also provided a breakdown of the outstanding responsibilities of the City of Lock Haven for past and future periods as well as the project’s invoice status.
Buchart Horn states in the progress report that the project’s progress to date includes construction documents for the police station, which are 95% complete and will be finished in the next period. The schematic design, site design and land development, site survey, and geotechnical engineering for the project have been completed thus far, at a cost of $49,330.00 to the city, not including the construction documents, which to date bring the grand total to $147,085.00, with the bidding phase and construction administration not yet invoiced.
