MORE:
http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/good-samaritan-offers-man-a-ride-winds-up-getaway-driver/article_ffc789a4-e8cf-11e6-af3f-5f2b7bfa5560.html
Columbia will front $100,000 to the Lancaster County Land Bank to begin its mission of buying and restoring blighted properties in the borough. The funds are considered “seed money,” according to Borough Finance Committee member Kelly Murphy at January’s finance meeting.
Explaining the borough’s need to pony up the funds, Murphy said, “Lancaster County Commissioners created this [the Land Bank], but there is no funding mechanism for it at the moment.” The funding will require an extra line item on the 2017 budget, according to Murphy.
Murphy said representatives from the borough and the school board met with the Land Bank and targeted 18 properties, with an initial two, that could benefit from the program. All parties agreed that $100,000 is a suitable figure to get started in 2017. Murphy said that smaller, more manageable projects, which he termed “low-hanging fruit,” will be undertaken first.
The Land Bank has a variety of options for a targeted property, including buying and reselling it to a contractor immediately, or hiring a contractor to complete renovations and then sell the property. The borough will control all terms of the transactions. After a property is rehabilitated and returned to the tax rolls, the land bank will get half the taxes collected in the first five years. One stipulation is that the properties must be sold as single family dwellings.
At the finance meeting, resident Sharon Lintner asked “Is that [$100,000] used to purchase, or to purchase and fix up?” Murphy replied that it was to purchase. Lintner cited the $5,000 fee to join and the $1,000 annual membership fee, but questioned the amount of additional funding. “I didn’t know about the $100,000, and that’s why I questioned you. I didn’t know.”
Resident Frank Doutrich said, “I didn’t hear anything when this was presented – that we were going to be buying properties. My feeling was it was going to be the Land Bank doing all the buying.”
Murphy replied, “They are, but we’re giving them, for lack of a better term, $100,000 seed money. They have no funding.”
Doutrich replied, “I never heard nothing about that, and I sit and I listen pretty good.”
Murphy said, “It’s like we’re gifting them $100,000 to start purchasing these projects to get them rehabbed on behalf of Columbia Borough. They’re just like another legislative body.”
Doutrich then asked what would happen if the Land Bank runs out of money. Murphy replied that they could ask the borough for more.
Mayor Leo Lutz said, “We aren’t giving anybody a dollar. We’re putting that money in the budget. At some point and time we could say we want out of this – give us our money back,” Lutz said.
The committee voted to take the matter to February’s council meeting. p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 36.0px Helvetica; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 36.0px Helvetica; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 43.0px} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
Columbia Spy spoke with a Lancaster County businessman late today, who voiced an opinion about a recent ordinance (Ordinance 875-2016) regarding home inspections and certificates of occupancy. He requested that his name be withheld.
He believes the ordinance will lead to increased vacant and blighted properties. Owners will walk away from properties due to heavy-handed inspections and repair requirements, he said, leading to an increase in crime and a situation like that of Harrisburg, which he calls “the capital of blighted.”
Citing one such home inspection lasting three-and-a-half hours and resulting in a 13-page repair list, he said that such scrutiny requires too many repairs for homes valued at only $30,000.
He surmises that every borough property decreased in value when the ordinance was passed, adding that it “borders on illegal.” He said Columbia is in the shape it’s in because it is mismanaged.
In the afternoon, fender-bender at North Fifth and Chestnut . . .
Flag-raising at the Columbia Water Company . . .
On Locust Street – Mr. Liberty . . . Mr.? . . . Things sure have changed in Trump’s America.
On 18th Street – another bank robbery at Union Community Bank. Two suspects were apprehended. The story is HERE.
On Avenue G – Ready for demo. The backstory is HERE.
Notice to parents from Hempfield School District
The same night and at the same time, the Columbia Borough School Board will hold its Committee of the Whole meeting at the District Administration Center, 200 North Fifth Street.
For the backstory on the following article go HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE
Frank Doutrich’s petition for an open school board seat was dismissed by Judge Dennis E. Reinaker at 3:16 p.m. Wednesday afternoon, a little more than two hours before the board was to convene for a special meeting. A January 23, 2017 legal notice in LNP listed the meeting’s agenda, which included items to un-table a previous motion and appoint a candidate to the seat. Doutrich learned of the dismissal only after calling the courthouse that afternoon. He subsequently drove to the courthouse to retrieve the documents.
During the citizens’ comments portion of the meeting, Doutrich asked Michael Grab, the board’s solicitor, if there had been any contact with the school district and the courthouse prior to the judge’s decision. Grab said there was not. “The Lancaster County Court contacted my office to advise my office as district solicitor that a petition or something that purported to be a petition had been filed naming the school district as an adverse party to find out if the district had received any notification of that, and I indicated to the court that the district had not.”
Doutrich then asked Grab if there had been a prior conversation between the judge and him. Grab replied, “No. The only conversation that I had with the court was when the court notified my office that there had been a file.”
“But you hadn’t spoke to the judge on this?'” Doutrich asked.
“Only when the court had notified my office that there had been a file.” Grab replied. He said that had been the end of the conversation.
Doutrich said he had been at various school board meetings with board members and Director of Operations Tom Strickler in which he was directed to file with the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas for an open board seat. “Folks, it’s not that simple,” Doutrich said. “I know I got an education through the process, but if I had to do over – the embarrassment that it caused for the borough – I would’ve never filed for this position. And through the process, folks, something smells.”
Doutrich asked the board when they found out about the decision. Grab replied that he had found out at about 4:30 p.m. when he checked the prothonotary’s website. “The board has no knowledge of the dismissal of your petition. I just found out myself, and as the meeting progressed, I was going to advise the board that it happened.” Grab said he had already advised the board what their jurisdictional authority is to appoint someone if they wished to proceed to do that. “But they were not aware that the petition had actually been dismissed by the court,” Grab said.
Doutrich then asked if Grab agreed that he had stated to the judge that the petition be dismissed. Grab said that the court had contacted his office to advise that it had received some form of filing “purported to be a petition.” He said he had indicated to the court that the board’s position would be that unless the petition met the requirements of the rules of procedure, in general it would not be a valid. He said that the court indicated that the file did not require a formal response at that time.
Doutrich questioned the board about the urgency of holding the special meeting, citing the school board brief in LNP which stated that the board can conduct business with only eight members as it awaits a court decision. (The board had previously voted to table a decision pending a judge’s decision.) “What was the urgency to have this meeting without knowing that the judge had rejected this?” Doutrich asked.
Grab replied that it’s up to the board to decide who fills the vacancy. He said the board is mandated to proceed “with some speed” to try to fill vacancies when they occur. “The only thing that prevented the filling of the vacancy was the representation you made that there had been a petition filed with the court and that somehow the court had jurisdiction, and the board no longer did.” Grab said he clarified with the board that it had jurisdiction until a valid petition is filed with the court.
Doutrich asked why, if some board members had known that two letters of interest had been filed within the 30 days, the board didn’t act. “Had they done that, none of us would be here now.”
Doutrich asked Board President Keith Combs who is responsible to relay that information to board members. Combs said it would have been his [Combs’s] responsibility. He said he found out about the letters of interest on January 6. He explained that he had been out of state at that time on a family matter, and when he returned he sent out a meeting notification. “I still look at it from the standpoint that if there were questions about how the board should proceed at that point that someone else may have stepped up to answer those questions or seek a motion to have a meeting scheduled so that we could proceed,” Combs said.
“Who was to notify you that they had two applicants?” Doutrich asked. Combs said that would come from the administration. Doutrich asked who in the administration, and Combs replied that Strickler had sent him the email.
Doutrich said the judge called him and didn’t appear to know how to move forward with the process. Doutrich added he believed this was something new to the judge and that court employees also didn’t understand what he was applying for. Grab said the form of the petition filed may have been confusing to the court as to what it was Doutrich was seeking.
After a motion by Iris Garrido and second by Vickie Anspach the board voted 7-0 to appoint Jenna Geesey to the open seat.
Doutrich asked Columbia Spy to relay his congratulations to Jenna Geesey who was appointed to the board Wednesday night. He thanks all citizens and friends who supported him during this effort.
@page { margin: 0.79in } p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120% }