Author: SPY

At Monday’s borough council meeting, residents told council about their concerns and experiences with the borough’s codes department, particularly on the issue of “Quick Tickets.”

Wayne Hershey asked for common sense when officers hand out tickets. Hershey said he was ticketed recently for high grass “after a month of rain. One of the hottest and wettest Mays in the last hundred years,” he said. “Five inches of rain in 11 straight days.”

Hershey admitted that his grass was high and the person he hired to mow could not do it. Hershey said he had standing water in his yard at the time. He said he must now pay $100 to appeal the ticket to the borough manager. “Everybody I talked to said, ‘That’s extortion.’ I’m not going to pay $100 when I can pay 25 and just get out of it,” Hershey said. “This isn’t due process when you have to pay $100 to appeal something. It just doesn’t make sense.” Hershey noted that the borough does not run leaf pickup or the street sweeper when it rains, because it makes sense.

“Just use common sense with the code officers and get some due process that makes sense, because this certainly doesn’t.” Hershey said he has heard “some real horror stories about code enforcement” from people who replied to him on social media. As an example, he pointed out that his grandson got two tickets in nine days even though he had mowed in between. “I went to look at his lawn. The highest thing there is asparagus and rhubarb.”

He said another person got ticketed when disposing of patio cushions. The ones that wouldn’t fit into the trashcan were placed alongside it, as directed by the trash hauler. The person received a ticket. Someone else said they were ticketed for “dog poop” in their yard. “It was decorative rocks,” Hershey said.

A person on Chestnut Street got ticketed on consecutive days but the tickets did not arrive in the mail until two days later, according to Hershey.

He also said someone got a ticket for placing two bags of trash beside their house after returning from the mountains, and another person got a ticket because a trashcan lid blew off. “That’s not common sense,” Hershey said.

Hershey said he asked a code officer about his ticket for high grass. Specifically, he asked him if he measured it, and the officer said he did not need to, because he “knew” it was 18 inches high. When Hershey told him that he must be “good” to be able to estimate that closely, the officer thought he was being praised. “I am very frustrated with this whole thing,” Hershwy said. He asked council to make corrections on the issues.

Rose Weaver told council she received five tickets in two months last year for placing an old mattress at the side of her house on a Thursday. She said her trash hauler picks up on Mondays, and she got a ticket.

She said she received a ticket for daisies in her flower bed that the rain had pushed over onto the sidewalk. The ticket stated that the daisies were a tripping hazard. “It’s a daisy,” she said. “Some of the tickets were just ludicrous.”She also received a ticket for a sumac tree on her property line with a neighbor, but she paid the ticket anyway.

The next ticket was for trash that was sitting out for over 24 hours. “My trash gets picked up Monday. The ticket was written on Tuesday,” she said.

In February she received another ticket, this one for ice. The sidewalk was treated with ice melt that day, but the next day she got a ticket for ice. “It hadn’t even been 24 hours since the sidewalk had frozen,” she said. She called and spoke to the borough manager, who said she could pay $100 to appeal the ticket at the borough office. She paid the $25 instead. “I got stuck paying another ticket,” she said, but added that the ticket was later rescinded. “Maybe sometimes common sense just needs to be used.”

Codes Manager Steve Kaufhold told Hershey he would not address his case at the meeting, since it’s under appeal. He then introduced himself to residents in attendance and explained some of the workings of the codes department. He said that some problems may stem from codes not being enforced in the past. “Most people have gotten complacent with the fact that a lot of the codes were not enforced for many, many years.”

He said that this month there were 261 tickets written. [It’s unclear if he was referring to May or June.] He said he does not see every ticket that goes through the system: “It’s just too much for any one person to start going through and doing that.”

Kaufhold said six more code enforcement officers were added at the beginning of last year. Two officers work three days a week and their schedules overlap. He explained that he doesn’t have any thing to do with the $100 appeal fee, since he didn’t set it.

He advised residents to talk to him first before an issue goes to appeal. “Come talk to us. Give me a call. I will look at it,” he said. “I try to talk to my code officers about frivolous things, but we do make mistakes.” Kaufhold said if he does not return a phone call, the resident should contact one of his superiors or a member of council. He said that returning calls is respectful, and he tries to instill the importance of that in his officers.

“My job is to enforce this book,” Kaufhold said. “If you don’t like what’s in the book…you need to go to the legislative committee and have it changed.”

Rebecca Denlinger took the reins as Columbia’s new borough manager at Monday’s Columbia Borough Council meeting. Denlinger had been serving as a full-time Community/Economic Development Director/Assistant Borough Manager since January 1 of this year. She was being groomed to become borough manager at the end of this year, but the position opened up early when Greg Sahd resigned last month.

Denlinger holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science and Economics from the University of Delaware, and a Master’s in Public Administration from Penn State. She has worked with the Elizabethtown Area Chamber of Commerce, Rettew Associates, Inc., and the Lancaster County Planning Commission and also served as a consultant for Marietta Borough last year.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 26.0px; font: 36.0px Arial; color: #ffa500; -webkit-text-stroke: #ffa500; background-color: #000000} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 26.0px; font: 36.0px Arial; color: #ffa500; -webkit-text-stroke: #ffa500; min-height: 42.0px} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 26.0px; font: 36.0px Arial; color: #ffa500; -webkit-text-stroke: #ffa500; background-color: #000000; min-height: 42.0px} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 36.0px Times; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 36.0px Times; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 43.0px} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

Norm Meiskey asked pointed questions and occasionally admonished borough officials over concerns about spending, legalities and hiring procedures at Monday’s Columbia Borough Council meeting. At the outset, Meiskey, a former Columbia Borough manager, asked where in the borough code the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania specifically authorizes boroughs to give taxpayer money to a private individual or organization for their gain or profit. Meiskey was referring to a meeting agenda item to consider giving $650,000 to Cimarron Investments, LLC for a proposed hotel development project at Second and Locust Streets. The funds would help the developer renovate a former potato chip factory there under the Clarion Hotels name. The issue became moot for the time, however, when borough solicitor Robert Pfannebecker said the item was “tabled to get more information.”

Meiskey pressed on, nonetheless, explaining the borough’s responsibility when considering such a project. ”This is taxpayers’ money that you have a fiduciary responsibility for,” Meiskey told council. “You have significant due diligence to perform.” He explained that such diligence consists of obtaining a technical viability review of the project from a borough consulting structural engineer or architect. “You have to determine the veracity of the engineering designs, construction methods, materials, cost estimates, contingencies,” Meiskey said. He added that the borough also needs to have a financial viability review and needs to know the veracity of all organizations involved, as well as the project investors and funding sources to ensure project completion. “The borough code is structured to address issues like this – and not in the manner in which it is proposed,” he said. “There are mechanisms, and you need to use them as prescribed.”

Meiskey named organizations the borough can team with for the project: the Columbia Economic Development Corporation, Lancaster County Economic Development Company, or a redevelopment authority. He explained that such organizations can make sure that due diligence items are addressed “but not in the manner in which you propose to simply give it away through some grant or gift or even loan.” He cautioned council not to give funds in a manner that is a violation of the borough code. He said case law is very clear: “Municipalities of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can only do what the borough code specifically authorizes.” According to Meiskey, unless something is specifically authorized by the code, the borough is not permitted to do it.

Council had also considered offering tax abatement for ten years for improvements to the building, but Meiskey said that LERTA (Local Economic Recovery Tax Assistance Program) “is the only mechanism you have.” He added that any tax assistance program has to be done by ordinance and in a manner prescribed by law – and not in the way identified on the agenda. “You have the responsibility to prescribe tax assistance on a manner prescribed by law,” he told council.

Citing priorities the borough should consider, Meiskey said, ”There are infrastructure needs in this borough that are significant.” He said the borough has “alligatored” roads, poor drainage, and empty hotel buildings. He pointed out that the borough now has money it never had before, citing $8.7 million transferred by the borough’s former municipal authority two years ago before the entity was dissolved by council. Meiskey said that the engineering, administrative, and finance experience in the municipal authority could have handled all due diligence items of the hotel project.

Equal Opportunity Employer?
Meiskey also questioned council’s proposed hiring of a new borough manager. “You need to be transparent here,” he said. During questioning by Meiskey, borough president Kelly Murphy offered that the proposed borough manager has never managed a municipality, and that the position was not advertised, nor was the assistant borough manager position. Meiskey cited a case in which taxpayers paid tens of thousands of dollars because borough council did not comply with EEOC requirements. “Folks, when are we going to learn, really? Why put the taxpayers in a position where they have to cover lawsuits, improprieties, and violations? Are we an equal opportunity employer or aren’t we?” Meiskey asked. He advised council to proceed in a manner consistent with EEOC requirements, because ignoring them has cost the taxpayers in the past.

The Trolley: Nice to Have or Must Have?
Meiskey cautioned council about spending for the borough’s trolley. “It’s important that you differentiate between ‘nice to have’ and ‘must have.’ It’s taxpayers’ dollars,” he said. Meiskey read off the trolley expenses: personnel $8400, expenses $5,000, maintenance and repair from $5,000 to $11,000. “You need to pull the reins in,” he said and added that council needs to look at rates of return. [Editor’s note: Council authorized $11,000 for Susquehanna Heritage to manage trolley operations this year.]

5 Vehicles for 5 Part-time Code Officers
Meiskey also questioned the need for five vehicles for five part-time code officers. ”Who’s managing the schedules that requires a vehicle for each part-timer?” he asked.

Is the Borough EEOC Compliant?
Despite Meiskey’s cautions, council voted unanimously to appoint Rebecca Denlinger as Columbia’s new borough manager. (Previously, council appointed Denlinger as Assistant Borough Manager/Secretary/Treasurer, effective January 1, 2018. She was expected to become manager at the end of this year. The manager position became available a few weeks ago, however, when borough manager Greg Sahd resigned.) After the vote, Meiskey said “I’ve got to admit I was extremely disappointed that we’ve got elected officials that appear not to be concerned about [being] EEOC compliant – the fact that we had signed consent decrees to be an equal opportunity employer, and you just pooh-poohed it. That’s very disheartening.”

Tax Decrease – Council Can Still Do It
Meiskey also asked about a proposed one-quarter to half a mill property tax decrease that had previously been promised. Murphy explained that it did not pass approval during budget meetings. Meiskey said the municipal authority worked very hard getting things arranged, and turned over $8.7 million to the borough for capital improvements, and left another $1.8 million in investments that the borough took over, as well as over $400,000 in cash. (Currently, about $6.8 million is left.) He said the negotiated sale of the borough’s conveyance system to LASA helped get the borough in a financial position it’s never been in before. “About one third of the property owners were disadvantaged by the deal we struck with LASA, but we looked at every way we could to cover those people at the minimum payment level” but it would have caused considerable difficulty due to skewing the rates and so on. Considering that, the appropriate thing to do was to try to get a property tax decrease, according to Meiskey. A quarter of a mill would have been about $110,000 for that first year, and $165,000 for half a mill. “You can still do it,” Meiskey said.