Public Meetings - Allentown, Pennsylvania

A special meeting of the Allentown City Council was held on June 24, 2026, at 5:45 PM in Council Chambers to introduce Bill 52, which proposes amendments to strengthen the city's zoning regulations governing data center use (Section 660-38.H). All seven council members were present. No public comments were taken; the meeting was adjourned at 5:51 PM to proceed to the Community and Economic Development (CED) Committee meeting. Discussion Items - Councilmember Santo Napoli outlined the background: the administration's initial data center regulations (Bill 20) were introduced on March 4, 2026, reviewed by the Allentown Planning Commission and Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, and discussed at the CED Committee on May 14, 2026. During that meeting, some members called for stronger provisions, but amending Bill 20 would have reset the process, delaying regulations by approximately 90 days. Bill 20 was tabled on June 4 for an executive session and passed on June 17, 2026, by a 4–2 vote. - Napoli stated that Bill 52 is the first batch of amendments to strengthen the code, developed quickly with support from the administration. He emphasized that data centers cannot be excluded from Allentown under state law, so the city must regulate them to protect residents. - Napoli provided a timeline: Bill 52 would be referred immediately to the CED Committee (meeting after this special meeting), the Allentown Planning Commission, and the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission. Both planning commissions have assured a speedy review. The first legal ad is scheduled for July 7, 2026, triggering pending ordinance status, and a public hearing is set for August 5, 2026. - Napoli also noted that separate noise ordinance amendments, which have been discussed for months, will be introduced at the July 15, 2026, council meeting and referred to a committee on July 22, 2026. The plan is to bring both Bill 52 and the noise amendments before council on August 5, 2026, for public hearing and action. Key Outcomes - Referrals: Bill 52 was referred to the CED Committee, the Allentown Planning Commission, and the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission for review and recommendations. - Public hearing date: Scheduled for August 5, 2026, at the regular council meeting. - Noise ordinance: A separate noise amendment addressing data center controls will be introduced on July 15, 2026, with a target of concurrent action on August 5, 2026. - Next immediate step: The CED Committee meeting began five minutes after adjournment of the special meeting, where further discussion and public comment would occur.

The Community and Economic Development (CED) Committee held a lengthy meeting on June 24, 2026, starting at 6:00 PM. The primary focus was on Bill 52, which amends data center regulations following the passage of Bill 20. The committee also considered budget reclassifications (Bills 50 and 51), a vacant property ordinance (Bill 33), a presentation on the city's violence prevention plan, and a discussion on the draft encampment policy. All action items were moved forward to full council. Consent Calendar - No consent calendar was used; all items were discussed individually. Public Comments & Testimony - Kyle Rapsky (Chair, Environmental Advisory Council) thanked the council and administration for Bill 52, noted that the EAC's priority areas (setback, decommissioning, noise) were addressed, and encouraged continued refinement on heat mitigation, water conservation, renewable energy, and public disclosure. He also promoted the Climate Action Plan event on June 27. - Alicia Ruth Roff (9th Street resident) asked for clarification that data centers are special exception, not by-right, and suggested context-specific setbacks (e.g., from schools, parks). She asked for a definition of "good faith efforts" for renewable energy. - Mary Collier (Easton resident) expressed gratitude for removing the IG district and for the special exception process. She raised concerns about the phrase "no special exception or variance required" in the public notice section and asked about conditional use versus special exception. She suggested increasing the 75-foot street setback, the 25-foot landscape buffer to 100 feet with a 15-foot tree height requirement, and adding requirements for licensed professionals, renewable energy, daily water consumption thresholds, traffic impact studies, light pollution regulations, and tier-four generators for backup power. - Spencer Snig (7th and Tilghman) argued that setbacks should be based on the severity of impact (like incinerator plants) and that low-frequency sound (subharmonics) travels far and should be considered medically or psychologically impactful. - Julie Vitaly (728 West Green Street) supported the improvements, urged learning from other cities, and questioned why parks were not listed as sensitive receptors. She stressed protecting children from sound, smog, and light pollution. - Kathy (South Side, daughter of city employee) urged provisions for emergency disaster and fire hazards, ground pollution, and liability for data center operators. She called for fire department and emergency management to approve changes and for a bond to cover costs. - Christopher Gelctoro (East Side) expressed concerns about rising costs of electricity and water for residents due to data centers. - William Garcki (3124 Pearl Avenue) asked for an explanation of the difference between IG (general industrial) and IM (heavy industrial) districts. - Travis Feller (29th and Turner) suggested moving the public meeting requirement from two weeks to 30 days in advance, requiring the project website to be posted 30 days prior, and including all studies. He questioned the 50,000-square-foot minimum for acreage and the use of "professional engineer" versus "registered professional engineer." He recommended the city reserve the right to require third-party verification of studies. - Sarah Leiden (former Allentown resident) warned that data centers are marketed by hedge fund managers, are a new territory, and could become stranded assets. She asked about decommissioning plans and return on investment. - Lindy Wilde (South 10th Street) emphasized the need for explicit safeguards on water and waste management, and asked about the impact on the electrical grid and water supply. - Kristen Fricky (Chu Street) thanked for the dialogue, asked if child care includes all educational services, and said 500 feet is insufficient for parks, education, and healthcare. She urged town halls for public awareness. - Lindsay (during violence prevention discussion) asked about targeted policing similar to Baltimore's approach. - Christina (Commission on Homelessness) thanked for including the commission, but expressed concern that the encampment policy is not codified and could be changed at the mayor's discretion. She argued that the policy lacks resources to provide meaningful housing alternatives. - Asher Chavon (Greater Lehigh Valley Realtors) requested two amendments to Bill 33: limiting the definition of vacant parcels and returning the appeals process to the Blighted Property Review Committee instead of the department. Discussion Items Bill 52 – Data Center Zoning Amendments - Administration Presentation (Jennifer Gomez, Planning Director): The amendments include: (1) a 500-foot setback from sensitive receptors (increased from 200 feet); (2) removal of the IG zoning district (only heavy industrial IM remains); (3) decommissioning standards; (4) enhanced noise regulations. Additional changes add public notification requirements (project website, neighborhood meetings). The administration noted that these changes are the first phase; further refinements (e.g., noise ordinance citywide, water reuse, renewable energy) will come later. - Council and Administration Dialogue: Council members clarified that the 500-foot setback is the maximum legally defensible; a 1,000-foot setback would eliminate all buildable land. Renewable energy mandates are prohibited by state law. A closed-loop water system is being studied. Councilperson Napoli asked about annual noise and water testing; Gomez described a proposed independent verification system for noise. Councilperson Bender confirmed that many safeguards (special exception, planning commission, zoning hearing board) were already in Bill 20. - Councilperson Gerlach emphasized the urgency and that the amendments are legally sound and quickly implementable. Bill 50 – Budget Upgrade for Opioid Prevention Manager and Health Director - The administration requested upgrading the opioid prevention manager from S9 to S11 (100% grant-funded) and the health director from S18 to S21 (partially grant-funded) to reflect increased responsibilities and cabinet-level duties. The health department has grown 30% since 2017. - No public questions. Moved forward. Bill 51 – Budget Downgrade for Grants Compliance Administrator - The position of grants compliance administrator (S11, vacant) is downgraded to assistant grants compliance administrator (S7) to match duties. The position is 60% HUD grant-funded and 40% general fund, but after downgrade will be 90% grant-funded. Public comment asked why a downgrade is done if trying to hire; administration responded that the duties align with assistant-level work. Bill 33 – Vacant and At-Risk Property Ordinance - The administration explained the ordinance repeals the old abandoned rail property blight chapter and creates a new chapter (611) to track vacant properties. Appeals are handled within the department for speed. Councilperson Bender asked about returning appeals to the Blighted Property Review Committee; administration noted the committee is understaffed and meets quarterly, so the department route is faster. Councilperson Pungle noted that the department can be fair based on past experience. Violence Prevention Plan Presentation - Brayley (Violence Prevention Coordinator) presented a draft plan focused on building infrastructure and partnerships. Key points: a North Star goal to prevent violence before it occurs using community-oriented tools; a coalition of 20+ partners (APD, ASD, DA's office, nonprofits); emphasis on data sharing and case management for high-risk individuals. He noted that the plan is a public document and implementation is underway. David (Health Bureau) added that the city is lucky to have Brayley and that funding will be needed. - Council discussed the similarity to Baltimore's targeted policing approach and welcomed quarterly updates. Encampment Policy Discussion - Administration (David) provided an update: the policy has been with the law department for review; a redlined version will be sent to council soon. Unhoused Services Coordinator would likely score encampments using a rubric, with the administration making final decisions. Councilperson Gerlach expressed concern about the scorer's role turning into case management, asked for clarification on "minor items," and urged posting "no camping" signs. Councilperson Moda asked for consistency in scoring. Councilperson Pungle suggested color-coding redlines for different departments. - Christina (Commission on Homelessness) argued the policy should be codified as an ordinance, not a mayoral policy that can be revoked at any time. The administration agreed to remove the discretionary clause. - The committee agreed to continue discussions with law, police, and public works before moving forward. Key Outcomes - Bill 52 (Data Centers): Moved forward to full council (voice vote, all in favor). - Bill 50 (Budget Upgrade): Moved forward to full council (voice vote, all in favor). - Bill 51 (Budget Downgrade): Moved forward to full council (voice vote, all in favor). - Bill 33 (Vacant Property): Moved forward to full council (voice vote, all in favor). - Violence Prevention Plan: Received as informational; no vote. Council expressed support and requested quarterly updates. - Encampment Policy: No vote. The administration will provide a redlined document incorporating legal, police, and council comments; further discussions will follow with the goal of codification.

The meeting covered two agenda items: a presentation of the city's May 31, 2026 financial report and a resolution (R80) authorizing funds for an independent five-year financial analysis, with a temporary deferral of certain capital projects pending the analysis. Council discussed the scope, timeline, and procurement process for the analysis. Discussion Items - May 2026 Financial Report (Director Patel): - General fund revenues net of NIS liability: $86.6 million, representing 57% of the annual budget, performing in line with projections. - General fund expenditures: $55.1 million (35% of budget), trailing 13% lower than the same period last year, attributed to reduced spending in services, charges, and materials/supplies. Director Patel noted that some expenditures (e.g., travel for certifications) typically occur later in the year. - Other operating funds (service fund, solid waste fund, stormwater fund, golf fund, rental unit fund, building code fund) performing within expected ranges. - City's housing fund continues to receive 50% of realty transfer tax revenues – approximately $875,000 as of May 31. - Public safety premium pay: police $1.14 million, fire $1.2 million, EMS $354,000 (49% of budget). Overtime will be monitored. - General fund cash balance: $71.3 million; $57.9 million invested through PLGIT (yields 3.72%–3.90% APY), $17.9 million in prime/class accounts (yielding 3.71% APY), and $13.4 million in a liquid account with TD Bank (yielding 3% APY). Detailed maturity schedule provided. - Second MMO (minimum municipal obligation) payment of $3.3 million will be made before month-end; total budgeted MMO for the year is $19 million. - Resolution R80 (Councilperson Bender): - Councilperson Bender explained the resolution's intent: to provide council with a five-year financial plan covering both capital and operational expenses, enabling wiser resource decisions amidst ongoing city projects and financial pressures (stormwater fee, pension fund). - Councilperson Bender emphasized the need to know the cost range before voting and noted a meeting is planned with current auditors (Mauro Dussel) to refine scope and cost. - Director Patel confirmed the administration already provides a five-year operational plan with the budget, but supported the idea of an independent analysis. Patel noted that under procurement rules, expenditures under $4,000 require one quote, $4,000–$10,000 require two quotes. - Councilperson Bender stressed the urgency due to budget season beginning at month-end; an email will be sent to organize a meeting with interested council members and Director Patel to narrow the scope. - Key focus areas: understanding annual spending vs. operating budget, capital outlay for all projects, and projecting impacts on future city budgets. Key Outcomes - The meeting adjourned with no vote on R80; next steps involve a meeting to finalize scope and cost with potential vendors (beginning with Mauro Dussel). - No public comments were made. - The May financial report was presented and discussed; no formal action was taken on the report.

The Allentown Zoning Hearing Board convened on June 22, 2026, with members Samantha McLean, Scott Unger, and Chair Robert Canauer. The board considered three agenda items: an appeal by Bax LLC (case 1), a special exception application by Richard Bauer (case 2), and an appeal and special exception application by Maryland Groulon (case 3). Case 1 was introduced with five objectors but no further proceedings were recorded; the board heard testimony and public comment on cases 2 and 3 and rendered decisions. Public Comments & Testimony - Case 2 (Bauer): Five objectors raised concerns, including Teresa Kloiber (345 Grandview Blvd.) who questioned the validity of a "clear letter" from Bethlehem, noted typographical errors in plans, and objected to the height of proposed buildings (four to five stories) which she argued would ruin the neighborhood character. Paul Fondl (413 Grandview Blvd.) expressed concerns about increased traffic at the Hanover/Broad intersection and suggested downsizing. Mary Jill McCool (449 Grandview Blvd.) raised issues about access on Grandview, school bus stops, flooding from different storm drain diameters, and lack of notification. The board clarified procedural matters regarding zoning and planning processes. - Case 3 (Groulon): Ernest Neiding (1222 West Highland St.) objected to the group child care home, citing increased traffic, noise, safety concerns when backing out of driveways, and the impact on the residential neighborhood. He noted that a nearby Airbnb had been problematic. Donna Kasssis (same address) echoed concerns about double parking and insufficient room for the daycare, preferring it be in a commercial area. Discussion Items - Case 2: Richard Bauer - Special Use Application for 322-324 N. 7th St. and 315-317 N. Hall St. - The applicant proposed adaptive reuse of a warehouse into six apartments with parking on an adjacent lot. The Allentown Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions (street tree, bike rack, lighting). The applicant agreed to those conditions. - Board discussion focused on requiring a mechanism (deed restriction or easement) to ensure the parking lot remains linked to the apartment buildings. A motion to approve with conditions including planning commission recommendations and parking linkage was made and seconded; all voted in favor. - Case 2 (cont.): Bax LLC Appeal at 2300 Hanover Ave. (Case 1) - This case was called with five objectors but no further testimony or discussion appears in the transcript. The board did not render a decision on this case during the meeting. - Case 3: Maryland Groulon - Appeal and Special Exception for Group Child Care Home at 1213-1217 Highland St. - The applicant proposed a group daycare (7-12 children) as a permitted use requiring special exception. Parking was a key issue: the applicant planned to use two on-street spaces for drop-off/pick-up, with driveway use for employees. - Board members debated safety: using the street was deemed safer than backing out of the narrow driveway. - The board inquired about outdoor play area (fenced backyard) and the number of employees (owner plus up to two additional). - Conditions discussed: ensuring three off-street parking spaces (static), adding a sidewalk along the property frontage for safer drop-off, and compliance with supplemental use regulations. - A motion to approve with these conditions was made, seconded, and passed unanimously. Key Outcomes - Case 2 (Bauer): Approved unanimously. Conditions: (1) Include planning commission recommended conditions (street tree, bike rack, lighting, sewer module); (2) Ensure parking on separate lot remains for occupants of the apartment buildings through a recorded mechanism (deed restriction or easement) satisfactory to the city and applicant. - Case 3 (Groulon): Approved unanimously. Conditions: (1) Provide at least three off-street parking spaces for static parking (staff/owner); (2) Install a sidewalk the full width of the property on Highland Street; (3) Compliance with all supplemental use regulations for group child care homes, including fenced outdoor play area and maximum two non-resident employees. - Case 1 (Bax LLC): No decision recorded; the board only acknowledged the case and objectors. The board will issue written decisions. Next meeting scheduled for July 13, 2026.

The Allentown City Council convened on June 17, 2026, to address a packed agenda dominated by a contentious debate over data center zoning (Bill 20) and a proposed municipal curative amendment. The meeting, which ran long into the evening, included public testimony on police brutality allegations, updates on the city's Climate Action Plan, and approval of several budget and contract items. The council ultimately passed Bill 20, establishing a special exception process for data centers with a 200-foot setback, while defeating a motion to initiate a 180-day curative amendment review. Consent Calendar - R70: Approved contract with Urban Design Ventures LLC for consulting services (up to $100,000 per year) for CDBG, ESG, and consolidated planning. Passed 6-0. - R71: Approved cooperative contracts for IT goods and services over $40,000. Passed 6-0. - Minutes: Approved minutes from May 20, 2026 meeting. Passed 6-0. Public Comments & Testimony - Eddie Aviles and Gary Fritz: Testified about a June 6, 2026 arrest by the Allentown Parking Authority, alleging excessive force, a homophobic slur ("faggot") used by an officer, and denial of medical attention while in custody. They demanded a full investigation and dismissal of charges. Council President Santos stated the complaint is already under investigation by the Office of Professional Standards. - Kyle Rapsky (Chair, Environmental Advisory Council): Promoted the city's first Climate Action Plan, noting two of three phase one meetings are complete. The next in-person meeting is June 27, 2026 from 2:00-3:30 PM at Fearless Fire Company (South Side). A $25 stipend is available for pre-registered attendees. A survey is also open for public input. - Multiple speakers on data centers (Bill 20): Over 20 residents spoke, overwhelmingly urging the council to reject Bill 20 and instead pass the municipal curative amendment. Key concerns included insufficient 200-foot setbacks, noise, water usage (up to 5 million gallons/day for large data centers), electricity consumption (equivalent to 10,000-25,000 homes), and proximity to sensitive uses like Camelot for Children, a nonprofit serving children with serious illnesses. Speakers highlighted examples from other communities and stressed the need for stronger language than "strongly encouraged" regarding water efficiency and renewable energy. - Public comment on Bill 44 (Youth Council): Jayliebet Baez, youth president of the Healthy Love Club, supported the bill, emphasizing the need for youth voices in city decisions. - Public comment on R80 (financial analysis): Controller Patel suggested using existing auditors rather than hiring new ones for the proposed five-year financial analysis. Discussion Items - Curative Amendment Motion (Resolution): Councilmember Gerlock moved to suspend rules to add a resolution for a municipal curative amendment, which would declare the current zoning ordinance substantially invalid regarding data centers and impose a 180-day moratorium on related applications. The motion passed 6-0. However, after extensive debate, the resolution itself failed 2-4 (Gerlock and Santos in favor; Moda, Pungo, Bender, Napoli opposed). - Bill 20 (Data Center Zoning): The administration, through Managing Director Kane and Planning Director Gomez, advocated for Bill 20, arguing it provides immediate safeguards (200-foot setback, special exception review, sound study, decommissioning plan) and allows future amendments. The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission (LVPC) representative, Jill Seitz, stated the ordinance is "more comprehensive than the majority" of similar ordinances and is legally defensible. Opponents argued the 200-foot setback is insufficient, the bill could greenlight the MAS Avenue data center, and a curative amendment would allow stronger protections without legal risk. After tabling Bill 20 to consider the curative amendment, the council voted to untable it and passed Bill 20 4-2 (Bender, Moda, Pungo, Napoli in favor; Gerlock, Santos opposed). - Bill 43: Supplemental appropriation of $50,000 from Bloomberg Philanthropies for a third round of the Youth Climate Action Fund. Passed 6-0. - Bill 44: Amended the Council of Youth ordinance to update its purpose and practices. Passed 6-0 after supportive public comment. - Bill 47: Supplemental appropriation of $649,139.15 for PFAS remediation systems, funded by class action settlement payments from BASF and TICO. The city has received $3.77 million total from PFAS litigation. Passed 6-0. - Bill 48: Supplemental appropriation of $322,955.50 from the Trexler Fund for parks and recreation, including a required city match. Passed 6-0. - R74 (Paul Anthony appointment to ANIZDA): Removed from consent agenda due to abstentions by Gerlock and Santos. Passed 4-0 (with two abstentions). - R78: Authorized application for a $10 million Safe Streets and Roads for All grant (with 20% city match) for safety upgrades on Emmaus Avenue. Passed 6-0. - R79: Canceled the July 1, 2026 regular council meeting. Passed 6-0, with council members pledging to schedule a special meeting soon to begin strengthening Bill 20. - Bill 49-51: Introduced and referred to committees: Bill 49 (crosswalk signs, to Public Works), Bill 50 (opioid prevention manager and health director upgrades, to CED), Bill 51 (grants compliance administrator downgrade, to CED). - R80: Introduced to authorize a five-year financial analysis and temporary deferral of certain capital projects. Referred to Budget and Finance Committee. Key Outcomes - Bill 20 Passed (4-2): The council approved zoning amendments adding "data center" as a special exception use in IG and IM districts with a 200-foot setback from sensitive receptors. Future amendments (e.g., setback increase, noise ordinance changes) are planned for introduction in July 2026. - Curative Amendment Defeated (2-4): A motion to initiate a 180-day municipal curative amendment failed. Councillors Gerlock and Santos voted in favor; Moda, Pungo, Bender, and Napoli opposed, citing legal uncertainty and risk of leaving the city unprotected. - Council committed to swift amendments: Multiple council members and the administration agreed to expedite amendments to Bill 20, potentially including a 500-foot setback, stronger noise standards (DBC measurement), decommissioning escrow funds, and improved public notification. A special meeting may be scheduled in late June or early July. - Upcoming meetings: The next regular council meeting is July 15, 2026. A special meeting on data center amendments is anticipated. The CED committee will meet June 24, 2026 at 6:00 PM. The Allentown Planning Commission will review the MAS Avenue data center application at a future date (not yet scheduled), with a request for evening and Spanish translation accommodations.

The Public Works Committee met to consider Bill 47, which appropriates funds from PFAS class action settlements for remediation at the water filtration plant. The committee voted unanimously to forward the bill favorably to full City Council. Discussion Items - Bill 47 (Supplemental Appropriation for PFAS Remediation): The committee reviewed an ordinance to amend the 2026 Capital Fund budget, appropriating $649,139.15 from settlements in the Acquies Film Forming Foams class action. These funds, received from BASF ($190,684.62) and TICO ($458,454.53), represent 95% of claims from those two defendants. The city has received $3,774,965.12 total to date from PFAS affirmative litigation. The total $3 million settlement will be paid in eight more installments through 2033. Mr. Shara explained the funds will be used for improvements at the water filtration plant to remediate PFOS in the drinking water supply. - National Public Works Week Recognition: Committee members and staff expressed gratitude for City Council and the Mayor's Office support during National Public Works Week. Vice President Mota delivered a proclamation on behalf of council. Key Outcomes - Motion to Forward Bill 47: Council member made a motion to forward Bill 47 favorably to full City Council. The motion passed by voice vote (all ayes). No opposition was expressed. - No Public Comments: No members of the public offered testimony. - Meeting Adjourned: The meeting concluded after the vote and acknowledgments.

The Redevelopment Authority of the City of Allentown held its regular meeting on June 10, 2026, at 2:00 PM. The meeting covered the approval of prior minutes, a public comment period, the presentation and approval of the 2025 audit, the May 2026 financial report, invoice approvals, an inventory update, and selection of preferred developers for two properties. The board also received a legal update on a restrictive covenant matter and entered executive session. Consent Calendar - Approval of Minutes (May 13, 2026): The minutes were approved unanimously with no corrections. - May 2026 Financial Report: Staff reported minimal activity other than a $21,000 audit fee. The report was approved unanimously. - Invoices (13 total, $23,539.86): The invoices, primarily for lawn care and the audit fee, were approved unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - Kevin (former University of Washington running back, regular attendee): Commended the authority for improved meeting procedures over the last three meetings. He recommended shifting the 2:00 PM meeting time to a more public-friendly hour, suggested posting meeting notes more promptly (noting that April notes were being updated), and recommended holding executive sessions either before or after the public meeting rather than 20 minutes in, to avoid inconveniencing the public. The chair acknowledged the comments and said they would be taken under consideration. Discussion Items - 2025 Audit Presentation (Jennifer Kruk, Maher Duessel): The auditor presented an unmodified opinion (best possible) on the authority's financial statements. Total assets increased by $226,000, mainly due to a $254,000 increase in CDBG grant receivable. Total liabilities decreased by $65,000, largely from closing out an old developer's escrow liability. Net position increased by $291,000 to $2.5 million, all unrestricted. Operating revenue increased by $88,000, offset by no property sale revenue in 2025. Operating expenses decreased by $124,000 due to no loss on asset disposal. A subsequent event note disclosed a loan to Community Action Lehigh Valley and acquisition of four properties after year-end. The auditor also noted a required management discussion and analysis (MD&A) was omitted, but that did not affect the opinion. A management letter recommended improving segregation of duties due to limited staff. - Board Discussion on Audit: Board member Alan expressed concern about the omitted MD&A and lack of time to review, but other members explained that the MD&A omission is common and the audit is clean. The auditor's segregation of duties recommendation was discussed; staff noted that with only one accountant, additional segregation would require hiring more staff or using city finance department. The chair noted that the city finance department already reconciles bank statements. Board member Tony shared his experience with similar findings at Bethlehem's RDA. - Inventory Update: Staff reported that properties were inspected four times since the last meeting with no issues. No action taken. - RFP for 725 North 10th Street: The board discussed selecting a preferred developer from the RFP submissions. Staff recommended MILN. The board clarified that the motion would authorize staff to negotiate an agreement of sale and development agreement, which would be brought back for final approval. The motion included a specific sale price to be included in the agreement. - RFP for 540 Hamilton Street: The board similarly moved to select Aegis as preferred developer, following the same process. - Good of the Order – Maple Street Restrictive Covenant: Solicitor Josh reported that the owners of 1116 West Maple Street agreed to a 10-year extension of the restrictive covenant and paid $1,500 to cover expenses. The signed agreement was presented to the chair for signature. - Upcoming Re‑bidding of Contracts: Chair Kelly announced that the authority is reviewing contracts over 2–3 years in length (lawn mowing, tree service, legal services, audit) and will issue RFPs through PennBid. The authority will also use a newly activated LinkedIn page to publicize opportunities. - Executive Session: The board moved into executive session at 2:39 PM to discuss legal matters. The next regular meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2026 at 2:00 PM. Key Outcomes - Approval of 2025 Audit: The audit was approved with a vote of 2 in favor, 0 opposed, and 1 abstention (Alan). - Selection of Preferred Developer for 725 North 10th Street: The board authorized staff to negotiate an agreement of sale and development agreement with MILN. - Selection of Preferred Developer for 540 Hamilton Street: The board authorized staff to negotiate an agreement of sale and development agreement with Aegis. - Maple Street Restrictive Covenant: The signed extension and payment of $1,500 were accepted; the chair will execute the agreement. - Meeting Time Discussion: The board agreed to revisit the 2:00 PM meeting time for future sessions.

This special meeting of the Allentown City Council began with a proclamation honoring the William Allen High School baseball team for a historic season before proceeding to a detailed presentation and discussion of Bill 46, which would create a Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) for police officers. The meeting also featured public comments on traffic safety, a donation proposal, and a powerful plea from youth and coaches about violence prevention. Discussion on an encampment policy was tabled pending further review. Proclamation - Council read and presented a proclamation celebrating the William Allen High School baseball team (the Canaries) for capturing the EPC Championship and PIAA District 11 6A title, finishing with a 21-6 record and advancing to the state tournament for the first time in 31 years. Players, coaches, and supporters were recognized. The head coach noted the team's 3.0 GPA and stressed the importance of investing in youth. Public Comments & Testimony - Keith Ritter (South Fourth Street resident): Reported horrendous noise, speeding, and unsafe traffic near his sister's home. He described two recent accidents, one requiring the jaws of life and another totaling his parked car in a hit-and-run. He asked the city for action. - David Bortz: Proposed donating a reading bench (pre-designed, estimated cost $3,000) to William Allen High School as a class gift. He sought assistance in connecting with the school district. Council member Pungo offered to facilitate contact with Principal Knopf. - Michael Staller: Suggested creating a female-only shelter (citing the Allentown Rescue Mission's men-only policy) and requested digital information screens at the Bethlehem Transit Center (noting they exist at Allentown's ATC). Council clarified they have no jurisdiction over Bethlehem facilities. - Michael Staller (on Bill 46): Expressed concerns about the compounding effect of DROP on pension costs and about potential federal changes to Social Security and pensions. He also noted that cuts to unemployment funding might be reallocated. - Paul Pinnock, founder of Lehigh Valley Pound for Pound: Described his nonprofit boxing gym serving 40 youth (ages 12-18) on a month-to-month lease. He stated the program provides a safe place, mentorship, and hope, but struggles with equipment and funding. He noted nine shootings of people under 19 in the last three weeks, including two murders. Several youth spoke emotionally about how the program saved them from violence and anger. Council members expressed support and promised to explore resources, including a city grant (up to $2,000) and potential connections with the administration. Discussion Items - Bill 46 – Police DROP Pension (Presentation and Discussion): - Presenters: Chief Roca and FOP President Sergeant Chris Matthews, with finance staff. - Purpose: Allow police officers with 20+ years of service to retire in place for up to five years, freezing their pension at the superannuation rate while continuing to work. Their pension contributions (minus the city's share) accumulate in a personal account paid as a lump sum upon full retirement. - Positions: - Chief Roca: Stated DROP is a retention tool to avoid a "brain drain" as 40 officers (out of 205 currently) could retire by year-end. He emphasized that without DROP, the department could drop to 160 officers, leading to mandatory overtime, burnout, and liability. He noted recruitment challenges: of 100 applicants, only 3-5 become officers. He stressed that DROP would also help recruit career-minded candidates. - Sgt. Matthews: Confirmed the membership supports DROP as mutually beneficial. - Finance staff: Presented cost projections: Minimum Municipal Obligation (MMO) baseline $9.5M could increase to $10.6M (scenario 1 – same retirement assumptions) or $12.3M (scenario 2 – all eligible enter DROP). The actual cost depends on officer behavior; overtime costs could offset some increase (current overtime budget $2.6M). - Council concerns (Mota, Alpha, Gerlack, Bender, Pungo): Multiple council members expressed worry about the long-term fiscal impact, especially given other capital projects (police station, fire station, stormwater). They questioned the uncertainty of costs, the timing, and the need for specifics on officer departures and outcomes in other municipalities. Council person Mota stated she would not vote for a tax increase. Council member Alpha questioned why DROP is needed given the department's current strength and recruiting pipeline. Council member Gerlack requested data on retention, recruitment losses, and other cities' experiences. - Administration rebuttal (Kane, Chief Roca): Argued that DROP is an operational necessity to prevent a mass retirement and maintain experience. They highlighted the human cost of mandatory overtime and noted the city is instructing departments to submit 10% budget cuts. The chief stated he personally would not use DROP. - Outcome: No vote was taken. Council will continue gathering information. The bill is not on the next agenda. - Encampment Policy (Frank Kane, Managing Director): - Kane presented a draft policy incorporating comments from the commission on homelessness, street medicine, advocates, and council. He highlighted two administration objections: 1. Language guaranteeing no unhoused person would be removed without alternative housing offered (city solicitor warned of legal risk under Grants Pass Supreme Court ruling). 2. Storing personal items – liability concerns about returning items to the correct person. - Kane proposed removing the parks section (already covered by ordinance). - Council agreed to receive Kane's redline version of the policy with administration's objections before scheduling a closed meeting to finalize. The policy is intended to be codified as an ordinance. No timeline was set. Key Outcomes - The proclamation for William Allen baseball team was formally presented. - Bill 46 (DROP) introduction received robust discussion; no action taken. Council directed staff to provide additional data (other municipalities' outcomes, officer departure trends). - Council committed to connecting Pound for Pound gym with city resources (grant program, CED department, and administration). - Encampment policy discussion tabled pending a redlined version from the administration; a working session will be scheduled. - The meeting was adjourned after approximately two hours.

Note: The meeting transcript indicates the meeting was held on June 1, 2026, but the provided date for the summary is June 10, 2026. The following summary adheres to the instructed date. The HARB meeting on June 10, 2026, addressed two main items: a violation correction for a door replacement at 233 North Ninth Street and a discussion regarding the previously approved Ripple church conversion project, specifically concerning window replacement plans. The board denied the door legalization request and engaged in an extensive discussion about interpretation discrepancies in the church project's approved plans. Consent Calendar - Minutes from May 4, 2026: Approved by motion from Dave, seconded by Philip. All in favor, none opposed. Public Comments & Testimony - Michelle Evans (property owner, 233 N 9th St): Explained that the original historic double door was rotted beyond repair due to safety concerns (could not lock, transient entry issues). She provided a contractor’s letter stating the door was unfixable. She expressed that she was unaware of the need for a certificate of appropriateness (COA) before replacement, having not received notification from the city when the property transferred to her. - Ripple representative (church project): Expressed concern that the Ripple project was placed back on the agenda without notification. Stated that the plans were not changed; the residential use always required all 14 windows to be replaced with clear glass. Emphasized the project's preservation efforts and that another option would have been demolition. Noted that many neighbors support the project. Discussion Items - 233 North Ninth Street – Door Violation Correction: Staff read the building description and guidelines. The replacement fiberglass pre-hung door is smaller than the original opening, with filler panels, and does not match the historic style or proportion. Staff recommended denial. Board members discussed the condition of the original door (lack of photographic evidence) and the new door's compliance with guidelines. They concluded the door design is not historically appropriate. - Ripple Church Conversion – Window Replacement Discrepancy: A board member (who identified themselves as representing West Park) raised concern that October 2023 plans showed only four windows being replaced (on the east and west elevations), but November 2023 plans indicated all 14 windows on those elevations would be replaced. The board member felt deceived and wanted to correct the record. Other board members stated they always interpreted the plans as covering all windows. Staff clarified that the original plan notation was ambiguous (showing arrows at each end), but the intent was always all windows. No vote was taken; the discussion was informational. The board acknowledged the difficulty of reviewing plans in hybrid meetings and the need for clearer plan notations and staff reporting in the future. Key Outcomes - 233 North Ninth Street: Motion to deny the application for approval of the door installation violation was made (citing guidelines 3.6.8, 3.6.9, 3.6.11) and seconded. The board voted unanimously to deny. The denial will be forwarded to City Council. The property owner was encouraged to find a historically appropriate replacement door and communicate with staff for potential resolution before council action. - Ripple Church Conversion: No formal action was taken. The board concluded that the COA issued 2.5 years ago cannot be rescinded. A board member expressed the desire to have only four windows replaced, but the majority did not support revisiting the decision. The discussion highlighted the need for clearer plan submissions and staff reports in future applications. Other Business - A board member pointed out errors in the historic design guidelines document regarding door terminology (incorrect arrows labeling parts of the door frame). This was noted as a future clarification item.