Allentown City Council Special Meeting on City Budget Amendments (2025-12-17)

The Allentown City Council convened on December 17, 2025, to deliberate on amendments to the 2026 city budget. The meeting featured a proposal by Councilpersons AFA, Napoli, Santos, and Zuck, supported by the President, to reinstate a 3.96% property tax increase paired with a $50 reduction in solid waste fees. A separate budget memo from the Mayor regarding homeless services was subsequently withdrawn. The council failed to pass the primary tax amendment, voting 3 in favor and 4 against.

Consent Calendar

• No consent calendar items processed.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Betty Coller (Resident): Expressed strong support for a property tax freeze for senior citizens and a rent freeze to prevent homelessness. She opposed the tax increase entirely, suggesting revenue could be generated by revoking NIZs, taxing developers (specifically JB Riley more heavily), and ending lawsuits against the administration. She also proposed cutting the police budget by 1% to offset the tax hike.
• Quinn Allen (Resident, "What's Really Going On in America"): Expressed opposition to the 3.96% tax increase, characterizing the $50 waste fee reduction as a "sneaky trick" that would result in net increased costs for residents. He argued that the city does not need to raise taxes and criticized the lack of action to support the homeless population.
• Anthony Hollowell (SCIU Representative): Expressed opposition to the tax increase on behalf of city workers, citing that non-union staff (including top positions) received 9% raises while bargaining unit members received only 3%. He urged the council to cut new, high-salary part-time positions and existing staffing costs before raising taxes.

Discussion Items

• Proposal: Reinstatement of 3.96% Tax Increase and $50 Waste Fee Reduction

  • Sponsors (Councilpersons AFA, Napoli, Santos, Zuck):
    • Councilperson AFA: Expressed full support for the proposal, stating it helps 23,000 out of 26,000 residential parcels. She argued that the $50 reduction saves money for homeowners compared to the alternative of larger tax increases seen in neighboring municipalities (e.g., Whitehall up 20%, other township up 63%). She emphasized the need for revenue to fund a 3% raise for non-union public safety employees and to maintain capital projects.
    • Councilperson Santos: Explained this was a "Plan B" compromise following a previous removal of the tax increase on Nov 19. She expressed support, noting the proposal is more equitable by having higher-valued properties contribute slightly more. She affirmed that 23,000 single-family homes would save money or pay the same as 2025, and the loan between funds would be repaid over five years.
    • Councilperson Napoli: Expressed strong support for the proposal as a necessary compromise to preserve services. He noted his personal preference was the original 4% increase (approx. $23/year for an average homeowner) but accepted this as a vital alternative to maintain employee morale and service delivery.
    • Councilperson Zuck: Expressed strong opposition to the tax increase. He argued the city is failing due diligence in revenue creation (citing a $385,000 street cleaning spend vs. $2,000 revenue from the parking authority) and that asking the public to pay a 4% increase while non-union staff receive 9% raises is "insane."
  • Mayor / Administration: Expressed full support for the proposal. They confirmed that 23,000 of 26,000 parcels would receive financial relief and argued that retaining cash reserves and recurring revenue is essential for lowering borrowing costs on future capital projects and sustaining taxpayer-funded services.
  • Council President Hendricks: Expressed strong support for the compromise, commending the sponsors for finding common ground. He stated the proposal balances protecting struggling households with maintaining the high quality of services (street sweeping, snow plowing, parks, police, fire) expected by residents.
  • Councilperson Moda: Expressed opposition to the tax increase, honoring a campaign pledge made to constituents who voted for her not to raise taxes. While she supported the waste fee reduction, she stated she could not support the property tax increase this year, citing the economic strain on residents and small businesses.
  • Councilperson Gerlock: Expressed opposition to the tax increase. She stated that if affordability for the working class was the true intent, the council should have addressed institutional wealth taxes, amusement taxes, or developer impact fees earlier in the process.

• Budget Memo: Mayor's Operating Budget ($50,000 for Homeless Services)

  • Administration: Proposed an amendment to allocate $50,000 to the Conference of Churches to provide Saturday and Sunday homeless support services (currently only open Mon-Fri).
  • Mayor: Withdrew the memo during the meeting, stating it would be "fiscally irresponsible" to add expenses to a budget that is actively drawing from reserves without passing the tax increase that funds it.

Key Outcomes

• Vote on Tax Amendment: The proposal to reinstate the 3.96% tax increase and reduce the waste fee by $50 failed with a vote tally of 3 Yea to 4 Nay.
  • Votes in Favor: Councilperson AFA, Councilperson Napoli, Council President Hendricks.
  • Votes Against: Councilperson Zuck, Councilperson Moda, Councilperson Santos (Note: Transcript lists Santos as voting "No" during the roll call, though she is a co-sponsor; this may reflect a procedural error or specific condition in the transcript record).
  • Clarification on Santos: The transcript text explicitly lists Ms. Santos as voting "No" during the roll call, despite her being a sponsor of the motion. This discrepancy is preserved as per source material accuracy rules.
• Action on Homeless Services Memo: The memo to increase the Mayor's budget by $50,000 was withdrawn by the Administration and not put to a vote.
• Next Steps: The meeting adjourned with the special session complete; a regular council meeting to adopt the amended budget is scheduled to follow. The failure of this amendment suggests the budget without this specific tax increase will require further deliberation or the adoption of the previously amended budget (which lacked the tax increase) or an alternative funding solution. The repayment schedule for the proposed loan (2 million dollars over 5 years, starting 2027) was confirmed but not enacted.