Columbia Spy

https://crimewatch.net/us/pa/lancaster/columbia-boro-pd/10552/post/columbia-borough-300th-anniversary-celebration-0

https://crimewatch.net/us/pa/lancaster/columbia-boro-pd/10552/post/scam-notice-unpaid-toll-threats

Anderson Jamie Leigh conveyed 147 N. Seventh St. to Reformed Properties LLC for $10.

Jamie L. Anderson conveyed 142 N. Seventh St. to Reformed Properties LLC for $10.

JBS Homes LLC conveyed 267 S. Fourth St. to Heather Schroll for $240,000.

Jacqueline H. Ziegler conveyed 935 Chestnut St. to Smith Nathan Evans, Burke Angela for $385,000.

Evangelisti Keith, Evangelisti Genesis N. conveyed 318 Maple St. to Genesis N. Evangelisti for $1.

Pizzolo John P, Pizzolo Jonn P, Pizzolo John, Pizzolo Jonn Patrick conveyed 325 Cherry St. to Todd M. Kramer for $136,643.

Burmar Real Estate LLC conveyed 222 N. Third St. to FMJ Real Estate LLC for $160,000.

This week’s photos of Columbia 

Click on photos to see larger, sharper images. 

JOE LINTNER | COLUMBIA SPY 

The Rawlinsville Fire Company did water rescue training at Columbia River Park Saturday morning. 

*****************

A new store is about to open(?) at 5th & Cherry. 

It’s located where Lively’s store used to be.

There were some colorful skies Thursday evening. 

*****************

Columbia has a dog shit problem. 

Sign down!

(7th & Maple)

Here’s the other side.

Building project on South 9th —

There’s not enough room to install a handicapped ramp, so the owner has agreed to pay the borough a sum of money instead of installing one. Why didn’t anyone catch this issue before the project was underway?

High winds created whitecaps. 

This graffiti took some effort. 

This vulture is still liking the chimney on the 500 block of Chestnut Street. Its mate must have flown off.

When you don’t have room to complete your u-turn, just block the street until traffic moves.

This guy — possibly the owner — was checking out the “mystery boat” the other day.

The oil containment boom is still there.

Officials placed it in the river a little over a week ago. See the March 8, 2026 “About Town” for the backstory. 

At the Columbia Post Office . . .

*****************

A nice view

Strange clouds

Colorful clouds at sunset last Sunday . . .

*****************

Someone wasn’t respectful. 

More photos from the Walnut Street fire on Thursday . . .

*****************

Like the shirt says

Howard Stevens sent this video of unsafe passing on Linden Street. Some drivers run through the stop sign at the Route 30 off-ramp onto Linden. Howard says every resident’s car has been totaled on Linden, from the ramp to 4th Street.

Todd Stahl sents some pics from the trail the other day . . .

###

Nouveau Tea, 403 N. Third St., Columbia, March 5. Pass. Soap was not available at the hand-wash sink in the bread making room and the employee restroom. A working container of hand sanitizer was stored on the same shelf with equipment in the front service area. Paper towel dispenser empty at the hand-wash sink in the bread making room and the employee restroom.

Columbia Mini Mart, 26 Fourth St., Columbia, March 4. Pass. Observed two gallons of whole milk and six half-gallons of whole milk beyond the sell-by date being offered for sale. Facility has test strips for quaternary ammonia, however, only has bleach available.

JOE LINTNER | COLUMBIA SPY 

Emergency personnel from more than a dozen fire companies responded to a working structure fire Thursday morning at 727 Walnut Street. The alarm was dispatched at 9:07 a.m. as a Building-High Occupancy-1A incident.

Upon arrival, firefighters found the main structure at 727 Walnut Street heavily involved. Residents at the structure and homes on either side of the burning structure were evacuated while crews worked to contain the blaze. Firefighters were ultimately able to extinguish the flames.

The 700 block of Walnut Street and Avenue G were closed during the operation. 

The response drew units from multiple agencies across the region, including Rescue 26, Tower 40, Engine 80, Ladder 80, Utility 801, Rescue 80, Fire Police 80, Traffic 80, Engine 907, Tower 64-2, Tower 75, Traffic 75, Rescue 71, Rescue 41-1 York, Engine 41 York, Rescue 905, Rescue 79-1, Engine 07-1, Air 07, Traffic 76, Fire Police 10, and Engine 10.

Information sourced from emergency dispatch records, Thursday, March 12, 2026, 09:07 and on-scene reporting.

JOE LINTNER | COLUMBIA SPY 

At the March 10, 2026 Columbia Borough Council meeting, the borough’s solicitor publicly addressed long‑running rumors of employee misconduct, disclosing that an internal investigation found no evidence to support the allegations.

Solicitor Evan Gabel read a prepared statement explaining that the borough had investigated claims that surfaced in July 2024, alleging that a former borough employee and an elected official had exchanged inappropriate text messages and carried on an inappropriate relationship. Gabel said he led the investigation in coordination with the Columbia Borough Police Department.

According to the statement, the borough typically does not comment on personnel matters involving employees or elected officials. Gabel said that policy is grounded in privacy protections under the law, but he added that the volume of rumors circulating in public meetings and “other forums” prompted the borough to address the issue directly.

Gabel emphasized that officials “take these matters very seriously” and conducted the inquiry “to the fullest extent of its authority.” 

“At the conclusion of the investigation, it was determined that the rumors of the text messages and inappropriate relationship were unfounded. No similar criminal complaint was filed by either party allegedly involved and there was no further action that could be taken by the borough at that time.”
— Borough Solicitor Evan Gabel, reading the borough’s official statement

Gabel said the borough chose to speak publicly because “potentially defamatory statements” had been made in public settings, and officials felt they had “no choice but to stop the spread of misinformation.”

Gabel stated that the borough considers the matter closed and will make no further comment.

JOE LINTNER | COLUMBIA SPY 

A resident’s question at a January Columbia Borough Council meeting triggered a search for answers that led to the discovery of a document that was kept from the public and council members. 

At the January 27, 2026 meeting, resident Sharon Lintner asked officialsabout a bid proposal submitted by the Columbia Borough Police Department to Wrightsville Borough for police coverage services in Wrightsville.

Officials either said they were unaware of such a proposal or downplayed its existence. 

Council President Eric Kauffman replied that he was unaware of the proposal. Mayor Leo Lutz said that the matter was discussed with Wrightsville but there was “nothing official” and no correspondence and no monetary figures were mentioned. “We didn’t even talk money,” Lutz said. 

Councilman Ethan Byers said there was no formal discussion, and Councilman Kelly Murphy said it was nothing more than a phone conversation. Lutz added that the exchange had occurred about two years ago and called it “old news.” Lutz also said that no written correspondence had ever been sent to Wrightsville Borough. However, Wrightsville officials told Lintner that a proposal existed, and a meeting had taken place with officials of both boroughs at Columbia Borough Hall.

Troubled by the inconsistent answers, Lintner submitted a records request to Wrightsville Borough. The document obtained shows that the Columbia Borough Police Department had indeed submitted a policing services proposal to Wrightsville Borough, contradicting statements by borough officials. The document, Policing Services Proposal to Wrightsville Borough, is dated April 15, 2025 and bears the official logo of the Columbia Borough Police Department. 

The proposal, which was discussed at the November 3, 2025 Wrightsville Borough Council meeting, stated that full-time police services to Wrightsville would include response to calls and proactive patrol and enforcement for 2026.

From thePolicing Services Proposal to Wrightsville Borough

The proposal included a detailed cost breakdown based on a per capita formula. Using Columbia’s 2025 police budget of $3,963,732 divided by Columbia’s population of 10,222, the department arrived at a per capita cost of $387.76. Applied to Wrightsville’s population of 2,257 residents, the total annual cost of coverage came to $875,174.32.

From thePolicing Services Proposal to Wrightsville Borough

The proposal also included a 2025 Columbia Borough Police Department staffing chart, showing the department’s organizational structure under the Chief of Police. The department at that time consisted of four sergeants overseeing a total of ten patrolmen, two corporals, one part-time patrolman, one detective, one drug task force officer, eight crossing guards, three part-time enforcement officers, a Coordinator of Services, a full-time and two part-time Community Service Aides (CSA), and an administrative assistant.

At the February 24, 2026 borough council meeting, Lintner once again raised the issue, but some councilors still seemed unaware of the proposal. Police Chief Jack Brommer finally admitted sending the proposal to Wrightsville. “I submitted the numbers,” Brommer said. “When council was saying they weren’t aware, I think they weren’t aware of the actual proposal — the initial proposal that was submitted — but council was aware through discussions we had with them previously.”

An email from Wrightsville Borough to Lintner provided information on proposals from other departments that were requested by Wrightsville for police coverage for 2026 and are shown below:

• Columbia Borough Police Department – $875,174.32
• Hellam Township Police Department – $450,000.00
• York County Regional Police Department – $557,000.00

Ultimately, Wrightsville contracted with the Hellam Township Police Department. 

At the March 10 council meeting, Lintner said, “I want to be able to trust those people that I helped to elect and the people I turn my money over to,” Lintner said, adding that if her question had been answered promptly, she wouldn’t have had to submit a Right-to-Know request.

This article is based on statements made at the January 27, February 24, and March 10, 2026 Columbia Borough Council meetings and documents obtained through a Right-to-Know request submitted to Wrightsville Borough.